On October 20th, 1977, Rolling Stone magazine published a lengthy article by Carl Bernstein about the relationship between the media and CIA. The article contained many shocking revelations and allegations. Much of the article was later corroborated, but the press, for obvious reasons, was reluctant to pursue the story. I think it is important that people understand the history of journalists and publishers working for our intelligence services because I think it gets to the heart of the Judith Miller case, and helps to piece together how the Saddam=WMD=Al Qaeda myth was created and sustained. So, below I provide some clips. Someday I will do my own piece on this subject.
And remember the words of former DCI, William Colby when he was testifying about media manipulation before the Church Committee:
And:
From Bernstein’s column:
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past 25 years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services — from simple intelligence-gathering to serving as go-betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring-do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full-time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.
The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:
The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence-gathering employed by the CIA. Although the agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 (primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalists are still posted abroad.
Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950’s and 1960’s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.
Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were William Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Time Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the Louisville Courier-Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Services. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps-Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald-Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
More history:
The Times reported that over the last twenty years, the CIA owned or subsidized more than fifty newspapers, news services, radio stations, periodicals and other communications facilities, most of them overseas. These were used for propaganda efforts, or even as cover for operations. Another dozen foreign news organizations were infiltrated by paid CIA agents. At least 22 American news organizations had employed American journalists who were also working for the CIA, and nearly a dozen American publishing houses printed some of the more than 1,000 books that had been produced or subsidized by the CIA. When asked in a 1976 interview whether the CIA had ever told its media agents what to write, William Colby replied, “Oh, sure, all the time.”
Since domestic propaganda was a violation of the their charter, the CIA defined the predictable effects of their foreign publications as “blowback” or “domestic fallout,” which they considered to be “inevitable and consequently permissible.” But former CIA employees told the Times that apart from this unintended blowback, “some CIA propaganda efforts, especially during the Vietnam War, had been carried out with a view toward their eventual impact in the United States.” The Times series concluded that at its peak, the CIA’s network “embraced more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals.”[15]
By the time the Times series appeared, Congress was looking for a way out of the issue. Obligingly, Stansfield Turner promised that the CIA would avoid journalists “accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” There were at least three problems with this that most press coverage overlooked: many stringers and freelancers are not accredited; it didn’t cover any foreign-owned media; and as Gary Hart complained at the time, the new policy included a provision that allowed the CIA to unilaterally make exceptions whenever it wished.[16]
Within several years of this alleged policy, the new Reagan administration ignored it in favor of a shooting war in Central America, one component of which was an illegal CIA-administered propaganda war at home. Edgar Chamorro, a contra sympathizer in Miami with a background in public relations, was recruited by the CIA in late 1982. After two years of following the CIA’s instructions regarding the manipulation of U.S. journalists and even members of Congress, Chamorro went public with his story.[17] By now Congress was clearly out-maneuvered, even though it alone held the purse strings that controlled funding for the war.
The inability of Congress to address the CIA-media problem in the 1970s meant that more powerful forces were at work. In fact, while Congress was wringing its left hand over illegal CIA activities, its right hand was helping the CIA overhaul its Wurlitzer. Ever since 1967, when the Katzenbach committee was tasked by Lyndon Johnson to study the problem of the CIA’s use of domestic organizations, the agenda at the highest levels had been to remove such activities from the CIA’s payroll and continue them under a new umbrella. In the unclassified portion of their report, this committee recommended giving money openly through a “public-private mechanism.” “The CIA’s big mistake was not supplanting itself with private funds fast enough,” observed Gloria Steinem, who had been part of the CIA’s global network.[18]
In the case of Iraq, I don’t know whether publishers, editors, and reporters were ‘witting’ about the absolute garbage they were reporting. As for the CIA, they were institutionally opposed to the invasion. But, perhaps, they had their orders. Or, perhaps the CIA finally got around to privatizing their propaganda wurlitzer.
Excellent post. Bernstein’s piece is a classic, yet I have never been able to find anything but excerpts of it on the internet (I do have a hard copy of it). If anything, the cozy relationsghip between the media and the government has gotten worse since the Bernstein and Times exposes of nearly three decades ago (witness Judy Miller and the front-page placement of her less than credible WMD articles). Bernstein ought to give serious consideration to updating his thesis. No chance the Times will update theirs.
yeah, we might be able to get it thru lexis, but I couldn’t find the whole article either. It’s 16 pages if I remember correctly.
You have touched upon the key question we should all be asking about the Plame case.Why is Judith Miller still employed by the NYT?
None of the details of the case makes sense unless we realize that Judith Miller is a Made Woman of the BFEE,by dint of her reports on the presence of WMD’s in Iraq prior to the lead up to the war.She may even have done this at the behest of the Bush Administration because of her strong links to the PNAC crowd.
Where the NYT fits into this picture can only be surmised given William Colby’s statement to the Church Committee.If that line of reasoning is pursued, one can say that the Administration needed the NYT to lend credibility to the “Saddam possessed WMD” meme.When that request was received, of course, Judith Miller was assigned to the task and promptly proceeded to send reports on the existence of WMD’s which were printed by the NYT with minimal scrutiny.
The subsequent meetings between Libby and Miller to discredit Ambassador Wilson also fall under the rubric of this collaborative venture between the administration and the NYT.This collaboration accounts to a large degree for the reluctance of the Times to fire Judith Miller,its vehement support for Miller during her jail sojourn and its coy treatment of what is currently happening in l’affaire Miller.
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark and it ain’t WMD’s.
If I am not mistaken the NYT underwent a mangement shift after a scandal (I forgot someone will remember here) just this year or late last year. Since that time new management has taken over and the times has veered even more to the right.
It’s worth asking who might be in management positions at the Times who would also be working for CIA.
Why is Judith Miller still employed by the NYT?
It is the right question, and answers itself: She is doing the job they want done, or the job their bosses want done.
Either way, the NYT has signed on to bogus reporting for political purposes.
Media and propaganda and politics. Definitely on my mind today.
I’d not read any part of it before. Thanks. It raises interesting points, like:
Haven’t I read that some BooMan frontpagers are/were in the CIA???!!!???
And
Who, of the regular contributors, is most likely a CIA Mole???!!!???
probably not smart enough (especially in foreign languages) to be in the CIA. I’d love to work there though. I love secrets. But I doubt I’d be happy as an operative. It’s tough on the psyche to make a living preying on people’s weaknesses in order to pry information and trechery out of them. But, someone has to do that stuff.
What a cover you’ve built. π
Mild mannered passionate blogging specialist. Self-depricating about languages (as he’s speaking Shwahili on the phone with an operative).
And you know the pain. Tough to prey on people. π
Boo — it is you.
(This reminds me of a guy in our extended family from Russia who we so think is a agent. I once applied to CIA, and we had some weird things around that time. Phone clicks. Strangers meeting us that were odd. And we told this old friend/agent that I was applying. And he was like “you don’t want that life.” We so think he is an agent. An old cold warrior).
Anway. Blah.
you have it bad?
Half my life-long friends were either in Princeton’s Near-Eastern Studies Program, or their fathers taught there. I think everyone I know is a spook.
A plausible explanation for all your intelligence contacts. π
….we probably have some acquaintances in common!
The Church Committee is one of the many betes noirs of the right, and it came up repeatedly as an object of attack during the aftermath of 9/11 when the PATRIOT Act was being drafted.
But I still think it was one of the proudest moments in our recent history.
Thanks for recalling it, Boo.
The Pike Report, which was suppressed but leaked, was even more informative. Otis Pike paid a big price for his heroism. He was defeated in his bid for re-election and marginalized thereafter. Church paid a similar price.
Thank you Boo man that’s great information.
The CIA no longer needs to try to own or control the press… it knows that its goals and those of corporate American media are the same. Once the press was the champion of the people. Today, it is the champion of the elite, and the CIA is a tool of the elite.
Does anyone really wonder why there was a vast yawn on the part of the public when Judith Miller was thrown in jail–Times attempts to drum up outrage notwithstanding?
It’s simple: Miller wasn’t protecting anything of ours, wasn’t championing any cause of ours.
The CIA knows that the press is completely divorced from the people and completely in line with its own agenda. So why bother to manipulate it? That’s been done, and by the press itself.
The CIA is an arm of the powers that be, and only an arm. There are other arms, and the press responds to those as well. This is revealed when the powers that be are in conflict among themselves about policy. What this conflict is I am not sure, but the way it reveals itself publicly is in the question of whether the inner levels of government should be based in reality, or whether the inner as well as the outer levels should be delusional.
Thus we have the astonishing spectacle of the CIA vs. Bush II.
The NYT is flacking not for the CIA this time, but for Bush.
The phrase that comes to mind is Full Spectrum Dominance.I don’t know who coined the phrase, either Poindexter or Rumsfeld, but it correctly captures the flavor of what this administration has been trying to do the past five years,i.e. pollute our minds with its own version of events.
The fact that we have willingly submitted to this was foreseen by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, a vision far surpassing that of Orwell, IMHO.Huxley correctly predicted that when our material comforts are satisfied by totalitarian regimes, we will not be moved to protest any infringements of our personal liberties.On the contrary, the absence of such limitations would bring forth condemnations from an outraged citizenry on the grounds that their security will be threatened. Shades of our current situation!
I am amazed that the psychological warfare mounted against American citizens by men like Cheney, Rumsfeld and Poindexter goes completely unremarked in our media.But then what can we expect when everyone is bought and paid for?
If Bush Jr was listening to papa he knew where all the skeletons were conveniently placed.
“Operation Mockingbird”.
It’s a shame we can’t find the entire Bernstein piece.
I’m the one who typed up the only excerpts anyone will find on the ‘net from the Bernstein piece. (Thanks, Booman, for the links to my site.)
Re the whole piece, it’s some 16 pages. If anyone wants to volunteer to type it all up, I’ll host it at the Real History Archives. But don’t waste the time without getting permission from Rolling Stone first….
Scan it and OPD it.
isn’t the question re:
And pardone me for not knowing the answer, isn’t the question, in part, “In what regard does the current head of the NYT hold Sulzberger? And such a tradition — does it mean glory to him?”
For further information:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOCKINGBIRD
For anyone interested in the Church Committee Reports, they are all available as PDF files on the AARC site.
Unfortunately they are image files, not docs.