"The reason we wanted to plant this information was that we were trying to persuade the US Congress that Saigon should…continue to get a great deal of aid."
Jon, Since you persist in resurrecting my comments about CIA disinformation tactics made in 1983 and keyed to my long ago experiences in Vietnam, and treating them as if they were gloss on current practices, I would direct you to a two-part commentary which I penned for Spy Talk in response Snowden's own exploitation of my remarks. Missing from both his discussion and yours are context and the inspiration provided by the Reagan administration which was threatening in 1983 to roll back newly installed official prohibitions on manipulation of American news media. Since then, as you doubtless know, the threat of malign influence (propaganda) operations by forces far less accountable than the CIA has grown to proportions inconceivable years ago and extends to entire media ecosystems like Musk's X and Trump's own Truth Social or whatever he calls it now and the messaging he delivers once again from the Oval Office. The only defense, or the start one one, is absolute clarity about the the unique dangers these operations pose and the need to make platform owners liable for lies spread through their media. It was in anticipation of the metastasizing of fake news that I spoke out in 1983 and continue to call out those who traffic in it. That includes those who would make me a poster boy for their own distortions.
Thank you for the note, though I'm not sure I appreciate the tone you take regarding so-called "distortions."
You chose to go public on the CIA's tactics in 1983. That was your choice. You revealed how revolting and dishonest these tactics were, yet you seem to take umbrage that I'd highlight these comments to illustrate the CIA's long history of deceit.
As far as the "official prohibitions on manipulation of American news media" you claim were set to be rolled back, I'm curious how long these prohibitions were in place. In any case, would you describe these prohibitions as being effective? They certainly didn't appear to be from my vantage point (and from your statements), yet I don't recall seeing anyone held accountable for violating these prohibitions. Would you agree with me that is a problem?
Regarding your comments about fake news on X and the need to hold platforms liable for "lies," they disappoint me. These words sound like something I'd expect to hear from a surly college freshman who doesn't like the current political climate rather than a former CIA agent and Peabody Award winner.
I'll leave you by pointing out that a great deal of what the government authorities and media were describing as "fake news" and conspiracy theories in 2020-2021 is conventional wisdom today. I, for one, am grateful for the renaissance of free online expression we're witnessing, and I've never been more thankful for the First Amendment than I am today.
Jon, Recheck your history and my original note. I did not "roll back" any prohibition on media manipulation or claim to have done so.
The Ford and Carter administrations -- prodded by the Church and Pike investigations and the newly installed Congressional intelligence committees -- had barred the CIA from using American media as cover for spies except in extraordinary circumstances.
Despite the caveat, this was a hugely significant step in the right direction.
The Reaganites, however, were getting cute about continuing such prohibitions, and my reporting for ABC News, even as early as 1983, had revealed that they were also preparing to mount covert operations through the Pentagon and the White House itself which were not subject to the narrowly focused oversight authority of the intel panels. (In essence they could watchdog the CIA but not covert cooperators who were not strictly in the spy business.)
I also wanted people to understand that disinformation didn't necessarily equate to outright lying but could involve dissemination of half truths, which is often the specialty of truly effective (and the most dangerous) propagandists.
That is why I gave interviews to Clete Roberts and others. expanding on revelations about media manipulation I had made in Decent Interval.
My ABC reporting would anticipate Oliver North, and my colleagues and I at World News Tonight and 20/20, including the utterly incomparable Karen Burnes, would later break the initial stories about Iran Contra and an aborning Pentagon special ops unit that came to be known as Seal Team 6, which was largely invisible to intel overseers on the Hill. .
The disinformation story, which I continued to flog, was part of an evolving investigation by ABC News and many others into ways the Reaganites were trying to expand the power of executive agencies to bend truth and defy accountability.
Ironically the Supreme Court Ruling against me in 1980 had aided and abetted those in government who wanted to establish a monopoly over what could be passed off as truth to the press and the American public (via disinformation and censorship).
The issues under discussion here, at least as understand and experienced them, are thus much larger than your easy use of analogies and mixed time frames would allow for.
This is not to fault you or to try to whitewash any of my actions. I am simply trying to contextualize them so newcomers to the issues can understand their various sharp and very complicated edges.
Jon, Since you persist in resurrecting my comments about CIA disinformation tactics made in 1983 and keyed to my long ago experiences in Vietnam, and treating them as if they were gloss on current practices, I would direct you to a two-part commentary which I penned for Spy Talk in response Snowden's own exploitation of my remarks. Missing from both his discussion and yours are context and the inspiration provided by the Reagan administration which was threatening in 1983 to roll back newly installed official prohibitions on manipulation of American news media. Since then, as you doubtless know, the threat of malign influence (propaganda) operations by forces far less accountable than the CIA has grown to proportions inconceivable years ago and extends to entire media ecosystems like Musk's X and Trump's own Truth Social or whatever he calls it now and the messaging he delivers once again from the Oval Office. The only defense, or the start one one, is absolute clarity about the the unique dangers these operations pose and the need to make platform owners liable for lies spread through their media. It was in anticipation of the metastasizing of fake news that I spoke out in 1983 and continue to call out those who traffic in it. That includes those who would make me a poster boy for their own distortions.
https://www.spytalk.co/p/ed-snowdens-act-two?utm_source=publication-search
https://www.spytalk.co/p/ed-snowdens-act-two-part-two?utm_source=publication-search
Frank,
Thank you for the note, though I'm not sure I appreciate the tone you take regarding so-called "distortions."
You chose to go public on the CIA's tactics in 1983. That was your choice. You revealed how revolting and dishonest these tactics were, yet you seem to take umbrage that I'd highlight these comments to illustrate the CIA's long history of deceit.
As far as the "official prohibitions on manipulation of American news media" you claim were set to be rolled back, I'm curious how long these prohibitions were in place. In any case, would you describe these prohibitions as being effective? They certainly didn't appear to be from my vantage point (and from your statements), yet I don't recall seeing anyone held accountable for violating these prohibitions. Would you agree with me that is a problem?
Regarding your comments about fake news on X and the need to hold platforms liable for "lies," they disappoint me. These words sound like something I'd expect to hear from a surly college freshman who doesn't like the current political climate rather than a former CIA agent and Peabody Award winner.
I'll leave you by pointing out that a great deal of what the government authorities and media were describing as "fake news" and conspiracy theories in 2020-2021 is conventional wisdom today. I, for one, am grateful for the renaissance of free online expression we're witnessing, and I've never been more thankful for the First Amendment than I am today.
Good day,
JM
Jon, Recheck your history and my original note. I did not "roll back" any prohibition on media manipulation or claim to have done so.
The Ford and Carter administrations -- prodded by the Church and Pike investigations and the newly installed Congressional intelligence committees -- had barred the CIA from using American media as cover for spies except in extraordinary circumstances.
Despite the caveat, this was a hugely significant step in the right direction.
The Reaganites, however, were getting cute about continuing such prohibitions, and my reporting for ABC News, even as early as 1983, had revealed that they were also preparing to mount covert operations through the Pentagon and the White House itself which were not subject to the narrowly focused oversight authority of the intel panels. (In essence they could watchdog the CIA but not covert cooperators who were not strictly in the spy business.)
I also wanted people to understand that disinformation didn't necessarily equate to outright lying but could involve dissemination of half truths, which is often the specialty of truly effective (and the most dangerous) propagandists.
That is why I gave interviews to Clete Roberts and others. expanding on revelations about media manipulation I had made in Decent Interval.
My ABC reporting would anticipate Oliver North, and my colleagues and I at World News Tonight and 20/20, including the utterly incomparable Karen Burnes, would later break the initial stories about Iran Contra and an aborning Pentagon special ops unit that came to be known as Seal Team 6, which was largely invisible to intel overseers on the Hill. .
The disinformation story, which I continued to flog, was part of an evolving investigation by ABC News and many others into ways the Reaganites were trying to expand the power of executive agencies to bend truth and defy accountability.
Ironically the Supreme Court Ruling against me in 1980 had aided and abetted those in government who wanted to establish a monopoly over what could be passed off as truth to the press and the American public (via disinformation and censorship).
The issues under discussion here, at least as understand and experienced them, are thus much larger than your easy use of analogies and mixed time frames would allow for.
This is not to fault you or to try to whitewash any of my actions. I am simply trying to contextualize them so newcomers to the issues can understand their various sharp and very complicated edges.