Is there a connection between the CIA and the news companies? 

 

Apparently there is.  The CIA has even said so.  

​

"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

                       -- William Colby, Director 1973-1976

​

Does this matter?  It certainly does!  It means that freedom of speech may be compromised in the industry that is supposed to bring truth to all Americans.  

​

Personally, I have noticed many instances where CIA involvement could be suspected.  Here is one example:

​

According to a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal May 17, 2018, “A GOP-led Senate committee backed U.S. intelligence agencies’ finding that Moscow tried to boost Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by hacking and spreading misinformation.”

​

The article goes on to say, “A House Intelligence Committee report released earlier this year said Russia didn’t aim to boost Mr. Trump’s chances of winning the election but instead sought to subvert the notion of free and fair elections and spread “chaos and discord” in the U.S.”

​

Missing from the article are any facts to back up these claims, as well as any definition of the word “hacking”.  “Hacking” is a vague term, and any use of this word has got to be followed by clarification.  Something similar happened recently in another publication:  The Economist had a statement saying that Russia “hacked the US presidential election”, and that is all that was said.  No further explanation.

​

In good journalism, you make a statement and then back it up with information and clarification.  This should especially be true if the statement is a bold one.  However, today’s newspaper articles are sorely lacking in facts and clarification.  In particular, the articles about Russia have been that way. 

​

A WSJ article on Russia back in Jan 2018 stated that Google reported that $53,000 was spent by “Russia-linked” people on ads that would influence the 2016 presidential election.  However, no definition of “Russia-linked” was offered.  Taken in the broadest sense, “Russia-linked” includes me and anyone else in a relationship with a Russian person.  There must be 10’s of millions of us living in the U.S.  Would the article be trying to suggest that we have no right to influence the US presidential election?

​

With no definition of “Russia-linked”, there is no way of telling whether the $53,000 was legitimately spent.  And yet this article framed all of this “meddling activity” in the worst light.  And need I mention that $53,000 is a ridiculously small amount of money in terms of influencing the presidential election?  Yet the article was on the front page of the 2nd section that day.

​

Worth noting is the fact that in none of the articles I’ve read about Russia’s supposed meddling in the U.S. presidential election has there been a mention of the laws related to this.  According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, the law states 1) no foreign national may contribute money to the campaign of a person running for office in the US.  (However, those with permanent status (green card) are allowed to contribute.)  2) no foreign national may purchase advertising directly influencing an election.  They may run ads of a political nature, as long as the message is not specific to a person running.

​

When journalism is good, it incorporates relevant facts.  In this case, the above facts would clearly help distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate activity.  Could this information have been omitted intentionally?  When an article neglects to draw distinctions according to law, and instead tries to make a case (for instance) that all influential activity arising from Russia or Russia-linked persons is nefarious, the article begins to look like propaganda.  Could it be that these kinds of articles are indeed propaganda?

​

I am old enough to remember good journalism.  It was there in the 70s.  Then came the 80s and all of the news agencies, one by one, got bought out by large corporations.  It seems to me that was the beginning of the end for good journalism in the US, and possibly all the Western world.  I recommend watching the Hollywood movie “Truth” with Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford, on this very topic.

 

I also suggest watching this brief story by Project Veritas, in which they interview an executive at CNN who speaks candidly about how things work in their newsroom.  That executive admits that they don’t truly have any real “stuff” on Russia and he provides some insight into how and why journalism went downhill.

​

http://projectveritas.com/video/american-pravda-cnn-producer-says-russia-narrative-bullsht/

​

Also, please view this Wikipedia article on the subject:

​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion

​

Finally, I wish to bring your attention to the confessions of a European newsman named Udo Ulfkotte, who says that the CIA recruited him and was influential in his reporting.  Apparently, the CIA's influence extends into Europe as well. 

​

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3AW2YFbqJE

​