Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 13:43:01 CST
From: <U38026@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Somalia: The REAL U.S. mission
 <1993Jan7.131636.10067@linus.mitre.org> <1993Jan11.171922.22140@seachg.uucp>

In article <1993Jan11.171922.22140@seachg.uucp>, chrisb@seachg.uucp (Chris
Blask) says:
>
>In article <1993Jan7.131636.10067@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James
>Meritt)
>writes:
>>
>>An interesting statement. I have seen the media giving a "no comment" stated
>>as proof of their control by government also.  It appears to be the case that
>>if the media gives no picture, or any picture at all that does not agree
>>with your preconceptions, that their statements, or lack of statements, are
>>taken by you as proof positive of what you wish.  What would constitute
>>"proof positive" of otherwise (other than, of course, simply mouthing
>>YOUR propaganda)?
>>
>
>This person seems to be trying to ask 'what would constitute proof that the
>media really is under the direct control and management of the CIA?'.
>
>Having worked with the "media" on a local level, I would say that
>proof would consist of: some documentation stating that all newspeople in the
>world receive regular communication outlining what news they will cover, which
>side they will take, whether they will win or lose arguments on live talk
>shows, and what the Party Line is for the day.  "Proof" would also have to
>contain some description of how this is organized and managed, how 'they'
>ensure that they don't skip any small town reporters who may let something
>slip, how they handle retired newpeople (or do they just kill them?), how
>the CIA (or is it just 'they'?) manage to control newspeople in Canada,
>France, Britain, etc...  and where 'they' hide all the instantantaneous
>communication equipment that allows them to run this conspiracy without
>risk of leakage (Romulan Cloaking Device in Near Earth Orbit?).
>
>Saying that this poster is a tad paranoid wouldn't be stretching it too
>much.
>
>At the same time, I wouldn't be surprised if the various intelligence
>agaencies DO try, and sometimes succeed, in influencing the news.  The
>reason this is not a big worry, is that other news agencies will cover the
>story, or turn it up in the future.  The neat thing about a Free Press, is
>that it tends to lurch around to the truth in the end.  It is clumsy and
>ineffiecient, and responds to the shoddiest of motivations, but is
>impossible to entirely control no matter HOW much power and influence a
>government or agency may have.  But to say that the millions of people
>working in the media are on some Secret Team to further the goals of george
>Bush is absolutely and uncontestably insane.
>
>-chris blask
***********************************************************************
Well, Chris what would you say to the fact that 75% of the foreign

news correspondants have connections with the CIA.  (Reported by the
NYT) This  is not to say they are payed by the CIA or work for them, but
the CIA opinion or assessment of a situation is always considered and
more than partial represented in their reports.  I have even heard that
they sometimes reporters don't even step out of their hotels to do a report.
But call up the US embassy in that country and report what embassy told
them.
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.somalia,talk.politics.mideast,talk.politics.misc