Tag Archives: journalism

collaboration for successful truth circulation

collaboration for successful truth circulation

There must be more efforts at popular collaboration for successful truth circulation in the face of corporate gross mismanagement, governmental interference, and the attacks on journalism and information brokers.

September 18-19, 2017 — Google disseminates the largest amount of “fake news” on the web

Google claims it, like Facebook and Twitter, is tackling the issue of “fake news” appearing on social media sites. However, Google is the largest disseminator of “fake news” in the world today. There is a difference between “false news,” which is the focus of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and others, and “fake news,” which primarily consists of meaningless and unimportant information. Chief among this so-called “news” is sports and celebrity entertainment.

Karl Marx once opined that “religion is the opiate of the masses.” Today, Marx would look around at near-empty churches and the preponderance of sports and celebrity news in the media and declare that “sports and entertainment are the opiate of the masses.” Google has lent itself to the dumbing-down of culture by programming its search algorithms to boost stories about sports and entertainment over those concerning issues of war and peace, feast and famine, and death and destruction. Google has created a virtual world that is composed of super-rich football players, entertainers, and super-models.

Google’s irresponsibility when it comes to offering anything closely resembling “journalism” should be condemned by every professional journalism organization. During the era of print journalism, it made sense to combine news, sports, entertainment — including comic strips like Dick Tracy and Blondie — and stock market reports in the newspaper. Until radio happened upon the scene, the newspaper served as a single conduit of information to the masses. With the advent of electronic journalism, there is no need to contaminate important news with meaningless nonsense about football, baseball, basketball, soccer, tennis, rugby, cricket, badminton, golf, professional poker, bowling, Nascar and Formula 1 auto racing, or tournament fishing. These are not “news” stories. Nor do gossip items about movie actors and actresses, singers, rap performers, or night club performers belong under the banner of “news.”

The most innocuous political story is still more important than what player the Philadelphia Eagles or the Atlanta Braves are contemplating trading or hiring. That drivel does not qualify as news, even though the brain-dead listeners of and callers to the broadcast wasteland known as “sport radio” would deem otherwise. These sports savants and nincompoops are able to rattle off the performance stats of some obscure quarterback or pitcher but come up blank when trying to name their two U.S. senators or governor. Google, with its prioritization of sports over actual news, contributes to the ignorance of such imbeciles. Giving more attention to such “fake news” also directly contributes to low voter turnout in the United States.

Some social scientists explain the sports “fandom” culture as promoting self-esteem when a fan’s sports team is successful. The fan is emotionally buoyed when his or her team is successful. However, sports fanatics are normally at the low end of the intellectual scale and are losers when it comes to education, no matter how well their favorite teams perform. Anyone who tortures themselves for even a few minutes by listening to “sports talk” radio can ascertain that sports fanatics, as well as the sports talk radio hosts, are like any other extreme devotees — born losers.

Google, the largest news aggregator on the Internet, uses several metrics to rank news stories. The company has remained mum on the details of its algorithms, but some aspects are known. Google bases its news rankings on the size of the staff of the originating news organization, popular opinion about the news story in question, the “breaking” quality of the news story, the length of the news article, the popularity of the news organization, the number of news bureaus associated with the news organization, number of identified sources in the news story, writing style, international diversity associated with the news organization, and use of a particular news story (cites) by other news organizations.

Google’s algorithms are based on extremely subjective calls. They also fail to distinguish between hard news and sports and entertainment. Google, Facebook, and Twitter are all joining in a campaign against “fake news,” but this, too, is based on subjectivity and relies heavily on thoroughly discredited websites like Snopes and Wikipedia. Snopes has not recovered from an embezzlement and prostitution sex scandal involving its co-founder, David Mikkelson, and Wikipedia continues to be plagued by the duplicitous behavior of its co-founder Jimmy Wales.

The following are but a few examples about how Google’s algorithms are helping to dumb-down the world by placing greater emphasis on fake news about sports and other meaningless trivia:

New Zealand is facing a general election on September 23, one that may see the governing party ejected from office. Google News does not appear to care as seen with its top three stories on New Zealand:

  1. Sport. Rugby Union. Aaron Cruden exclusive interview: New Zealand fly-half happy to quit All Blacks to build new life in France.

2. American rockers The Killers announce New Zealand tour.

3. Rugby Championship: New Zealand in record win over South Africa.

At seventh place on Google News is a story about New Zealand’s election: “Jacinda Ardern ‘electrifies’ NZ election.” That story should, along with other election news, been placed ahead of trivial items concerning rugby and some Las Vegas-based rock band. If Google News considers itself to be a news resource, it is guilty of blatant journalistic malpractice.

A search for “Canada” fares no better.

The first Google News story that appears is a click-bait item from a coin dealer website about crypto-currency. This story constitutes a different type of fake news, an advertisement masquerading as a legitimate news story. Google is certainly not alone in promoting this type of fraudulent journalism.

Following the click-bait is:

2. Canada’s Nestor, Pospisil top India to take Davis Cup lead.

The tennis item is followed by legitimate stories dealing with draconian U.S. immigration policies and U.S.-Canadian trade issues. The tennis item should have never been weighted as so important by Google relative to the more important U.S.-Canadian relations stories.

September 18-19, 2017 — Google disseminates the largest amount of “fake news” on the web [Wayne Madsen Report]

[&&]{**}[##]

music:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VppuD1St8Ec&list=RDVppuD1St8Ec&t=18 

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-18/why-google-hiring-1000-journalists-flood-newsrooms-around-america 

[&&]{**}[##]

[&&]{**}[##]

The Silencing of Dissent 

By Chris Hedges

The elites, including the Democratic Party leadership, have decided to quash public debate.   – Continue

[&&]{**}[##]

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-root-of-current-tensions-they-hold-no-loyalty-except-to-themselves-and-to-personal-gain_09172017 

via

http://www.strike-the-root.com 

[&&]{**}[##]

[&&]{**}[##]

https://www.activistpost.com/2017/09/high-ranking-cia-whistleblower-deep-state-shadow-government.html 

via

http://www.strike-the-root.com 

[The whistleblower, whose video is embedded at the link] “held several high-level positions in the CIA. He was assigned as a protective agent for the Director of Central Intelligence, a counterintelligence investigator, a Counter Terrorism Center officer, a team leader protecting sensitive CIA assets from assassination, a manager of high-risk protective operations, a lead instructor for members of allied governments, an internal staff security investigator, and a polygraph examiner. He was tasked with protecting the CIA from foreign agent penetration and the chief of training for the CIA federal police force.  Mr. Shipp functioned as program manager for the Department of State, Diplomatic Security, and Anti Terrorism Assistance global police training program.  He is the recipient of two CIA Meritorious Unit Citations, three Exceptional Performance Awards and a Medallion for overseas covert operations.  He is the author of From the Company of Shadows–CIA Operations and the War on Terrorism.”

[&&]{**}[##]

https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2017/09/17/what-is-public-relations-how-to-run-a-public-relations-campaign-based-on-the-truth/ 

[&&]{**}[##]

http://boydownthelane.com/2017/09/19/legerdemain/

landscape gardening (with new addenda)

 landscape gardening

I guess it’s a fantasy of mine, perhaps a quixotic aspect of my inexorable aging, that some form of collaborative effort could address the issues noted in the articles noted in this blog entry and the comments I added after I posted it.

They describe the recent (and ongoing?) battles between entrenched ideologies, mainstream media and the alternative media with regard to truth, truthiness, and fake news. 

I wrote to a few people about this idea and thought I’d write to a few more, but I decided to write this blog entry and then send them a link.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crkbFnAIz7U

Geoff Lowe – Bass

Pat Bitautas – Drums

Tom Tallman – Flugelhorn

Rich Moore – Tenor Saxophone 

My creeping paranoia tells me that Google saw to it that my e-mails were never delivered; my more realistic sense tells me that the recipients have been busy and pre-occupied with work, health, life and their own priorities, or perhaps that they were not quite ready to take on an entrenched authority that quite obviously has no problem killing people. I understand; such courage is difficult to summon.

I envisioned (fantasized about) some means of communicating across time and distance with an online meeting, symposium or teleconference that was devoted to strengthening the alternative media. (There are lots of technologies, including our own inherent ability to project thought to other people located far away.)  

There are probably several sub-sets of “breakouts” in some form of larger “meeting” that involve teaching and learning discernment, or how to tell “crap” from 18-karat fact and insight, or how to determine the validity, veracity and verifiability of information and sources. 

My own “crap detector” (as Hemingway called it) has been through a great deal on the last fifteen years and is probably due for some “detailing” and re-buffing. But I’ve assembled and posted files on information warfare and a lot of related topics. I’m a grizzle (or maybe grisly) veteran with scars, stripes, and a commendation or two. 

I mused about a group process that would not get bogged down, as so many do and have, in inertia, minutiae, interference or apathy, or become vulnerable to destruction from inside or outside. 

What I dreamt about (and be careful, for last night I dreamt about forgetting to go to an important job interview, though I’ve been disabled/retired for almost a decade) was the crossroads of investigative journalism, reality, high perception or awareness, and rhizomatic progression.

http://www.riponlandscapes.co.uk/images/laying-turf600.jpg

I saw an organized approach by many to 

  • develop a multi-media library that would teach about known methods of dissimulation, propaganda, information warfare, mind control, et al.;
  • build a toolchest that would enable individuals, groups and organizations to learn about methods used in legal research, archival research, and investigative journalism;
  • create a living database of media outlets that was fed by a cloud of information about their validity, authenticity, transparency and accountability.

I envisioned a process by which more and more people could get together to talk about and learn informational technologies, cybersecurity, media production skills, new methods for information dissemination (ex.: live-streaming), etc.

http://www.dfwchild.com/images/features/fw%20garden%20web%201.jpg

I envisoned a gathering that featured guest appearances by people like Wayne Madsen, Jon Rappaport, Kris Millegan, Joachim Hagopian, Wendy Painting (lonewolf research), and others. A list needs to be built of who has this kind of expertise so we can tap it, reward it, and replicate it. You can start by doing a search for tools for journalistic verification, and finding organizations devoted to the development of investigative journalists.  

https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/02/ba/92/fb/coastal-maine-botanical.jpg

I envisioned a process and an organization that would direct, nurture and nourish this on an ongoing basis. 

We could call it the society of truth horticulture; it’s a form of landscape gardening. 

 

 

[&&]{*addendum*}[##]

“… These top notch open source web conferencing software tools are proof that you don’t need to pay a bundle to get the features and functions you need. Due to the fact that they are free, you can take the opportunity to try out a few and choose the best match for your eLearning team. Keep in mind that free does not always mean better, however. If you discover that the learning curve is just too steep for your eLearning team or online users, you may want to consider going with another tool that offers the features you need combined with a user-friendly interface, even if that means sacrificing some more advanced functions. ….

https://elearningindustry.com/top-6-open-source-web-conferencing-software-tools-elearning-professionals 

Want to get more information about the various video conferencing fee structures to choose from? Read the article The Insider’s Guide To Video Conferencing Pricing Models to learn about the most common pricing models that you should keep in mind when choosing your next virtual meeting tool.”

via

https://solari.com/blog/ 

communication and social conflict

Music audio:

The Philarmonics – Dvořák’s New World Symphony/Largo (Jazz Version 1977)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJTAo9AexdU (4:31)

{##} {&&&} {##}

I went through the archives of some old blogs from the days when I was on Blogger’s Blogspot.  The first batch is from the first week of July, 2013, so we’re looking back almost a year.

In early July, tends of thousands were in the streets of Egypt, when Chris Floyd said:

“… the sinister machinations of the literally machine-hearted Dick Cheney and his chump of a frontman, the noted naked self-portraitist, George W. Bush. For as Fred Branfman reminds us in a powerful new piece, the Executive Branch of the United States government has murdered, maimed and dispossessed many millions of innocent people in the past few decades alone in senseless, pointless, criminal actions. It is a long and richly detailed piece, and should be read in full….”

Superiority Complex: The Reach and Roots of America’s Stasi Regime

{##} {&&&} {##}

Wayne Madsen, a former US navy lieutenant who first worked for the NSA in 1985 and over the next 12 years held several sensitive positions within the agency, named Denmark, the Netherlands, France, Germany, Spain and Italy as having secret deals with the US. http://archive.today/SdLeW 

Madsen said the countries had “formal second and third party status” under signal intelligence (sigint) agreements that compels them to hand over data, including mobile phone and internet information to the NSA if requested.

{##} {&&&} {##}

“…. The power of truth-tellers like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange, and Edward Snowden is that they dispel a whole mythology carefully constructed by the corporate cinema, the corporate academy and the corporate media. WikiLeaks is especially dangerous because it provides truth-tellers with a means to get the truth out. This was achieved by ‘Collateral Murder’, the cockpit video of an US Apache helicopter allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning. The impact of this one video marked Manning and Assange for state vengeance. Here were US airmen murdering journalists and maiming children in a Baghdad street, clearly enjoying it, and describing their atrocity as “nice”. Yet, in one vital sense, they did not get away with it; we are witnesses now, and the rest is up to us.”

http://johnpilger.com/articles/understanding-the-latest-leaks-is-understanding-the-rise-of-a-new-fascism 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Kevin Flaherty, who has forgotten more about information technology than most of the rest of know, had some brilliant insights here: http://www.cryptogon.com/?p=35884

He looked back into the past as well and came up with Room 641A and the placement of beam splitters

“One of [his] long standing theories is that the NSA intercepts represent the front end of something like Synthetic Environments for Analysis and Simulation system. What are they doing with these simulations? [See next, and next.]

I would like to know more about MAIN CORE.

I’m pretty confident that realtime geolocation data from mobile phones/license plate readers/cameras/??? are being used as a sort of invisible tripwire. If people on the MAIN CORE list happen to stray too close to certain physical locations (critical infrastructure, corporate headquarters, government installations, etc.), that could trigger… shall we say, a variety of responses. This would be very, very trivial to implement.

Is there an automatic mechanism that adds individuals to MAIN CORE? Book purchases, Google searches, websites visited, movie or television watching habits, the number of firearms at a residence???

What is the nature of the quantum computing systems to which NSA has access?….”

Flaherty mentioned Main Core; in the comments at that link to his own blog, he mentioned another entry: 

http://cryptogon.com/2006_10_15_blogarchive.html#116113782172259609 (about fusion centers and more):

“…Back in 1995, the few of us who studied information warfare read this in a Pentagon document: “The Internet could also be used offensively as an additional medium in psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives….”

BOSTON (Reuters) – Disaffected people living in the United States may develop radical ideologies and potentially violent skills over the Internet and that could present the next major U.S. security threat, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Monday.

“We now have a capability of someone to radicalize themselves over the Internet,” Chertoff said on the sidelines of a meeting of International Association of the Chiefs of Police.

{##} {&&&} {##}

Main Core is something I’ve read extensively about.  At one point, the late great Ed Encho (author of a major four-part series on the topic) riffed back and forth on the topic. He and I talked about the possibility of doing a blog jointly, but I insisted on knowing his full accurate name and address and phone number, and he was being hassled by an Internet troll, and he slipped beneath the waves inside the tubes.  He’s resurfaced as Donn Marten and holds court at http://carryingaflag.blogspot.com/ where just today he’s posted NSA Reform is Dead: Tech Companies Must Act to Protect Us Now.

{##} {&&&} {##}

Music audio:

Stan Kenton and his Orchestra (5:10)

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

{##} {&&&} {##}

http://r3.cygnuspub.com/files/cygnus/image/EMSR/2011/OCT/600×400/urbanshield2011021_10440470.png 

On the basis of those synthetic environments for analysis and simulation and the research I’d done on simulation, I simply hold up a four-card flush:

a 3D visualization interface that could enable human virtual omnipresence (http://teamcore.usc.edu/papers/2005/SS105SchurrN.pdf ); 

the Urban Shield series of exercises that have been run in a number of cities including Boston (http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/06/07/before-police-could-plan-for-terrorist-attack-real-thing-happened/ufxjb9O0RXyzVZNPFyGkiI/story.html );

the creation of a realistic 3D model of the entire Los Angeles basin (“A Real Time Visualization System for Large Scale Urban Environments”, William Jepson and Scott Friedman, UCLA Urban Simulation Team (http://www.ust.ucla.edu/~bill/UST.html but the link no longer works); 

and that famous quote:

Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.


– Henry Kissinger in an address to the Bilderberger meeting at Evian, France, May 21, 1992, as transcribed from a tape recording made by one of the Swiss delegates.

pastedGraphic.png Henry Kissinger quotes (American Political scientist. b.1923)

{##} {&&&} {##}

http://stuffpoint.com/memes/image/131554-memes-what-if-i-told-you-.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Robin Westenra at SeeMoreRocks brought us this:

Professor David Morris of George Washington University explains the psychopathy ruling our nation, and the world, at the present moment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KGfVYTxrK7Y (8:34)

{##} {&&&} {##}

There were several articles about “World War Z”, a 55-minute YouTube on the Rothschild family, and an article detailing research on the topic of Phillip Marshall and his investigation into the role that the Pinal Air Park/Marana Airfield outside of Tucson, Arizona played in the 9/11 attack. The story has now been made into a movie; there were 16 articles.

There were reviews of Radley Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop” [ “a creeping battlefield mentality has isolated and alienated American police officers and put them on a collision course with the values of a free society” ][you’re keeping up with the many reports about increasing police brutality, I trust], and “Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government”

In the latter: 

“… The facts presented here expose shocking cover-ups, from the top FDR aides who threatened internal security and free-world interests by exerting pro-Red influence on U.S.policy, to the grand juries that were rigged, to the countless officials of the Roosevelt and Truman administrations who turned a blind eye to the penetration problem…..”

“… A central message of the book – never explicitly stated – is that there was an international conspiracy to, in effect, overthrow Western civilization. (The authors would never point it out, but readers of the book will notice that a high percentage of the people involved were Jewish. Readers of this review will notice, as well, that some of the key brave people sounding the alarm over this subversion were also Jewish.) Not only was the U.S. government penetrated at the highest level, but this organized Communist network also apparently controlled key positions in the U.S. opinion-molding business…..”

http://archive.lewrockwell.com/orig13/martin-david2.1.1.html 

 [See below…]

I also forecast my acquisition and consumption of Kevin Ryan’s Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects, and Bob Tuskin had called in on an NPR show and got cut off when he mentioned WTC7. By that time, Snowden had holed up in Moscow.

http://m.ruvr.ru/2010/03/31/1238312922/RIA-503882-Preview.jpg.1000x297x1.jpg 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal_Man_(film

Hoping to cure his violent seizures, a man agrees to a series of experimental microcomputers inserted into his brain but inadvertently discovers that violence now triggers a pleasurable response his brain. [ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072267/ ]

 

Terrence Malick, the director of Badlands, wrote to Hodges expressing how much he loved watching The Terminal Man, saying “Your images make me understand what an image is.”[3]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terminal 

 

Steven Spielberg traveled around the world to find an actual airport that would let him film for the length of the production, but could not find one. The Terminal set was built in a massive hangar at the LA/Palmdale Regional Airport. The hangar, part of the U.S. Air Force Plant 42 complex was used to build the Rockwell International B-1B bomber. The set was built to full earthquake construction codes and was based on the Düsseldorf International Airport. The shape of both the actual terminal and the set viewed sideways is a cross section of an aircraft wing. The design of the set for The Terminal, as noted by Roger Ebert in his reviews and attested by Spielberg himself in a feature by Empire magazine, was greatly inspired by Jacques Tati‘s classic film Play Time.

 

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130626102131-01-moscow-airport-horizontal-gallery.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

 

http://prorev.com/1306highpay.jpg 

{##} {&&&} {##}

You will have to decide weather or not this is pertinent to wassappenin.

One or about July 7, 2008, The Weather Channel was purchased by [GE Owned NBC] for $3.2 Billion, with Britain’s Queen as a major shareholder and by two equity firms; 1 is [Bain Capital owned by Romney and 2 Blackstone which is a big illuminati company] as the Chairman of the Board proves, he is a khazar CFR player, (probably representing Rothschilds interests) AND was managing director of Lehman Bros. Wow, a true insider.

http://tinyurl.com/politicslvelcraft 

 

Weather Services International (WSI), part of the Weather Channel, announced that it will acquire Weather Central in a deal that further consolidates the  Weather Channel’s grip on weather-related technology for both professional and consumer applications. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

This is the second M&A deal in the last 2 months for the Weather Channel.   In July of 2012 the Weather Channel acquired Weather Underground for an undisclosed price.

The transaction is a relatively quick, and presumably profitable, deal for private equity firm E.L. Rothschild LLC, who in January 2011 bought a 70% stake in Weather Central.  At that time, Weather Central had 180 employees, including 70 meteorologists, and said it had more than 400 broadcast television clients in 21 countries worldwide, including a 46% market share of North America’s weather information delivery market for broadcast and media.

“The acquisition of Weather Central enables us to immediately expand the range of products we offer to each company’s business clients in television, wind energy, insurance and retail, as well as increase the speed at which we can develop new innovations,” said Mark Gildersleeve, president of WSI. “Our goal is to make the best products available to our collective customer base. Every broadcast customer, for example, will gain access to new tropical data, radar data, forecast models, and severe weather tracking tools within the first thirty days at no charge. In addition, we are offering a wider suite of products in the interactivity, social, news, traffic, web, mobile and video categories.”

.

Related Content:

Press Release: Weather Services International Acquires Weather Central

The Weather Channel Acquires Weather Underground

Press Release: E.L. Rothschild LLC Acquires a Majority Stake in Weather Central, LP

There was a third source for the same content but it has been taken down, but another popped up soon enough.

.

What’s your forecast? 

 

Here’s one of their advertisers: 

http://www.511tactical.com/?utm_source=AdRoll&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=300×250&utm_campaign=craft 

Gonna have to get me some of them there tactical pants and a couple of pouches and a backpack. They’ll come in right handy in the coming storms.

 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

http://en.mchs.ru/media/img/en_logo.png 

 

You know the bidness going on currently between Russia and the US?  

On July 1, 2013, Paul Joseph Watson over at infowars.com reported:

As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide “security at mass events” in the United States, a scenario that won’t sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil.

According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations.

In addition to agreeing with FEMA to “exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters,” the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing “security at mass events” in the United States.

This suggests that events designated as “National Special Security Events” by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security.

Russia immediately denied this http://en.ria.ru/world/20130702/182017287/No-Russian-Security-Guards-at-American-Mass-Events–US-Agency.html and FEMA insisted they still share information on “best practices”. 

“… Mass casualty attacks and disasters generate domestic political pressure to “do something,” and Hurricane Katrina gained worldwide attention to the apparent inability of the most advanced industrialized nation in the world to respond to natural disaster of this scope after having remade much of its emergency management after September 11 (Cooper & Block, 2006). And while most large “focusing events” can reveal a range of policy failures and prospects for learning (Birkland, 1998; May, 1992), it is important to consider whether and to what extent the “correct” lessons were learned. Two “lessons” that policy makers derived from the September 11 attacks were the putative need to create what became the Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, and, once such an idea gained acceptance, the “need” for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to be a part of that agency…..” http://cstl-cla.semo.edu/wmiller/ps691/Birkland%202.pdf

I am reminded, too, of the not-widely-known secret meeting of Dick Cheney et al after the Iran-Contra affair to review the “lessons learned”.  Cheney was in charge of all drills and exercises in the run-up to and during 9/11.

“… they had a meeting after 9/11 of the people who were in, in the White House, who worked in Iran-Contra–that would be Abrams and Cheney, and there were others involved who were also in the White House and they had a meeting of lessons learned, I’m telling you literally took place. They had a meeting with a small group of people who worked for Reagan and for George Bush when he was Vice President, his father, George Herbert Walker Bush, anyway.

And at the meeting, here were some of the conclusions: that the Iran-Contra thing, despite the disasters, proved you could do it, you could run operations without Congressional money and get away with it…..”

http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/03/23/cheneys-assassination-squads-and-iran-contra-and-findings/ 

{##} {&&&} {##}

North Carolina National Guard Rapid Reaction Force Civil Unrest Training Photos

July 3, 2013 in Headline

The following photos depict soldiers from the 252nd Combined Arms Battalion training in June for their role as a “rapid reaction force” capable of responding anywhere in the state of North Carolina within “four to eight hours with additional forces arriving within 24 to 36 hours.”  The same unit trained in March to respond “to an emergency ahead of federal assets by providing site security, establishing roadblocks or checkpoints, and assisting civilian authorities in controlling civil disturbances.”

The exercises depicted below were held from June 10-14 at an abandoned shopping mall and a water treatment facility in Charlotte.  Soldiers trained to suppress protesters who perform a sit-in as part of a fictional group called “The Pink Panthers.”  According to the North Carolina National Guard, the exercise at the water treatment facility tests soldiers’ “ability to use nonlethal force to disperse a crowd of aggressors.”  Photos of the exercise show soldiers operating from Be On the Look Out (BOLO) notices with the identities of specific individuals in the crowd, listed as “AIN Members,” that are to be targeted for arrest.

Photos via North Carolina National Guard and Grant Baldwin Photography.

Research Credit: HongPong

{##} {&&&} {##}

As the grills and fireworks and the Fourth were getting warmed up, we saw evidence of ‘Imperial Skyjacking’ with Evo Morales being suspected of transporting Snowden, an act which echoed recently in the Ukraine.  History shows us other assassinations by shoot-down (Yamamoto, Wellstone, and perhaps others). The National Security Archive had something on The Israel-Argentina Yellowcake Connection, and according to Zero Hedge citing china.org.cn, the Chinese and the Russians were conducting joint naval drills, and Intellihub had a good review of the laws on “accessory” as they pertain to the media cover-up of 9/11 (but those links have disappeared now too). 

There was (and still is) a YouTube video on the world’s scariest drug (scopolamine), a healthy dose of which was once recommended for me by a violinist who supported Mike Ruppert’s POV on his discussion board about “collapse”.  

{&&&}

http://fauquierfreecitizen.com/seventy-two-killed-resisting-gun-confiscation-in-boston/ 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Traveling With Bernays 

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays )

Sky Deutschland has developed technology to transfer advertisements from train windows directly and silently into commuters’ heads.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azwL5eoE5aI (1:26)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/mediatechnologyandtelecoms/media/10158311/Sky-Deutschland-to-broadcast-adverts-directly-into-train-passengers-heads.html 

{##} {&&&} {##}

Speaking of trains, the Lac-Megantic event occurred  on July 6th http://globalnews.ca/news/767745/timeline-of-events-in-lac-megantic-disaster/ and the Israeli Medical Association was called in to consult on methods of handling the hunger strikers at Gitmo. 

The Michael Hastings crash was on the minds of a few (and it still is this week ), the Bin Laden Raid Files Moved from Pentagon to CIA to More Easily Shield Them from Public Scrutiny, and the criminal probe into Jon Corzine and MF Global was dropped due to lack of evidence. Egypt and the debate about metadata both exploded, and HongPong brought us this photo:

http://hongpong.com/files/tumblr_mpmf8mqcx41s7r7rso1_1280.jpg  

 

{##} {&&&} {##}

 

Finally, when fishing around in the archives, I found this:

 

 

The purportedly “scientific” application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one’s enemies

“Worldview Warfare” and The Science of Coercion

by Christopher Simpson

Excerpts from The Science of Coercion, Oxford University Press, 1994

www.globalresearch.ca   23 November 2003

 

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/SIM311A.html

 

During the second half of the 1930s, the Rockefeller Foundation underwrote much of the most innovative communication research then under way in the United States. There was virtually no federal support for the social sciences at the time, and corporate backing for the field usually remained limited to proprietary marketing studies. The foundation’s administrators believed, however, that mass media constituted a uniquely powerful force in modem society, reports Brett Gary, 28 and financed a new project on content analysis for Harold Lasswell at the Library of Congress, Hadley Cantril’s Public Opinion Research Project at Princeton University, the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly at Princeton, Douglas Waples’ newspaper and reading studies at the University of Chicago, Paul Lazarsfeld’s Office of Radio Research at Columbia University, and other important programs.

As war approached, the Rockefeller Foundation clearly favored efforts designed to find a “democratic prophylaxis” that could immunize the United States’ large immigrant population from the effects of Soviet and Axis propaganda. In 1939, the foundation organized a series of secret seminars with men it regarded as leading communication scholars to enlist them in an effort to consolidate public opinion in the United States in favor of war against Nazi Germany — a controversial proposition opposed by many conservatives, religious leaders, and liberals at the time — and to articulate a reasonably clear-cut set of ideological and methodological preconceptions for the emerging field of communication research. 29

Harold Lasswell, who had the ear of foundation administrator John Marshall at these gatherings, over the next two years won support for a theory that seemed to resolve the conflict between the democratic values that are said to guide U.S. society, on the one hand, and the manipulation and deceit that often lay at the heart of projects intended to engineer mass consent, on the other. Briefly, the elite of U.S. society (“those who have money to support research,” as Lasswell bluntly put it) should systematically manipulate mass sentiment in order to preserve democracy from threats posed by authoritarian societies such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

One Rockefeller seminar participant, Donald Slesinger (former dean of the social science at the University of Chicago), blasted Lasswell’s claims as using a democratic guise to tacitly accept the objectives and methods of a new form of authoritarianism. “We [the Rockefeller seminar] have been willing, without thought, to sacrifice both truth and human individuality in order to bring about given mass responses to war stimuli,” Slesinger contended. “We have thought in terms of fighting dictatorships- by-force through the establishment of dictatorship-by-manipulation. 30 Slesinger’s view enjoyed some support from other participants and from Rockefeller Foundation officers such as Joseph Willits, who criticized what he described as authoritarian or even fascist aspects of Lasswell’s arguments. Despite this resistance, the social polarization created by the approaching war strongly favored Lasswell, and in the end he enjoyed substantial new funding and an expanded staff courtesy of the foundation. Slesinger, on the other hand, drifted away from the Rockefeller seminars and appears to have rapidly lost influence within the community of academic communication specialists.

World War II spurred the emergence of psychological warfare as a particularly promising new form of applied communication research. The personal, social, and scientific networks established in U.S. social sciences during World War II, particularly among communication researchers and social psychologists, later played a central role in the evolution (or “social construction”) of U.S. sociology after the war. A detailed discussion of U.S. psychological operations during World War 11 is of course outside the scope of this book. There is a large literature on the subject, which is discussed briefly in the Bibliographic Essay at the end of this text. A few points are worth mentioning, however, to introduce some of the personalities and concepts that would later play a prominent role in psychological operations and communication studies after 1945.

The phrase “psychological warfare” is reported to have first entered English in 1941 as a translated mutation of the Nazi term Weltanschauungskrieg (literally, worldview warfare), meaning the purportedly scientific application of propaganda, terror, and state pressure as a means of securing an ideological victory over one’s enemies. 31 William “Wild Bill” Donovan, then director of the newly established U.S. intelligence agency Office of Strategic Services (OSS), viewed an understanding of Nazi psychological tactics as a vital source of ideas for “Americanized” versions of many of the same stratagems. Use of the new term quickly became widespread throughout the U.S. intelligence community. For Donovan psychological warfare was destined to become a full arm of the U.S. military, equal in status to the army, navy, and air force. 32

Donovan was among the first in the United States to articulate a more or less unified theory of psychological warfare. As he saw it, the “engineering of consent” techniques used in peacetime propaganda campaigns could be quite effectively adapted to open warfare. Pro-Allied propaganda was essential to reorganizing the U.S. economy for war and for creating public support at home for intervention in Europe, Donovan believed. Fifth-column movements could be employed abroad as sources of intelligence and as morale-builders for populations under Axis control. He saw “special operations — meaning sabotage, subversion, commando raids, and guerrilla movements — as useful for softening up targets prior to conventional military assaults. “Donovan’s concept of psychological warfare was all-encompassing,” writes Colonel Alfred Paddock, who has specialized in this subject for the U.S. Army War College. “Donovan’s visionary dream was to unify these functions in support of conventional (military) unit operations, thereby forging a ‘new instrument of war.'” 33

Donovan, a prominent Wall Street lawyer and personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt, convinced FDR to establish a central, civilian intelligence agency that would gather foreign intelligence, coordinate analysis of information relevant to the war, and conduct propaganda and covert operations both at home and abroad. In July 1941 FDR created the aptly named Office of the Coordinator of Information, placing Donovan in charge. 34

But that ambitious plan soon foundered on the rocks of Washington’s bureaucratic rivalries. By early 1942 the White House split the “white” (official) propaganda functions into a new agency, which eventually became the Office of War Information (OWI), while Donovan reorganized the intelligence, covert action, and “black” (unacknowledgeable) propaganda functions under deeper secrecy as the OSS. Officially, the new OSS was subordinate to the military leadership of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but the relationship between the military and the civilian OSS was never smooth. Donovan frequently used his personal relationship with FDR to sidestep the military’s efforts to restrict the OSS’s growing influence. 35

Similar innovations soon spread through other military branches, usually initiated by creative outsiders from the worlds of journalism or commerce who saw “psychological” techniques as a means to sidestep entrenched military bureaucracies and enhance military performance. Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, a longtime Wall Street colleague of Donovan, established a small, highly secret Psychologic Branch within the War Department General Staff G-2 (Intelligence) organization. (McCloy is probably better known today for his later work as U.S. high commissioner of Germany, chairman of the Chase Bank, member of the Warren Commission, and related posts). 36 McCloy’s Psychologic Branch was reorganized several times, briefly folded in the OSS, shifted back to military control, and renamed at least twice. The Joint Chiefs meanwhile established a series of high-level interagency committees intended to coordinate U.S. psychological operations in the field, including those of the relatively small Psychological Warfare Branches attached to the headquarters staffs of U.S. military commanders in each theater of war. If this administrative structure was not confusing enough, the psychological warfare branch attached to Eisenhower’s command in Europe soon grew into a Psychological Warfare Division totaling about 460 men and women. 37

These projects helped define U.S. social science and mass communication studies long after the war had drawn to a close. Virtually all of the scientific community that was to emerge during the 1950s as leaders in the field of mass communication research spent the war years performing applied studies on U.S. and foreign propaganda, Allied troop morale, public opinion (both domestically and internationally), clandestine OSS operations, or the then emerging technique of deriving useful intelligence from analysis of newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts, and postal censorship intercepts.

The day-to-day war work of U.S. psychological warfare specialists varied considerably. DeWitt Poole — a State Department expert in anticommunist propaganda who had founded Public Opinion Quarterly while on sabbatical at Princeton before the war-became the chief of the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS. There he led OSS efforts to recruit suitable agents from immigrant communities inside the United States, to monitor civilian morale, and to analyze foreign- language publications for nuggets of intelligence. Sociologists and Anthropologists such as Alexander Leighton and Margaret Mead concentrated on identifying schisms in Japanese culture suitable for exploitation in U.S. radio broadcasts in Asia, while Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch of the U.S. Army specialized in ideological indoctrination of U.S. troops. Hadley Cantril meanwhile adapted survey research techniques to the task of clandestine intelligence collection, including preparations for the U.S. landing in North Africa. 38

There were six main U.S. centers of psychological warfare and related studies during the conflict. Several of these centers went through name changes and reorganizations in the course of the war, but they can be summarized as follows: (1) Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch of the U.S. Army’s Division of Morale; (2) the Office of War Information (OWI) led by Elmer Davis and its surveys division under Elmo Wilson; (3) the Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) of the U.S. Army, commanded by Brigadier General Robert McClure; (4) the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) led by William Donovan; (5) Rensis Likert’s Division of Program Surveys at the Department of Agriculture, which provided field research personnel in the United States for the army, OWI, Treasury Department, and other government agencies; and (6) Harold Lasswell’s War Communication Division at the Library of Congress.

Dozens of prominent social scientists participated in the war through these organizations, in some cases serving in two or more groups in the course of the conflict. The OWI, for example, employed Elmo Roper (of the Roper survey organization), Leonard Doob (Yale), Wilbur Schramm (University of Illinois and Stanford), Alexander Leighton (Cornell), Leo Lowenthal (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of California), Hans Speier (RAND Corp.), Nathan Leites (RAND), Edward Barrett (Columbia), and Clyde Kluckhohn (Harvard), among others. 39

(The institutions in parentheses simply indicate the affiliations for which these scholars may be best known.) OWI simultaneously extended contracts for communications research and consulting to Paul Lazarsfeld, Hadley Cantril, Frank Stanton, George Gallup, and to Rensis Likert’s team at the Agriculture Department. 40 OWI contracting also provided much of the financial backbone for the then newly founded National Opinion Research Center. 41

In addition to his OWI work, Nathan Leites also served as Lasswell’s senior research assistant at the Library of Congress project, as did Heinz Eulau (Stanford). 42 Other prominent contributors to the Lasswell project included Irving Janis (Yale) and the young Ithiel de Sola Pool (MIT), who, with Leites, had already begun systematic content analysis of communist publications long before the war was over. 43 Lasswell’s Library of Congress project is widely remembered today as the foundation of genuinely systematic content analysis in the United States. 44

At the Army’s Psychological Warfare Division, some prominent staffers were William S. Paley (CBS), C. D. Jackson (Time/Life), W. Phillips Davison (RAND and Columbia), Saul Padover (New School for Social Research), John W. Riley (Rutgers), Morris Janowitz (Institut fur Sozialforschung and University of Michigan), Daniel Lerner (MIT and Stanford), Edward Shils (University of Chicago), and New York attorney Murray Gurfein (later co-author with Janowitz), among others. 45 Of these, Davison, Padover, Janowitz, and Gurfein were OSS officers assigned to the Psychological Warfare Division to make use of their expertise in communication and German social psychology. 46 Other prominent OSS officers who later contributed to the social sciences include Howard Becker (University of Wisconsin), Alex Inkeles (Harvard), Walter Langer (University of Wisconsin), Douglas Cater (Aspen Institute), and of course Herbert Marcuse (Institut fur Sozialforschung and New School). 47 0SS wartime contracting outside the government included arrangements for paid social science research by Stanford, the University of California at Berkeley, Columbia, Princeton, Yale’s Institute of Human Relations, and the National Opinion Research Center, which was then at the University of Denver. 48 Roughly similar lists of social scientists and scholarly contractors can be discovered at each of the government’s centers of wartime communications and public opinion research. 49

The practical significance of these social linkages has been explored by social psychologist John A. Clausen, who is a veteran of Samuel Stouffer’s Research Branch. Clausen made a systematic study during the early 1980s of the postwar careers of his former colleagues who had gone into the fields of public opinion research, sociology, and psychology. 50 Some twenty-five of twenty-seven veterans who could be located responded to his questionnaire; of these, twenty-four reported that their wartime work had had “lasting implications” and “a major influence on [their] subsequent career.” Clausen quotes the reply of psychologist Nathan Maccoby (Stanford): “The Research Branch not only established one of the best old-boy (or girl) networks ever, but an alumnus of the Branch had an open door to most relevant jobs and career lines. We were a lucky bunch.” Nearly three-fifths of the respondents indicated that the Research Branch experience “had a major influence on the direction or character of their work in the decade after the war,” Clausen continues, “and all but three of the remainder indicated a substantial influence…. [F]ully three-fourths reported the Branch experience to have been a very important influence on their careers as a whole.” 51

Respondents stressed two reasons for this enduring impact. First, the wartime experience permitted young scholars to closely work with recognized leaders in the field — Samuel Stouffer, Leonard Cottrell, Carl Hovland, and others-as well as with civilian consultants such as Paul Lazarsfeld, Louis Guttman, and Robert Merton. In effect, the Army’s Research Branch created an extraordinary postgraduate school with obvious scholarly benefits for both “students” and the seasoned “professors.”

Second, the common experience created a network of professional contacts that almost all respondents to the survey found to be very valuable in their subsequent careers. They tapped these contacts later for professional opportunities and for project funding, according to Clausen. “Perhaps most intriguing” in this regard, Clausen writes,

was the number of our members who became foundation executives. Charles Dollard became president of Carnegie. Donald Young shifted from the presidency of SSRC [Social Science Research Council] to that of Russell Sage, where he ultimately recruited Leonard Cottrell. Leland DeVinney went from Harvard to the Rockefeller Foundation. William McPeak … helped set up the Ford Foundation and became its vice president. W. Parker Mauldin became vice president of the Population Council. The late Lyle Spencer [of Science Research Associates] . . . endowed a foundation that currently supports a substantial body of social science research. 52

There was a somewhat similar sociometric effect among veterans of OWI propaganda projects. OWI’s overseas director Edward Barrett points out that old-boy networks rooted in common wartime experiences in psychological warfare extended well beyond the social sciences. Among OWI alumni,” he wrote in 1953, are

the publishers of Time, Look, Fortune, and several dailies; editors of such magazines as Holiday, Coronet, Parade, and the Saturday Review, editors of the Denver Post. New Orleans Times-Picayune, and others; the heads of the Viking Press, Harper & Brothers, and Farrar, Straus and Young; two Hollywood Oscar winners; a two-time Pulitzer prizewinner; the board chairman of CBS and a dozen key network executives; President Eisenhower’s chief speech writer; the editor of Reader’s Digest international editions; at least six partners of large advertising agencies; and a dozen noted social scientists. 53

Barrett himself went on to become chief of the U.S. government’s overt psychological warfare effort from 1950 to 1952 and later dean of the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and founder of the Columbia Journalism Review. 54

It is wise to be cautious in evaluating the political significance of these networks, of course. Obviously Herbert Marcuse drew quite different political conclusions from his experience than did, say, Harold Lasswell, and it is well known that even some of the once closely knit staff of the Institut fur Sozialforschung who emigrated to the United States eventually clashed bitterly over political issues during the cold war. 55 Nevertheless, the common experience of wartime psychological warfare work became one step in a process through which various leaders in the social sciences engaged one another in tacit alliances to promote their particular interpretations of society. Their wartime experiences contributed substantially to the construction of a remarkably tight circle of men and women who shared several important conceptions about mass communication research. They regarded mass communication as a tool for social management and as a weapon in social conflict, and they expressed common assumptions concerning the usefulness of quantitative research-particularly experimental and quasi- experimental effects research, opinion surveys, and quantitative content analysisas a means of illuminating what communication “is” and improving its application to social management. They also demonstrated common attitudes toward at least some of the ethical questions intrinsic to performing applied social research on behalf of a government. The Clausen study strongly suggests that at Stouffer’s Research Branch, at least, World War II psychological warfare work established social networks that opened doors to crucial postwar contacts inside the government, funding agencies, and professional circles. Barrett’s comments concerning the Psychological Warfare Division suggest a similar pattern there. As will be discussed in more depth in the next chapter, the various studies prepared by these scientists during the war — always at government expense and frequently involving unprecedented access to human research subjects — also created vast new data bases of social information that would become the raw material from which a number of influential postwar social science careers would be built.

The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies

Turning to a consideration of CIA-sponsored psychological warfare studies, one finds a wealth of evidence showing that projects secretly funded by the CIA played a prominent role in U.S. mass communication studies during the middle and late 1950s. The secrecy that surrounds any CIA operation makes complete documentation impossible, but the fragmentary information that is now available permits identification of several important examples.

The first is the work of Albert Hadley Cantril (better known as Hadley Cantril), a noted “founding father” of modem mass communication studies. Cantril was associate director of the famous Princeton Radio Project from 1937 to 1939, a founder and longtime director of Princeton’s Office of Public Opinion Research, and a founder of the Princeton Listening Center, which eventually evolved into the CIA-financed Foreign Broadcast Information Service. Cantril’s work at Princeton is widely recognized as “the first time that academic social science took survey research seriously, and it was the first attempt to collect and collate systematically survey findings.” 70 Cantril’s The Psychology of Radio, written with Gordon Allport, is often cited as a seminal study in mass communication theory and research, and his surveys of public opinion in European and Third World countries defined the subfield of international public opinion studies for more than two decades.

Cantril’s work during the first decade after World War II focused on elaborating Lippmann’s concept of the stereotype the “pictures in our heads,” as Lippmann put it, through which people are said to deal with the world outside their immediate experience. Cantril specialized in international surveys intended to determine how factors such as class, nationalism, and ethnicity affected the stereotypes present in a given population, and how those stereotypes in turn affected national behavior in various countries, particularly toward the United States. 71 Cantril’s work, while often revealing the “human face” of disaffected groups, began with the premise that the United States’ goals and actions abroad were fundamentally good for the world at large. If U.S. acts were not viewed in that light by foreign audiences, the problem was that they had misunderstood our good intentions, not that Western behavior might be fundamentally flawed.

Cantril’s career had been closely bound up with U.S. intelligence and clandestine psychological operations since at least the late 1930s. The Office of Public Opinion Research, for example, enjoyed confidential contracts from the Roosevelt administration for research into U.S. public opinion on the eve of World War 11. Cantril went on to serve as the senior public opinion specialist of the Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs (an early U.S. intelligence agency led by Nelson Rockefeller and focusing on Latin America), of the World War II Office of War Information, and, in a later period, as an adviser to President Eisenhower on the psychological aspects of foreign policy. During the Kennedy administration, Cantril helped reorganize the U.S. Information Agency. 72

According to the New York Times, the CIA provided Cantril and his colleague Lloyd Free with $1 million in 1956 to gather intelligence on popular attitudes in countries of interest to the agency. 73 The Rockefeller Foundation appears to have laundered the money for Cantril, because Cantril repeatedly claimed in print that the monies had come from that source. 74 However, the Times and Cantril’s longtime partner, Lloyd Free, confirmed after Cantril’s death that the true source of the funds had been the CIA. 75

Cantril’s first target was a study of the political potential of “protest” voters in France and Italy, who were regarded as hostile to U.S. foreign Policy. 76 That was followed by a 1958 tour of the Soviet Union under private, academic cover, to gather information on the social psychology of the Soviet population and on “mass” relationships with the Soviet elite. Cantril’s report on this topic went directly to then president Eisenhower; its thrust was that treating the Soviets firmly, but with greater respect — rather than openly ridiculing them, as had been Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ practice — could help improve East-West relations. 77 Later Cantril missions included studies of Castro’s supporters in Cuba and reports on the social psychology of a series of countries that could serve as a checklist of CIA interventions of the period: Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, Nigeria, Philippines, Poland, and others. 78

An important focus of Cantril’s work under the CIA’s contract were surveys of U.S. domestic public opinion on foreign policy and domestic political issues — a use of government funds many observers would argue was illegal. 79 There, Cantril introduced an important methodological innovation by breaking out political opinions by respondents’ demographic characteristics and their place on a U.S. ideological spectrum he had devised — a forerunner of the political opinion analysis techniques that would revolutionize U.S. election campaigns during the 1980s. 80

A second-and perhaps more important — example of the CIA’s role in U.S. mass communication studies during the 1950s was the work of the Center for International Studies (CENIS) at MIT. The CIA became the principal funder of this institution throughout the 1950s, although neither the CENIS nor the CIA is known to have publicly provided details on their relationship. It has been widely reported, however, that the CIA financed the initial establishment of the CENIS; that the agency underwrote publication of certain CENIS studies in both classified and nonclassified editions; that CENIS served as a conduit for CIA funds for researchers at other institutions, particularly the Center for Russian Research at Harvard; that the director of CENIS, Max Millikan, had served as assistant director of the CIA immediately prior to his assumption of the CENIS post; and that Millikan served as a “consultant to the Central Intelligence Agency,” as State Department records put it, during his tenure as director of CENIS. 81 In 1966, CENIS scholar Ithiel de Sola Pool acknowledged that CENIS “has in the past had contracts with the CIA,” though he insisted the CIA severed its links with CENIS following a bitter scandal in the early 1960s. 82

CENIS emerged as one of me most important centers of communication studies midway through the 1950s, and it maintained that role for the remainder of the decade. According to CENIS’s official account, the funding for its communications research was provided by a four- year, $850,000 grant from the Ford Foundation, which was distributed under the guidance of an appointed planning committee made up of Hans Speier (chair), Jerome Bruner, Wallace Carroll, Harold Lasswell, Paul Lazarsfeld, Edward Shils, and Ithiel de Sola Pool (secretary). 83 It is not known whether Ford’s funds were in fact CIA monies. The Ford Foundation’s archives make clear, however, that the foundation was at that time underwriting the costs of the CIA’s principal propaganda project aimed at intellectuals, the Congress for Cultural Freedom, with a grant of $500,000 made at CIA request, and that the Ford Foundation’s director, John McCloy (who will be remembered here for his World War II psychological warfare work), had established a regular liaison with the CIA for the specific purpose of managing Ford Foundation cover for CIA projects. 84 Of the men on CENIS’s communication studies planning committee, Edward Shils was simultaneously a leading spokesman for the CIA-backed Congress for Cultural Freedom Project; Hans Speier was the RAND Corporation’s director of social science research; and Wallace Carroll was a journalist specializing in national security issues who had produced a series of classified reports on clandestine warfare against the Soviet Union for U.S. military intelligence agencies. 85 In short, CENIS communication studies were from their inception closely bound up with both overt and covert aspects of U.S. national security strategy of the day.

The CENIS program generated the large majority of articles on psychological warfare published by leading academic journals during the second half of the 1950s. CENIS’s dominance in psychological warfare studies during this period was perhaps best illustrated by two special issues of POQ published in the spring of 1956 and the fall of 1958. Each was edited by CENIS scholars-by Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla and by Daniel Lerner, respectively — and each was responsible for the preponderance of POQ articles concerning psychological warfare published that year. The collective titles for the special issues were “Studies in Political Communications” and “Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas.” 86

CENIS scholars and members of the CENIS planning committee such as Harold Ina”, Y. B. Damle, Claire Zimmerman, Raymond Bauer, and Suzanne Keller 87 and each of the special issue editors” provided most of the content. They drew other articles from studies that CENIS had contracted out to outside academics, such as a content analysis of U.S. and Soviet propaganda publications by Ivor Wayne of BSSR and a study of nationalism among the Egyptian elite by Patricia Kendall of BASR that was based on data gathered during the earlier Voice of America studies in the Mideast. 89

The purported dangers to the United States of “modernization” or economic development in the Third World emerged as the most important theme of CENIS studies in international communication as the decade of the 1950s drew to a close. Practically without exception, CENIS studies coincided with those issues and geographic areas regarded as problems by U.S. intelligence agencies: “agitators” in Indonesia, student radicals in Chile, “change-prone” individuals in Puerto Rico, and the social impact of economic development in the Middle East. 90 CENIS also studied desegregation of schools in Little Rock, Arkansas, as an example of “modernization.” 91

In these reports, CENIS authors viewed social change in developing countries principally as a management problem for the United States. Daniel Lerner contended that “urbanization, industrialization, secularization [and] communications” were elements of a typology of modernization that could be measured and shaped in order to secure a desirable outcome from the point of view of the U.S. government. “How can these modernizing societies-in-a-hurry maintain stability?” Lerner asked. “Whence will come the compulsions toward responsible formation and expression of opinion on which a free participant society depends?” 92

In The Passing of Traditional Society and other texts, Lerner contended that public “‘participation’ [in power] through opinion is spreading before genuine political and economic participation” in societies in developing countries 93 — a clear echo of Lippmann’s earlier thesis. This created a substantial mass of people who were relatively informed through the mass media, yet who were socially and economically disenfranchised, and thus easily swayed by the appeals of radical nationalists, Communists, and other “extremists.” As in Lippmann’s analysis, mass communication played an important role in the creation of this explosive situation, as Lerner saw it, and in elite management of it. He proposed a strategy modeled in large part on the campaign in the Philippines that combined “white” and “black” propaganda, economic development aid, and U.S.-trained and financed counterinsurgency operations to manage these problems in a manner that was “responsible” from the point of view of the industrialized world.

This “development theory,” which combined propaganda, counter- insurgency warfare, and selective economic development of targeted regions, was rapidly integrated into U.S. psychological warfare practice worldwide as the decade drew to a close. Classified U.S. programs employing “Green Beret” Special Forces troops trained in what was termed “nation building” and counterinsurgency began in the mountainous areas of Cambodia and Laos. 94 Similar projects intended to win the hearts and minds of Vietnam’s peasant population through propaganda, creation of “strategic hamlets,” and similar forms of controlled social development under the umbrella of U.S. Special Forces troops can also be traced in part to Lerner’s work, which was in time elaborated by Wilbur Schramm, Lucian Pye, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and others. 95 Lerner himself became a fixture at Pentagon-sponsored conferences on U.S. psychological warfare in the Third World during the 1960s and 1970s, lecturing widely on the usefulness of social science data for the design of what has since come to be called U.S. -sponsored low-intensity warfare abroad. 96

The Special Operations Research Office’s 1962 volume The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission and Social Science Research and the well-publicized controversy surrounding Project Camelot 97 show that the brutal U.S. counterinsurgency wars of the period grew out of earlier psychological warfare projects, and that their tactics were shaped in important part by the rising school of development theory. 98 Further, the promises integral to that theory — namely, that U. S. efforts to control development in the Third World, if skillfully handled, could benefit the targets of that intervention while simultaneously advancing U.S. interests — were often publicized by the USIA, by the Army’s mass media, at various academic conferences, and in other propaganda outlets. In other words, as the government tested in the field the tactics advocated by Lerner, Pool, and others, the rationalizations offered by these same scholars became propaganda themes the government promoted to counter opposition to U.S. intervention abroad. 99

The important point with regard to CENIS is the continuing, inbred relationship among a handful of leading mass communication scholars and the U.S. military and intelligence community. Substantially the same group of theoreticians who articulated the early cold war version of psychological warfare in the 1950s reappeared in the 1960s to articulate the Vietnam era adaptation of the same concepts. More than a half-dozen noted academics followed this track: Daniel Lerner, Harold Lasswell, Wilbur Schramm, John W. Riley, W. Phillips Davison, Leonard. Cottrell, and Ithiel de Sola Pool, among others. 100

 

* Excerpts from The Science of Coercion: Communication Research and Psychological Warfare 1945-1960, by Christopher Simpson (Oxford University Press, 1994)

“Worldview Warfare” and World War II (pp.22-30)

The CIA and the Founding Fathers of Communication Studies (pp. 79-85)

Footnotes:

28. Brett Gary, “Mass Communications Research, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Imperatives of War 1939-1945,” Research Reports from the Rockefeller Archive Center (North Tarrytown, NY, Spring 1991), p. 3; and Brett Gary, “American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda,” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1992. Gary’s work is the first thorough study, so far as I am aware, of the important role of the Rockefeller Foundation in crystallizing paradigms for communication studies.

29. John Marshall (ed.), “Needed Research in Communication” (1940), folder 2677, box 224, Rockefeller Archives, Pocantico Hills, NY, cited in Gary, American Liberalism.

30. Gary, “American Liberalism and the Problem of Propaganda.”

31. Ladislas Farago, German Psychological Warfare (New York: Putnam, 1941). For a history of the origin of the term, see William Daugherty, “Changing Concepts,” in Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. 12.

32. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 5-8, 23-37.

33. Ibid., p. 6.

34. Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), The Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkeley, 1976), pp. 42-63. There is a large literature on the OSS. For a reliable overview of the agency’s activities, including basic data on its establishment and leadership, see Richard Harris Smith, OSS (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

35. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 7-14; and Edward Lilly, “The Psychological Strategy Board and Its Predecessors: Foreign Policy Coordination 1938-1953,” in Gaetano Vincitorio (ed.), Studies in Modern History (New York: St. Johns University Press, 1968), p. 346.

36. Kai Bird, The Chairman: John J. McCloy (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992).

37. Paddock, U.S. Army Special Warfare, pp. 8-18; for an extended discussion, see Daniel Lerner, Sykewar: Psychological Warfare Against Germany, D-Day to VE-Day (New York: George Stewart, 1948).

38. On Poole’s role in the establishment of Public Opinion Quarterly, see Harwood Childs, “The First Editor Looks Back,” POQ, 21, no. I (Spring 1957): 7-13. On Poole’s work at the Foreign Nationalities Branch of the OSS, see (Anthony Cave Brown (ed.), Secret War Report of the OSS (New York: Berkley, 1976), chapter 2. On Leighton, see Alexander Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World (New York: Dutton, 1949). On Mead, see Carleton Mabee, “Margaret Mead and Behavioral Scientists in World War II: Problems of Responsibility, Truth and Effectiveness,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 23 (January 1987Y On Stouffer, see now 49 Mom On Cantril, see Hadley Cantril, “Evaluating the Probable Reactions to the Landing in North Africa in 1942: A Case Study,” POQ, 29, no. 3 (Fall 1965): 400-410.

39. On Roper and on Elmo Wilson, also of the Roper organization, see Jean Converse, Survey Research in the United States (Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1987), pp. 171-72. On Doob and Leites, see Daniel Lerner (ed.), Propaganda in War and Crisis (New York: George Stewart, 1951), pp. vii-viii. On Kluckhohn, Leighton, Lowenthal, and Schramm, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xiii-xiv. On Speier, Contemporary Authors, Vol. 21-24, p. 829. On Barrett, Edward Barrett, Truth Is Our Weapon (New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1953), pp. 31-32. After his death, the Associated Press identified Barrett as a former member of the OSS, though Barrett omitted that information from biographical statements published during his lifetime; see “Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review,” Washington Post, October 26, 1989. For more on the OWI, see also Allan Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda: The Office of War Information 1942-1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1978); and Leonard Doob, “Utilization of Social Scientists in the Overseas Branch of the Office of War Information,” American Political Science Review, 41, no. 4 (August 1947): 49-67.

40. Converse, Survey Research in the United States, pp. 163, 172.

41. Ibid., p. 309.

42. On Leites and Eulau, see Wilbur Schramm, “The Beginnings of Communication Study in the United States,” in Everett Rogers and Francis Balle (eds.), The Media Revolution in America and Western Europe (Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1985), p. 205; and Harold Lasswell and Nathan Leites, Language of Politics (New York: George Stewart, 1949), p. 298.

43. Nathan Leites and Ithiel de Sola Pool, “The Response of Communist Propaganda,” in Lasswell and Leites, Language of Politics, pp. 153, 334.

44. Roger Wimmer and Joseph Dominick, Mass Media Research (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1987Y p. 165.

45. On Paley, Jackson, Padover, Riley, Janowitz, Lerner, and Gurfein, see Lerner, Sykewar, pp. 439-43. On Davison, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, p. xii. On Shils, see Lerner, Propaganda in War, p. viii.

46. On Davison and Padover, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xii-xiii. On Gurfein and Janowitz, see Smith, OSS, pp. 86, 217.

47. On Langer, Cater, and Marcuse, see Smith, OSS, pp. 17, 23, 25, 217. On Barrett, see -Edward I Barren Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review.” On Becker and Inkeles, see Daugherty and Janowitz, Psychological Warfare Casebook, pp. xi-xii. For a fascinating early memoir of the role of psychology and social psychology in OSS training and operations, see William Morgan, The OSS and I (New York: Norton, 1957).

48. Robin Winks, Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (New York: Morrow, 1987), pp. 43-44, 79.

49. On Samuel Stouffer’s Morale Branch, see Samuel Stouffer, Arthur Lumsdaine, Marion Lumsdaine, Robin Williams, M. Brewster Smith, Irving Janis, Shirley Star, and Leonard Cottrell, The American Soldier (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 149Y pp. 3-53; and John Clausen, “Research on the American Soldier as a Career Contingency,” Social Psychology Quarterly 47, no. 2 (1984): 207-13. On the OSS, see Barry Katz, Foreign Intelligence: Research and Analysis in the Office of Strategic Services, 1952-1945 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989): and Bernard David Rifkind, “OSS and Franco-American Relations 1942-1945” Ph.D. diss., George Washington University, 1983, pp. 318-36. On psychological operations in the Pacific theater, see Leighton, Human Relations in a Changing World.

50. Clausen, “Research on the American Soldier.”

51. Ibid., p. 210.

52. Ibid., p. 212.

53. Barrett, Truth, p. 31fn.

54. “Edward W. Barrett Dies; Started Columbia Journalism Review.”

55. Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research, 1923-1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973); and Katz, Foreign Intelligence, pp. 29ff.

70. Information on Cantril in this paragraph is from “Cantril, [Albert] Hadley,” National Cyclopedia of American Biography, Vol. 55, pp. 211-12.

71. See, for example, William Buchanan and Hadley Cantril, How Nations See Each Other (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972), pp. 91-101; or Hadley Cantril, The Politics of Despair (New York: Basic Books, 1958).

72. “Cantril, [Albert] Hadley. See also collection of Psychological Strategy Board correspondence with Cantril, including Cantril’s oblique reference to what appears to be clandestine CIA sponsorship and editing of his pamphlet The Goals of the Individual and the Hopes of Humanity (1951; published by Institute for Associated Research, Hanover, NH) in Cantril note of October 22, 195 1; in Hadley Cantril correspondence, Psychological Strategy Board, Truman Library, Independence, MO.

73. John M. Crewdson and Joseph Treaster, “Worldwide Propaganda Network Built by the CIA” New York Times, December 26, 1977.

74. Hadley Cantril, The Human Dimension: Experiences in Policy Research (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967), pp. 131-32, 145.

75. Crewdson and Treaster, “Worldwide Propaganda Network.”

76. Hadley Cantril and David Rodnick, Understanding the French Left (Princeton: Institute for International Social Research, 1956).

77. Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 134-43.

78. Cantril, The Politics of Despair; Cantril, The Human Dimension, pp. 1-5, 144.

79. Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril, The Political Beliefs of Americans (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1967). On the question of legality, note that the CIA’s charter bars the agency from “police, subpoena, lawenforcement powers or internal security functions,” a phrase that most observers contend prohibits the CIA from collecting intelligence on U.S. citizens inside the United States. On this point, see Thomas Powers, The Man Who Kept the Secrets: Richard Helms and the CIA (New York: Pocket Books, 1979), pp. 315-17, 367-70, concerning the CIA’s Operation Chaos.

80. For an example of a similar, later technique, see “Redefining the American Electorate,” Washington Post, October 1, 1987, p. At 2, with data provided by the Times Mirror-Gallup Organization.

81. On CIA funding of CENIS, see Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Dell, 1974), p. 181; and David Wise and Thomas Ross, The Invisible Government (New York: Vintage, 1974), p. 244. On CIA funding of studies, see Marchetti and Marks, The CIA, p. 18 1. For an example of a major study reported to have been underwritten by the CIA, see W. W. Rostow and Alfred Levin, The Dynamics of Soviet Society (New York: Norton, 1952). On CENIS as a conduit of CIA funds, see Wise and Ross, The Invisible Government, p. 244. On Millikan’s role, see U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Institute, “Problems of Development and Internal Defense” (Country Team Seminar, June 11, 1962).

82. Ithiel de Sola Pool, “The Necessity for Social Scientists Doing Research for Governments,” Background 10, no. 2 (August 1966): 114-15.

83. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for International Studies, A Plan for Research in International Communications World Politics, 6, no. 3 (April 1954): 358-77; MIT, CENIS, The Center for International Studies: A Description (Cambridge: MIT, July 1955).

84. Don Price Oral History, pp. 61-70, and Don Price memo, May 21, 1954 (appendix to oral history), Ford Foundation Archives, New York. The archival evidence concerning this aspect of the Ford Foundation’s relationship with the CIA was first brought to light by Kai Bird.

85. On Shils, see Peter Coleman, The Liberal Conspiracy (New York: Free Press, 1989), pp. 98-209 passim. On Speier, see, Hans Speier, “Psychological Warfare Reconsidered,” RAND paper no. 196, February 5, 1951; Hans Speier, “International Political Communication: Elite and Mass,” World Politics (April 1952 [RAND paper no. P-270], Hans Speier and W. Phillips Davison, “Psychological Aspects of Foreign Policy,” RAND paper no. P-615, December 15, 1954. Speier’s other contemporary work that has since come to light includes several studies of Soviet response to West German rearmament, Soviet political tactics involving nuclear threats, a report on the American Soldier series, and a commentary on political applications of game theory. Speier died February 17, 1990, in Sarasota, Florida; see “Hans Speier, Sociologist,” Washington Post, March 2, 1990. On Carroll, see Wallace Carroll, The Army’s Role in Current Psychological Warfare (top secret, declassified following author’s mandatory review request), February 24, 1949, box 10, tab 61, entry 154, RG 319, U.S. National Archives, Washington, DC; Wallace Carroll, “It Takes a Russian to Beat a Russian,” Life, December 19, 1949, pp. 80-86; “CIA Trained Tibetans in Colorado, New Book Says,” New York Times, April 19, 1973.

86. Ithiel de Sola Pool and Frank Bonilla (eds.), “A Special Issue on Studies in Political Communication,” 20, no. I (Spring 1956); Daniel Lerner (ed.), “Special Issue: Attitude Research in Modernizing Areas,” 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

87. In 20, no. I (Spring 1956): Harold Isaacs, “Scratches on Our Minds,” p. 197; Y. B. Damle, “Communication of Modem Ideas and Knowledge in [East] Indian Villages,” p. 257; Claire Zimmerman and Raymond Bauer, “The Effect of an Audience upon What Is Remembered,” p. 238; Suzanne Keller, “Diplomacy and Communication,” p. 176; and Harold Isaacs, “World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations: A Note on Little Rock,” 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958): 364.

88. Ithiel de Sola Pool, Suzanne Keller, and Raymond Bauer, “The Influence of Foreign Travel on Political Attitudes of U.S. Businessmen,” p. 161; Frank Bonilla, “When Is Petition ‘Pressure’?” p. 39; Daniel Lerner, “French Business Leaders Look at EDC,” p. 212 — all in 20, no. 1 (Spring 1956); and Daniel Lerner, “Editors Introduction,” p. 217; Ithiel de Sola Pool and Kali Prasad, “Indian Student Images of Foreign People,” p. 292; Frank Bonilla, “Elites and Public Opinion in Areas of High Social Stratification,” p. 349; all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

89. Ivor Wayne, “American and Soviet Themes and Values: A Content Analysis of Themes in Popular Picture Magazines,” p. 314; Patricia Kendall, “The Ambivalent Character of Nationalism among Egyptian Professionals,” p. 277 — all in 20, no. I (Spring 1956).

90. Guy Pauker, “Indonesian Images of Their National Self,” p. 305; Lucian Pye, “Administrators, Agitators and Brokers,” p. 342; Alain Girard, “The First Opinion Research in Uruguay and Chile,” p. 251; Kurt Back, “The ChangeProne Person in Puerto Rico,” p. 330; Robert Carlson, “To Talk with Kings,” p. 224; Herbert Hyman et al., “The Values of Turkish College Youth,” p. 275; Raymond Gastil, “Middle Class Impediments to Iranian Modernization,” p. 325; Gorden Hirabayashi and M. Fathalla El Kbatib, “Communication and Political Awareness in the Villages of Egypt,” p. 357; A. J. Meyer, “Entrepreneurship and Economic Development in the Middle East,” p. 391; Richard Robinson, “Turkey’s Agrarian Revolution and the Problem of Urbanization,” p. 397; Lincoln Armstrong and Rashid Bashshur, “Ecological Patterns and Value Orientations in Lebanon,” p. 406 — all in 22, no. 3 (Fall 1958).

91. Isaacs, “World Affairs and U.S. Race Relations,” p. 364.

92. Lerner, “Editor’s Introduction,” pp. 218, 219, 221.

93. Lerner and Pevsner, The Passing of Traditional Society, p. 396. Emphasis added.

94. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 59-63, 69-77; Blum, The CIA, pp. 133-62.

95. On communications theorists’ contributions to counterinsurgency, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 159-69 (Pye) and 199ff (Pool). See also Ithiel de Sola Pool (ed.), Social Science Research and National Security (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution [Office of Naval Research Project], 1963), pp. 1-25 (Pool), 46-74 (Schramm), 148-66 (Pye).

96. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53.

97. The Camelot Affair precipitated the first genuinely public discussion of the collision between the professed humanitarian values of modem social science and the actual ends to which it had been put in the world political arena. In 1964, the U.S. Army hired private U.S. social scientists to conduct a series of long-term inquiries into the social structures, political and economic resources, ethnic rivalries, communication infrastructures, and similar basic data concerning developing countries considered likely to see strong revolutionary movements during the 1960s. The project exploded when nationalist and left-wing forces in Chile and other targeted countries protested, labeling Camelot a de facto espionage operation. Camelot contractors, notably sociologist Jesse Bernard of American University, replied that the criticism was “laughable” because Camelot’s had been “designed as a scientific research project” in which me countries selected for study made “no difference.” The argument escalated from there. See House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Behavioral Sciences and the National Security, Report No. 4, 89th Cong. 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965); Jesse Bernard, “Conflict as Research and Research as Conflict,” in Irving Louis Horowitz, The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1974), p. 129n.

98. Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s Limited-War Mission, pp. 282ff; see also U.S. Department of the Army, Art and Science of Psychological Operations, pp. xvii, 47-53.

99. For example, Executive Office of the President, “NSAM No. 308: A Program to Promote Publicly U.S. Policies in Vietnam” (June 22, 1964); McGeorge Bundy, “NSAM No. 328: Military Actions in Vietnam” (April 6, 1965); “NSAM No. 329: Establishment of a Task Force on Southeast Asian Economic and Social Development” (April 9, 1965); and “NSAM No. 330: Expanded Psychological Operations in Vietnam” (April 9, 1965); each was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller General.

100. On Lerner, Riley, Davison, Cottrell, and Pool, see Special Operations Research Office, The U.S. Army’s LimitedWar Mission, pp. xvi, 151-59, 199-202, 282-86. On Pool, Davison, and Schramm, see Pool, Social Science Research and National Security, pp. 1-74. On Lasswell, see Harold Lasswell, World Revolutionary Elites: Studies in Coercive Ideological Movements (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966).

© Copyright C. Simpson 2003  For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement.

 

On Journalism

 

10 Ways Journalism Schools Are Teaching Social Media

http://mashable.com/2009/06/19/teaching-social-media/ 

 

http://rack.1.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDEyLzEyLzA0L2IzLzEwd2F5c2pvdXJuLmM1WS5qcGcKcAl0aHVtYgk5NTB4NTM0IwplCWpwZw/09703d1e/b6e/10-ways-journalism-schools-are-teaching-social-media-780449f4f5.jpg 

 

Three from Sam Smith @ http://prorev.com 

 

Why the Barrett Brown case is important for all journalists 

Why journalism is a craft, not a profession  

150 journalism cliches 

 

http://www.shore.com/commentary/weblogs/uploaded_images/journos-743949.jpg 

Source of image: 

http://contentblogger.shore.com/2009/05/brill-crovitz-hindery-launch-journalism.html 

 

Connect the Dots … see the Big Picture

March 2nd, 2014

[ by Charles Cameron — bragging on Cath Styles and our joint game project, Sembl, via the Taj Mahal ]

 

http://sabew.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/biz-journalism-.jpg

Source of image:

http://sabew.org/2011/04/job-growth-in-business-journalism-is-slow/ 

Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in covering conflict, civil unrest and disaster.

Introductory Paper – January 2014

By Mark Corcoran 

International Correspondent – Australian Broadcasting Corporation

“…. The challenge now for journalists and media organisations is to ensure that the technology is adopted within a clearly defined operational framework where safety, ethics and privacy are paramount.”

38 page pdf plus four pages of footnotes & lots of graphics 

http://cryptome.org/2014/03/drone-journalism.pdf 

 

 

** ** ** ** **

Added on March 3rd, 2014:

Barrett Brown’s Case Could Destroy Online Journalism

 

The majority of the time Brown faces is for sharing one hyperlink. In a chat room, he posted a link to the customer database of Stratfor Global Intelligence hacked by Anonymous. That’s it.

Links are important; they are the fabric of the World Wide Web. In 2011, a State Dept. diplomat lost his top-secret clearance because he linked to WikiLeaks. (It’s worth mentioning that Quentin Tarantino is now suing Gawker for sharing a link to a leaked script.) Brown’s case could establish a chilling precedent in the U.S., one where technology reporters are even more afraid of linking to data dumps released by hackers than they already are.

 

More here:

http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/barrett-browns-case-destroy-online-journalism/ 

 

“The War on Journalism: Local to Federal”

The War on Journalism: Local to Federal
Monday, January 27, 2014 15:06

(Before It’s News)

B4INREMOTE-aHR0cDovLzMuYnAuYmxvZ3Nwb3QuY29tLy16SThsRjF2XzFKVS9VdWJUVXB3VEpaSS9BQUFBQUFBQVlsUS9ORS1yNHVITFR5QS9zMTYwMC9JbmR5LW1lZGlhLmdpZg==

Derrick Broze
Activist Post

The battle between a free press and the State has been ongoing since the first days of the printing press. The notion that the citizenry could keep tabs on officials and report back to their respective communities revolutionized the master/servant relationship. For once the people were not doomed to remain ignorant while politicians, and royalty robbed them blind and deaf. Awareness was allowed to grow and swell until bursting into a new era of an informed, educated, and active populace.

This development, however, was not viewed fondly by the established ruling class around the globe. Some States completely destroyed the idea of a free press by merging the government with the media. Others simply worked with corporations to monopolize and direct the information reported on by the media. Beyond media manipulation the free press has also been subject to more direct attacks on journalists, and news organizations.

Local Journalism Under Attack

In my personal pursuit of information as an independent journalist I have met resistance and closed doors as a result of asking tough questions. Recently I have been dealing with a firsthand account of the attack on and narrowing of the definition of journalism.

Over the past 4 years as an activist with the Houston Free Thinkers (HFT)I have veered more and more into the role of journalist, occasionally wearing both hats at the same time. For example, I will attend a protest or rally that I helped plan with the HFT, and later report on the action in an article forActivist Post, or another media outlet I write for. This distinction between activist, and journalist is a blurred one and ultimately unnecessary, as all free humans in the United States are guaranteed freedom of the press, as noted in (but not granted by) the Constitution.

In April 2013 HFT was leaked emails and an image confirming that the Houston Police Department was monitoring our activities.  We investigated the matter by attending City Council meetings, calling the Mayor’s Office, and emailing council members. I even attempted to interview the Mayor regarding the issue (and others) but she ran away from my questions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kepA1tkZiT4 (5:32)

Eventually we found out about monthly press sessions held by the Houston Police Department with Chief Charles McClelland. These sessions seemed like the perfect venue for us to ask why peaceful activist groups were being monitored by the police. When I inquired about the sessions I was asked what press outlet I worked for. My first reaction was to spout out the radio stations, and news organizations I write and report for. Eventually I was told by an HPD Public Information Officer (PIO) that only “mainstream media” were allowed into the sessions. I was told this was defined as “major radio and television stations”.

Upon hearing this I returned back to City Council to question the Mayor and council further. As you see in the video below I was told that the City Council would look into the matter and to email the Mayor’s Director of Communications/Policy for special “permission” to attend the sessions.

With the Mayoral elections and holidays approaching we left the situation alone and decided to renew our efforts to not only find out why taxpayer dollars were being wasted monitoring our community but also whether the city could legally keep independent media out. As of January 6th, 2014 we relaunched our campaign. I called Janice requesting clarity on the issue and a decision on whether or not I would be allowed to attend the press meeting.

Janice offered a number of excuses on why I did not qualify for attendance of this press session, including non-corporate advertising on websites, accepting funding from viewers/listeners, and a host of other reasons why I am not allowed. Eventually Janice stated what I believe is the real reason I am being barred. She said “If we let you in we will have to let in 200 other independent journalists”. Once again the establishment is worried about being unable to tightly control the narrative and the questions asked to authority figures.

After hanging up the phone I talked with other members of the Houston Free Thinkers and we realized that this issue was about much more than Derrick Broze the journalist; it was dealing with the freedom of the press established in the Constitution and endowed to all free individuals. So in defense of freedom of press in our city we organized a week long phonebomb and email blast of the Mayor’s Offices, Council members, and Janice. A few days into the campaign one of our supporters received this message from Janice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV0jzVKtSBE (2:25)

Quite honestly, the phone calls and emails like yours and from others that I’ve received since my last conversation with Mr. Broze also confirm that Houston Free Thinkers is an activist group. I was a reporter for 20 years and I’ve worked in media relations for 11. Never did I or has any other reporter I’ve dealt with launched this type of campaign. It is not a sign of independent journalism, but rather an indication of activism on behalf of a cause. The media briefings are to brief reporters who cover HPD on a regular basis, not to provide a venue for this type of activity. There is a place for that, but it is not at a media briefing.

After we ended our phone and email campaign I decided to send one more email, clarifying my ability to be both a journalist AND an activist. I neatly laid out my position that journalist, or not all free people of the City of Houston should have access to public officials like the Chief of Police. I offered all my press credentials as well. Here was the response from Janice Evans:

Based on the campaign you launched after our conversation and the video clips I’ve found online, I have determined that this is advocacy and activism, not unbiased journalism. As I noted in my emails to several of those who contacted me, I was a reporter for 20 years and I’ve been handling media relations for 11. I, myself, never launched such as a campaign as a reporter and I’ve not encountered other reporters who have done it. I, myself, was very careful as a reporter to not take sides in an issue or controversy and never advocated for one group or another. With regard to the acceptance of advertising, you note in your email below that your group accepts donations from those who directly benefit from their programming. Again, this is advocacy. Based on last week’s display, I have concluded my review and my decision is final.

I have spoken with Ben Swann, and other friends in media about this treatment. Currently I am seeking legal advice and weighing pursuing action against the City in violation of the freedom of the press.

Advocacy or Journalism

One of the more interesting aspects of that whole debacle has been learning about the ongoing debate to define what journalism is or is not, and who should be protected as a journalist.

Currently journalist Barrett Brown is on trial for the “crime” of hyperlinking to hacked files from the private intelligence firm Stratfor. The files were hacked by Jeremy Hammond, recently sentenced to ten years behind bars, and then written about by Brown. During the trial Brown’s status as journalist or advocate/activist has been called into question. Brown has long been a vocal supporter of the Anonymous hacker collective while simultaneously reporting on their activities. The Huffington Post commented:

Ultimately it’s other voices like Barrett’s, without institutional backing or adequate shield law as protection, who are most at risk. Supporting digital security for journalists is one way forward.

Another question raised at his trial could be the false distinction between journalism and activism, or the legitimacy of “advocacy journalism.” This is a crucial debate, but most have long recognized that standards of so-called journalistic objectivity are a joke. Before the 20th century, almost all journalists were partisan, and they were expected to be. Embedding oneself inside a worldwide movement for transparency without even the advantage of a mask, Barrett sensed where the action and the story lay, and decided to become a part of it. His experience told him that the Internet combined with a decentralized collective would be a powerful tool for political change, capable of challenging state and corporate concerns and reshaping the media landscape. His treatment, which is indicative of the perceived threat by those in power, shows that he was onto something.

 

Wikipedia defines Advocacy Journalism as “a genre of journalism that intentionally and transparently adopts a non-objective viewpoint, usually for some social or political purpose. Because it is intended to be factual, it is distinguished from propaganda. It is also distinct from instances of media bias and failures of objectivity in media outlets, since the bias is intended.”

The post continues, “Some advocacy journalists reject that the traditional ideal of objectivity is possible in practice, either generally, or due to the presence of corporate sponsors in advertising. Some feel that the public interest is better served by a diversity of media outlets with a variety of transparent points of view, or that advocacy journalism serves a similar role to muckrakers or whistleblowers.”

The Federal Attack on Free Media

Both mine and Barrett Brown’s treatment are indicative of an attitude that begins locally and continues up to the federal level. Last year the Free Flow of Information Act was reintroduced to “maintain the free flow of information to the public by providing conditions for the federally compelled disclosure of information by certain persons connected with the news media.”

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Senator Dianne Feinstein insisted that she would not support the bill if protections were offered beyond “covered journalists”. According to Feinstein, and the bill in its current form, a journalist is “someone who is an employee, agent, or independent contractor for a media entity.” In the video below Feinstein asks whether or not “a 17-year-old who drops out of high school, buys a website for $5, and starts a blog” should be protected.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zjZo-U21mU (3:13)

Senator Feinstein also fought against protection for Edward Snowden, Wikileaks, and future whistleblowers. The bill passed through the Committee but currently is sitting still waiting to be approved further. While that bill may not survive the public backlash, it is interesting to note that the original reason the bill was brought up in May 2013 was in response to the White House/Associated Press scandal.

It was revealed that the Department of Justice had secretly gathered two months of phone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press. The Justice Department had records of outgoing work and personal phone calls for reporters in New York, Washington, and Hartford, Connecticut from more than 20 phone lines. The Justice Department was apparently looking for the source of an AP story that leaked details of a CIA operation in Yemen.

Later in 2013 a number of media organizations began rebelling against the Obama Administration
restrictions that sometimes keep journalists from taking pictures and video of President Obama performing official duties. The Presidents of the American Society of News Editors and the Associated Press Media Editors told their members to stop using the photos and videos the White House gives out, and that they say amounts to little more than propaganda. Press Secretary Jay Carney met with the organizations in December to discuss the issues. Although Carney downplayed the lack of transparency press officials state that these practices have not been the standard with other administrations.

In October 2013 the Committee to Project Journalists released a study detailing that reporters from a number of mainstream outlets believe the Obama administration to be the most secretive in recent memory. This sentiment was echoed last week by New York Times editor Jill Abramson. Speaking to AlJazeera Abramson said, “This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.” The Press Secretary denied the secrecy was anything more than typical press and White House back and forth.

 

Michael Hastings’ Legacy

The death of journalist Michael Hastings raised important questions about the safety of journalists and the dangers that journalists face in pursuit of knowledge. Hastings was a contributing editor to Rolling Stone and reporter for Buzzfeed who received acclaim for his story on General Stanley McChrystal, “The Runaway General”. The article by Hastings set off controversy that resulted in General McChrystal resigning. Hastings began to focus his work on the growing surveillance state, becoming a major thorn in the Obama administration’s side.

In 2013 Hastings died in a car crash under mysterious circumstances. At the time of his death Hastings was working on an investigation into CIA Director John Brennan. Brennan was the architect of George W. Bush’s enhanced interrogation, or torture program. According to leaked documents from the intelligence firm Stratfor, the CIA Director was also behind the Obama Administration’s crackdown on journalists which began last year with the AP phone scandal.

The death created a slew of conspiracies regarding Michael Hastings and whether it is possible that he was targeted for his work and future headaches he may have created for the Obama Administration and Director Brennan. These questions, however unpopular are important for anyone aspiring towards journalism or accountability in general.

So What Is Journalism?

In looking through the many examples of State suppression of media and reporting I have seen a number of definitions of what qualifies as journalism and what does not. According to Wikipedia:Journalism “is a method of inquiry and literary style used in social and cultural representation. It serves the purpose of playing the role of a public service machinery in the dissemination and analysis of news and information. Journalistic integrity is based on the principles of truth, accuracy and factual knowledge… mediums can vary diversely, from print publishing to electronic broadcasting, and from newspaper to television channels, as well as to the web, and to digital technology.”

We have seen examples of controlled journalism, advocacy journalism, citizen journalism, activism, and simply, concerned citizens spreading the word about dangers they witness. Who is it that can truly define, designate and restrict what a journalist is or does? Is that a role we would leave to governments or corporate news outlets to decide? The old guard of media is waking up, and, according to the New York Times are “part of a movement of big-name journalists who are migrating from newspaper companies to digital start-ups.”

The oldstream media and its benefactors are reacting to the blurring line between activist, journalist, and citizen by clamping down on the free flow of information. By attempting to categorize each of us, and mold us into easily defined rigid structures they ensure that only the approved journalists and articles will be released. This also has the effect of normalizing these categories. I have been told by some that they agree with Janice Evans and Dianne Feinstein. They do not believe that Barrett Brown and I are journalists. And in some ways we DON’T fit the old model. In 2014 truth has become too important to leave to a ruling class and establishment media. The people are taking up arms, and by that I mean cameras, pens, and voices. Old Media be damned.  

Recently by Derrick Broze:

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist, community activist, gardener and promoter from Houston, Texas. He is the co-founder of The Houston Free Thinkers, and co-host of Free Thinker Radio. Broze also hosts and produces a weekly podcast under the name the Conscious Resistance Live. His writing can be found on TheConsciousResistance.com, The Liberty Beat, the Anti-Media, Intellihub, Activist Post, and other independent media sources.