If a journalist reported that the climate denial effort was using the CIA as cover, would he/she face imprisonment?
April 16, 2009 9:20 AM Subscribe
If fossil fuel interests had hijacked the DOD and CIA to spread climate confusion via the U.S. press, what would happen to a journalist who reported that this had occurred?
(...given that the CIA part might involve details enabling the identification of CIA-affiliated individuals, which is rather illegal....)
Background reading for this question:
* Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article on CIA and the media ("our greatest asset is the New York Times...");
* SusanG's 2006 Daniel Ellsberg Daily Kos interview, particularly Part 2 ("Judith Miller, the New York Times and Government-Controlled Press") in which Ellsberg points out the evidence indicating the New York Times acted as part of the CIA wurlitzer in the run-up to the Iraq war;
* A comment someone posted to Revkin's NY Times blog Dot Earth, summing up the odd nature of the Times's climate coverage:
"Respectfully, a few questions.
When are you going to write about William Broad being a global warming denier?
...Why does the Science section of the New York Times avoid writing about global warming -- except to publish John Tierney's attacks on climate scientists?
Why did you fail to mention that David Ropeik is a PR flack for the Bush White House and corporate polluters, whose only credentials are being a former TV reporter?"
* Articles online at CIA on Campus - a wonderful resource.
* David N. Gibbs's 2001 LA Times op-ed, "Academics and Spies: The Silence that Roars" - "An academic controversy has revealed a most interesting fact: A significant number of social scientists, especially political scientists, regularly work with the Central Intelligence Agency. "
*And some excerpts from elsewhere -
Background reading for this question:
* Carl Bernstein's 1977 Rolling Stone article on CIA and the media ("our greatest asset is the New York Times...");
* SusanG's 2006 Daniel Ellsberg Daily Kos interview, particularly Part 2 ("Judith Miller, the New York Times and Government-Controlled Press") in which Ellsberg points out the evidence indicating the New York Times acted as part of the CIA wurlitzer in the run-up to the Iraq war;
* A comment someone posted to Revkin's NY Times blog Dot Earth, summing up the odd nature of the Times's climate coverage:
"Respectfully, a few questions.
When are you going to write about William Broad being a global warming denier?
...Why does the Science section of the New York Times avoid writing about global warming -- except to publish John Tierney's attacks on climate scientists?
Why did you fail to mention that David Ropeik is a PR flack for the Bush White House and corporate polluters, whose only credentials are being a former TV reporter?"
* Articles online at CIA on Campus - a wonderful resource.
* David N. Gibbs's 2001 LA Times op-ed, "Academics and Spies: The Silence that Roars" - "An academic controversy has revealed a most interesting fact: A significant number of social scientists, especially political scientists, regularly work with the Central Intelligence Agency. "
*And some excerpts from elsewhere -
"The CIA even conducted a study which found that the use of legitimate foundations was the most effective way of concealing the CIA’s hand.
...In some cases funding was passed through ostensible research foundation auspices to conceal the source of funding from the researcher's institution even if the researchers themselves were aware.
...Scientific reports by researchers appear to have had public and secret versions. The public versions were sometimes published in academic journals and the secret versions went to the CIA" " ( link )
"Among the most controversial CIA policies is its insistence that scholars sign a lifetime secrecy agreement before receiving a security clearance. " (Chris Mooney, link )
This post was deleted for the following reason: this is not a good question for AskMe. You can either repost this as less of a blog post next week or ask a question that isn't a pseudo-hypothetical whisteblower thing. -- jessamyn
I'm apt to agree with mkultra here, but I'll answer your question anyway:
Read about the Pentagon Papers for what happens when the press reports things that the DoD and CIA are not happy with.
Also, note that reporters are often not expected to out secret sources, but are given reign to publish findings if they can corroborate the story to their editor.
posted by General Malaise at 9:34 AM on April 16, 2009
Read about the Pentagon Papers for what happens when the press reports things that the DoD and CIA are not happy with.
Also, note that reporters are often not expected to out secret sources, but are given reign to publish findings if they can corroborate the story to their editor.
posted by General Malaise at 9:34 AM on April 16, 2009
Hypothetically speaking, depending on the journalist they'd probably simply be called a crackpot and everyone would laugh at them.
posted by inigo2 at 9:42 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by inigo2 at 9:42 AM on April 16, 2009
They would suddenly get depressed and commit suicide. And they would be really depressed, not just having a blue afternoon, which would cause them to shoot themselves not once, but twice in head.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:02 AM on April 16, 2009
Someone would probably drudge up something from the journalist's past (or make something up) and leak it. Or maybe something like Valerie Plame... but sorta backwards, I guess.
posted by JuiceBoxHero at 10:03 AM on April 16, 2009
posted by JuiceBoxHero at 10:03 AM on April 16, 2009
Best answer: Speaking as a journalist who has written a little about off-the-beaten-path Washington stuff...
Nothing. There is a popular misconception--made fun of in the 9/11 Truth episode of "South Park"--that The Man will strike back when you publish stuff about the CIA. Frame you for killing a cop, delete all your bank accounts like in The Net, something like that.
In practice, unless you're at Katie Couric levels of mainstream, the government is just going to ignore you. There's a loosely-defined sphere of stuff that TV news already talks about and is considered to be within the polite boundaries of political talk. Once you go into the sphere beyond that, and talk about corporate shenanigans or whatever, you risk being hit with the "alternative press" stigma, and will be ignored, except by some show on Pacifica.
Then if you go a little further out beyond that, and start talking about CIA collusion or something, you risk being hit with the "conspiracy theory" stigma and will receive even less official attention, except on WayneMadsenReport.com or some New World Order station in the deep South, depending on the severity of your claims. (Note that journalist Wayne Madsen is constantly claiming his life is in danger from his deep scoops, but nothing ever seems to happen.)
The only people who are allowed to talk about the CIA and receive mainstream attention are people writing books about how you shouldn't worry about the CIA because it kind of sucks at its job.
posted by Kirklander at 10:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nothing. There is a popular misconception--made fun of in the 9/11 Truth episode of "South Park"--that The Man will strike back when you publish stuff about the CIA. Frame you for killing a cop, delete all your bank accounts like in The Net, something like that.
In practice, unless you're at Katie Couric levels of mainstream, the government is just going to ignore you. There's a loosely-defined sphere of stuff that TV news already talks about and is considered to be within the polite boundaries of political talk. Once you go into the sphere beyond that, and talk about corporate shenanigans or whatever, you risk being hit with the "alternative press" stigma, and will be ignored, except by some show on Pacifica.
Then if you go a little further out beyond that, and start talking about CIA collusion or something, you risk being hit with the "conspiracy theory" stigma and will receive even less official attention, except on WayneMadsenReport.com or some New World Order station in the deep South, depending on the severity of your claims. (Note that journalist Wayne Madsen is constantly claiming his life is in danger from his deep scoops, but nothing ever seems to happen.)
The only people who are allowed to talk about the CIA and receive mainstream attention are people writing books about how you shouldn't worry about the CIA because it kind of sucks at its job.
posted by Kirklander at 10:07 AM on April 16, 2009 [1 favorite]
« Older I need her back here to do stuff yo | Good summer reading? Especially looking for... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by mkultra at 9:29 AM on April 16, 2009