Chris Hedges, CIA?

[barracuda]

...the outright dismissal of the question of it by most of you is just naive, in my opinion.

It's easy to get inured to the ever-present suggestions of agency involvement in this environment, though. If you accepted at face value the various McCarthy-like claims thrown around here, you might come to the conclusion that anyone who'd ever attended university or worked in an ad agency was at least periferally attached to a handler. So, perhaps wrongly, I've taken the counter-intuitive approach that most of these claims are unfounded as a starting point. I'm more than willing to be converted by evidence, but I usually insist upon being proved wrong. Particularly in the case of those whose achievements, like Hedges, seem to nominally work on the side of what appears at first glance to be fucking justice. If Hedges is indeed CIA, then it alters my opinion of the CIA for the better, rather than that of Hedges for the worse, I'm afraid. God bless the CIA if they're churning out individuals like Hedges.

I guess it could be surmised by some that each and any tiny shadow of shading within a larger cultural narrative that conforms to the imperialist purpose has its uses to empire. But that's hardly a conclusive or rigorous way of ascertaining complicity, particularly against those who have shown the ability to generate enthusiasm against the forces of that imperial project.

Again I recommend the book "The Cultural Cold War" by Frances Stoner Saunders to get at how the CIA made infiltrating the left-wing discourse with liberal, anti-communist writers of all sorts one of its *very top priorities.*

It's a nice book, agreed. But you'd be hard pressed to attach the "CIA agent" moniker and its attendant inferences to many of the persons mentioned by Stoner in connection with the propaganda effort carried out in postwar Europe. The CIA in her history seems to have selectively promoted individuals whose intrinsic and natural course of work suited agency purposes by its nature, rather than molding the work to to fit their needs.

[brekin]

wordspeak2 wrote:

Quote:
"In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism." -wiki

Simulist wrote:
So?

Originally published in Rolling Stone, October 20, 1977.

How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

THE CIA AND THE MEDIA

BY CARL BERNSTEIN
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html

In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America’s leading syndicated columnists, went to the Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate. He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He went at the request of the CIA.


Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists provided a full range of clandestine services—from simple intelligence gathering to serving as go‑betweens with spies in Communist countries. Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners, distinguished reporters who considered themselves ambassadors without‑portfolio for their country. Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work; stringers and freelancers who were as interested in the derring‑do of the spy business as in filing articles; and, the smallest category, full‑time CIA employees masquerading as journalists abroad. In many instances, CIA documents show, journalists were engaged to perform tasks for the CIA with the consent of the managements of America’s leading news organizations.


The history of the CIA’s involvement with the American press continues to be shrouded by an official policy of obfuscation and deception for the following principal reasons:

■ The use of journalists has been among the most productive means of intelligence‑gathering employed by the CIA. Although the Agency has cut back sharply on the use of reporters since 1973 primarily as a result of pressure from the media), some journalist‑operatives are still posted abroad.

■ Further investigation into the matter, CIA officials say, would inevitably reveal a series of embarrassing relationships in the 1950s and 1960s with some of the most powerful organizations and individuals in American journalism.


Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.


By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.

WORKING PRESS — CIA STYLE

The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Times provided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.

The New York Times has been owned by the Sulzberger family since 1896. The Sulzberger family has signed secrecy agreements with the CIA, have been buddies with Dulles, and has been called in the past the CIA's most valuable media link, etc read about it at above link. I doubt any of this has changed.

[Simulist]

Like I said, "So?"

The New York Times may be as cozy with the CIA as Alex Jones is with his pet bullhorn (Oh, the stories that bullhorn could tell...), but that hardly implicates Hedges as a suspect.

And your previous assertion that Hedges' seminary background helps make him suspicious is... well, I'll let others supply the adjective.

[wordspeak2]

A few other names fit that description too, some of which probably aren't enrolled in the CIA employee retirement program.

Such as whom, Simulist? I'm just curious.

"In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism." -wiki

So?[/quote]

So... the Pulitzer Prize winner for covering terrorism right after 9/11 most likely framed the "terrorism" issue in way suitable to the powers-that-be. Or no? Are we living in parallel universes here?
I see that, historically, the CIA has taken great pains to shift the counter-discourse with the creation of what they call the "non-communist Left." The Nation Institute, of which Chris Hedges is a fellow, is one of many entrenched institutions that are part of that. Their goal has been to sway social movements in a less radical direction. This is an historical fact of which many of you seem to be either in denial or ignorance of. If we understand it we look at the academic Left in a more critical light.

P.S. I'm not in on the seminary bit. It's primarily Hedge's apparent promotion of capitalism in eastern Europe that has me skeptical, and his work covering "terrorism" for the leading capitalist propaganda outfit in the world right after 9/11.

[Simulist]

I've said numerous times I don't trust Chris Hedges, due mostly to his reporting for major capitalist media in former eastern block countries, and the way he talks about it; he comes off as an anti-communist. Also, as far as I can tell he doesn't write much if anything that's really original or radical. I could be wrong, and I haven't read the entirety of any of his books.

A few other names fit that description too, some of which probably aren't enrolled in the CIA employee retirement program.

Such as whom, Simulist? I'm just curious.

Really? I tend to doubt that. (That you're actually "curious," I mean.) Because a number of people "reported for major capitalist media in former eastern block countries," and have given little reason for anyone to suspect that they have worked directly for the CIA — you could probably pick a name out of a hat, if you cared enough to find a name. And a hat.

And a number of people probably "come off" (to someone) "as an anti-communist," and don't work for the CIA.

And a lot of people probably seem (to someone) not to write anything "really original or radical," without working for the CIA.

And there's probably a number of people whose books you haven't read "the entirety of."

So pick some names. (You know... since you're "curious.")

[brekin]

Simulist wrote:

Like I said, "So?"

The New York Times may be as cozy with the CIA as Alex Jones is with his pet bullhorn (Oh, the stories that bullhorn could tell...), but that hardly implicates Hedges as a suspect.

Someone's employer for 15 years who has deep ties with the CIA, and has especially used foreign journalists as assets and agents isn't especially troubling to you?
Wait, I know Hedges was probably holed up in his hotel room pouring over his collected works of Orwell when all the other NYT journalists were meeting with the local CIA station chiefs.
There probably is a narrative that will make everyone happy. Hedges potentially could have gotten fed up, disenchanted with the system he was in and a part of and broke away much like he did previously at seminary. And now he's the journalist who has come in from the cold and is telling it like it is. Reformed sinners do make the best preachers.

And your previous assertion that Hedges' seminary background helps make him suspicious is... well, I'll let others supply the adjective.

I'll supply one; illuminating. Most large organized religions are very hierarchically and bureaucratic. They believe that a elite must manage, disperse and cull a chosen ideology onto others
for their own sake and the preservation of their preferred power structure. A system of interrogation, confession and indoctrination is set up to maintain this system and is very comforting because it provides a ordered way of life for its members. There is a great need to export this belief system for the acquisition of more power over lands and people. Those who come up in this system come to believe what they are doing is in everyone's best interest and they are just self less workers for a greater truth. I'm sure you could pull 10 people from seminary and 10 recruits from Langley right now and their motivations would seem eerily similar.

I'm sure more then a few get disenchanted and walk away. But again, this is all speculation.

[Simulist]

Simulist wrote:

Like I said, "So?"

The New York Times may be as cozy with the CIA as Alex Jones is with his pet bullhorn (Oh, the stories that bullhorn could tell...), but that hardly implicates Hedges as a suspect.

Someone's employer for 15 years who has deep ties with the CIA, and has especially used foreign journalists as assets and agents isn't especially troubling to you?

Ay, caramba... My cousin worked for a company in Los Angeles with "deep ties with the CIA" — and she did that for THIRTY years! — and the only thing particularly "troubling" about her is her breath.

The CIA has ties in many industries, Brekin. Get used to it.

But that doesn't therefore implicate people who work in those industries as being assets of the CIA.

Wait, I know Hedges was probably holed up in his hotel room pouring over his collected works of Orwell when all the other NYT journalists were meeting with the local CIA station chiefs.

Uh huh.

There probably is a narrative that will make everyone happy. Hedges potentially could have gotten fed up, disenchanted with the system he was in and a part of and broke away much like he did previously at seminary. And now he's the journalist who has come in from the cold and is telling it like it is. Reformed sinners do make the best preachers.

That's a narrative "that will make everyone happy"?

(Well, as long as they're happy. 'Cause that's important.)

Sounds like more speculation to me, and nothing more.

And your previous assertion that Hedges' seminary background helps make him suspicious is... well, I'll let others supply the adjective.

I'll supply one; illuminating. Most large organized religions are very hierarchically and bureaucratic. They believe that a elite must manage, disperse and cull a chosen ideology onto others for their own sake and the preservation of their preferred power structure. A system of interrogation, confession and indoctrination is set up to maintain this system and is very comforting because it provides a ordered way of life for its members. There is a great need to export this belief system for the acquisition of more power over lands and people. Those who come up in this system come to believe what they are doing is in everyone's best interest and they are just self less workers for a greater truth. I'm sure you could pull 10 people from seminary and 10 recruits from Langley right now and their motivations would seem eerily similar.

I'm sure more then a few get disenchanted and walk away. But again, this is all speculation.

Yeah. I got disenchanted with seminary — you know, because it was a lie — graduated, and then walked away.

And the CIA wouldn't employ me as a gardener to cut Chris's hedges.

(And really... who can blame them?)

[Wombaticus Rex]

Is Chris Hedges CIA? Okay, what about Noam Chomsky? What about Allen Stanford? What about...you know, there's a couple hundred more threads we could start like this and I see no reason why we shouldn't. Why limit ourselves to a single circular conversation on a topic with no hope of resolution? We could convert this entire forum to a massive parallel computation project on uncertainty in game theory.

Or, better yet? Let's just start an RI poker night.

Seriously.

Poker is a game of making decisions based on incomplete information. I think we'd all gain a great deal more from that, because it would provide us with a toolkit for coping with uncertainty...productively. Because let's be real: if Chomsky and Hedges both turned out to be CIA, so what? Two old white dudes, that's all. That is it.

But learning how to deal with the playing field, as it really is, in a meaningful way...that's worth a lot more than two old white dudes, no matter how good they are at writing essays.

Leaderless Movements: more than just another catchy phrase.

[brekin]

Wombaticus Rex wrote:

Poker is a game of making decisions based on incomplete information. I think we'd all gain a great deal more from that, because it would provide us with a toolkit for coping with uncertainty...productively. Because let's be real: if Chomsky and Hedges both turned out to be CIA, so what? Two old white dudes, that's all. That is it.

So what? Well they are two old white dudes with enormous influence as archetypes of progressive alternatives to our current bone grinding imperialism.
It would would be kind of like finding out an old white dude say like Santa Claus was, well really working for Satan.

Simulist wrote:

Ay, caramba... My cousin worked for a company in Los Angeles with "deep ties with the CIA" — and she did that for THIRTY years! — and the only thing particularly "troubling" about her is her breath.
The CIA has ties in many industries, Brekin. Get used to it.
But that doesn't therefore implicate people who work in those industries as being assets of the CIA.

Well you know the guy who refills the vending machines at Langley obviously has a different order of responsibility then someone who furthers the global agenda of the CIA overseas.
I think even being aware of the latter as a journalist while being employed by a company that does so is irresponsible to not try and publicize.

brekin wrote:
There probably is a narrative that will make everyone happy. Hedges potentially could have gotten fed up, disenchanted with the system he was in and a part of and broke away much like he did previously at seminary. And now he's the journalist who has come in from the cold and is telling it like it is. Reformed sinners do make the best preachers.

Simulist wrote:

That's a narrative "that will make everyone happy"?
(Well, as long as they're happy. 'Cause that's important.)
Sounds like more speculation to me, and nothing more.

Yes, in the end I think it is about what will make everyone happy.
I just think in the end the truth will make everyone happy, even those complicit in hiding it.
And yes it is all more speculation.

Simulist wrote:

Yeah. I got disenchanted with seminary — you know, because it was a lie — graduated, and then walked away.
And the CIA wouldn't employ me as a gardener to cut Chris's hedges.
(And really... who can blame them?)

Well if you could cut hedges like Chris can craft an essay I think you would be in great demand, perhaps even influential
to many, many in progressive topiary circles

[Nordic]

If Hedges were CIA he'd have his own show on CNN.

As it is, almost nobody has ever heard of him, except people like us.

This thread really doesn't belong on this site. IMO.

[brekin]

Nordic wrote:

If Hedges were CIA he'd have his own show on CNN.
As it is, almost nobody has ever heard of him, except people like us.
This thread really doesn't belong on this site. IMO.

I disagree. In music marketing there is a category of music consumers
who believe they are immune to music fads and marketing and their
taste is based solely on quality. Thinking they are beyond categorization they
in turn have become a category in which they are targeted by that and
end up buying music that they believe fits that criteria.

Hedges and Chomsky are the alternative, indy politics frontmen. Giving them
a show on CNN would ruin their street cred as iconclasts.

Hedges, Chomsky, etc are holier then holies it is obvious just by this thread and
so I think more examination and not less of any possible intelligence ties is warranted.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Chomsky is 2 generations ago, Hedges is 1 generation ago, kids read Taibbi now. They need fireworks and f-bombs. I think these guys are less important than we give 'em credit for.

[Jeff]

Chris Hedges, CIA? is a valid question only by virtue of punctuation. It's actually just an invitation to spin an accusation from invisible thread. And it's a hindrance to asking much more interesting questions, such as Is he right? Why is he wrong? Is violence by nature inimical to popular revolutions?

Those are questions worthy of discussion here. This one, in so much as it's even a question, isn't.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Nordic, I just deleted that. Let's not devalue that word here, of all places.

[jingofever]

Strong opinions on both sides here, let's ask a compromise question: Chris Hedges, ATF field agent?