This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Mockingbird article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 26 to May 3 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:
No evidence this thing ever happened. --[[ PaulinSaudi 02:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]
--[[ PaulinSaudi 11:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]
End discussion
After the Watergate scandal in 1972–1974, the U.S. Congress became concerned over possible presidential abuse of the CIA. This concern reached its height when reporter Seymour Hersh published an exposé of CIA domestic surveillance in 1975. [1] Congress authorized a series of Congressional investigations into Agency activities from 1975 to 1976. A wide range of CIA operations were examined in these investigations, including CIA ties with journalists and numerous private voluntary organizations.
The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media.
For foreign news media, the report concluded that:
The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets. [2]
For U.S.-based media, the report states:
Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover. [2]
References
It makes no sense to have the opinions of "q-anon" supporters, a small fringe minority, summarized here- especially in such a brief article. Not only is it irrelevant to the historical program that this article is about, but its random inclusion here at the end of the article (using opinion language) seems designed to discredit the actual subject of the article by associating it with this modern day fringe group's opinion on "fake news". The relevancy to "operation mockingbird" is basically zero, and its inclusion in such a brief article implies not only that it's relevant, but that it's an important piece of information relative to "operation mockingbird"- a program alleged to have taken place in the 60s and 70s. How can this sentence possibly be viewed as relevant to this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stistrash ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
They are associated by name only? Politically motivated inclusion? 72.53.215.109 ( talk) 16:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Mockingbird article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
It is requested that a photograph be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 3, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 26 to May 3 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:
No evidence this thing ever happened. --[[ PaulinSaudi 02:50, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]
--[[ PaulinSaudi 11:54, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)]]
End discussion
After the Watergate scandal in 1972–1974, the U.S. Congress became concerned over possible presidential abuse of the CIA. This concern reached its height when reporter Seymour Hersh published an exposé of CIA domestic surveillance in 1975. [1] Congress authorized a series of Congressional investigations into Agency activities from 1975 to 1976. A wide range of CIA operations were examined in these investigations, including CIA ties with journalists and numerous private voluntary organizations.
The most extensive discussion of CIA relations with news media from these investigations is in the Church Committee's final report, published in April 1976. The report covered CIA ties with both foreign and domestic news media.
For foreign news media, the report concluded that:
The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets. [2]
For U.S.-based media, the report states:
Approximately 50 of the [Agency] assets are individual American journalists or employees of U.S. media organizations. Of these, fewer than half are "accredited" by U.S. media organizations ... The remaining individuals are non-accredited freelance contributors and media representatives abroad ... More than a dozen United States news organizations and commercial publishing houses formerly provided cover for CIA agents abroad. A few of these organizations were unaware that they provided this cover. [2]
References
It makes no sense to have the opinions of "q-anon" supporters, a small fringe minority, summarized here- especially in such a brief article. Not only is it irrelevant to the historical program that this article is about, but its random inclusion here at the end of the article (using opinion language) seems designed to discredit the actual subject of the article by associating it with this modern day fringe group's opinion on "fake news". The relevancy to "operation mockingbird" is basically zero, and its inclusion in such a brief article implies not only that it's relevant, but that it's an important piece of information relative to "operation mockingbird"- a program alleged to have taken place in the 60s and 70s. How can this sentence possibly be viewed as relevant to this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stistrash ( talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
They are associated by name only? Politically motivated inclusion? 72.53.215.109 ( talk) 16:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)