A famous journalist admits that the CIA buys reporters

Meet Udo Ulfkotte, a well-known German journalist who has written a number of books. He was an editor for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the most important newspaper in Germany. In this capacity, he established close contacts within the BND (Germany's CIA). I understand that he has also uncovered new evidence in the mysterious WWII-era death of Glenn Miller, although I don't yet know the details.

Last year, Ulfkotte "came out." His most recent book reveals that he has often planted stories at the behest of the CIA. Moreover, he claims that there are CIA-controlled journalists in key positions throughout the mainstream media, in Europe and in the United States.

It is not right, what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia. And it is not right, what my colleagues do and have done in the past. Because they are bribed to betray the people -- not only in Germany, but all over in Europe. My reason for writing this book is that I'm very fearful of a new war in Europe...

We live in a banana republic, and not in a democratic country where we have press freedom... I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, by the CIA. Why? Because I should be pro-American. I'm fed up with it. I just don't want to do it anymore.

The interview embedded above was broadcast by Russia Today, a fact which may lead some of you to dismiss Ulfkotte as a mere Russian propagandist. I strongly doubt that this is the case, since his book (as yet untranslated) has nothing to do with RT.

I'm a little surprised that Ulfkotte's assertions have received so little attention in the English-speaking world. Even our robust conspiracy-buff subculture has ignored the man. Predictably, some in Germany have sought to discredit him.

The following argument against Ulfkotte comes from Wikispooks:

His posturing as "whistleblower" provides no new information and is at odds with the establishment friendly islamophobic books and front groups he operates. His views of how the media is controlled is outdated and incomplete and seems to rely of declassified documents from Operation Mockingbird. It is incomplete because researchers such as Herman and Chomsky[16] , Krüger[17] , Müller[18] , Lueg[19] , Jaworski, Stern and Stremme[20] , Husting and Orr[21] have shown that direct control of journalists is a rare exception today. Instead control is represented by a kind of Darwinian selection process. Those "fittest for the job" survive by a top-down controled process influenced by their socialization, schooling, class conciousness, higher education, etc.

All of this is, of course, horseshit. By now, we should regard the phrase "no new information" as a tell. When Edward Snowden first rocked the world, his detractors kept repeating those very words: No new information. That claim was nonsense then, and it is nonsense now.

"Establishment friendly"? Ridiculous. How the hell can anything in the interview embedded above be considered "establishment friendly"? Since when is it "establishment friendly" to decry the propaganda campaign against Russia?

Ulfkotte hardly comes across as a blinkered Islamophobe of the Pam Geller variety. His primary concern is the prospect of war in Europe. In my experience, most mindless Islam-bashers hate Putin as much as they hate the Koran.

Although I've not read most of the writers listed above, I have read Chomsky and Herman. Admirable as he is, Chomsky was on the wrong side of a very silly argument that used to be all the rage back in the 1990s: The "structuralists" versus those dreaded conspiracy theorists. Perhaps we will discuss that particular exercise in inanity one of these weekends, if I'm feeling nostalgic.

Although I've not read Husting and Orr, I have to ask: How the hell would they know that direct CIA control of journalists is rare? The only scientific way to prove or disprove such an idea would be to invent an unbeatable polygraph machine and test every journalist. Until such a thing is possible, we have to rely on the best evidence available -- which, in my view, would be testimony from a direct witness and/or participant. Ulfkotte is giving us just that. You can't wave away his testimony simply because it conflicts with your pre-existing paradigm.

(I'm reminded of the scientists of old who denied the existence of meteors: Since stones don't fall from the sky, anyone who claimed to have seen such a thing was dismissed.)

I don't think that Spookland tactics have changed all that much over the past century. If the CIA tried to "massage" the media in the 1950s and 1960s, why not continue? Before you say it: No, I do not think that every reporter takes pay-offs, and I do not believe that the American media is 100% controlled. Anyone who seeks to shape public opinion can do the job by seducing and corrupting only a few key reporters and editors.

(That said, the media's infuriating mis-coverage of Syria and Ukraine has forced me to become even more captious than I was previously.)

There are many pompous assholes out there who will tell you that the CIA would never try to corrupt the field of journalism. Whenever you hear that familiar speech, ask yourself: Is this argument founded on an unbiased assessment of the evidence, or on a desperate attempt to maintain a comforting weltanschauung?

On a completely unrelated note: Have you ever glanced at Anderson Cooper's bio?

During college, Cooper spent two summers as an intern at the Central Intelligence Agency. Although he has no formal journalistic education, he opted to pursue a career in journalism rather than stay with the agency after school,[13] having been a self-proclaimed "news junkie since [he] was in utero."[14] After his first correspondence work in the early 1990s, he took a break from reporting and lived in Vietnam for a year, during which time he studied the Vietnamese language at the University of Hanoi.

You really don't have to do much reading between the lines here. Cooper was trained by the CIA. He expressed an interest in journalism, and was immediately given a fast-track position in that field -- despite having never taken a single journalism class.

Riiiiiight.

Let's have a show of hands. How many of you have read Jim Hougan's description of how Bob Woodward got a gig at the Washington Post, fresh from his stint with Naval intelligence? Even though nobody thought that Woodward was a very good writer, Ben Bradlee gave him a huge opportunity.

A warning and an apology. 

There may be an interruption in this blog. I may even have to pass the hat and ask for donations.

It's a simple problem: My ISP -- after years of providing shoddy, overpriced service -- is finally biting the dust, as of November 6. I need to find an alternative, and pronto. Why did I put off that task? Because I had foolishly formed the impression that the big switch would happen early next year.

The new service provider will be cheaper on a month-to-month basis, but there will probably be start-up expenses -- installation, equipment, etc. This is hitting at the worst possible time. Things are so tight that my dog George and I are reduced to mac and cheese -- the really cheap kind, three boxes for a dollar. I swear, the pooch packs away more of the stuff than I do.

So, after I do some research, I may pass my well-worn trilby at some point in the next few days. But even if that doesn't happen, I could use some advice on the canine front. Can anyone tell me how to handle a Rat Terrier with an eating disorder? When we acquired George, he was greyhound thin. He's a lot rounder now, yet he continually acts like he's starving.