Conspiracies are fun. Everybody has one, or at least the inclination to maybe-kinda-possibly entertain one. For example, I used to be partial to the John F. Kennedy assassination. Some folks are into alien cover-ups, others believe that our current president was born in Africa. The world of conspiracies is vast and often interconnected — pick up a thread here, and you never know exactly where you’ll end up.

Which brings us to The Contrarian’s Old-Time Conspiracy Hour. Consider this another idea for a recurring feature that we’re unlikely to follow-through with. But we’ll have some fun with this entry, at least.

One area that naturally lends itself to conspiracy theories is intelligence work. From US-sanctioned “wet teams” to CIA‘s notorious MK-ULTRA program, covert ops make for wild stories. The interesting thing about the spy game is that it’s really tough to separate fact from fiction. Today’s post deals with the former — namely, CIA’s alleged control of the media. Or are these “facts” yet another misdirection? Welcome to the house of mirrors.

“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” — Former CIA chief William Colby, who died under rather mysterious circumstances.

Our little conspiracy is largely informed by a Carl Bernstein story which originally appeared in a 1977 edition of Rolling Stone. Bernstein, you surely recall, is the journalist who, along with Bob Woodward, helped break the Watergate scandal. His subsequent investigation, which resulted in the article “The CIA & The Media,” laid the cornerstone of a durable, if lately neglected conspiracy: the manipulation of the American press by shadowy government entities.

Perhaps this conspiracy died down because the US government became more audacious in its manipulation of the media. The George W. Bush administration was hardly subtle in this regard. Still, the information in Bernstein’s story, dated though it may be, paints a disturbing picture of clandestine control of the “fourth estate.”

The directive under which CIA conducted its media operations was called MOCKINGBIRD. The extent of its reach, and indeed, whether it existed at all, is a matter of debate. The working theory holds that Frank Wisner, CIA Director, Office of Special Projects (OSP) managed to cajole high-ranking media officials into running CIA reports in their respective press outlets. By the 1950s, the New York Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, CBS and more had been folded into the operation.

Bernstein’s article focuses on one Joseph Alsop, a reporter who penned countless foreign affairs stories in more than 300 newspapers. He didn’t work alone. Even Ben Bradlee — the storied Washington Post editor who presided over both The Pentagon Papers and Bernstein’s own Watergate reporting — was thought to have been with MOCKINGBIRD. And the list by no means stops there. According to Bernstein:

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.

And placing stories was apparently not all the agency called upon its press agents to do. Bernstein:

Appropriately, the CIA uses the term ‘reporting’ to describe much of what cooperating journalists did for the Agency. “We would ask them, ‘Will you do us a favor?’” said a senior CIA official. “‘We understand you’re going to be in Yugoslavia. Have they paved all the streets? Where did you see planes? Were there any signs of military presence? How many Soviets did you see? If you happen to meet a Soviet, get his name and spell it right…. can you set up a meeting for us? Or arrange a message?’” Many CIA officials regarded these helpful journalists as operatives: the journalists tended to see themselves as trusted friends of the Agency who performed occasional favors — usually without pay — in the national interest.

Sometimes they did get paid. Charles Douglas Jackson of TIME supposedly split time running CIA’s Psychological Operations and being Vice-President in charge of his company’s media empire.

Although it is pretty shocking to realize that our supposedly “free” press may not be entirely so, the relationship between CIA and reporters dates back to the early days of the agency. Director Allen Dulles, the man whose operational DNA is still very much a part of CIA, stocked the fledgling organization with Yale men, most of whom had a reportorial bent. That these Ivy Leaguers would in turn recruit more of their kind for strategic purposes makes perfect sense.

America has, since its inception, held its press as an example of freedom and integrity — particularly in comparison with countries where information is tightly controlled. Interesting then, that one of the pillars of our liberty has such a duplicitous past.

TOT TRIAL TAKES TOPSY TURN!

Did you hear? Casey Anthony has been found NOT GUILTY of killing her two year-old daughter, Caylee. The internets are aflame with outrage! Nancy Grace‘s head ACTUALLY EXPLODED on TV! Forget the Tea Party, this decision is the real spur to revolution!

I didn’t follow the case closely, but after the verdict, I did a little bit of research into the evidence and arguments. While I understand the jury’s decision, I will cop to being a bit troubled by the fact that our justice system is seemingly content with letting the death of a toddler go unsolved. It just doesn’t sit right on a fundamental human level.

The jury’s decision is fun to parse for a legal nerd like me. But that’s not what I’m really fascinated by. I’m more interested in how the proceedings played out in both the mainstream media and social networks. Recent history is peppered with highly controversial cases — from OJ to MJ to JonBenét — which have provoked strong reactions in observers. But the Casey Anthony trial was different. This isn’t because of the stomach-turning particulars, but rather the confluence of old-school media and user-powered platforms like Facebook and Twitter. It makes you wonder what the Rodney King aftermath might have looked like if it had happened yesterday.

People like to talk about “old” media vs. “new” media, as if one didn’t influence the other. But surely, the nation’s interest in the Anthony case was encouraged by TV pundits like the relentlessly shrill Nancy Grace, a woman who deserves an award for hyperbole. (Note to self: launch the Annual Contrarian Media Hyperbole Awards).

Now I know it is our duty as American citizens to respect the jury system. But I know one thing: as the defense sits by and has their champagne toast after that not-guilty verdict, somewhere out there, the devil is dancing tonight.

Isn’t that something? Such sustained, sensational coverage no doubt contributed to the way people perceived the case. A quick scan of related Twitter hashtags reveals multiple death wishes to Casey Anthony. This isn’t to say that she’s not potentially guilty, but it does hint at how strong emotions can be shaped by mass media reporting.

What might have been an opportunity to examine how our legal system functions instead became a powerful demonstration of mob mentality. One can be skeptical about whether justice was served and still be disturbed at the bloodlust just beneath the surface of our supposedly civil society.

And that bloodlust isn’t limited to the Great Unwashed. Corporate media feeds on it, opportunistically repackaging our obsessions as easy fodder for ratings. This creates a worrisome feedback loop that plays to our basest collective instincts.

I’m not a believer in a “fixed” human nature, but rather a spectrum of potential behaviors that are rooted in any number of factors. These phenomena are not limited to individual expression. As Carl Jung observed of the rising specter of Nazism, groups of people, too, possess a “shadow” personality that is subject to collective agitation. Here is the seed of the so-called “mob mentality” (or “participation mystique,” in Jungian terms). This phenomenon often presents itself as chaotic, but can be harnessed and directed to very destructive ends (as borne out by the Third Reich).

I’m not suggesting that the reaction to Casey Anthony verdict bears any direct relationship to Nazi brownshirts. Yet as the linkages between German propaganda and mass behavior were once poorly understood, much remains unclear about the interaction of traditional and networked media. At the right time and under the right conditions, the combo could produce calamitous results. This is the flipside to the “Twitter revolution” that  tech evangelists point to as driving democratic change in the Middle East. (The fact of the matter is that little actual organizing happens on these networks; most of it is Western echo chamber.)

At the dawn of the Internet Age, many of us overestimated the power the new platforms would have in remaking our media landscape. Certainly, they have upended business models and created an unprecedented environment for individual expression. But they have yet to replace traditional media. This could be due to the relative influence these corporations have over public policy, but I think it also has to do with ingrained consumer behavior and expectation. And by the time that a critical mass of the populace is fully acclimated to the new channels, old media will have figured out a way to control the underlying architecture — through law or corporate collusion. (For those playing along at home, this battle is raging as I type, and is the main reason for my existence in Washington.)

What I’m getting at is this: the continued strength of traditional media, coupled with the unique contours of the social web, creates an entirely new world for information. Like anything, there’s bound to be a good and not-so-good side.

To truly address the feedback loop described above would require a more open and participatory media environment, and not just in the realm of social networks. Whether this is possible or not, given marketplace and political pressures, remains an unanswered question. How that question is answered will determine nothing less than the future of information exchange.

Take that, Nancy Grace.

The New York Times today reports that, among that elusive category of humanity known as “youth,” blogging is in serious decline. This is largely due to the ubiquity of social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter, which align perfectly with the attention spans of so-called “digital natives.”

As I noted on my own Facebook this morning, this report isn’t in the least bit troubling to me, because a) The Contrarian is a magazine, and b) I’m really, really old. Still, the data is telling:

The Internet and American Life Project at the Pew Research Center found that from 2006 to 2009, blogging among children ages 12 to 17 fell by half; now 14 percent of children those ages who use the Internet have blogs. Among 18-to-33-year-olds, the project said in a report last year, blogging dropped two percentage points in 2010 from two years earlier.

But where’s the story? Stats are always interesting, but this study basically confirms what everyone already knows. Kids don’t even use email, for fuck’s sake. They text. Or “sext,” as the case may be. Probably while driving. Is it any wonder that long-form rumination on the day’s issues are outside of their communications portfolio?

What is interesting to me is that those who persist in the now anachronistic art of blogging are likely writing about, you know, actual topics. This wasn’t necessarily the case circa 2007, when everyone in the Western world had a blog. Most of it was drivel, and you’d be forgiven for thinking that the revolution in self-publishing was a whole lotta hype. Yet even this humble site, which arrived in 2006, was born of the mid-aughts blog boom. I’d like to think we’ve consistently published well-written and insightful material, but I’m biased.

Social networks are now where the action is in terms of the free exchange of ideas. Twitter is your news ticker, Facebook the place to bask in the glow of easy affirmation (or outrage). I do find it somewhat annoying, however, that people who may have previously been inclined to converse in our comments section now do so on the social networks where we post links to our articles. Clearly, people are bothering to read the stuff — the remarks on Facebook bear this out — but they don’t leave their thoughts in the “official” record that is this site. That skews the history of engagement on any given topic. Damn you, Zuckerberg!

It may be true that our information-saturated, networked lifestyles make it more difficult to absorb extended textual media. I think this is unfortunate. Staying informed and aware requires more effort than simply retweeting or clicking “like.” Video learning is great, but it’s no substitute for the rich context of the written word.

I’d like to think that all of these platforms can effectively coexist. But for us to truly benefit from the democratization of media, there needs to be diversity in longer-form reporting, criticism and analysis. At present, the technological overlords who bequeathed humanity with Facebooks, Twitters and Tumblrs are reaping the greatest reward, while consolidating and aggregating the bulk of exchanged information. This may be fun, but is it healthy? The production of quality media requires more than passion. It’s a commitment of time, and often treasure. Can infrastructure be balanced with investment? Is simply paying attention reward enough for the content producer?

Someday, the “youth” represented in this NYT story will grow up, at which point, they may begin making their own demands of the so-called “attention economy.”

And we’ll still be here, analyzing the outcome with way too many words.

Despite their exhaustive research, however, Kristof and WuDunn manage to completely ignore Latin America. Well, that’s not quite true. They do say — to paraphrase — that despite Hispanic machismo, Latin American countries do a good job of keeping girls in schools and mothers alive through good maternal healthcare.

They don’t mention a thing about the domestic violence in South America, despite the fact that in Argentina alone, such violence claimed the lives of 126 Argentinean in 2010, a 40 percent increase from 2009, when Half the Sky was published.  Nor do they write about the predators who, at last count, murdered 430 young female maquiladora workers in Juarez, Mexico.

Perhaps most significantly, there is talk of Latin America’s draconian abortion laws. Although the continent has swung toward the left in the past few decades (despite America’s best efforts to keep it under the heel of dictators like Pinochet), there has been little progress in legalizing choice.

In a bluntly titled article “Abortion in Latin America — Still Illegal, Still Killing, Despite Growing Awareness” Estrella Gutierrez writes, “There are more than four million illegal abortions a year in the region, linked to over 4,000 avoidable deaths. And in some countries, like Argentina, there are nearly as many abortions as births.” Well, I guess there is good health care for women. . . who choose life, that is! I mean, what else do females expect when they have sex for pleasure rather than procreation, in defiance of the head of the state and the Pope himself? Those putas deserve a terrifying, traumatic (and possibly) fatal medical experience.

Speaking of the Pope, the Brazilian Catholic Church fought against allowing a nine-year-old girl to obtain an abortion last year. She had allegedly been raped by her stepfather, and, although Brazil outlaws abortion, there are exceptions in cases of rape and health of the female (both of which applied here.)

Fortunately, there are reasonable Brazilians and the girl was allowed an abortion. However, the entire medical team, as well as her mother, were excommunicated from the Church. As minors are exempt from excommunication, the child was spared this fate. I’m sure she’ll be thrilled to remain part of an institution so committed to helping her.

In an interesting call, Archbishop Don Jose Cardoso Sobrinho chose not to excommunicate the pervert who’d for years abused and ultimately impregnated her, saying “”A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life.” Well, that, and, presumably, they’d have to excommunicate half their clergy.

Without access to reliable birth control and abortion, women’s freedom is limited — the freedom to stay in school, to be economically independent and the freedom to leave unhealthy relationships.

Half the Sky is a difficult book to criticize, as it obviously represents years of research, interviews and lists organizations that specifically aid women. But it must be said that WuDunn and Kristof drop the ball when they neglect to cover a continent.

“Obama …. has a strange aversion to confrontational politics. … During his campaign and his first year in office, he held to a blind faith in bipartisanship, even as the Republicans voted as a bloc against his legislation. He is, perhaps, ill-suited in these respects for an era of bruising political warfare. His advisers have clearly reinforced these inclinations. In the campaign, they fashioned him as the outsider candidate of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ and have extended this strategy into the presidency itself. They see him as standing above party. … These efforts to elevate Obama above the hurly-burly of Washington politics have been disastrous. Obama’s image as an iconic outsider has become the screen on which Fox News, the Tea Party, radical-right bloggers, and assorted politicians have projected the image of him as a foreigner, an Islamic radical, and a socialist. He has remained ‘the other’ that he aspired to be during the campaign, but he and his advisers no longer control how that otherness is defined.”

Fascinating.

Not long ago, the New York Times ran a column called “The Agony of the Liberals,” by Ross Douthat (cool name). Go ahead and read it if you want, but it’s not the reason for this post.

The column inspired a handful of Letters to the Editor that ran in the Sunday edition. They’re all pretty good, but I was struck by one in particular. I’ve devoted any number of hours trying to articulate — verbally or in text — what this brief missive describes.

At the risk of inflaming the litigious passions of the Grey Lady, I’m going to repost the letter here, “fair use” or no.

———————————————-

To the Editor:

Liberals clearly pinned unrealistic hopes on the Obama presidency; had they paid attention to his campaign, they would have expected the centrism they’re getting.

But the anguish of liberals is not simply due to Mr. Obama’s being an insufficiently aggressive leftist. It is, rather, due to the deep disconnect between American politics and the reality on the ground.

Any reasonable observer would look at the dysfunction of Enron, of General Motors, of American International Group, of Bank of America and of BP, and the failure of the health insurance industry to either improve care or control costs, as overwhelming evidence that American faith in private enterprise is simply mistaken, and that it’s time for government to step up.

But no such thing. Despite our drowning in a sea of crises brought on by the failures of private enterprises, the American political class, and evidently the American electorate, is instead outraged at government, because fixing what the private enterprise system broke isn’t free.

The American ship of state is in danger of capsizing to the right, and Americans respond by leaning, inexplicably, ever further to the right.

This is the cause of liberal anguish, and will shortly be the cause of the anguish of us all.

David Berman
New York, June 21, 2010

The German Street View car, found on Brunnenstr., Berlin 20.4.10

Guten tag from Berlin:

The lead story on last night’s ZDF news broadcast, quoted George Orwell, in English. According to the German news station, “Big Brother is watching you.”

Yesterday, several EU governments addressed the news that Google had inadvertently collected personal data, including the names and locations of open Local Area Networks (WiFi is called WLAN here) while gathering footage and data associated with the company’s Street View initiative.
Europe and the EU are very concerned about privacy and data protection in regards to the program.

The German government has clearly shown that it has no problems challenging the search giant when it feels they are in violation of national statutes. As the Street View project continues, it will be interesting to see how German and EU officials react to the collection of data, whether intentional or inadvertent.

Here is a heartwarming photo project, made possible by the blog era. Everyone make art!

Musicians comment about the new heath care bill. I found Franz Nicolay‘s comments to be very relevant to my own life as a freelance artist. Lord help us.

Side note: I just wanted to mention that this video is extremely gay. And not in the “I’m-going-to-give-you-a-wedgie-you-can-use-for-earmuffs” kind of way, but a “this-video-has-a-penis-and-may-have-interest-in-touching-your-video’s-penis” kind of way. Particularly if your video happens to be wearing assless chaps. I mean super gay. Even for George Michael. It’s awesome.

W.A.G.E., meanwhile, offers information and support for artists who are tired (and hungry) of not getting paid to make the world more interesting. Musicians should pay attention to this, because fine art usually is a little ahead of the curve conceptually — in this case, in the practice of fucking over the creative element.

Working Class Magazine is a great little upstart out of the Lower East Side. I find it very personable and sophisticated at the same time. Keep up the good work, guys.

Meanwhile in Brooklyn, Ry Pepper lends her circumspect eye to arts and crafts reporting in her blog, Arts and Dafts. It’s anecdotal, practical, and warm-hearted. Very nice indeed.

If you want to remember how basic is the need for humans to participate in acts of beauty, you may want to refer to this report from the UK’s Daily Mail to witness what may be the oldest living artistic genre known to man. It will take your breath away, I imagine.

I know that this here love letter sure did it for me. My Beloved, you are the apogee of enchantment.

…But this guy ain’t no chopped liver.

Much Love, y’all.

Tiger Woods, in a hushed press conference today at a crazy posh Florida resort, shamefacedly apologized for his life as both the greatest golfer who ever lived and legendary Dionysian sex god. Woods, who has been silent under the shadow of revelations about his totally epic carnal exploits, today expressed remorse for being amazingly successful in yet another facet of his life. “The things you’ve heard…” Woods confirmed, reading from a prepared statement, “…they’re all true. Not only from the women you’ve heard about in the media, but from six more who will be timing the announcement of book deals strategically throughout the spring and summer in a series of co-branded bestsellers. There’s more too,” Woods continued against a barrage of snapping cameras, “loads more you’ll never hear about, because they’re famous. Like, anyone you’ve ever fantasized about. Basically, just use your imagination and I’ve done it. It was awesome, and I am sorry.”

Woods also confirmed allegations by his mistresses that he is staggeringly well-endowed and possesses Olympian sexual performance skills. “I apologize that these facts — facts which are completely true — ever came to light,” Woods continued gravely. “I struggled to keep these godlike abilities from the public eye, thinking I’d already spread enough feelings of inadequacy with my youth, wealth, fame and command of the game of golf. But now that they’ve come out, I’ve decided the honorable thing to do is step forward and confirm them as true. Like, indisputably. Now I just want the chance to say as respectfully and humbly as possible from the bottom of my heart… to my fans, to America and the world: in your face.”

Woods went on to regretfully announce that he will leave behind his high-stress life under a white-hot spotlight devoted to getting a tiny ball into a cup at great distances, armed only with specialized metal rods. “Though I will miss the constant practice, the travel, the grueling press appearances, the relentless struggle for superiority and the pursuit of major corporate endorsements, I am thankful to have the support of my family and friends, not to mention money…” and with this, Woods gestured broadly around the room crammed with  journalists, “…more money than any of you could ever imagine.”

As I read the headlines these days, more and more my mind is plagued with one question: what do naked people think? Who will tell their story? Is there a hairy, droopy, butt-stanky man waiting in the wings who could provide some insight on this issue? Are there perhaps other people in these same wings who wish this guy would just go away?

Well, finally the voice of the naked has been heard. In a recent press release, The American Association for Nude Recreation has voiced their support for full-body scanners in airport security. “A trained security professional in a remote monitoring station takes a few seconds discreetly screening passengers to be sure they’re only bringing what nature gave them aboard” says AANR Executive Director Erich Schuttauf. “In exchange for safer skies… it’s completely worth it.”

For many, the situation recalls the classic movie Porky’s in which the protagonists discreetly screen the bodies of high school girls in the shower from their remote monitoring station in the boys’ locker room. Schuttauf’s comments, however, remind us why so many were scandalized by the film: clearly, the boys were not trained security professionals.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of titties and pee-pees though, we can agree that it’s time to welcome the voice of the nudies into the American political arena. In years past, before such associations existed, one nude fellow on his own might have a hard time being heard, at least for any significant length of time before being dragged away. But today, this brave foray into politics comes to us from the AANR, the most respected of the nude think-tanks. Hopefully, in time we can look forward to hearing from other groups such as the Nude Electricians & Pipefitters Union, the American Association of Nude Riverboat Casino Owners, and the National Association for the Advancement of Nude Colored Persons. Perhaps President Obama, after he has declared martial law and taken the role of Supreme Leader, will in his wisdom see fit to create an Office Of Nude Doings, and appoint and Undersecretary of Nude Affairs.

One hopes we are coming closer to a day in which the nude and the clothed can come together in a sweaty, awkward embrace, then quickly pull away.

————————————-

In other news, Pat Robertson has recently been quiet about his lifelong crusade against the hokey-pokey, instead turning his attention to the sinners of Haiti. Robertson reminds us of the widely known historical event in which all of Haiti got together and handed their country over to the devil back in 1804, drawing a clear connection between that event and the tragic earthquake which struck them just 206 years later. Of course, it’s hard to imagine a country of nine million people all getting together on anything, but just cast your mind back to the time all us folks in the United States got together and decided Pat Robertson was a hateful douchebag. It was pretty much like that.

Father Droopy Dog has gotten a lot of attention for his revelation, and we should listen to him because apart from being a valued political commentator, he is also a keen predictor of future events. You’ll all recall how he warned us the world would end in 1982. Then it did, and I think I don’t need to remind anyone how bad that sucked. Then, of course, he predicted that great tsunami that destroyed the Pacific Northwest back in in 2006 in retribution for The Kingsmen‘s recording of “Louie, Louie.” Clearly, Robertson has a direct line to the will of God as well as a deep knowledge of Satan‘s inbox. He warns us that our Lord God is a vicious and smitey deity, not to mention a real bitch when it comes to holding a grudge. So we should heed his wisdom when he recommends a “great turning to God”, because you can’t make that shit up. Wait, yes you can.