Over the past couple of years, there has been much talk about mainstream media and how much they can affect things like national elections or the government’s ability to influence what we may or may not believe as truth.
Much of this began with the election of Democrat Joe Biden as president in 2020, although much of the country voted for and believed Donald Trump to be the real winner. As you might have heard, many, including Trump himself, have accused the political left of cheating or “stealing” the election.
Naturally, those on the left side of the aisle deny this, vehemently even. After all, why would they admit it even if it were true? Given that their party was allowed to take control of the White House, as well as the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives that year, admitting any wrongs during those elections could cost them everything.
But it takes more than just a few government officials saying nothing wrong happened and that the election was safe for some of us to believe that, right?
Introducing liberal-backed media outlets…
According to those who go along with this theory, it was thanks to media outlets who squashed the Hunter Biden laptop scandal that Biden was even allowed to continue in the presidential race, let alone win. It was also thanks to the media that Trump and his supporters were silenced or seen as extremists.
While speeches from Trump were either canceled altogether or only shown during hours when no one was really watching, Biden and his cohorts were given primetime slots and favoritism. While Trump was mocked at every turn, Biden was fawned over, despite his many disastrous remarks and gaffes.
Some would say that even now, the media is still playing a huge role in what the average American citizen is allowed to see and hear about our nation, our economy, etc.
But do they really have that much control? Admitting such would also be acknowledging that the government is using them as their propaganda arm. And propaganda just isn’t something that happens in the U.S., right?
Nations like Russia and China have had “propaganda” for years as their main news source. State-owned radio stations and TV channels provide pretty much the only news available to the public, essentially keeping them in the dark about whatever they don’t want them to know.
But it might surprise you that the U.S., on occasion, has used the same tactics, though quite a bit more secretively.
In 1967, Ramparts Magazine came out with an article claiming that the CIA had been using journalists to push fake stories and specific ideas on the American people. It was called Operation Mockingbird.
Now, in the CIA’s defense, the idea was to push anti-communist ideas and stories, according to the author Deborah Davis. However, the plot in and of itself was nothing short of propaganda. Davis alleged that the agency funded numerous student organizations and magazines, such as the National Student Association, to promote only specific content.
Later, in 1977, the plot was written about again by Rolling Stone author Carl Bernstein.
He stated that the agency had “secretly bankrolled numerous foreign press services, periodicals and newspapers – both English and foreign language – which provides excellent cover for CIA operatives.” Additionally, he explained how some 400 or more press members had been tasked to secretly carry out the agency’s wishes in their work.
According to Bernstein, the only real reference he ever found was in a document called the “Family Jewels,” released in 1973. In the paper published by the CIA, “Project Mockingbird” was referred to as a 1963 operation that wiretapped two journalists believed to be spreading classified information to the public. Of course, the operation nor its primary task was ever officially confirmed.
However, de-classified documents prove that this type of project occurred during that time. Journalists and other press members were funded by and used by the CIA to promote certain ideas.
Today, the term Operation Mockingbird is still used whenever fake news is being broadcast by one outlet or another, such as when The New York Times admitted to being encouraged to report claims of nuclear warheads in Iraq by those in the government who wanted to “intervene” in Iraq, according to the Guardian.
So is it really a stretch to believe the movement might still be funding certain outlets and press members?