This morning when I read a certain newspaper there were reviews of new books that were published in German. I usually skip these reviews but one book was about the CIA in the 21st century.
The book sounded interesting but I was sceptical whether it would actually be worth buying or to do research about.
But I gave it a chance. I tried to download it for free but I didn't do it eventually. I did some research on the topic and author. Many Youtube comments and Amazon reviews were very positive. (Bought?)
Actually, I think this book is not really worth reading. The author is Tim Weiner a New York Times journalist. Which was sort of a red flag. Despite the fact he won the Pulitzer Prize as a part of the system I doubt he can actually report critically on this topic. Mainstream media is often horrible covering intelligence services. He is relying on the sources that feed him. Why would he write something that displeases the hands that feed him?
I didn't read the book I have to admit that but I did some research whether it would be worth reading. Basically, this book has no new insights. It just repeats stuff that is well known and denies everything that might take place but will never will come out. This book is a gift for the CIA. I watched a Youtube video of him talking about the book. There is an author with good reputation who is perceived as very critical of the CIA, repeats stuff that is well known. This gives him credibility and then he denies all secret operations that might take place but that are not known to the public. I assume such an author would have denied mass surveillance is taking place before Edward Snowden spilled the tea. Also the way how he did research for this book. He only uses declassified documents. I think this book shows how propaganda works. He can cite official documents, most of them can even be true. But he fades out the fact that there are operations happening that are not available in these official/declassified documents. You can go that far of criticizing the CIA, this critique is allowed but don't go beyond that otherwise we won't give you the sources to publish these good selling books/articles that you can present as scoops.
He gives legitimacy to the CIA with this book. He also downplays the capabilities of the CIA at the same time. He only writes what can be proven. And by doing that it gives this book a massive bias. And I don't see any journalist who is pointing that out. In the end they stabilize the system by not pointing out what is obvious.
What do you think?
The thing is he does not even have to lie to serve this agenda. All of what he reports can be considered factually true. But there are many gaps and omissions in the way he covers this topic. He does not even mention the potential bias of writing such a book, relyiny on interviews with CIA directors. It distorts the actual truth and he even does not need to lie to achieve that. That's how propaganda works. You can rely on true statements but in the way you synthesize them the entire piece can still be completely biased.
The book sounded interesting but I was sceptical whether it would actually be worth buying or to do research about.
But I gave it a chance. I tried to download it for free but I didn't do it eventually. I did some research on the topic and author. Many Youtube comments and Amazon reviews were very positive. (Bought?)
Actually, I think this book is not really worth reading. The author is Tim Weiner a New York Times journalist. Which was sort of a red flag. Despite the fact he won the Pulitzer Prize as a part of the system I doubt he can actually report critically on this topic. Mainstream media is often horrible covering intelligence services. He is relying on the sources that feed him. Why would he write something that displeases the hands that feed him?
I didn't read the book I have to admit that but I did some research whether it would be worth reading. Basically, this book has no new insights. It just repeats stuff that is well known and denies everything that might take place but will never will come out. This book is a gift for the CIA. I watched a Youtube video of him talking about the book. There is an author with good reputation who is perceived as very critical of the CIA, repeats stuff that is well known. This gives him credibility and then he denies all secret operations that might take place but that are not known to the public. I assume such an author would have denied mass surveillance is taking place before Edward Snowden spilled the tea. Also the way how he did research for this book. He only uses declassified documents. I think this book shows how propaganda works. He can cite official documents, most of them can even be true. But he fades out the fact that there are operations happening that are not available in these official/declassified documents. You can go that far of criticizing the CIA, this critique is allowed but don't go beyond that otherwise we won't give you the sources to publish these good selling books/articles that you can present as scoops.
He gives legitimacy to the CIA with this book. He also downplays the capabilities of the CIA at the same time. He only writes what can be proven. And by doing that it gives this book a massive bias. And I don't see any journalist who is pointing that out. In the end they stabilize the system by not pointing out what is obvious.
What do you think?
The thing is he does not even have to lie to serve this agenda. All of what he reports can be considered factually true. But there are many gaps and omissions in the way he covers this topic. He does not even mention the potential bias of writing such a book, relyiny on interviews with CIA directors. It distorts the actual truth and he even does not need to lie to achieve that. That's how propaganda works. You can rely on true statements but in the way you synthesize them the entire piece can still be completely biased.
Last edited:
