[dmix]

There was a spy TV show produced in Iran and pushed heavily on the state run TV networks there that they used to help justify detaining reporters, very clever propaganda:

https://apnews.com/c5348f244a6b484fa3678f39a12e3ceb

I remember seeing a clip of an Iranian leader saying every journalist is a spy and if they aren't they should be because they "don't get paid enough". Gives you insight into their thinking, or what happens when you give the hyper-paranoid intelligence agency people way too much power (which the west isn't immune too).

[Pavarotti]

The CIA is well known for recruiting journalists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird

[duxup]

What do you feel that means in relation to what the person you're replying said?

[MikeTheGreat]

On the one hand I'd like to encourage comments like this because I feel that thoughtful, introspective conversations are rare, it would be good to have more, and this seems like the sort of comment that might encourage such conversations.

On the other hand I also want to snark off by something something like "Hi, Eliza!"

So I guess I'll ask: was this a serious comment? (I genuinely can't tell)

[duxup]

My comment is serious.

[ehvatum]

To me: that it’s important to be aware of, because unaccountable selfish interests win by default.

[duxup]

I don't think it is a mystery that a member of the press could be a spy / some have been.

But I don't think that really means anything as to the post they were replying to when someone talks about the level of paranoia some folks have.

I see these kind of posts where someone mentions something and you get these sort of "look one time(s) this thing actually happened" info bit gets posted with no elaboration. I'm not at all sure what that is supposed to mean. Support for the idea that "every journalist is a spy and if they aren't they should be"?

If the intent is to justify that paranoia / those actions I'm not really sure that makes sense / you could justify just about anything then.

[vkou]

There was also a prominent spy show[1] produced in the US that seemed to be intended as propaganda for normalizing torture. That morally bankrupt practice was portrayed as effective, expedient, cathartic, and the only solution to all the bad men that will come get us, because they hate our freedom.

If you're looking for ethical integrity, you should probably stop turning to spy shows for it. They are loud, dumb, and tend to be sickeningly nationalistic.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(TV_series)

[hindsightbias]

Not even spy shows. It’s weird to see Blue Bloods (an NYPD show) celebrating their 10th anniversary season. I stopped watching after the first episode where a cop tortures a suspect and his father (the police commissioner) lectures his daughter (a district attorney) about the differences between torture and enhanced interrogation.

And the commissioners whole schtick is principled, conservative law-and-order...

[derp_dee_derp]

very clever propaganda indeed.

our politicians do the same thing.

Madam Secretary [0] was propaganda for Hillary Clinton

Diary of a Future President [1] is propaganda for Michelle Obama

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madam_Secretary_(TV_series) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diary_of_a_Future_President

[knodi123]

Wow. Without some additional arguments backing that up, this looks really disgusting and misogynistic.

I look forward to seeing some evidence that Diary of a Future President is a cynical piece of propaganda designed to aid the fortunes of Michelle Obama, in order to restore a bit of my faith in humanity.

[Mirioron]

How is calling that propaganda misogynistic? Not everything that's against a woman is misogyny.

[knodi123]

No, but saying "Diary of a Future President" must be propaganda for Michelle Obama does indeed smack of woman-phobia. "yikes, someone's giving girls the idea that they could be politically powerful. it's probably a secretive social manipulation cynically run by the most powerful woman I can think of off the top of my head."

Also, the only two people listed were Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton? All the powerful people in Washington that you could accuse of shadowy conspiracies to control the media, and they picked two women, and one of them is black (ooooh, I get it, the little girl in the TV show is cuban, so also a person of color?)? Considering the demographics of US politicians, yeah - that comes off a little prejudiced. But hey, maybe it's a huuuuge coincidence. /shrug.

[derp_dee_derp]

funny how you didn't call out the OP and ask them for "some additional arguments backing" up their claim that the Iranian TV show was propaganda, but here you do when its American politicians.

Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

as for context, a good book on the subject is "manufacturing consent" by Noam Chomsky. In it he details how american media of all forms is used as a propaganda vehicle in order to shape and create the american public's politics.

The TV shows linked are just applications of that strategy.

[AWildC182]

Saying "what about that [falsely equivalent] thing over there, now read [HN meme book of the month]" isn't exactly a sound argument...

[derp_dee_derp]

pointing out hypocrisy is not a false equivalency, but nice try.

also, you calling a foundational work in propaganda theory a meme book isnt exactly a sound counter argument, either. Here, educate yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent

[jessaustin]

Sometimes it seems that some people think it's "progressive" to criticize Chomsky...

[AWildC182]

You're trying to spread misogynistic conspiracy theories and comparing that to Iranian propaganda... That's absolutely a false equivalency. You had a chance to make an argument to support your position but...

Everyone has been spamming "Manufacturing Consent" like crazy recently. Just telling people to read it doesn't support any argument, it's just an attempt to appear high-brow because Chomsky. You need to specify how Chomsky supports your argument.

[xerxex]

I bet you are a Fox News viewer demographic

[dang]

This sort of flamewar comment is unacceptable on HN, and I'm afraid you've posted like this in the past as well. Would you please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stop doing that on HN?

[elfexec]

That's because it's true from time to time. Journalists, diplomats, NGOs, academics, etc are the top spy vectors.

Do you really think russia is killing "journalists" because they are journalists or because they are spies or worse? Do you think the Saudi's killed kashoggi because he was just a "journalist" or because he was something else? Every major news/media organization in the world ( west, east, south , north ) are tied to the state. Whether you talk about the NYTimes or BBC or Xinhua or RT or Al Jazeera or [fill in the blank], they are all state organizations.

Of course this doesn't mean all journalists are spies. Most are just mindless grunts working for a paycheck like everyone else. But the journalists who are sent to iran, china, russia, etc are more likely than not tied to the state in one way or another.