I think there's plenty examples on the entire spectrum. Though I'd also say the ones that are seen as "too positive" like Jack Ryan, get criticism from the media even when they try to please both sides by talking of "fixing it from the inside"). Anyway, other examples of negative depictions:
In "2 guns" Bill Paxton played a psychopathic CIA agent who ran a contra-stye operation by squeezing drug lords for a cut. Awesome performance by the way.
In the recent version of "Dirk Gently" TV series, the CIA operation kidnaps psychics to experiment on them, and eliminates people who know too much or get in the way. Whenever the leader of the operation has a change of heart, he gets replaced with a new one with less scruples. "Mr. Priest" (another awesome character) is the CIA's psychopathic fixer brought in "for protocol violations".
I have a hard time naming any series that doesn’t make the CIA seem morally questionable. Even offhandedly, e.g in the recent James Bond films.
What are your examples of it being portrayed as heroically good?
If you had said the military, maybe you’d have a point, but even then we’ve got films like Apocalypse Now, Jarhead, and so on that are clearly critical.
I agree and to your point, I’m not sure there’s a legitimate way to make a movie/show without having them seem morally questionable. Their work operates in an inherently gray (and sometimes black) moral area, usually with the belief that the ends justify the means, or that the alternatives are far worse.
The CIA assists in many/most productions, which it simply wouldn't do if the overall depiction of the CIA was anything but positive.
I've just always found it interesting that an organization with such a terrible real-world reputation is routinely depicted in positive, whitewashed terms in American productions. And if that was happening in an 'enemy' state we'd have no problem seeing it for what it is.
And now I find that simply expressing this opinion on HN, even under a 10,000+ word criticism of the CIA, results in:
a) account [pmachinery] being banned from posting, and (even more sinister):
b) being presented with Google tracking/captcha on login
FWIW, I post tons of unrelenting criticism of the CIA and the Western establishment and haven't encountered anything like this. The worst I've seen from mods was back in 2019 when they would constantly flag links about ties between Jeffrey Epstein and leading tech industry figures.
The "posting too fast" limit is just a brake which as far as I have seen is applied fairly and helps keep HN discussions on the rails (my own posting emphatically included). I think it's possible mods reacted harshly to your criticizing it.
That said, I think pretty much every forum or venue is subject to some of this kind of manipulation. I certainly get an immediate torrent of downvotes whenever one of my comments is particularly pointed or "conspiratorial."
> usually with the belief that the ends justify the means
This is exactly how the vast majority of the purportedly CIA-ambivalent media franchises ultimately come out in The Agency's favor. If they depict agents doing bad things, it's always made pretty clear that the world would be even worse if they hadn't.
While I don’t disagree with you, I think there’s a bit more nuance to that. Please don’t take my comments below as critical of your point, just thinking through it out loud a bit.
What you’re describing is a very utilitarian perspective towards ethics/morality and I’m not sure everyone would walk away with that conclusion. There are plenty of people who do not believe the ends justify the means, or at least, don’t always. Others may think it is immoral, but necessary in some circumstances. This includes people that do or have worked in this line of work, to include me. It is also complicated, because there is no way of knowing if the outcome would be worse had they not done the “bad” thing. It also assumes we all agree as to what is “bad” versus what is “good”, or even somewhere in between.
Maybe a better way of looking at it is as though they are portrayed as flawed heroes? Or even good people that sometimes have to/choose to do bad things?
I don’t know the answers to those questions and it is very likely I am way off, but I appreciate you bringing up your thoughts on the matter!
Appreciate your thoughts as well! Without getting into the weeds too much on it, I would draw a contrast between a few perspectives:
a.) "The intelligence community are the good guys and mostly do the right thing, minus one or two foibles here and there." In this category you've got your Marvel movies, your James Bonds, your Tom Clancys, etc
b.) "The IC is fighting the good fight, but sometimes has to do morally questionable things to get it done." This is stuff like Zero Dark Thirty and encompasses most of what you might call "serious" cinema that depicts the CIA.
c.) "The IC is deeply morally flawed, serving the interests of an elite few at the expense of the vast majority both at home & abroad, and often undertakes actions where this must be clear to anyone involved who has a conscience." This is very rare. There are a few paranoid conspiracy films from the 70s, there's American Made, there's Kill the Messenger, there's JFK, but I'm already struggling to come up with more names.
Intelligence work is so compartmentalized that I believe it's possible for the vast majority of those who work in it to believe they are fighting a good (or at least neutral) fight without allowing for too much cognitive dissonance at all. I don't think this is true of, say, the FBI agents who buried the allegations against the Epstein & Franklin pedophile rings, or the CIA agents who ran drugs into Mena airport to supply funds to child murdering contras in Nicaragua. These are the characters which tend to be assiduously avoided in Western media.
In "2 guns" Bill Paxton played a psychopathic CIA agent who ran a contra-stye operation by squeezing drug lords for a cut. Awesome performance by the way.
In the recent version of "Dirk Gently" TV series, the CIA operation kidnaps psychics to experiment on them, and eliminates people who know too much or get in the way. Whenever the leader of the operation has a change of heart, he gets replaced with a new one with less scruples. "Mr. Priest" (another awesome character) is the CIA's psychopathic fixer brought in "for protocol violations".