[Lammy]

https://www.carlbernstein.com/the-cia-and-the-media-rolling-...

“The Agency’s relationship with the Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. From 1950 to 1966, about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover under arrangements approved by the newspaper’s late publisher, Arthur Hays Sulzberger. The cover arrangements were part of a general Times policy—set by Sulzberger—to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible.”

[dmix]

You don't need employees anymore just anonymous sources from "government insiders" by journalists who gain social/work credit from being friends with intelligence officials. The quid pro quo is implied and unquestioned because it sells papers. NYT/WSJ/WaPo are the main vectors for that stuff (big journalist outfits get big juicy sources) and they do it proudly.

[michaelt]

I don't think "about ten CIA employees were provided Times cover" was a way to funnel CIA info into the NYT - which, as you say, wouldn't need direct employment.

It sounds more like CIA spies wanted to go poking around in foreign countries, interviewing people and photographing things, which being an NYT reporter allowed them to do.

[c22]

But what does the NYT get out of it?

[michaelt]

The journalists? Nothing, in fact it's a big negative.

The newspaper owners, though? The point of a newspaper is to obtain political power, both direct and through favours. The CIA was willing to overthrow a democratic government and replace it with a military dictatorship to help out a banana company - who wouldn't want to be owed favours like that?

[bigiain]

Tasty tasty boot grime.

[nextts]

Or a door revolves?

[chneu]

I'm not saying I disagree, but please see how dangerous your thinking can be.

That basically takes away a major tool of journalists and allows you to paint whoever you disagree with as wrong simply because they don't wish to go public.

Very, very dangerous way of thinking. Allowing sourcesto stay anonymous is a major tool for journalists.

[dmix]

An anonymous source from a whistleblower: practical and understandable. Anonymous sources from gov officials that just tows an established useful line that benefits them: way, way too common.

I'm a daily reader of NYT and I can't count the number of times I see them use it each year. It's become standard practice enough to not be just some edge case to protect people.

It's like how the government classifies everything because it makes their job easier.

Not knowing the person, agency, level of access, etc behind a quote makes it extremely difficult to take seriously. A ton of trust is being put on NYT that it's not just purposefully fed information or gossip.

[c22]

I think it's "toe the line", like lining up side by side with everyone else on your team.

[fsckboy]

>I think it's "toe the line", like lining up side by side with everyone else on your team.

right, but not quite: toe the line means for example standing on an athletic field right at the out-of-bounds line without letting your toes onto the wrong side of it; said about any rule-based situation, to purposely stay within the rules, indicating an individuals obedience with no implication of "testing" the rules.

[dingnuts]

"a source close to the matter reports" basically implies whatever coming next is bullshit

[KennyBlanken]

There's a difference between a source needing to be anonymous for their safety (physical, employment, etc) and someone in an administration or agency refusing to go on-record about policies and actions of an agency or administration because there's be a record, publicly, of what they said - and both they and the organization they're in could be held to that.

Or that administration/agency using "anonymous source" nonsense to gatekeep - wanting to reward particular reporters/outlets that 'play by the rules'.

You'll see a reporter ask something at a press conference, and there will be a refusal or non-answer. But then the press secretary pulls aside a few reporters after the press conference and gives them details.

Unfortunately because the press are willing to do this, more and more information simply does not come out through official channels, which means politicians, agencies, administrations, etc have accountability - their reputation simply isn't on the line.

[bee_rider]

The word of anonymous sources should be taken with a pretty big grain of salt, but they can point to verifiable information.

[blitzar]

That is why the standard is two (or more) independent sources.

[infamouscow]

You should count the actual number of sources in an article, it's virtually always singular.

[chneu]

Source needed. This smells of nonsense to confirm a bias.

[fsckboy]

>From 1950 to 1966

going back in time like that says nothing about the NY Times of today. In that same time period, the Democrats were the party defending racial segregation, it was your great+ grandparents

[reaperducer]

From 1950 to 1966

That was 75 years ago. If you're going to grind an axe, at least pick one from this century.

[Spooky23]

We asked 4 Jill Stein voters in this West Virginia diner what they feel about CIA employees at the New York Times. One weird trick was shared.

[owenversteeg]

Indeed. The Times is the mouthpiece of power. The event referenced in the GP comment [1] was a classic example of the NYT playbook when they get some information that goes against their narrative: 1) delay publication until they are absolutely forced to publish, 2) edit to play down the story, and 3) bury it as well as they can. They famously did this with the Holocaust [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...