Saturday, January 31, 2009

Pentagon IG "Vindicates" Military Media "Surrogates"

DoD DoubleSpeak recalling the ridiculous definition of torture "debate": " ... The Pentagon's inspector general report released January 14 ... stated that absent a clear, legal definition of propaganda, there was an 'insufficient basis' to find that the effort violated the law or internal policy. ... 'To say there are factual inaccuracies in this report is the understatement of the century.' ... I think it is a whitewash. It appears to be the parting gift of the Pentagon to [former President George W. Bush].' ... "

Investigation vindicates DoD PA program
Frank WashkuchJ
January 27, 2009

The Department of Defense's inspector general determined that a controversial Pentagon program that briefed TV and radio military analysts on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did not violate government policies or regulations. The internal investigation found that the Pentagon's public affairs strategy on outside analysts, although framed in a negative light last April in a New York Times report, is in compliance with the law and the department's own policies.

The New York Times reported nearly a year ago that the Defense Department was influencing an apparatus of former military personnel as “surrogates” or “message force multipliers” to increase public support for its actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Forty-five members of Congress called for inquiries into the program shortly thereafter, with some claiming that the effort constituted an illegal propaganda campaign directed at the US public.

The Pentagon's inspector general report released January 14, however, stated that absent a clear, legal definition of propaganda, there was an “insufficient basis” to find that the effort violated the law or internal policy. The report also found there was no basis to claims that analysts used their access to Pentagon officials to create a competitive advantage for companies.

“The comptroller general has interpreted the publicity and propaganda riders to prohibit three type of activities – self-aggrandizement or puffery, partisanship, and covert communications,” the report stated. “Applying these standards, we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that [retired military analyst] outreach activities were improper.”

Derek LaVallee, VP of Waggener Edstrom's public affairs practice and a former White House and Pentagon aide, says that some of the public might find “the fact that there is a ‘spin' and ‘message' from [the Defense Department] about war... unsettling,” but that is a “very naïve view.”

He notes that it is not illegal or unethical for the Defense Department to actively influence analysts. There is also little for the Pentagon to publicly disclose about such a strategy, assuming that it is not paying analysts for their views and that the commentators are not actively lying about military matters.

“There was no exchange of funds,” LaVallee says. “Didn't those who opposed the department's point of view have an equal opportunity to persuade the analysts? Don't we want the analysts to get as much inside information as possible to give informed analysis?” LaVallee asked.

Robert Tappan, president of Weber Merritt Public Affairs and a former state department official who crafted strategic messaging for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq in 2004, says that the inspector general's findings “resoundingly vindicated” the Department of Defense.

“The inspector general's report found no instances of wrongdoing on the part of anybody at the Department of Defense public affairs, and from my familiarity with that at [the State Department] and in Iraq, that bears what my experience has been,” he says. “The [public affairs staff] at the Department of Defense are very proficient, and they follow rules that have precedents that go back many years as to media relations and other aspects of communications.”

The Department of Defense did not return phone calls by press time.

Not everyone agreed with the inspector general's assessment. After the finding was released, US Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH) told the Times that the report was a political statement on behalf of the Department of Defense.

“To say there are factual inaccuracies in this report is the understatement of the century,” he told the Times. “I think it is a whitewash. It appears to be the parting gift of the Pentagon to [former President George W. Bush].”

Two other inquiries into the controversial program are scheduled to be released in coming months by the Government Accountability Office and the Federal Communications Commission.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Max Holland's Fake Book on JFK Murder Lauded by the Propaganda Press

"Author: Oswald was lone assassin"
By Neely Tucker
The Washington Post
July 27, 2008

Violins Up: " ... [Max Holland] says Lee Harvey Oswald did it and did it alone! His goal, he says, is to heal our national paranoia about Kennedy's murder, to lay to rest the lingering belief that there was some sort of conspiracy (which most Americans believe), and to have this traumatic event finally settled in the national id. ... "

Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and The Nation
(Gary Aguilar, PROBE. Sep 2000)

A very detailed and lengthy rebuttal of Max Holland (who has been featured in The Nation) and his defence of the Warren Commission. On the subject of the JFK assassination, Holland is roughly in the same camp as Chomsky and Cockburn:

Max Holland? He got his start at the Voice of America, long acknowledged as a propaganda outlet for the CIA abroad. And when "liberal" Holland couldn't get his regular employer, The Nation, to run one of his lone-nut screeds, whom did he turn to? Why, the CIA, of course, which was more than happy to publish his work in their in-house publication "Studies in Intelligence."

Consider for just a moment. Why is it that everywhere you look in the media, the voices telling us that Oswald was a lone assassin (and therefore, the CIA didn't do it) all seem to have ties to the CIA?

- Alex Constantine

Who Better to Defend the CIA than the CIA?
Gary Aguilar, San Francisco

Among myriad ironies in Mel Ayton's review of "A Farewell to Justice," perhaps the greatest is his offering author Max Holland's CIA-published work as an answer to Joan Mellen's exhaustive elucidation of the myriad CIA ties to the Kennedy case.

For example, Ayton trots out Holland's remarkable discovery that the sole reason Jim Garrison had for suspecting the CIA in the events in Dallas was because he'd been duped by fiendishly clever KGB dezinformatsiya planted in a Rome daily, Il Paese Sera. Ayton apparently has more faith in the theory than even its supposed author does. For Holland refused to defend it in a public debate with me last September in Washington, D.C. before a live audience and rolling C-SPAN cameras.[1] On why he might have chosen not to, one scarcely knows where to begin.

But perhaps it's worth starting with the fact that Holland's famous breakthrough isn't Holland's, something he has never disclosed (apparently even to Ayton), but was forced to admit when I confronted him during our debate. Steve Dorril was the first one to make "Holland's" argument in an article published by Lobster Magazine in 1983, something Ayton could have easily found in a simple search of the web.[2] "Holland's" discovery apparently next surfaced when Warren Commission defender, John McAdams, ran it in a 1999 newsgroup post,[3] two years before Holland presented it for the first time.

The "proof" Dorril, McAdams and Holland offered Il Paese Sera was a communist conduit consisted mostly of testimony the CIA's Richard Helms delivered during a 1961 Senate appearance.[3] As this author has shown, Helms's sworn assertions during this 1961 Senate appearance are no more credible than the testimony he gave during another Senate hearing that led to his conviction and the page 1 New York Times headline, "Helms Is Fined $2,000 and Given Two-Year Suspended Prison Term--U.S. Judge Rebukes Ex-C.I.A. Head for Misleading (Senate) Panel." [4]

Without offering a shred of proof, Ayton recycles Holland's dubious claim that, "the (Il Paese Sera) articles were NOT (sic) already in the works long before Shaw's arrest, as Mellen claims - It was Shaw's arrest that prompted [Il Paese Sera to write] those stories."

How Ayton knows that the articles "were NOT already in the works long before Shaw's arrest," he does not say. But had Ayton (or Holland) bothered to contact Il Paese Sera's editors, they would probably have told him what they have told others: that the six-part series had nothing to do with (and said nothing about) the KGB or the JFK assassination; that they had never heard of Jim Garrison when they assigned the story six months before [which was also six months before Garrison had charged Shaw]; and that they were astonished to see that Shaw might have any connection to the assassination.

Finally, echoing Holland, Ayton claims that the Italian articles were Garrison's sole reason for suspecting the Agency. If they really were the sole source of his seduction, one would have expected some contemporaneous evidence of it. But there is none.

As Edward Epstein has pointed out, during his twenty-six-page interview in Playboy's October 1967 issue, Garrison's most comprehensive review of his case that year, the D.A. ticked off eight reasons to suspect the CIA. None of them included Il Paese Sera or the subject of the articles, the still-mysterious Rome World Trade Center, Centro Mondiale Commerciale (CMC). [5] Nor did he even mention Clay Shaw, although perhaps because of the pending legal wrangle. [6] Moreover, Garrison wrote the foreword to Harold Weisberg's 1967-published book, entitled Oswald in New Orleans--Case of Conspiracy with the CIA. (my emphasis) Despite the perfect opportunity, as with Playboy, Garrison again uttered not a word about Il Paese Sera, Shaw or the CMC. [7]

Finally, it is unhelpful for the central role Holland and Ayton have the Rome daily playing that Garrison never once cited or referred to those reports during the Shaw trial. Nor did he even use them as a basis for questioning Shaw. He never asked Shaw, for example, whether he had worked for CMC or for the CIA, both of which were the focus of all six stories. [8]

Ayton next rallied to the defense of a former Miami Herald reporter, Donald Bohning, who Mellen had described as "CIA linked." In response, Ayton quoted from a complaining email from the man: "(I) never took a cent from the CIA," Bohning apparently wrote, "and was outraged by the implication - along with the terms 'writer asset' and 'utilized' - Top editors at the [Miami] Herald were well aware - and approved - of my contacts with the CIA during the 1960s."

Tellingly, Ayton omits the most damning portion of Mellen's account. Even if money never changed hands, and Mellen nowhere suggests it did, Bohning's relationship with The Agency was far from the routine and casual relationship reporters have with government insiders. As Mellen points out, Bohning was apparently so useful to The Agency it gave him his own, unique cryptonym, "AMCARBON-3." Bohning "had received his Provisional Covert Security Approval as a CIA confidential informant on 8/21/67," Mellen wrote, "then Covert Security Approval itself on 11/14/67." And no less than the CIA's Deputy Director of Plans himself "approved the use of Bohning in the CIA's Cuban operations." [9]

For those who have forgotten Carl Bernstein's cautionary tale about the corrosive effect such relationships can have on credible and honest journalism [10], or the New York Time's Christmas week 1977 mea culpa for having compromised itself and its readers by engaging in similar unhealthy relationships with the CIA, a recent scandal is worth mention.

Judy Miller, the recently disgraced New York Times reporter, was such a darling of the Bush Administration and the military that she was granted a security clearance not unlike Bohning's. [11] Her bogus, prewar scare stories about the imminence of the Iraqi threat that the "leftist" New York Times published on the front page were a boon to the Neocons in the Bush Administration bent on manufacturing consent for war.

That Bohning's higher-ups at the Miami Herald knew and approved of his cozy relationship only compounds the impropriety. At least The New York Times' "top editors" publicly donned hair shirts and apologized to readers for betraying their trust. And not without reason. Bernstein documented that the problem wasn't the occasional tainting tie between the rare, lowly stringer and the CIA. It was the myriad, compromising arrangements between The Agency and the higher-ups in outfits such as CBS, NBC, ABC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The L. A. Times, etc. that really took the bark out of our press watchdogs. This is not to say Bohning was corrupt, but that Mellen's concern is well founded.

Ayton puts Holland in service of downplaying the links Mellen details between Clay Shaw and The Agency. "In reality, Clay Shaw had simply been one of thousands of businessmen who had once been a source for the CIA through its Domestic Contact Service - Shaw was a Kennedy supporter (and a) decorated war veteran."

Here, flag-waving is substituted for dealing with Mellen's great spadework on this interesting question. Ayton does not dispute that, as Mellen reported, Shaw had been cleared by the Agency for project QKENCHANT (which) authorized trusted CIA personnel for clearance to recruit or enlist 'civilians,' people not officially with the Agency, to discuss 'projects, activities and possible relationships.'" [p. 133]

If Ayton is right that Shaw's arrangement was unexceptional, and that "thousands" of other American businessmen had similarly been empowered by the CIA to "recruit or enlist 'civilians,'" there is no record of it. Moreover, the CIA called QKENCHANT an "operational project," not an intelligence-gathering project. And Shaw's records were kept in The Agency's "operational files," not with the "innocent" Domestic Contact files that housed the routine debriefings of 'simple' returning American businessmen.

Ironically, Ayton ignores what even Max Holland has acknowledged: Shaw lied under oath in denying his association with the CIA. "Have you ever worked for the Central Intelligence Agency?" Shaw's own defense attorney F. Irvin Dymond asked him. "No, I have not," replied Shaw." [11] Against the interests of his own Agency, CIA director, Richard Helms, put the lie to that. Holland relates that Shaw had had an [at least] eight-year relationship with the CIA, sending The Agency information on 33 separate occasions that the CIA invariably graded as "of value" and "reliable." [12]

One might have expected that, if only for political reasons, a Warren Commission loyalist bent on diverting suspicion from the CIA and focusing it instead on Garrison would have avoided citing Holland's essay, "The Lie That Linked the CIA to the Kennedy Assassination." For that poorly conceived, anti-Garrison tirade was published by the CIA itself after his fellows at The Nation, where Holland works as a contributing editor, rejected the paper from their magazine. [13]

To undermine the important revelations of Thomas Edward Beckham, a House Select Committee witness Mellen features, Ayton describes him as a "semi-literate," implying that the memory of a poor reader could be safely ignored. During a visit to New Orleans, Mellen interviewed former House Select Committee investigator, L. J. Delsa, a murder investigator with more than 30 years experience working variously as a federal, state or local official. In an interview on December 7, 2005, Delsa opined that, on the basis of his personal knowledge, he believed that Beckham was a credible witness.

Similar problems mar the rest of Ayton's review. But at the end of the day, still standing are Mellen's demolitions of the myths that the CIA played no part in JFK's demise and that Oswald was a loner. And she has established quite convincingly that Clay Shaw's International Trade Mart in New Orleans was a hornet's nest of activity undoubtedly related to The Agency in ways known only to those with access to still-sealed files.

With what we've already learned from declassified files, it's no mystery why the government has remained so passionate about maintaining secrecy concerning JFK's demise. For it is information that has been painfully extracted from once-secret files over the past 41 years that has steadily eroded the fables upon which the Warren Commission built its case. Mellen's book has completed a demolition that Ayton's valiant efforts can't hope to stave off.

It's past time he understood that. For when keepers of the flickering flame have to resort to Agency-abetted disquisitions to defend The Agency's innocence, the gig is up and it's time to send up a white flag.

Gary L. Aguilar, San Francisco

[1] The proposition, "Was Garrison Duped by the KGB?" was the subject of our debate held during a conference hosted by the Assassination Archives and Research Center in Washington, D.C. on Saturday, September 18, 2004 at the Marriot Wardman Park Hotel. Holland was to have defended that proposition but did not. He chose instead to argue that Jim Garrison had "lied" when he said in his book, "On the Trail of the Assassins," that he'd not heard of the Il Paese Sera articles until after the Clay Shaw trial. While Holland established that Garrison had indeed seen the Il Paese Sera articles before trial, he was less convincing that Garrison's inaccurate statement was really a lie rather than a mistake. As noted in the text, Garrison never used any of the material in the articles during the trial, and his book was published 21 years after he'd seen them.

[2] Steve Dorril, Permindex: The International Trade in Disinformation. Lobster: the journal of parapolitics, intelligence and State Research, #3, 1983. On-line at: [Had Ayton but google-searched the obvious words, "Il Paese Sera, CMC," the second "hit" would have taken him directly to this article.]

[3] See:

In its entirety, John McAdams's newsgroup post read as follows:

From - Fri Oct 15 12:22:19 1999
From: (John McAdams)
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: IL PAESE SERA and Communist disinformation
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 17:19:56 GMT
Message-ID: <>
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.11/32.235
Lines: 79

From "Communist Forgeries," a Senate Internal Security

Sub-Committee hearing on 2 June 61, testimony of Richard Helms, pp.

In recent days we have seen an excellent example of how the Communists use the false news story. In late April rumors began to circulate in Europe, rumors charging that the Algerian-based generals who had plotted the overthrow of President De Gaulle had enjoyed support from NATO, the Pentagon, or CIA. Although this fable could have been started by supporters of General Challe, it bears all the earmarks of having been invented within the bloc. In Western Europe this lie was first printed on the 23rd of April by a Rome daily called Il Paese.

Senator KEATING: Is Il Paese a Communist paper?

Mr. HELMS: It is not a Communist paper, as such. We believe it to be a crypto-Communist paper but it is not like Unita, the large Communist daily in Rome. It purports to be an independent newspaper, but obviously it serves Communist ends. The story charged --

"It is not by chance that some people in Paris are accusing the American secret service headed by Allen Dulles f having participated in the plot of the four 'ultra' generals * * * Franco, Salazar, Allen Dulles are the figures who hide themselves behind the pronunciamentos of the 'ultras'; they are the pillars of an international conspiracy that, basing itself on the Iberian dictatorships, on the residue of the most fierce and blind colonialism, on the intrigues of the C.I.A. * * * reacts furiously to the advance of progress and democracy * * *."

We found it interesting that Il Paese was the starting point for a lie that the Soviets spread around the world. This paper and its evening edition, Paese Sera, belong to a small group of journals published in the free world but used as outlets for disguised Soviet propaganda. These newspapers consistently release and replay anti-American, anti-Western, pro-Soviet bloc stories, distorted or wholly false. Mario Malloni, director of both Il Paese and Paese Sera, has been a member of the World Peace Council since 1958. The World Peace Council is a bloc-directed Communist front.

On the next day Pravda published in Moscow a long article about the generals' revolt.

Senator KEATING: May I interrupt there? Did Pravda pick it up as purportedly from Il Paese? Did they quote the other paper, the Italian paper, as the source of that information?

Mr. HELMS: Pravda did not cite Il Paese. But instead of having this originate in Moscow, where everybody would pinpoint it, they planted the story first in Italy and picked it up from Italy and this is the way it actually went out in point of time [sic].

This is important context for understanding the PAESE SERA articles that linked Clay Shaw (correctly) to CMC/Permindex, and connected CMC/Permindex (falsely) to support for the OAS attempts against De Gaulle, various fascist and Nazi forces, etc. The PAESE SERA stories were quickly picked up and repeated by leftist journals in France, Moscow, and Canada.

This by no means proves that the CMC/PERMINDEX stuff was a KGB disinformation operation. The left-wing journalists at the paper would have been happy to smear what they considered to be the "forces of capitalist imperialism" without any direct orders from Moscow. Indeed, Helms is only *inferring* that the earlier story about anti-De Gaulle generals was a KGB operation.

But this episode does put the 1967 articles on Shaw/Permindex into context. The articles were, in one way or another, motivated by a communist ideological agenda.


[4] * Anthony Marro, "Helms Is Fined $2,000 and Given Two-Year Suspended Prison Term--U.S. Judge Rebukes Ex-C.I.A. Head for Misleading Panel," New York Times, 11/5/77, p.1.*

See also: Gary Aguilar. "Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission" and "The Nation," Probe, Sept-Oct. 2000 (vol. 7 No.6) On-line*

See also Richard Helms' obituary.

[5] In: The Assassination Chronicles--Inquest, Counterplot, and Legend, by Edward J. Epstein, New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992, p. 250-263.

[6] Playboy interview of Jim Garrison is on-line at:, ff.

[7] Harold Weisberg. Oswald in New Orleans--Case of Conspiracy with the C.I.A, New York: Canyon Books, 1967, p. 7-14.

[8] See the text supported by footnotes 138-46 in the essay, "Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the Nation," by Gary L. Aguilar, Probe, Sept-Oct. 2000 (vol. 7 No.6) On-line at:

[9] Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, Washington, D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005, p. 253.

[10] Carl Bernstein, "The CIA and the Media," Rolling Stone, 10/20/77. Excerpts available on line at:

[11] William E. Jackson, Jr., "The Mystery of Judy Miller's 'Security Clearance' Deepens," Editor & Publisher, 10/26/05. On-line.

[12] Max Holland, "The Lie that Linked the CIA to the Kennedy Assassination," On-line at the CIA's website at:

[13] On condition I not disclose his identity, a former editor at The Nation told me that Holland's CIA-published article had been rejected by Holland's fellow editors. I asked Holland about the rejection in person at a Washington, D.C. JFK conference on November 19 2005. "Politics," he said, explained the rejection.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Profiles of America's Beloved TV Celebrities (34) - Kiiller Joe Scarborough

Edited by Alex Constantine

Wiki: "Broadcasting career - "In late May 2001, Scarborough announced that he would resign from Congress on September 6 to spend more time with his children. In his announcement, Scarborough also speculated about possible future presidential appointments and legal and television work. He officially resigned on September 5, 2001. ... "


" ... On November 10th, 2008, Scarborough made headlines when he said the word 'fuck' live on his show. In discussing the Obama transition team, Scarborough contrasted the reputation of Clinton era staffers with Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel by saying 'These were decent steady men who don't go around flipping people off or shouting "fuck you" at the top of their lungs.' The comment was not bleeped out, and while Scarborough's guests and cohosts reacted with shock and amusement, he continued with his point, apparently oblivious to what he had said, until co-host Mika Brzezinski broke in and informed him of his mistake. Scarborough apologized for his mistake, saying that he thought he had only 'said the letter, not the word'. ... As some bloggers have noted, Scarborough has, in the past, been a vocal opponent of profanity and indecency on television."

Special Report

A Death in the Congressman's Office
Does Anybody in the Press Care About Lori Klausutis?
By Denis Wright and Chris George

August 8, 2001 (APJP) -- information on Michael Berkland's ME license suspension in 1999

Missouri v. Taylor -- complaint mentions Michael Berkland's "material false testimony"

Once upon a time, the phrase "investigative reporter" actually meant something. It usually involved hard work, possibly even mentation. Now, it seems, they just make stuff up. Especially on the Fox News Channel, where an uninitiated viewer could easily think she/he had tuned in Comedy Central. It's "Chandra-Chandra-Chandra" with the occasional "Condit is just like Clinton" thrown in. Given our media's 24/7 obsession with the Gary Condit "scandal", you might assume that there is a real dearth of hard news to pursue.

In reality, there is indeed a news story percolating out there. The story bears remarkable and ironic similarities to the Condit/Levy story. Both involve Congressmen, rumors of infidelity, and the fate of a younger female subordinate. The details are so similar as to remind one of two alternate universes. The difference between the two stories? First, in the Klausutis case as not in the Levy case, there is a real body, very dead. Second, the Klausutis case involves a Republican.

The story had a brief flutter in the Northwest Florida press, which ran a few very short stories on Lori's death. With the exception of the Northwest Florida Daily News, they were of the "Aw-what-a-shame/ nothing-to-see-here-move-along-now-folks" variety. But nationally, this mysterious death earned a mere one paragraph mention in The Washington Post's NATION IN BRIEF column:

"FORT WALTON BEACH, FL. - Lori Klausutis, a 28-year-old office worker for Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fl), was found dead in the congressman's district office. Police said preliminary findings from the medical examiner's office showed no foul play or any outward indication of suicide."

Unbelievably, that was it. The story was simply dropped. A young female employee of one of Florida's Congressmen had died unexpectedly in the Congressman's office. There were no witnesses to her death and the cause of death was not apparent. Klausutis' boss, Joe Scarborough had recently resigned from Congress prematurely and unexpectedly, amid rumors about his marital fidelity and soon after a divorce. He had also abruptly resigned as publisher of the Independent Florida Sun, claiming that resigning from Congress and as publisher was necessary to spend more time with his sons.

Such circumstances make one pause. Sick to death of the clear bias of the corporate owned media, and suspicious of the odd nature of this death, we began to dig for answers. The more information we discovered, the more unlikely, and the more newsworthy the story became.

Here are the facts. Lori Klausutis had a seemingly happy life. A devoted husband who listed on his online homepage "being married to Lori" as one of the honors he enjoyed, a new home in Niceville and a Catholic congregation where she was a cantor and in whose choir she sang, were some of the elements of the Good Life she enjoyed. Her husband, Dr. Timothy Klausutis, did research and development for the munitions group at nearby Eglin Air Force Base, where he presumably made a good livelihood. Although Lori hailed from the Atlanta, Georgia area where she had attended school, there were numerous family members in the area. According to her obituary in the Fort Walton Daily News, Lori had served as President and, later, Treasurer, for the Emerald Coast Young Republicans and as a aide to Congressman Scarborough, she was active during the Florida recounts. A former neighbor, Barbara Cromer, said "Every morning, I would see her run while I walked. We'd wave to each other as we passed. I loved Lori so much. She was wonderful. She was a kind, generous person, so sweet.

Then, on Friday, July 20th, the body of Lori Klausutis, 28, was found slumped next to a desk on the floor of Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach office where Lori had served as a constituent services coordinator since May, 1999. Her body was found around 8:00 a.m. on Friday morning by a couple arriving for an appointment. She had been dead for some time. A second employee, who would have normally arrived for work at around the same time, was away on vacation. Police cordoned off the area for investigation, later announcing that there was no reason to suspect foul play, nor were there signs of suicide.

Scarborough's office released a statement several hours after the discovery:

"My staff and family are greatly saddened by the loss of Lori Klausutis. I know Lori will be missed by the thousands of citizens who regularly contact my office to seek assistance with a variety of problems. May God grant Lori's family the grace, comfort and hope that will get them through this difficult time."

The Congressman returned to Florida that same day, and his office was quick to point out that it was not unusual for him to fly home for the weekend.

There was a great deal of ambiguity over whether Lori had suffered past medical problems. Scarborough's press secretary, Miguel Serrano, made mention of health problems in Lori's past, but could not be more specific. In response, Fort Walton Beach Police Chief Steve Hogue is quoted as saying "That's part of our investigation, checking into her medical history." Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Berkland said "She had a past medical history that was significant, but it remains to be seen whether that played a role in her death". Soon after a member of the immediate family rejected out of hand that Lori had any significant medical problems. She was, in fact, quite an athlete, having recently run an 8K with a very respectable time and she belonged to the Northwest Florida Track Club.

The results of the mandated autopsy, however, were deemed "inconclusive" by Dr. Berkland, who ordered more specific toxicology tests. These results were expected by the middle of the following week, around the first or second day of August. Dr. Berkland commented at the time "This turns over several puzzle pieces in the case of her death and reveals more of the picture".

Welcome to the Wheel of Fortune.

Michael Berkland, it turns out, has a very interesting background himself. Recently relocated to Florida, it is a matter of public record that Dr. Berkland's medical license in the state of Missouri was revoked in 1998 as a result of Berkland reporting false information regarding brain tissue samples in a 1996 autopsy report. Berkland does not deny the charges.

It's also a matter of public record that he was suspended from his position as Medical Examiner in the State of Florida in July, 1999.

Quincy, he's not.

Repeated requests to Dr. Stephen Nelson, Chairman of the Medical Examiners Commission, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, have failed to verify that Dr. Berkland's suspension was lifted and that his licensure and disciplinary record are clear at the present time. Dr. Nelson was appointed Chairman of the Commission by Governor Jeb Bush.

As for Lori Klausutis, rumors began to swirl as time passed with no resolution to the case, rumors that included whispers of suicide, some emanating from inside the Beltway. Family members, angered at what they considered unfair and exploitive coverage wrote the editor of the Northwest Florida Daily News, Ralph Routon, saying "For those who knew Lori, the thought of suicide, as your published reports suggested, is absolutely unthinkable. Suicide was contrary to her faith and being. She did not suffer from seizures, nor did she have a history of medical problems." Meanwhile, the final report has been issued that Lori died as a result of a blow to the head because an undiagnosed heart condition caused her to collapse and fall, hitting her head on the desk.

The initial reports from the Medical Examiner's office denied any trauma to the body that would indicate cause of death. But Berkland acknowledged on Monday, August 6th, that Lori had sustained a "scratch and a bruise" on her head and that his original denials were to prevent undue speculation about the cause of death. "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury", he said.

And so, what we have here is the death of a healthy young woman who died of a blow to the head and a lie from the Medical Director's office about this blow which was quite obvious to the naked eye. They then had to go search for some reason why she might have "fallen" and hit her head. And they have found an "undiagnosed cardiac arrhythmia". But a number of questions remain to be answered, and we have requested opinions from Dr. Nelson, the Chairman of the Medical Examiners Commission.

The questions are:

- Were Lori's medical records thoroughly examined for any evidence of the pre-existing heart condition? It would seem that someone must have examined her heart if she ran 8Ks.

- Did Dr. Berkland personally examine the site of death in undisturbed condition in order to support his later conclusion that the physical evidence was compatible with his later conclusions?

Presumably the heart valve condition alluded to is Mitral Valve Prolapse. This may be associated with arrhythmias, but rarely with VTach (ventricular tachycardia) or VFib (ventricular fibrillation), the only arrhythmias which would stop the flow of blood to the brain.

Generally, with syncope of whatever cause the "guarding reflex", wherein one raises a hand to protect the head, is preserved.

There are several problems with the head injury. Generally, for a closed head injury to cause bleeding inside the skull, there is a much more severe injury on the outside of the skull. Do the autopsy notes, indeed, describe such a severe injury on the outside of the skull? In fact, the only closed head injury which usually may cause bleeding inside the skull involves a fracture of the temporal bone, with rupture of the underlying artery. The most important discrepancy that should be answered is how intracranial bleeding could continue if the cardiac arrhythmia had caused a cessation of blood flow to the brain!

- Were the toxicology studies entirely negative? Was there evidence of any legal or illegal substance in the blood stream which could have caused her to lose consciousness?

- Was she pregnant? If so, were fetal blood specimens obtained to determine paternity?

These are the questions being asked by some in the medical community of Dr. Stephen Nelson and Dr. Michael Berkland, and they continue to go unanswered.

Why is there a complete media blackout on this story? Why the complete preoccupation with the similar but largely speculative Condit/Levy story? What does this say about the state of our press? What does corporate ownership of the press do to what gets to be news? How much of what we think we know as fact is actually based on selective and distorted reporting? How does that "fair and balanced" cable network explain the complete hypocrisy and contempt for truth in their handling of these two similar tales? Will we ever know the truth of how Lori Klausutis died?

Three Pivotal Questions
by the Editors

September 1, 2001 (APJP) -- Over at The American Prospect's message board thread concerning this very article, Phoenix Woman has asked a trolling Scarborough "defender" three pivotal questions. We'd love to know the answers ourselves:

1) If Lori's death was just a simple accident, then why did Rep. Scarborough and his spokesman Miguel Serrano feel the need to go to two different local TV stations within three hours of her body's being found and invent a nonexistent history of chronic medical conditions for her -- in other words, why did they feel the need to lie about Lori's health?

2) Would you trust without question the word of a Medical Examiner who lost his ME license in two separate states (Missouri and Florida) because he LIED about his autopsy work (for instance, saying he had autopsied some brains when he hadn't)?

3) Why should whoever wrote Ms. Klausutis's obituary feel it was appropriate to mention nearly everything about her life -- EXCEPT where she'd been working since 1999?

A recent check of the Young Republican's web site found no mention of Lori or her contributions, nor any tribute to her memory nor comments about her passing. In fact, you will find no mention of her at all. If you go to The Pensacola News Journal's online pages, one of the few papers that actually covered the story, and search the site for "Klausutis" you will come up empty, even though the same search will pull up numerous stories matching "Scarborough". It seems as though someone wants to erase all traces of Lori Klausutis from the record and bury the story with her.

It's an increasingly puzzling case. We are reminded of the famous Kitty Genovese case, in New York, in 1964, where a young woman pleaded for her life over the period of 30 minutes, while neighbors ignored her cries.

The assailant returned three times to stab her. With Lori Klausutis, it seems possible that a corrupt North Florida establishment is determined to keep the lid on the case, even if that means silencing the news. And our esteemed news media, from the supposed mainstream liberal press stalwarts to the near delusional on air shouters of the channel that just reports so that you can decide, willingly turn the other way and ignore Lori Klausutis. But they continue to chatter endlessly in speculation over Chandra Levy. In so doing, they ignore the cries of truth, they deny their viewers access to the truth and they utterly, once and for all, betray our faith and trust in the media.

This report was made possible by devoted citizens who are determined to bring Lori's story to the light of day. Their contributions in research and insight are more appreciated than we can say. Thank you from both of us to each and every one of you.
Joe Scarborough Campaigns For Bush

FAIR reports when Bush campaigned in Florida on 8-10-04, "one of the supporters thanked by Bush for appearing with him at his campaign rally is Joe Scarborough, formerly a Republican congressmember from Florida but currently an MSNBC talkshow host. (In a photograph of the rally, Scarborough can be seen standing behind Bush on the platform.) Does MSNBC think it's OK for its hosts to be campaigning for presidential candidates? If so, where is the pro-Kerry host on MSNBC's schedule that would balance out Scarborough's partisanship?"

Medical Examiner Who Did the Autopsy on Joe Scarborough's Dead Aide Dismissed

From "'The Okaloosa/Walton medical examiner will be out of the job he's held the last six years. Dr. Michael Berkland has been dismissed by the Medical Examiner's Office in Pensacola. The Florida Medical Examiner's Commission had complained of his failure to complete dozens of autopsy reports in 2001 and 2002, a violation of state statutes' [WEAR TV, Pensacola]... Did the Coroner who will replace dismissed coroner break campaign donation laws? Dr. Gary Cumberland and spouse possibly gave more than the legal $1000 limit to Joe Scarborough... Dr. Cumberland is replacing the recently dismissed medical examiner, Dr. Michael Berkland who preformed the autopsy on Lori Klausutis, the dead aide found in Joe Scarborough's office."

On Imus' Show, Joe Scarborough Laughed about Dead Staffer

From the Daily Dystopian blog: "Conservative MSNBC news host Joe Scarborough was a guest on MSNBC's Imus show last Thursday, May 29. In complementing Scarborough on his sense of humor, Imus said, 'Don't be afraid to be funny, because you are funny. I asked you why you aren't in Congress. You said that you had sex with the intern and then you had to kill her.' To which Scarborough laughed, 'Yeah, ha, ha ha, well, what are you gonna do?'" As the Political Amazon ( wrote us, Lori "Klausutis is the Scarborough intern who was found dead in Scarborough's Fort Walton Beach office on July 21, 2001. At the same time that cable news shows on Fox and MSNBC were hounding Democratic Rep. Gary Condit over the disappearance of Chandra Levy... Scarborough appears to have been granted a free pass... Regardless of whether Scarborough actually murdered Lori Klaustis, his casual joking about her death is inexcusable." Send complaints to

At Least Chandra Levy Wasn't Found Dead in Condit's Office - Why is Joe Scarborough Appearing as a Republican Spokesman on Hardball?

Jackson Thoreau writes: "Did anyone else object to seeing former Florida Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough - the Reps' answer to Gary Condit - on MSNBC's Hardball Tuesday as a party debate member against a Democratic Congresswoman from California on Iraq? That's like the Democrats putting up fellow accused adulterer and former California Congressman Gary Condit. Since Scarborough was forced to resign his seat in 2001 after an alleged extramarital affair with aide Lori Klausutis, who was found dead in his office with a major head injury...Scarborough has found a good living as a Republican media whore on Hardball and other shows. Bush even appointed him to the Resident's Council on the 21st Century Workforce, where he serves with Labor Secretary Chao. Meanwhile, Condit, whose mistress at least did not die in his office and was never linked to her disappearance, has been exiled, probably never to be heard from again. Does anyone besides me see the hypocrisy in this treatment?"

Florida Republican Primary Leads to Lawsuit

Rep. Joe Scarborough, whose 28-year-old aide Lori Klausutis was found dead in July, is in the process of quitting Congress to "spend more time with his family." His unusual mid-term resignation led to a special election, starting with a primary on July 24. Once again, the winner (State Rep. Jeff Miller) was "selected" by - you guessed it - Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris. Only this time, they screwed a bunch of competing Republican candidates, who refuse to get over it. Rev. David Reddick, a right-wing pastor and talk show host, has filed a lawsuit, and other candidates may follow. It just goes to show - there IS no honor among thieves.

Was Lori Klausutis Murdered?

Official reports of the death of Lori Klausutis, the 28-year-old aide to Joe Scarborough, have been contradictory and suspicious. Initial reports said there were no signs of trauma; the autopsy reported a "scratch and a bruise" where Lori's head hit her desk, a fact which was initially concealed by the medical examiner because "The last thing we wanted was 40 questions about a head injury." Then we learned the examiner, Michael Berkland, had his license revoked in Missouri in 1998, and suspended for six years in Florida in 1999. Now the Fort Walton Beach police are refusing to release reports about Lori's death, citing an "open investigation." Do the police believe Lori was murdered? The Northwest Florida Daily News wants to know - and so do we.

Autopsy of Lori Klausutis Leaves Many Questions Unanswered

Medical Examiner Michael Berkland concluded that Joe Scarborough's aide Lori Klausutis died as a result of a blow to the head because an undiagnosed heart condition caused her to collapse and fall, hitting her head on the desk. But Berkland's credibility is in doubt because his Missouri license was revoked in 1998 for falsifying a report; after moving to Florida, his license was suspended in 1999 for SIX years! Moreover, there appear to be inconsistencies in Berkland's report. Reporters Denis Wright and Chris George of American Politics Journal are seeking answers from Dr. Stephen Nelson, Chair of the Medical Examiners Commission, an appointee of - you guessed it! - Jeb Bush.

Blood Test and Autopsy Fail to Explain Lori's Death

The Northwest Florida Daily News is the ONLY media outlet reporting on the mysterious death of Lori Klausutis, Joe Scarborough's healthy young aide. "An autopsy and blood tests have not revealed why 28-year-old Lori Klausutis died, Associate Medical Examiner Dr. Michael Berkland said Friday. Nothing in the blood tests showed how Klausutis died seven days ago, Berkland said. The autopsy also was not conclusive, though the medical examiner did say that there was no evidence of foul play... Berkland said the next step in determining the cause of Klausutis' death will be to examine and run tests on tissue samples under the microscope... Berkland could not speculate Friday about when further examinations would be complete or when a cause of death might be established." Many of you have written the media to demand coverage of this unreported story - keep up the effort!

Mystery Surrounding Death of Scarborough (R-FL) Aide Lori Klausutis Deepens

"Six days after the 28-year-old aide to U.S. Rep. Joe Scarborough was found dead inside the congressman's Fort Walton Beach office, local police are still waiting to learn how and why [Lisa] Klausutis died. 'We are waiting on a report from the medical examiner,' said Fort Walton Beach Police Chief Steve Hogue. Berkland said last Saturday that he would likely be able to announce the cause of Klausutis' death by Wednesday, after receiving the results of blood toxicology tests. But Berkland was out of town for a conference on Wednesday. On Thursday, even though assistants in Berkland's Fort Walton Beach and Pensacola offices said he had returned to the area, Berkland did not return repeated telephone calls." Why has this story received NO coverage from all-Condit-all-the-time networks? Could it be because Scarborough is a Republican? Start calling and writing the media to demand coverage of the death of Lori Klausutis!

Corporate Media Figures If It Screams 'CONDIT!' Loud Enough, the Public Won't Notice the DEAD Woman in Joe Scarborough's Office

"ConditLevyConditLevyConditLevyConditConditLevyConditLevy..." and that concludes tonight's news.... But wait! What's that we hear under the ConditLevy din? A female aide DIED in Joe Scarborough's office? No one knows how or why? What's that - the medical examiner Michael Berkland refuses to disclose any details? What's that about a toxicology report? And what's that about Scarborough, who ran as an UNCONTESTED CANDIDATE in his district, suddenly deciding to resign from his office just a few weeks before the attractive 28-year-old's death? What do you have to say about that, NBC, ABC, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post? "ConditLevyConditLevyConditLevyConditLevyConditLevy." That's what we thought you'd say!

Stop the Presses! Young REPUBLICAN Staffer Found Dead

A young REPUBLICAN Congressional staffer, 28-year-old Lori Klausutis, was found dead in Rep. Joe Scarborough's (R-FL) office in Fort Walton Beach early Friday morning. Our hearts go out to Lori's family - but difficult questions must be asked. According to friend Mary Potthast, "'She was always sweet, bubbly, caring and considerate,' said Potthast, who had known Klausutis for almost four years. Potthast said Klausutis, an avid runner who frequently competed in races with the Northwest Florida Track Club, was 'the picture of health.'" What caused her death? "There is no evidence at all that this was an intentional act, but we can't rule it out just yet," said the medical examiner. Well then, EVERY possibility must be examined. "Scarborough... could not be reached for additional comment Saturday after expressing regrets about Klausutis' death the day before." Under the circumstances, Scarborough must be questioned by the police. Why is the media not reporting this possible murder?

GOP Takes another Hit as Rep. Joe Scarborough of Florida Announces Impending Resignation

After 7 years in office, Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-FL), a single father of two will leave Congress. Although Scarborough says his concern for his children has prompted his decision and his seat will probably be filled by another Republican, the timing of the announcement - the day after James Jeffords' historic exit from the GOP -is too poignant (we think) to be coincidence. Is Scarborough hoping to send a message to the hardline "new" Republicans that it's time for some moderation? If so, we applaud you, Joe!

Monday, January 26, 2009

Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, the CIA and the News Media

by S Cone
Copyright Journalism History Winter 1998/1999

The history of Radio Free Europe (RFE) and Radio Liberty (RL) is the stuff from which good spy stories are written. During the first two decades of their existence, the cloak-anddagger drama common in fiction was reality for the Radios. Poisonings, espionage, bombings, sabotage, murders, and a few unexplained employee deaths were some of the hot signs that the Radios were deeply involved in the Cold War.1 Authors who have written about the stations-almost exclusively insiders-have understandably chosen to include such occurrences in their narratives. But these events hardly tell the full story behind America's two Cold War propaganda stations.

A comprehensive account of the Radios' past has yet to be published When and if such a work appears, it will not be complete without a full recounting of how the established news media covered up information that RFE and RL were CIA conduits. Historical evidence presented in this article indicates that when it came to covering the stations, the media, often knowingly, propagated illusions, not truth; manipulated public opinion, rather than informed it; and tried to manufacture consent, instead of promoting democratic processes through full and open reporting. Although events described here took place during the Cold War, there is reason to think that today's news media continue to be silent about government activities at America's propaganda stations.

RFE and RL began broadcasting in 1950 and 1951. Almost half a century later, the public still knows little about them, and the media may be to blame. For seventeen years, the news media made only scant reference to the stations. What coverage they did give the Radios was often carefully packaged, and it helped hide the stations' links to the CIA. Despite precautions, however, the secret was never airtight. Speculations about a possible CIA role at the "privately operated" Radios began circulating publicly almost as soon as the stations began.2 Although it took nearly two decades, the rumors were eventually confirmed when RFE was identified by the New York Times in 1967 as being CIAsponsored.3

The unmasking of RFE and RL is significant partly because it took so long, but more so because the press and broadcast media were, in many cases, well aware of the connection between the CIA and the stations and simply chose not to report the link. According to Sig Mickelson, former president of CBS News and later of RFE/RL, Inc., thousands of people knew or had insider knowledge about what was going on, especially as time passed.4 Among these thousands, Mickelson assures readers, were journalists and reporters. In an interview, he acknowledged that he himself knew about the connection while an employee of CBS.5

Beyond remaining silent, many journalists and news media members also knew about and supported a charade that CIA and Radio officials concocted to hide the agency's connections to the stations. The charade, a propaganda campaign called the Crusade for Freedom, successfully persuaded thousands of Americans to donate millions of dollars to the Radios, never telling them that the Radios were already completely funded. The Crusade, in effect, was a cover, making the Radios appear to be supported only through voluntary donations.

The men in charge of the Radios and the Crusade were avid propaganda enthusiasts. They believed that propaganda, in combination with other aspects of statecraft, was powerful enough to persuade entire populations that the American way was the right and only true way. In the first few years after RFE began operating, they fully expected communism to fail quickly, in part because of their efforts.6 They were not alone in this thinking. They were supported and aided by journalists.

An examination of both the Crusade and the Radios shows that journalists and other media members became involved in the early 1950s, when Radio organizers first decided to aim anti-Communist propaganda not only at foreign shores, but also at the United States. Instead of using short-wave broadcasts, propaganda targeting Americans was communicated largely through the Crusade for Freedom's nationwide media campaign. Established media across the country published articles or broadcast editorials supportive of the Crusade. Once it began, the campaign operated on a large scale, extending to American towns and cities across the country, spreading hope that the "captive nations" could be liberated while simultaneously "educating" Americans about the ways of communism.7

While not exactly sinister, the Crusade for Freedom was unquestionably deceitful. Over almost twenty years, it repeatedly took advantage of American good will, expanding from a small, obscure program into a monstrous propaganda subterfuge. Crusade organizers instigated parades in small towns, complete with a shining Freedom Bell displayed along the streets. Organizers cast the bell at a foundry near where the Liberty Bell was originally created to enhance its propaganda value. They added other touches, too, appealing to people's patriotic sentiments. The top of the Freedom Bell, for example, was circled with peace laurels, and the bottom was engraved with a quote from Abraham Lincoln. People were asked to sign Freedom Scrolls and donate Truth Dollars.8

Media support for the Crusade, both financially and editorially, was substantial. Mickelson's research, for example, showed that advertising and public service announcements donated to the Crusade throughout its years of operation totaled between $9 and $17 million.9 During the early years, Crusade officials themselves kept track of media support and published the information for internal use in the Crusade for Freedom Newsletter. A July 1955 issue claimed that circulation managers, editors and publishers of twenty-three newspapers in various parts of the country had backed an independent fund-raiser for the campaign. As part of this effort, some twenty thousand newspaperboys purportedly raised nearly ninety thousand dollars in contributions by directly soliciting newspaper subscribers.'o The Newsletter quoted President Dwight Eisenhower's praise:

"The boys' campaign is not one of the normal functions of the American newspapers," he said, "but the incident gives heartening evidence of newspaper people's unflagging interest in the maintenance of freedom and of human hope for peace."11

The reliability of Newsletter figures is doubtful since it would have been in the best interests of Crusade officials to exaggerate numbers, but an independent survey supports the Crusade's claim of having had high support from newspapers. For February, the month Crusade officials launched their campaign in 1955, they estimated that more than 450 newspapers carried 700 Crusade ads. Newspaper publicity, they said, had gone up from the previous year, and they estimated that "approximately 75 percent of the major U.S. newspapers" ran supportive articles or editorials on those days.'2 An examination of more than twenty newspapers from across the country between February 7 and 10, 1955, showed that more than 75 percent indeed published positive stories related to the Crusade.3 Some wrote about President Eisenhower's support for the campaign; others about the Crusade's attempts to raise funding. A few papers even doubled up, running both a story and a Crusade advertisement. The advertisements were all identical and were published as a "public service" in cooperation with the Advertising Council.14 None of the articles in any of the papers were critical or showed indications that reporters had investigated, even to a small degree, the Crusade or its organizers.15

The New York Times published one of the most blatant appeals for public support of the Crusade. Its front-page story described how the president urged all Americans to "intensify the will for freedom" in countries behind the Iron Curtain by supporting Crusade efforts. He said that RFE had well demonstrated its "hard-hitting effectiveness" in winning men's minds, and indicated that organizers hoped to raise ten million dollars to operate RFE. 16 "Without this victory," Eisenhower urged, "we can have no other victories. By your efforts, backed up by America, we can achieve our great goal-that of enabling us and all peoples of the world to enjoy in peace the blessings of freedom." Other than the president's remarks and a few details about fund raising goals, the article contained almost no background about the Crusade itself.

Just one day before the Times article appeared, the San Francisco Examiner ran a story describing how 800 American Legion posts throughout California planned to back the Crusade's fund drive. The article explained that the State Commander of the Legion urged all members in California to extend their fight against communism by mailing in Truth Dollars." The article lacked a byline and in all likelihood was simply an unedited public relations release. In Jackson, Mississippi, however, the Clarion-Ledger covered Governor Hugh White's proclamation designating Freedom Week for the state in support of the Crusade. The paper quoted his proclamation: "All Mississippians can play a direct part in this fight for liberty through lending just a small amount of time and contributions in support of [the] Crusade for Freedom. . . to carry the message of truth to enslaved people behind the Iron Curtain."ts

Beyond financial and editorial support, established media members showed their willingness to help the Crusade and the Radios in other ways. In many cases, reporters and media executives were on the stations' organizing committees, sat on their boards, and worked in their newsrooms.19 Few eyebrows lifted at the conflict of interest this created. It was only in the late 1970s that news reports and a Senate investigation revealed that a number of journalists had worked directly as agents and as informed conduits for the CIA since the time of the agency's founding.20 While such direct involvement was troubling for some members of the journalistic community, many reporters and media executives wholeheartedly embraced working for the CIA-run Radios and had for many years. Working for an organization funded by the CIA is not the same as actually working for the agency itself, but both should have raised ethical concerns.

Of the high-ranking media executives and publishers who occupied positions on the Radios' organizing committees or boards, the two most influential were closely associated with the Time-Life-Fortune empire. The first was its founder, Henry Luce.21 A review of Luce's publishing policies makes his affiliation with RFE's board of directors seem only natural. He was a conservative patriot and fierce anti-Communist. The son of a missionary, he was also a religious man, who closely associated God's plan with America's destiny. Believing that America had a moral obligation to lead the world, Luce was committed to spreading freedom and democracy. After 1946, this commitment included fighting communism and winning the Cold War.

In battling communism, Luce may have allowed his politics to overwhelm his better news judgment. He rarely hesitated to use his magazines as forums for expounding his views, eagerly providing space for causes he supported. He lavishly covered the Crusade for Freedom several times in Life, for example. On one occasion in February 1954, an article described a Crusade-sponsored mass balloon launch, which sent 4,000 helium-filled balloons aloft over more than 400 American towns and cities, each carrying cards requesting Truth Dollar donations.22 Crusade for Freedom newsletters duly noted Luce's generous support.

Other Time-Life-Fortune editors and members of the magazine empire's upper management shared Luce's politics. Like him, several were also actively involved with the Radios.23 The most notable was a man with deep associations to the Radios: C.D. Jackson. Luce initially hired Jackson as assistant to the president of Time. Jackson was eventually promoted to vice president of the magazine and later became president of Fortune. He worked for Time, Inc. for thirty-three years, heavily cross-dressing between media and politics the entire time. He took so many leaves of absence from Time for government service that a "Fun and Games Committee of the C.D. Jackson Hello & Goodbye Society" was established to arrange coming and going parties for him.24

Jackson has been described as a "virtually unknown and uncelebrated publicist" of twentieth-century style political warfare.25 His contributions to America's burgeoning propaganda war against communism were extensive. Blanche Wiesen Cook calls him "the chief architect of America's psychological warfare effort during and after World War II.26 Like Luce, he never hesitated to use the pages of Time-Life-Fortune to arouse public opinion, but in his position he had other options available to him.27

As one of five men appointed by the president to reorganize America's propaganda program, Jackson wielded considerable control over propaganda directed at people on both sides of the Iron Curtain. He was fully aware of the CIA's ties to the Radios and recommended that its cover not be destroyed. If not publicly exposed, the Radios could take "positions for which the United States would not desire to accept responsibility."28 The benefits of secrecy were not lost on Jackson: "We can play tricks, we can denounce, we can take chances, we can act fast, all things that an official government propaganda agency cannot do."29 Like publishers and media executives, reporters also became associated with the stations. Some sat on the Radios' boards; others joined their staffs. In many cases, they knew about the CIA's connections to the stations and kept silent. The best indication of this comes from the diaries of William Chamberlin Working for the Christian Science Monitor, Chamberlin had been one of the first American correspondents to cover the Soviet Union after the Bolshevik revolution. He remained abroad for seventeen years, but then returned to the United States and began writing editorials for the Wall Street Journal. In the 1950s, he accepted a position as an RL board member.

His diary entries concerning RL meetings are largely secretive and unforthcoming. After attending one meeting, for example, Chamberlin confided only that RL involved "a great deal more than meets the eye."30 In reference to a later meeting, however, Chamberlin seemed to let down his guard, providing insight into what members talked about: "Conversations revolved largely around the question of how finances could be covered up" [emphasis].31

Journalists who worked on the Radios' staffs also aided the cover up. If ranked highly enough, they were made officially aware of the CIA's role in a process that insiders called being made "witting."32 Gene Mater, a journalist who became an RFE employee after having worked for various newspapers around the country, claims to have been made witting. He argued in an interview that the CIA's role at the Radios was an open secret, and because it was, being made witting only made official what everybody already knew. He claims never to have been conflicted about his own role at RFE and never to have considered revealing the truth to the public. Mater committed himself to a path of non-adversarial acquiescence, as did many other reporters and writers working for the stations. They never publicly revealed their secret but remained wellrespected professionals of their time.' Having the approval of "spooks" was standard practice for journalists working inside the Radios, but it should never have been accepted by those on the outside.35

Yet, some evidence suggests that it was. According to Donald Shanor, who studied the stations in 1968, gossip about the CIA's ties to the Radios began as soon as the stations started operations.3 Presumably, journalists were among those who heard the rumors but failed to investigate them. Mickelson contends that journalists often knew the truth but "kept their lips and typewriters sealed."37 Paper collections and other available sources of information, however, establish little beyond the fact that some journalists outside the stations were familiar with the Radios, knew their board members, and occasionally corresponded with Radio insiders.

Anne McCormick, for example, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times well-known for her interviews with world leaders, maintained correspondence with John Foster Dulles during his tenure as Secretary of State. Dulles's brother, Allen, was the first president of the Free Europe committee and director of the CIA from 1953 to 1961. In addition to Dulles, McCormick was acquainted with and was an occasional luncheon companion of Chamberlin's.? Had she pressed either of these sources, she might have been able to break the story of RFE's involvement with the CIA in the 1950s. There is no question that she knew about the stations because her visit to the RFE offices in 1953 was recorded in a RFE internal memorandum.39

McCormick's connections to politicians and Radio insiders should have made obtaining information about the stations both possible and relatively easy. Yet, she was not the only journalist with such connections.40 Joseph Alsop, one of the nation's leading columnists in the 1950s, was also well connected and familiar with the stations. He was invited by a Crusade for Freedom staffer in 1952 to describe for "millions of unwilling prisoners of Communist aggression" the truth about life in the United States. Alsop politely declined, claiming that his previous commitments prevented him from accepting the offer.41 On the other hand, why did Alsop not investigate the Crusade or the Radios more closely? RFE had been broadcasting for three years when Alsop received his invitation. As time passed, journalists like him were apt to become more aware of the stations and, no doubt, the intelligence community's involvement with them.

Established media got the kick in the pants they needed to start investigating organizations connected to the CIA after a left-wing, San Francisco-based, alternative publication called Ramparts broke a story linking the agency with the National Student Association (NSA).42 A young Ramparts reporter, Sol Stern, began investigating the NSA after receiving a tip from a college student. In retrospect, Stern said, "The fact that the established press did not break this story shows just how complacent and compliant it was.""

Stem said that reporters at Ramparts, unlike those at the New York Times and Washington Post, did not work on the assumption that government would provide information. This difference, he claimed, made Ramparts somewhat of a fringe publication. Stern believed Ramparts would have published more adversarial articles had it had more funding, but even considering the shoestring budget on which it operated, it often printed investigative pieces that were more editorially responsible than those of the mainstream media. Otherwise, Stern wondered, "Why did the large media like the New York Times and the Washington Post with their huge budgets not get this story?""

Stern's pursuit of the NSA story inspired subsequent articles about the CIA in major print and broadcast media. The New York Times finally published several stories exposing the CIA's involvement with various organizations, as well as its methOds for channeling money through dummy operations such as the Hobby Foundation based in Texas. The New York Times connected the CIA to RFE for the first time, listing the station as a recipient of Hobby Foundation

Not long afterward, Ron Bonn at CBS News produced a one-hour television doy entitled "In the Pay of the CIA: An American Dilemma" It aired March 13, 1967, and discussed the CIA's relationships with various groups. Bonn's dy described the link to RFE as the "strangest of all the CIA's penetrations.... [It was] a project which in effect used you, the individual American, as cover."46

Ironically, Bonn's own lack of penetration might have inadvertently covered a co-me;on between RFE and CBS. When his documentary was produced, Frank Stanton was simultaneously CBS pres;t and chairman of the executive committee of the RFE Fund, a position which, after the 1967 revelations, became uncomfortable for him.4' Nearly thirty years after the documentary, Bonn said he could not recall whether he knew at the time that Stanton held both positions. Had he known, he said he would have classified any such relationship as a serious conflict of interest, "particularly if . . . [Stanton] was getting clandestine government money. . . it would have cast a shadow on his activity at CBS News."48

Suspicion about continued CIA involvement with the stations persisted even after the agency officially withdrew its support. Evidence of suspicion emerged in U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings in the early 1970s as well as in popular publications written about the CIA. Victor Marchetti and John Marks published a book in 1974, casting doubt as to whether the agency ever really ended its involvement with the Radios. They suggest that given the CIA's past record, it is unlikely.49

The history of the media's involvement with the CIA-funded Radios invites many questions. Why all the secrecy to begin with? The official answer was that the CIA wanted the Communist nations to believe that the Radios were supported by kind-hearted, freedomloving Americans. This pretense permitted the United States to have a diplomatic back door where the Radios were concerned, but it is unlikely that it ever fooled Soviet or East Bloc officials. They claim to have known the score from the beginning and to have had spies working inside the stations from time to time throughout the Cold War.50 Similarly, Soviet and East Bloc audiences were not deluded. Although CIA officials claimed the secret helped maintain credibility for RFE and RL among their listeners, this was at best rationalization and at worst wishful thinking. Soviet media warned their people often that the stations were operated by the imperialist CIA, so it is unlikely that listeners were without at least some suspicion.51

The only people not in on the secret, it seems, were members of the American public, especially those who contributed unknowingly to the Crusade. It is important to point out, therefore, that all the secrecy created an ironic situation in which CIA and Radio officials participated in the same undemocratic practices that they claimed to be battling abroad. As a small cadre of in-theknow officials, they skirted proper channels to form broadcast stations that operated outside of government's official system. Sub rosa, they avoided potential conflicts by stifling healthy debate, keeping Congress and the public in the dark about the Radios. Had more members of Congress known the truth, they might have limited funding or perhaps even closed down the stations. Mickelson articulated his fear of this, no doubt shared by other insiders, when he expressed a desire to avoid "selfserving interference" from Congress into the Radios' affairs.

That the CIA and Radio executives wanted to keep their secret is not surprising. History teaches that those with power, when left unmonitored, often wield it as they see fit, even if it is at the expense of others. It is not a stretch, therefore, to imagine how CIA and Radio officials willingly subverted democratic processes to accomplish their goals. What should be troubling to a society founded as a participatory democracy, however, is that the institution expected to stand between the public and the awesome powers of government failed so completely in its guardianship role.

Authors Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman have explained that such reporting failures are often the means by which media elites help manage public opinion or manufacture consent in the service of big business, the government, or the military.53 Creating illusions for public consumption, Chomsky argues, is necessary if those with power are to keep power.' It is not unusual, therefore, to find media elites, all with an interest in maintaining the status quo, willing to publish stories or remain collectively silent. Censorship and regular propaganda campaigns, Chomsky and Herman point out, serve to control the "premises of discourse" and keep the public's view "at serious odds with reality."

According to the authors, censorship and propaganda result, in part, from the internal selection processes within organizations. Media elites pick managers who have internalized organizational, market, and governmental constraints. These managers, in turn, pursue a line of conformity through their decisions, judgments, and influence.56 At the level on which most reporters operate, therefore, censorship is often self-imposed as employees are expected to adjust their performances to managerial expectations and other workplace realities and pressures. This "free" system, the authors state, can produce communication that is more credible than officially censored material but just as effective as propaganda.57

Chomsky and Herman's concepts of manufactured consent explain the news media's failure to meaningfully cover the Radios or the Crusade for Freedom. The men who sat on the stations' boards were media, business, and government elites interested in maintaining the status quo in the face of a potential threat from communism. They manipulated public perception through the Crusade for Freedom's propaganda campaign. That campaign was not investigated or criticized by journalists before the 1970s because the controlling influence of elites inside the media companies, along with other organizational constraints, stifled reporting contradictory to elite priorities. The result was a collective silence which was totalitarian in nature.

In the long run, the media's collaboration with the CIA and the Radios in the 1950s and 1960s may have opened doors for similar relationships later. In February 1996, CIA director John Deutch confirmed that the agency had never entirely ruled out using media organizations and journalists for spy work.58 For nineteen years, despite beliefs to the contrary, CIA-media relationships had been permitted at the director's discretion under a 1977 CIA directive.59 Deutch claimed, however, that he knew of only one or two instances when operatives received permission to use journalists or media organizations as cover. Even if one can believe the CIA director, the small numbers he tossed out simply disguise bigger issues. That such cooperation may continue to take place means that an already flagging public trust in the news media stands a chance of being further eroded by journalists who might cross the line, putting news media credibility, themselves, and other journalists in a bad light and even at risk of physical harm. Such risks have always had ramifications both at home and abroad. Cooperation between government and media spreads distrust beyond the borders of the United States, where foreign governments often presume correspondents are agents or spies for the CIA. This not only potentially prevents American correspondents from gaining access they might otherwise have, but also endangers the lives of correspondents overseas, whether they have government affiliations or not

Some government officials and media critics continue to defend allowing CIA-media cooperation, opposing any absolute rule to the contrary. Unforeseeable circumstances involving issues of national security, they maintain, may best be resolved with the assistance of journalists. The cost, they argue, of implementing a policy forbidding such relationships may potentially be very great.60 On the other hand, their opponents believe that the cost of using journalists as intelligence agents, even if only occasionally, could be higher. As Howard Kurtz, a reporter who covered media for the Washington Post in 1996, pointed out, there can never be a time when journalists collaborate with government. "If it happens just once, twice, or only in extraordinary circumstances," he said, "a cloud falls on every journalist as heavily as if it were common practice."61

Historical examples of CIA-media cooperation like the RFE and RL episode do not provide a blueprint for solving all the questions we have or the conflicts that arise over issues of government-press cooperation.

These examples do, however, provide valuable pieces of information and insight. The Radios' experience shows that if journalists are co-opted by government, the full ramifications and consequences of the penalties may not be fully realized for decades.

News media members were and remain responsible for their decisions to collaborate with the CIA, just as they are responsible for deciding to withhold information from the public. They decide whether to cross the line and engage in secret government work or to uphold journalistic principles by refusing clandestine government offers. In making such decisions during the Cold War, the news media fell short of being ideal guardians of the public interest. So long as the window remains open to CIA-media links in the future, it will be journalists who hamper or enhance that guardianship role.

On October 13, 1996, CBS's "60 Minutes" reported that the U.S. government spends more than $100 million annually on TV Marti, the television equivalent of RFE which broadcasts to Cuba. Correspondent Steve Kroft noted in his report that the govemment's money is probably completely wasted because few, if any, people in Cuba ever see the programs. The Cuban government heavily jams TV Marti signals. Even if the broadcasts could get through, the programs air before dawn at three o'clock in the morning when most people are sleeping.62

Not long before the "60 Minutes" program, an additional $7 million was spent relocating TV Marti facilities to Miami. Kroft reported that government officials such as David Burke, the chairman of the federal broadcasting board of governors who oversees TV Marti, should have been notified but were never told. Instead, the relocation was engineered behind the scenes with no opportunity for public discussion. According to Kroft, when Burke found out about the move, he wrote to members of Congress and people in the administration, including Leon Panetta. He requested hearings about the money spent on TV Marti's move and the possibility that hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted every year for its operation. No one in government responded There were no hearings and no further news stories. TV Marti officials, like RFE and RL officials before them, simply presume they have a right to withhold information and deceive the public. It is a presumption which so far remains largely unchallenged by news media.


1. Sig Mickelson, America's Other Voice (New York: Praeger, 1983), 4-10.
2. Donald Shanor, The New Voice of Radio Free Europe (An unpublished journalism research memorandum, New York: Columbia University, 1968), 207.
3. E.W. Kenworthy, "Hobby Foundation of Houston Affirms C.IA. Tie," New York Times, 21 Feb. 1967,32. 4. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 125. 5. Sig Mickelson, telephone interview with author, 2 Aug. 1996. 6. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 20, 36. 7. The same methods used by the Crusade for Freedom, when targeting Communists, were generally known as "psychological warfare.'

8. For informaton and details on the Crusade for Freedom see the Crusade for Freedom Newsletters in the Charles Taft paper collection, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Boxes 153, 156, hereafter Taft collection; and Mickelson s discussion of the Crusade in America's Other Voice, 51-58. 9. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 55. 10. See Crusade for Freedom Newsletter July 1955 Taft collection, Box 156, folder Foreign Affairs: Geographic file, Europe: National Committee for Free Europe, Inc. I1. Ibid. 12. Ibid.

13. Eighteen papers that published articles about Eisenhower's support for the Crusade or articles and advertisements supportive of the Crusade between February 7-10, 1955, include the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Chicago Tribune, Jackson, Miss., Clarion-Ledger, Des Moines Register, Houston Post, Indianapolis Star Los Angeles Times, Louisville-Courier Journal Milwaukee Journal,Minneapolis Morning Tribune, New York Herald Tribune, New York Times, Charleston News and Courier, Portland Oregonian, San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, and Washington Post Six papers that had no coverage of the Crusade on the specified days include the Christian Science Monitor, Charlotte Observer, New Orleans Times Picayune, Wall Street Journal, and Pitsburgh Courier. Regarding Eisenhower's support for the Crusade he was one of its founders, as well as a member of the National Committee for a Free Europe. He held occasional fund raisers for the Crusade at the White House, which were attended by businessmen, but few people in media.
14. See, for example, "How They Hear the Truth behind the Iron Curtain," Boston Globe, 8 Feb. 1955, 3, or the same advertisement in the San Francisco Chronicle, 8 Feb. 1955, 2.
15. After IS years, the Crusade brought in close to $50 million. The cost of implementing and sustaining the Crusade's campaign was $20 million, leaving only $30 million leavin only $30 million of total support for the Radios. This was just a fraction of what they needed to operate. See Mickelson, America 's Other Voice, 58.
16. New York Times "President Appeals For Satellite People," 8 Feb. 1955, 1 and 6. Besides Eisenhower, the article quotes General Walter Bedell Smith, the former Under Secretary of State, and Henry Ford II. Their comments were made for a fund-raiser, which was broadcast over closed-circuit television from ABC's studios in New York to audiences in thirty-three cities.
17. San Francisco Examiner, "California's 800 Legion Posts to Back Fund Drive for Radio Free Europe," 7 Feb. 1955, p. 28.

18. Clarion-Ledger, "Governor Proclaims Freedom Week Here," 8 Feb. 1955,13.
19. Crusade for Freedom Newsletter, July 1955,Taft collection, Box 156 folder Foreign Affairs: Geographic file Europe: National Committee for Free Europe, Inc. Broadcast media supported the Crusade as well. The Newsletter boasted that in 1955 "substantially more than 500 Crusade messages were [broadcast] by CBS, NBC, ABC, MBS and Dumont networks." While the Crusade's numbers might not be correct, it seems certain that the campaign did receive support from radio and television broadcasters. Well-known figures in broadcasting, such as Ed Sullivan and Edward R. Murrow, were used in commercials promoting the Crusade's efforts. The Newsletter also reported that "twenty-six national consumer magazines with circulations in excess of 46 million readers carried Crusade articles, editorials or special mentions; as did 52 national organization magazines with 14 million readers, and trade magazines reaching an additional two million."
20. See Donald Crewdson, "The CIA's 3-Decade Effort To Mold the World's Views," New York Times, 25 Dec. 1977, 1; "Worldwide

Propaganda Network Built by the CIA," 26 Dec. 1977, 1- "CIA Established Many Links to Journalists in U.S. and Abroad," 27 Dec. 1977, 1; "Varying Ties to the CIA Confirmed in Inquiry," 27 Dec. 1977, 41; "A Young Reporter's Decision to Join CIA Led to Strain Anger and Regret" 27 Dec. 1977,41. Also see "CIA and the Press," Editor & Publisher, 17 Sept.1977, 6; "Shaping Tomorrow's CIA," Time, 6 Feb. 1978, 15; Stuart Loory, "The CIA's Use of the Press: A Mighty Wurlitzer," Columbia Journalism Review, Sept./Oct. 1974, 819; "The CIA Connection,"Newsweek 10 Dec. 1973, 18; "CBS-CIA Connection Confirmed by Salant," Broadcasting, 30 May 1977, 22. For government investigations see Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, United States Senate, 94 Cong., 2 session S. Doc. 94-755, 1976, 3 vols. (informally known as the Church Committee). Also see House Select Committee on Intelligence Report (Pike Committee Report),19 Jan. 1976. This report was unpublished but was leaked to the press and is cited in Bernardo Carvalho, "The CIA and the Press," Freedom of Information Center Report 382, December 1977. For government investigations specifically into RFE and RL, see Hearing before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 92 Cong., S. 18 and S. 1936, "Public Financing of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty," 24 May 1971; Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 92 Cong., S3645, "Funding of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty," 6 and 7 June 1972.
21. Outside of Luce's empire, other publishers who formed influential associations with the stations include William Lindsay

White, publisher of the family-owned Emporia, Kan., Gazette from 1944 to 1973. He was elected treasurer of RL and remained a trustee until his death in 1973. Edwin Palmer Hoyt, publisher of the Portland Oregonian, and William Wesley Waymack a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial writer who became editor of the Des Moines Register and Tribune, lent their names and sometimes their resources to RFE. A few others who figured prominently as board members and founding members of the stations include DeWitt Wallace, the publisher of Reader's Digest, Mark Ethridge, publisher of the Louisville Courier Journal; Hamilton Fish Armstrong, editor of Foreign Affairs, and Frank Stanton of CBS News.
22. Henry R. Luce "Fund Raising Takes To Air,"Life 22 Feb. 1954, 37. Also See Crusade for Freedom Newsletter, February 1954, Taft collection, Boxes 153-156.
23. Alan Grover, president of Time, for example, was an original organizer of Radio Liberty. Roy Larsen, a vice president of Time, Inc., was a member of the board of directors for the Radio Free Europe Fund. For complete lists of RFE and RL board members, see the Board for International Broadcasting annual reports.
24. Blanche Wiesen Cook, "First Comes the Lie: C.D. Jackson and Political Warfare," Radical History review 31 (1984): 43. 25. Ibid., 45 26. Ibid., 44 27. Ibid., 45

28. "The President's Committee on International Information Activities: Report to the President," 30 June 1953. U.S. President's Committee on International Information Activities: the Jackson Committee, Box 14, 39-40, 4143, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library, Abilene, Kan.
29. Speech by C.D. Jackson before the Annual A.NA. Meeting, September 1951. C.D. Jackson Papers: 1931-1967, Box 82, 5, Dwight D. Eisenhower Library. Also see Shawn J. Parry-Giles, "The Eisenhower Administration's Conceptualization of the USIA: The

Development of Overt and Covert Propaganda Strategies," Presidential Studies Quarterly 24 (Spring 1994): 267.
30. William Chamberlin, personal diaries, reel 1 of 4: 1949-1956, Providence College Library. See entry on 12 Jan. 1951. 31. Ibid.,1 Oct. 1952
32. Mickelson,America's Other Voice, 121. 33. Gene Mater, telephone interview with author, 20 July 1996. Mater worked for the San Bernadino Sun Telegram, Newark StarLedger and New York World Telegram before becoming RFE's head of news and information from 1959 to 1965. Ironically, he was thought of as a "news purist."
34. Leland Stowe for example, was a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who became head of RFE's News and Information department before Mater. He was responsible for hiring other excellent reporters for the Radios, such as Russell Hill, of the New York Herald Tribune; Allan Dreyfuss of ABC and Reuters in Europe Frederick B. Opper, of ABC; Talbot Hood, of the United Press in London; and John Elliott, of the New York Herald Tribune. For information specifically on Stowe's activities at RFE, see America's Other Voice 96, and the Leland Stowe papers, 1925-1969, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box 10, Folders 5 and 6. 35. Shanor, The New Voice of Radio Free Europe, 210. 36. Ibid.

37. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 125. 38. For letters from Anne McCormick to John Foster Dulles and others connected to RFE and RL, see the Anne O'Hare McCormick papers, 1931-1954, New York Public Library, Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, Boxes 6,7,10. Descriptions of McCormick's associations with Chamberlin can be found in Chamberlin's diaries; for example, see 6 Nov. 1940, 2 Oct 1941, and 6 April 1946., 19491956.
39. See Leland Stowe to Whitney Shepardson, "RFE's News and Information Service: Facts About Its Specialized Coverage and Products in Relation to Their Costs," 29 Dec. 1953, Leland Stowe papers, State Historical Society of Wisconsin, Box 10, folder 5.
40. A complete list of reporters who corresponded with RFE executives would be very long but would include Walter Graebner, Joseph Alsop, Daniel Longwell, Robert Lee Sherrod, Claude Gemade Bowers, Arthur Sweetser, Nicolas Roosevelt, Brant Irving, and Harry Barnard.
41. Rion Bercovici to Joseph Alsop, 28 Nov. 1952, Joseph and Stewart Alsop papers, Library of Congress, Box 8. Also see Joseph Alsop to Bercovici,10 Dec. 1952, Box 8. 42. Mickelson,America's Other Voice, 125. 43. Sol Stem, telephone interview with author, 20 July 1996. 44. Ibid.

45. Sol Stern, "NSA and the CIA,"Ramparts, 5 March 1967. The article exposing the link between the NSA and the CIA did not appear until March 1967. The New York Times was able to break the story first on February 14, before Ramparts, most probably because Ramparts editors advertised their new issue in a full-page Times ad. Additionally, Ramp arts editors mailed out advanced copies of their publication which Times editors very likely received.
46. "In the Pay of the CIA, An American Dilemma" CBS News, 13 March 1967, CBS Archives, New York City. 47. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 124. 48. Ron Bonn, telephone interview with author,16 April 1996. 49. Victor Marchetti and John Marks, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1974), 208.
50. See A. Panfilov, Broadcasting Pirates: Or Abuse of the Microphone (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1981). 51. Ibid.

52. Mickelson, America's Other Voice, 222. 53. See Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988), xi.
54. See Noam Chomsky, Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies (Boston, Mass.: South End Press, 1989), 19. Chomsky explains why illusions are necessary in a democracy: "In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey, what they think is secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper boundaries.

What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns" (48).

55. Herman and chomsky, Manufacturing Consent, xi
56. Ibid., iix
57. Ibid., xiv
58. Associated Press. Online wire report. CompuServe Information Services. 18 April, 1996.
56. Ibid Also see devra Gersh Hermendex, Posing as

Jounalists"Editor & Publisher, 2 Mar. 6. 60. "Journalists As Spies," "Reliable Sources" transcript, Cable News Network, 25 Feb. 1996, Internet (/ TRANSCRIPTS/rs.html) 25 March 1996. During an el discussion about this issue, Richard Haass, the director of National Security Programs for the Council on Foreign Relations, opposed establishing rules regulating govemment/media relationships. 61. Ibid. Kurtz was also a panelist. 62. "60 Minutes," 13 Oct. 1996, CBS Archives.

[Author Affiliation]
Stacey Cone is a first-year doctoral student in journalism and mass communications at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.