Compiled into Media Disinformation.
THIS IS MATERIAL FROM THE ICE CAVE. IT HAS NOT YET BEEN FORMATTED.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 19:16:27 -0400
From: Graeme Price
Just wondering. Is there a specific mechanism by which the Government can censor the news media (print, radio, TV or all three) in the US?
I know that the constitution protects free speech and so on, but I guess there would have to be a mechanism to gag the press regarding matters of national security.
In the UK, there is a mechanism called the D-Notice which used to be used to stop the press reporting on matters which affected state secrets and national security (although I'm not sure if HMG still issues D-Notices). Anyone got any more up to date info on this?
Date: Tue, 09 Jun 1998 17:31:48 -0700
From: Duran Goodyear
At 07:16 PM 6/9/98 -0400, you wrote:
It's called "This is a soldier with an M-16… You are about to broad cast something that would damage National Security… Think again bucko…"
Ok, so thats pretty rough.
I'm no expert on the matter, but as I understand it…
If the US govt. feels that it's an issue of national security…
then first…
They make sure it never reaches the media…
"Gee, I guess Suzy news person died in a car crash on the way to work this morning…"
Again, brutal… but I for one would not rule it out if it is THAT important.
and second…
Quiet it up…
Deny.
Cover up.
and put very imposing men in your door way, telling you to stop talking about it.
It is the right of the media to broad cast what they want, when they want. But if the Mil/Gov can do so with out exposing them selves, I would expect them to do what is nessisary to cover it up… One thing they have to be concerned with is
Would killing someone make more of a mess then if the story got out…
Which is more important.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 21:05:46 -0700
From: "Gerry Mckelvey"
Quiet it up…
Deny.
Cover up.
and put very imposing men in your door way, telling you to stop talking
about it.
I don't think that's even necessary…just look at the current White House strategy for dealing with thier problems…deny everything, tell the opposite story than what your accuser is saying, then attack the credibility of your accuser. Oh, and just delay the story and stonewall any investigation…it's easier to re-direct an investigation when you let it grind on for about a year…make effective use of people's short attention span (hmmm, wonder if the invention of the remote control was a contributing factor there…gotta talk to those MIB's again…) sooner or later most people will go away and find something more interesting to do…or you could give them something more interesting to do, and that I leave to the fiendish imagination to the gm…
It is the right of the media to broad cast what they want, when they want.
but if it fits thier agenda, it gets covered more… and the agenda is 'make money'!
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 20:48:31 EDT
From: J. Frederick MacKenzie
Graeme asked:
« Is there a specific mechanism by which the Government can censor the news media (print, radio, TV or all three) in the US?
I know that the constitution protects free speech and so on, but I guess there would have to be a mechanism to gag the press regarding matters of national security. »
The US Supreme Court has interpreted the constitutional right to free speech as allowing the Federal Government a very limited power of "prior restraint". Prior restraint is the censoring or blocking of information being released and will only be authorized in situations involving a "clear and present danger" to national security.
In order to exercise prior restraint, the government must get a court to order that the information involved may not be released. The court will demand proof that the information really poses a threat. The classic example given is that a schedule of troop ships leaving port could not be published in wartime.
A famous test case for prior restraint was the "Pentagon Papers". A detailed and sensitive history of the Vietnam War was leaked to two newspapers. This report contained information that could compromise intelligence assets in place in North Vietnam. One court ruled that the New York Times (I think) couldn't publish. Another court ruled that the Washington Post could publish, but with a few names deleted.
Please keep in mind that the rules were very different in the first half of the 20th Century. During World War I, World War II, and the "red scares" of the 1920s and 1950s, blocking information was much easier and the courts went along with almost any government claim that the "Espionage Act" had been violated.
Another thing to bear in mind is that although the Feds can't always stop the release of information, they can still often punish those who release classified or sensitive information. Massive fines and jail sentences are possible. Espionage charges are a capital crime, punishable by death (although not in the 1990s).
As a final note: An employee of the CIA once told my father, "If someone might be handing out secrets to the Soviets, sometimes it's just easier for everyone if they fall in front of a subway train."
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:38:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: The Man in Black
On Tue, 9 Jun 1998 moc.loa|noehctucsE#moc.loa|noehctucsE wrote:
Graeme asked:
« Is there a specific mechanism by which the Government can censor the news
media (print, radio, TV or all three) in the US?»
[much lawyerism redacted]
As a final note: An employee of the CIA once told my father, "If someone
might be handing out secrets to the Soviets, sometimes it's just easier for
everyone if they fall in front of a subway train."
Or have a tragic hunting accident,
or slip and fall in the shower,
or commit suicide,
or be crushed in a fatal traffic collision,
or trip down a flight of stairs,
or eat some *really* bad seafood,
or shoot themselves while cleaning their gun,
or be electrocuted by that bathtub radio,
or overdose on illegal narcotics,
or have an allegic reaction to medication,
or suffer a lethal stroke/heart attack,
or be devoured by an escaped pitbull.
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 1998 22:41:13 -0400
From: Steven Kaye
I have to agree with Duran that the government would probably take steps to make sure the story never reached the media. Look at press coverage during the Gulf War, especially with comparison to the stories that came out after the fact.
In researching a paper for grad school (5 or so years ago) on the evolution of the power of the executive branch of U.S. government, I came to the terrifying realization that there really isn't a firm definition of "national security," making it a useful device for restricting flow of information. Look at the history of executive orders and restrictions on publishing classified materials, for example. I can provide sources if people are really interested.
For more inspirational material, check out:
- Title 18 of the US Code at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/, with particular emphasis on Chapter 37 Espionage and Censorship (Chapter 10 deals with biological weapons, BTW),
- a short piece on the classification system at http://www.usdoj.gov/oip/foia_updates/Vol_XVI_2/page10.txt,
- the Department of Justice's Freedom of Information Act Page at http://www.usdoj.gov/foia/,
- a selection of federal procedures for protecting national security information at http://www.jya.com/nsi/natsec-rule.htm.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 00:03:58 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
I have to agree with Duran that the government would probably take steps to
make sure the story never reached the media. Look at press coverage
during the Gulf War, especially with comparison to the stories that came
out after the fact.
One story I'd read, disremember the source, commented about how the US Gov't. "controlled" the media during the Gulf War - all the various regulations and special "briefings" and all kept them from going out and getting into things the way they'd done in Vietnam, etc. Also bitched about how the media, for the most part, sucked it up and said "please, sir, may I have another?". (Might have been an early WIRED article.)
A good way to "cover" information, of course, is for something much more "newsworthy" to happen; if something is going to break, a sudden application of "mad gunman" can make it drop off relatively unnoticed. (This will work better on smaller stories, for the most part; Pakistan's nukes and the Oregon school-shootings didn't cancel each other out, but what *did* get buried, hmmm?)
For more inspirational material, check out Title 18 of the US Code
The bioweapons bit (along with chemicals and other "mass destruction") was discussed the the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin <?> this past fall, IIRC> (We get it at the local library.) I still need to check it out again for rereading and notes, but it seemed most suitable for DG.
I also have a fairly recent military security and classification handbook somewhere in ASCII, downloaded from somewhere, as well as certain base-commander's instructions for "approved" web-pages done by the personnel under their command. (Think it means for .mil domains, ie "official", but paranoia is a good thing.. <EG>)
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 09:51:03 GMT0BST
From: Robert Thomas
Graeme Price said:
In the UK, there is a mechanism called the D-Notice which used to be used
to stop the press reporting on matters which affected state secrets and
national security (although I'm not sure if HMG still issues D-Notices).
Anyone got any more up to date info on this?
As far as I know the D notice system is still in operation, it's not actually used often as far as I know. It's more of a stick approach to editors don't think about publishing or we'l issue a D notice.What also tends to happen is the classic 'Yes Minister' approach, if the Government has to publish informati on it dosen't want to it releases it but also creates a much more dramatic story at the same time "15 Russian Spies expelled" etc
I think the D in D notice refers to the Defense of the Realm Act, which as is usual under UK law is fairly broad and can be widely interpreted. This is the Act under which notices to prevent publication can be issued. I think one was issued in the Spycatcher case in the UK to prevent the newspapers publishing transcripts of the trial / book from Australia where HMG v Peter Wright was in full swing the Gov trying to stop publication in Australia (and failing!). Usually though if a D notice is served we won't hear anything about it because its probably an offense under either DORA or the Official Secrets Act to mention the reason for, or the serving of, a D notice.
And anyway the UK print media tends to be part of the "Establishment", the old boy network is enough to prevent publication, or if needed a knighthood here a Lordship there, or a few favours by the Gov; such as talking to the Italian Prime Minister on behalf of Rupert Murdoch who wanted to take over a TV station there;-]
Date: 10 Jun 1998 10:34:45 BST
From: ITDCJB
As far as I am aware D Notices date back to the War. IIRC from my communication A-Level the D Notice doesn't actually prevent a newspaper from publishing a story but it is a veiled threat by the government… "If you publish this story our press office will no longer send you any parliamentary information, you will no longer be allowed to send your journalists to govenrmental press releases, your political correspondants will be shunned, etc." In DG use of D Notices and the Official Secrets act can provide great cover for DG agents and/or MJ12.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 12:13:49 +0100
From: "Crossingham, Adam"
Recent discussions re D-notices piqued my interest (as have recent events in my own campaign) about just how do D-notices work in the UK. A quick search of the WWW produced the following which I've ranked in order of interest (to me anyway). Oh, and the Aussies have a D-notice system as well.
http://www.tlio.demon.co.uk/censored.htm#Defence - an excellent source which seems to cover everything I wanted to know.
http://au.spunk.org/texts/pubs/openeye/sp000942.txt
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/uk/d.htm - do follow the links on British press laws as they are quite informative as a whole (the rest of the FAS site looks quite good as well).
I was surprised to find the whole D-notice system was a voluntary mechanism. But I wonder just how 'voluntary' it is, and how far news organisations can get away without co-operating with it. Any news organisation depends on finding news - but if this is stopped - perhaps official departments stop talking to it, forget the press releases, refuse the press passes - how long will they be effective as a news gathering organisation?
And given the fact that many news organisations are owned by people in the establishment, these organisations will also co-operate with the system as it won't rock the boat, won't hinder the chairman's forthcoming knighthood, etc. They may consider themselves, or be considered by the establishment as 'one of us'. This has been the case traditionally. The Press are the fourth estate after all… The 'Daily Mail' is known in some quarters as the 'Daily MI5', given it's reactionary conservative outlook.
The exception to this argument are news organisations with international links. An example could be the Murdoch-owned UK newspapers (The Times, Sunday Times, Sun and News of the World). The fact that Rupert Murdoch is a non-British establishment, Republican, American/ex-Australian international businessman who is prepared to compromise truth-in-news reporting in exchange for business opportunities with totalitarian governments could suggest to some that the actions of his papers and the views of the owner are connected in some way. These News International publications don't have market sector dominance but have been very influential on the rest of the industry.
Following the Murdoch-press lead, British newspapers have developed a more confrontational (or rather a less obliging) approach to the British establishment over the last couple of decades. Under the guise of investigative journalism secrets, cock-ups and scandals (perhaps the same thing <g>) have been exposed; the defence always being that 'the Public has a right to know' about facts, hitherto only known to an informed elite. The threat of an unfettered or hostile press can be seen by the fact that the last two British governments have made strenuous efforts to win over, or, not to irritate Murdoch. Maybe Murdoch has sat on state secrets in return for relaxed media ownership laws in the UK.
Limited information rights laws have now been passed in the UK, but the 'In the Public Interest' defence has been removed from recent secrets legislation. Sound like things being given in one hand and taken away with the other?
Perhaps the best way to avoid media scrutiny or suppression in modern Britain is to make sure the press don't find out about it. I remember being taught in college that the guiding principle of British government is secrecy - what isn't known can't hurt you. Therefore compartmentalise the exposure, deny everything to anybody other than an official enquiry. If forced by an official enquiry to give evidence obfuscate, then give/apologise/retract/_clarify_ the evidence. The Official Secrets Act should take care of the rest of the mess if it gets that bad. If the Press do find out - act before they publish and confiscate all materials relating to the story including confidential sources, and use the Official Secrets Act to prevent their disclosure.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 16:16:55 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
My tuppence worth on the subject:
By and large the American media does a wonderful job of suppressing itself. Look at the hatchet job they did on poor Pierre Salinger who used tro be one of their own! Granted, he was probably full of shit, but the handling he received assured no one would EVER look into his allegations.
The CIA actively recruited from the working press during the Viet Nam era.
All newspapers are owned by millionaires.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 20:21:40 EDT
From: John
In a message dated 98-06-09 21:17:31 EDT, you write:
Another thing to bear in mind is that although the Feds can't always stop the
release of information, they can still often punish those who release
classified or sensitive information. Massive fines and jail sentences are
possible. Espionage charges are a capital crime, punishable by death
(although not in the 1990s).
As recently seen by the publication of the San Jose Mercury News articles about the CIA pushing drungs in inner cities. I believe (can someone check me on this?) that is was at one time illegal to publish anything on the CIA, but that seems to have softened considerably. And what was that book some ex-CIA guy wrote, and the CIA got wind of it, and excides a bunch of paragraphs. But the poublisher printed the book just that way, with numerous blank spots where the excised paragraphs should have been?
I think the easiest way to get nwspapers/news nto to print something is to ask them not to. Dig up a copy of "Toxic Sludge is Good For You." Americans just aren't as interested in human rights violations (except good ones on video tape) or government scandals anymore. Nerve gas used on Americans got a one-day headline, and that's it. We don't care. It's easier that way.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:04:14 EDT
From: Shane Ivey
« I believe (can someone check me on this?) that is was at one time illegal to publish anything on the CIA, but that seems to have softened considerably. And what was that book some ex-CIA guy wrote, and the CIA got wind of it, and excides a bunch of paragraphs. But the poublisher printed the book just that way, with numerous blank spots where the excised paragraphs should have been? »
I've never heard of a time when it was illegal for a journalist to write about the CIA, or about any other government agency, unless it was during a war.
It is a different question entirely when you're looking at former government officers attempting to publish books about their service. Most sensitive agencies require their employees to sign documentation avowing that they won't spill secrets afterward, and I believe they have done so since Yardley's book on the Black Chamber in 1929. There the situation is not government censorship of a press or publisher, but sanctions against an employee in violation of contract and federal law.
Of course, it is certainly true that "unofficial" sanctions can work perfectly well to keep a particular story from running, as others already described: "Print this and you'll never get juicy gossip from the NSA again," "Hey, I heard the Editor in Chief had a run-in with a pit bull and was seen with a REALLY strange forehead injury," etc. As far as I know that sort of give and take is more common and more effective these days than relying on publishers to "do right" by the intelligence community. Patriotism could fairly reliably get a publisher to suppress a book or story in 1929; in the 1990s I think few would be quite that cooperative without some more concrete incentive.
Politics and patriotism go a lot farther if they're helped along by the bottom line.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 22:13:14 -0400
From: "Alexander Beckers"
Police were raiding a suspected drug den, and set the building on fire. Interesting notes:
The report focused on the innocent family who lived downstairs and are now homeless. There was no mention of or pictures of the accused drug dealers.
The one reference to drug operation was made by a neighbor that I can only describe as "sketchy". He stammered a lot.
The claim is that the house was set on fire by a flash grenade throw into a 2nd story window.
The news anchor said, "One police casualty — one officer was bitten by a dog." They don't say whether it was a fatality or merely an injury.
So we have a building set ablaze as part of a police raid of never-seen "drug dealers", and one of them was bit "by a dog", possibly fatally.
What do YOU think?
I'll tell you, if DG has had only one impact on my life outside gaming, it's that I'm even MORE paranoid and skeptical of news reports. You bastards! YOU did this to me!
Plot hook: Gaming company releases supplement subtly designed to increase uneasiness and paranoia in its readers, who are then more likely to react in… interesting ways… to stress.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 98 19:25:30 -0700
From: Joseph Camp
Quite correct. The media were masterfully handled during the Gulf War conflict, a practice that began in earnest during the Grenada invasion of Reagan's term.
What it amounts to is that a pool of journalists are selected from the major media outlets and are allowed to accompany select missions, surveys, briefings, and whatnot. To be a part of this pool, you surrender certain rights as to the nature of your reportage—what you can take pictures of, what details you can discuss, and so forth. Nominally, this is to protect classified information that, if revealed, could lead to casualties in the field: the locations of troops, specific procedures, secret technology, etc.
In practice, of course, the result was that the media allowed into Iraq during the war were only shown carefully selected portions of the events there. The daily briefings, which focused on smart missiles and the like, were scripted to give the impression of a clean war consisting of surgical strikes and nothing being damaged (on screen, at least) besides impersonal buildings. In reality, as the Pentagon later admitted, the smart missiles were a very small portion of the overall armaments deployedthe vast majority of which were your basic "dumb" missiles and bombsand even they performed poorly. The few notable successes they achieved became the source for the video we saw on the evening news.
The assumption of the Pentagon was that uncensored footage of dead and dying Iraqi and American soldiers would quickly kill Americans' support for the war, damaging the coalition that the Bush administration had assembled.
All told, the handling of the media during the Gulf War was an immensely successful operation - arguably more successful than the Gulf War operation itself. Agents and case officers are encouraged to study this case as an example of how to get the job done without drawing the wrong kind of attention.
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 00:21:06 EDT
From: J. Frederick MacKenzie
The friendly Alex Beckers wrote:
« Police were raiding a suspected drug den, and set the building on fire. (edit, edit…) The report focused on the innocent family who lived downstairs and are now homeless. There was no mention of or pictures of the accused drug dealers. »
A real failure of police "Spin Control". This is why police will often have an official spokesman promptly issuing a statement of "what just occurred". Approximately 90 % of news stories have their sources in press releases of some sort, so the media give these officials respectful attention in most cases.
« The one reference to drug operation was made by a neighbor that I can only describe as "sketchy". He stammered a lot. (edit, edit…) The news anchor said, "One police casualty — one officer was bitten by a dog." They don't say whether it was a fatality or merely an injury. »
The reporters usually enter into a situation with preconceptions of what to expect. They tend to craft a story consistent with those preconceptions direct their camera crew or photographer accordingly. This results in vague and inaccurate reports. Additionally, stock footage will often be used as visuals, introducing outdated and inappropriate pictures.
I hear you saying: "So What?" You can use the media as a great foil for investigators. Some suggestions:
- News reports will reach the investigators' supervisors before they can explain what they were doing: "This is Bert Smalley on the scene! Federal agents are attempting to stop what is apparently a rampaging elephant! You can see the trail of destruction behind me…"
- Intrepid reporters can get in the middle of things just in time for the situation to cook off: "Tango Leader, I have a clean shot at the cult leader… no, wait - there's some guy filming him!" Offing local reporters is unlikely to pass unnoticed.
- The team's enemies may use some spin control of their own: "I'm speaking with William Greed, attorney for the alleged cultists. So, Mr. Greed, you say you have proof that your clients were framed by corrupt federal agents?"
- Inaccurate reports can give misleading information: "So, acting on information we received from the FBI, my deputies were able to round up this entire band of dangerous drug smugglers." (except for the three that got away).
- Various government agencies will issue contradictory statements as they attempt to pass blame: "Just in; the missing convoy was transporting experimental medical supplies, not weapons as originally reported."
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 05:46:06 +0100
From: Ian/Cath Ford
If the US govt. feels that it's an issue of national security…
then first…
They make sure it never reaches the media…
"Gee, I guess Suzy news person died in a car crash on the way to work this
morning…"
Again, brutal… but I for one would not rule it out if it is THAT important.
and second…
The name Karen Silkwood springs to mind.
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 1998 21:14:13 -0400
From: Steven Kaye
In a message dated 98-06-09 21:17:31 EDT, John wrote:
You're referring to THE CIA AND THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE, by John D. Marks and Victor Marchetti. 168 deletions, if memory serves.
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:09:54 EDT
From: The Laughing Priest
In a message dated 98-06-10 22:15:21 EDT, you write:
What do YOU think?
Occam's Razor of political paranoia: Never attribute to malice whan can be adequately explained by stupidity. This sounds an awful lot like stupidity.
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 13:09:56 EDT
From: The Laughing Priest
In a message dated 98-06-10 22:25:13 EDT, you write:
The assumption of the Pentagon was that uncensored footage of dead and
dying Iraqi and American soldiers would quickly kill Americans' support
for the war, damaging the coalition that the Bush administration had
assembled.
And he was absolutely correct. Americans no longer have the stomach for a questionable war. Norman Swartzkopf was the toast of the country when the War was over, but later became a real persona non grata because his command allowed 56 American casualties, some of them from friendly fire. The Gulf War was one of the most incrediblly one-sided massacres in history -30,000 Iraqui soldiers were killed, and America lost less than 100, and STILL Swartzkopf got nailed for allowing those deaths. Either the world is going nuts, or I am.
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 14:34:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: Don Juneau
On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 moc.loa|rJrekaorC#moc.loa|rJrekaorC wrote:
I've never heard of a time when it was illegal for a journalist to
write about the CIA, or about any other government agency, unless it was
during a war.
IIRC, it wasn't per se "illegal", but they wanted control over aspects of what was revealed; a few months ago, I read a book detailing the CIA's illegal domestic operations against the underground (and mainstream as well) press - if I could remember the title, I'd type it here - and it dug *deep*. The book you're speaking of was (I think) either Marchetti (THE CULT OF INTELLIGENCE?) or Philip Agee (???), and the Agency was running scared, as the writer had been in the fringes of that domestic op. (Usual grey/black stuff - forgery, surveillance, moles, intimidation and the like.)
The next big one was Frank Snepp, I think (???), and that ended up reinforcing the publication agreements; those were *almost* removed fairly recently, when Jean Kirkpatrick was told to sign or lose her job (UN ambassador) - she was quitting anyway. <G> ANother chunk that came out was a civilian inspector/auditor, who gave his reports to Congress as ordered, was bollocked by the Pentagon (Navy?) for doing so - seems he was finding all sorts of nasty overruns and discrepencies. His was "sign or lose your clearances", thus no way to function - and they expected that Congressional subpoenas (or whatever it was - I'll find the title for y'all to look for <G>) and reports counted as "publication" - ie, ignore the Congresscritters. (Who have the general sense of humour [among other senses] of a rabid wolverine)
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1998 12:33:38 -0700
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 1998 13:51:35 -0700
From: Phil A Posehn
I was wondering if anybody would remember poor Karen Silkwood in this discussion.
The name Judy Barry REALLY springs to mind though…or did that story only reach the press in California???
Judy Barry was one of the leaders of Earth First!, a radical environmentalist group dedicated to preserving old growth redwoods in Calif, among other things. In 1991 a bomb exploded under the seat of her VW seriously injuring her and her companion. The bomb was filled with an explosive and about a pound of nails, obviously an antipersonnel device. The FBI insisted that the Ms Barry and her companion were the builders of the bomb in spite of a large body of evidence indicating that the bomb was exactly what it appeared to be, an attempt on the life of Ms Barry. The ensuing lawsuit is still in court. Sadly Ms Barry died last year of breast cancer. If you wish more detailed, and probably more accurate infotmation, Earth First! has its main offices in Ukiah, Calif and I can dig up their address.