TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

During my time at the CIA, I was responsible for briefing the press and circulating disinformation. Disinformation is not necessarily a lie, but rather a half truth. We would select influential journalists and provide them with information that we wanted to convey to the American public. We targeted respected journalists like Robert Chaplin, Kais Beach, Bud Merrick, Malcolm Brown, and Maynard Parker. I would cultivate their trust by sharing valid information and then slip in the data we wanted to spread, which may not have been true. We would also create an environment where journalists couldn't fact-check by briefing diplomats who would confirm our false information. Personally, I am opposed to these disinformation activities as they serve no useful purpose for the CIA.

I'm here to ask Anderson Cooper about Operation Mockingbird and the CIA's influence on mainstream media. A German reporter claimed the CIA bribed and extorted him to publish stories. Why is there a pro-government slant in Western media, like biased coverage of Putin and Assad compared to Saudi Arabia? Cooper is surrounded by security, preventing conversation on important issues like government manipulation of news. Is he avoiding the question because of his CIA past during college? A prominent German journalist recently revealed that the CIA is still manipulating the media, writing scripts for them. The media is just another branch of the government, a mouthpiece for propaganda, unable to face real questions. Cooper is hiding behind his security.

I briefed the press as an analyst and interrogator for the CIA, circulating disinformation to influence public opinion. I targeted influential journalists like Robert Chaplin and Kais Beach, planting false information to support US interests in Vietnam. I would also mislead reporters by briefing diplomats to provide false confirmation. Despite my involvement, I now oppose these propaganda tactics, believing they serve no purpose for the CIA.

The CIA's main function is gathering intelligence, but it also engages in covert actions and propaganda. We disseminate propaganda to influence public opinion, sometimes working with journalists. This involves planting false stories, sometimes by using compromised journalists or even creating false narratives with fabricated evidence. This practice isn't limited to foreign countries; we've also planted false stories in the US press. For example, during the Angolan war, we used false stories about Cuban atrocities, including fake photos, which were then spread internationally. We've also sponsored the publication of numerous propaganda books in English, influencing public opinion about Vietnam. While the CIA admits to some propaganda efforts abroad, they deny similar activities within the United States. However, this is untrue, as we planted false stories in the Washington Post.

The CIA has various functions, including running secret wars and spreading propaganda to influence people's minds. They manipulate journalists by providing them with both true and false stories, exploiting their vulnerabilities to control their actions. The Church Committee in 1975 revealed that around 400 journalists, including prominent names, cooperated with the CIA to introduce stories into the press. In the Angola war, a third of the speaker's staff was dedicated to propaganda. They would write stories, publish them in the Zambia Times, and then send them to journalists on their payroll in Europe, who would pretend to have received them from their own sources. The goal was to create false narratives about Cuban atrocities to demonize communists.

There are functions of the CIA that include running secret wars and disseminating propaganda to influence people's minds, a major function that overlaps with information gathering. You have contact with a journalist; you will give him true stories and you’ll get information from him, and you will also give him false stories. You also work on human vulnerabilities to recruit journalists as agents to control what they do, so you don’t have to set them up by deception. You can tell them to plant stories on a schedule. Concrete evidence of using the press this way was highlighted by the church committee in 1975, and later by Woodward and Bernstein in Rolling Stone, noting that about 400 journalists cooperated with the CIA to consciously introduce stories in the press. A concrete example from Angola: one third of the staff was propaganda. There were propagandists around the world, principally in London, Kinshasa, and Zambia. They would take stories they wrote and put them in the Zambia Times, then pull them out and send them to a journalist on payroll in Europe. But the cover story was that the journalist had gotten them from his stringer in Lusaka who had gotten them from the Zambia Times, and after that point, the journalists, Reuters, and AFP, the management was not witting of it. The contact man in Europe was used to pump dozens of stories about Cuban atrocities, Cuban rapists, but there was not a single atrocity committed by the Cubans. It was pure, raw false propaganda to create an illusion of communists, you know, eating babies for breakfast.

The CIA allegedly had 400 leading journalists in the U.S. as part of Operation Mockingbird, an illegal operation to compromise American journalism. Carl Bernstein published a list in 1973 naming these journalists who secretly worked for the CIA from prominent publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times. Many editors and publishers had security agreements with the CIA and acted as assets. The CIA is purportedly the biggest funder of journalism globally, spending $10 billion annually through USAID. It allegedly owns influential newspapers and magazines worldwide. The Smith Bond Act prohibits the CIA from propagandizing to Americans.

I was concerned that planted stories meant for foreign audiences were being circulated and believed here at home. This would mean that the CIA could manipulate the news in the United States by channeling it through another country. We are looking into this very carefully. We do have people who submit pieces to American journals. I think that getting into the details of whether we have people paid by the CIA who are working for television networks should be handled in a closed session. By 1954, relationships with the CIA had been established at CBS. I was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them. We will evaluate the information we have, and we will include any evidence of wrongdoing in our final report and make recommendations. Whether we name the news organizations in our final report remains to be decided.

Speaker 0 says he briefed the press to circulate disinformation. 'Disinformation is not necessarily not necessarily a lie, it may be a half truth.' He targeted correspondents and cultivated them at the Caravelle to gain their confidence, doling out valid information and then introducing data 'which might not be true.' An example involved a supposed 1973 North Vietnamese effort to develop border airfields, aimed at persuading Congress that Saigon should continue to receive aid and that 'the North Vietnamese were the chief violators of the ceasefire accord.' If he planted information, he would create an environment where it could not be checked, briefing the British ambassador so the reporter would get false confirmation, 'I've got proof that Frank Snapp told me the truth.' He concludes: 'I am an ex CI agent opposed to these disinformation activities and admit I was involved; it served no useful purpose. Propagandizing the American public or Congress is not the CIA's job.'

Planted stories intended for foreign countries were circulated in the US, raising concerns about CIA manipulation of news. CIA involvement with American journals and TV networks was discussed, with details kept confidential. CBS had contacts with the CIA, and the investigation will assess any wrongdoing. The use of CIA sources by reporters was considered acceptable in the past but requires caution now due to public scrutiny.

Media control is obvious, and when someone appears less controlled, people are drawn to them. There is now a new generation consuming information that is not controlled, although it may not always be correct. The CIA has a significant amount of control over public conversation and politics, but if you were to say this out loud, people would think you're crazy. The CIA is completely out of control and corrupt, with unknown budgets, staff, reach, and mission. There are even instances of CIA officers buying expensive real estate, raising questions about where they get the money. This financial corruption is mind-blowing and unknown to the average person.

The discussion centers on concerns about the CIA’s influence over American media and how covert connections abroad could affect news domestically. Speaker 0 states a real concern: planted stories intended to serve a national purpose abroad could come back home and be circulated and believed in the United States, implying the CIA could manipulate the news in the U.S. by channeling it through a foreign country. The participants agree to examine this matter carefully. Speaker 1 raises a targeted question about individuals paid by the CIA contributing to major American journals, effectively asking whether there are CIA-paid contributors to prominent news outlets. Speaker 2 acknowledges that there are people who submit pieces to American journals and asks about whether any are paid by the CIA who are working for television networks, indicating a potential broader reach across media. Speaker 2 suggests that detailing “this kind of getting into the details” is something they would prefer to handle in an executive session, signaling a desire to limit public discussion at that stage. Speaker 3 provides historical context from CBS, noting that “the ships had been established” by the time the speaker became head of the news and public affairs operation in 1954, and that he was told to carry on with them, implying an established framework of CIA involvement or collaboration. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to evaluate the information and to “include any evidence of wrongdoing or any evidence of impropriety in our final report and make recommendations,” indicating a plan to compile findings and address possible abuses. The question is revisited: “Do you have any people being paid by the CIA who are contributing to the national news services, AP and UPI?” Speaker 2 again wants to move the discussion to an executive session, suggesting sensitivity about the specifics and possibly broader implications. Speaker 0 notes that the final report’s content or title “that remains to be decided,” leaving unresolved how the findings will be presented. Speaker 3 asserts that correspondents at the time “made use of the CIA agent chiefs of station and other members of the executive staff of CIA as sources of information which were useful in their assessments of world conditions,” indicating direct use of CIA personnel as information sources. The question is asked whether this practice continues today, and Speaker 3 responds affirmatively, though with caveat: due to revelations of the 1970s, a reporter “has got to be much more circumspect” and careful, or risk being looked at with considerable disfavor by the public. The speaker emphasizes the need for greater prudence in contemporary reporting in light of those revelations.

The CIA has various functions, some more legitimate than others. One function is to run secret wars, while another is to disseminate propaganda to influence people's minds. They use journalists to spread both true and false stories, exploiting their vulnerabilities to control them. In the past, the CIA had around 400 journalists cooperating with them, including well-known names. An example of their manipulation is seen in the Angola war, where they planted false stories about Cuban atrocities to create an illusion of communist brutality. This shows how the CIA uses the press to further their agenda.

The transcript centers on Amjed Fassisi, a CIA contractor who works with Deloitte and, at times, within the CIA’s China Mission Center on cyber operations. He describes a career path that includes time at the CIA starting in 2008, a stint at the NSA for two years, then a return to the CIA in 2011, where he managed about 80 cybersecurity practitioners and later helped stand up a threat program inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Fassisi asserts that he holds a high-level clearance (top secret/SCIs) and that his role involves cross-agency work across the enterprise, though he does not disclose specific details. Key, repeated claims attributed to Fassisi: - The higher-ups in the intelligence community, including CIA directors Gina Haspel and Mike Pompeo, and the upper echelons of their staffs, colluded to withhold information from sitting President Donald Trump. Fassisi states, “We kept information from him,” and later explains “the executive staff” (the director and subordinates) were involved. - Fassisi contends that the CIA and other agencies monitored Trump and his inner circle, using human sources and surveillance. He mentions that Trump could be targeted or spied on, including claims that he would “call Vladimir Putin and tell him” secrets, and that “the intelligence agencies thought that president Trump was a, quote, fucking dumbass and would disclose information.” - He asserts that information about Trump’s activities was intentionally withheld from him by the intelligence community, and that this withholding involved high-level officials who would not share details with the president. - Fassisi suggests that the intelligence community engaged in surveillance of Trump and his team using methods such as human intelligence rather than only wiretaps, and that the FBI, NSA, and other agencies were involved, with implications that FISA-related processes were used to monitor Trump. - He asserts distrust and lack of information-sharing among agencies, stating “the NSA and CIA don’t share information” and describing internal fragmentation and territoriality between agencies as a problem. - Fassisi alleges that there was a broader pattern of weaponizing the CIA and collaborating with foreign partners to influence or monitor Trump associates, referencing the broader narrative around Trump and Russia and implying ongoing monitoring of Trump’s activities post-presidency as well. - He makes broad allegations about Israel and other allies, asserting distrust and claiming Israel “steals intelligence” from the U.S.; he frames relations with allies as fraught and unreliable. - Fassisi describes the reporting by Michael Schellenberger and Matt Taibbi as validated by his claims, and positions the ongoing investigation as exposing corruption within the CIA, FBI, and Department of Justice, with a narrative that information was hidden from the public and from Trump. Supporting context around the interview: - The exchange includes tense moments where Fassisi is shown a CIA badge and discusses his role; the interviewer questions the plausibility and provenance of his claims, pressing for documentation or proof, while Fassisi provides limited responses about his clearance, division (China Mission Center), and contractor status. - The segment also includes editorial framing by the presenter, interjecting with external commentary and promotional content not directly related to Fassisi’s assertions. The interviewer promises follow-up coverage and frames Fassisi’s statements as part of a broader whistleblower narrative. - Throughout, the content repeatedly emphasizes claims of withheld information from Trump, surveillance of Trump and his associates, inter-agency distrust, and internal CIA culture, without providing verifiable documentation within the interview itself.

I was wondering if you had a chance to look into Operation Mockingbird, the declassified program from the 1970s where the CIA infiltrated the mainstream media. Do you think it could be happening today? I find it concerning that domestic American coverage of world events focuses on Russia and Iran, but not Saudi Arabia. Why aren't human rights violations in Saudi Arabia covered as extensively as they should be? Go to Saudi Arabia and do it yourself. I don't mean to be rude, but Anderson Cooper's Wikipedia page states he received CIA training in college but no journalism training.

The discussion opens with a provocative line about not needing a CIA director this year because the National Endowment for Democracy is in place, followed by introductions of Carl Gershwin as founding co-president of the National Dialogue for Democracy and the plan to cover the topic at length. The speakers claim that democratic groups worldwide could be seen as subsidized by the CIA, noting that such subsidies were curtailed in the 1960s and that the Endowment was created to fund groups the CIA subsidized back then. They assert that, before grants are made, all grants are sent through the State Department to the CIA, and promise deeper exploration of “Ned CIA” material. They list prominent entities alongside the National Endowment for Democracy, including the Rockefeller Foundation, the Atlanta Council, Ellen White as an operative who prepared the way for political changes in the past two years, and efforts to take down the Soviet Union through internal coups in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and Czechoslovakia. George Soros and the Open Society Foundation, as well as the Atlantic Council, are also named as funders or players in this network. The conversation identifies the Rockefeller Foundation as a major funder, calling it the “hellspawn of John D. Rockefeller and the octopus of Standard Oil,” and notes its funding of the Atlantic Council alongside the Pentagon and the State Department, claiming over $1,000,000 a year. A claim is made about the Rockefeller Foundation’s involvement beyond NATO’s civil society arm, including a reference to Google as the source for who runs the Rockefeller Foundation, and a mention that the foundation had an endowment around $6,000,000,000, making it the thirtieth largest foundation globally by endowment. The discussion briefly covers Raj Shah, described as having been appointed head of USAID by Barack Obama, previously at the Gates Foundation, and later running the Rockefeller Foundation, identifying him as the number one head of USAID. Speaker 2 shifts to criticizing Raj Shah and USAID, then highlights a partnership announcement between USAID and Mr. Beast’s philanthropic endeavors, noting Mr. Beast’s substantial net worth (estimates cited around $2.6 billion, with a referenced $5 billion company valuation). The speakers then pivot to analyzing Mr. Beast’s online influence, citing his enormous view counts across multiple channels and arguing that his content represents the most popular material on the Internet, capable of shaping hearts and minds and, therefore, serving as a finely tuned instrument of statecraft. The dialogue returns to ongoing coverage of Mr. Beast videos, including a live example of a Minecraft-based Hunger Games-style video with multi-minute view counts, and ends with a broad assertion that the Rockefeller Foundation has partnered with the CIA in a civil-society capacity and that Mr. Beast’s platform, with hundreds of millions of views, could function as a tool of statecraft, given its reach and influence.

I find it interesting to ask if you have any personal frustrations with the October 19th statement. The agency's work is most effective when it doesn't attract press attention. Most CI officers would agree with this sentiment.

Speaker 1 discusses the possibility of a CIA conspiracy to remove them from office, citing CIA's advanced knowledge of the break-in and their dissatisfaction with the agency. They express a belief that the CIA feared them due to plans to reform the organization. While unsure about a conspiracy, they suggest it would be an intriguing topic for investigative reporting. They doubt the CIA would resort to eliminating those who expose their operations in the present day.

The CIA has admitted to having operatives embedded in major media outlets to influence stories for their benefit. Reports indicate that they have relationships with reporters from various national news organizations, persuading them to alter or withhold stories that could threaten national security. Evidence from the Pike Committee revealed that 42 CIA employees were placed in key media centers, often as national security reporters. A Time Life board member remarked that journalists are merely taking dictation from powerful entities, indicating a loss of journalistic integrity. Some reporters have shared experiences of their stories being spiked by editors, and payments to these operatives were made discreetly, often without proper reporting to tax authorities.

We spoke to someone with access to hidden CIA documents about their involvement in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. The response was clear: yes, the CIA was involved. This revelation suggests that there are powerful forces within the U.S. government that operate beyond democratic control, capable of influencing elections and concealing their actions, including the murder of a president. This undermines the very concept of democracy. Trust in the government has declined since Kennedy's assassination, and those in the know, including every CIA director since 1963, have been aware of this troubling reality.

Speaker 0: Wikipedia is a propaganda operation, and one of its founders told me that the CIA or the American intel community is heavily involved in shaping the message, on Wikipedia. Did you come across evidence of that? Speaker 1: On the weaponization working group, as it's described by attorney general Bondi and the president's direction, intelligence community is one of the groups who was weaponized against the people, obviously. It's obvious. The question is, how are we gonna get to the bottom of it? Right? How are gonna get to the bottom of some of the weaponization of the government intelligence community against the citizens? And that's what I that's where I'm going now.

Speaker 1 discusses government interference in news coverage at CBS, citing pressure from political officials to shape stories. They mention feeling pressure from employers to withhold stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 suggests a policy where officials must submit objections in writing rather than through phone calls. They express concern about intelligence agencies violating rights without sufficient oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their input. Translation: Speaker 1 talks about government influence on news coverage at CBS, highlighting pressure from political officials to manipulate stories. They mention feeling pressured by employers to hold back stories due to calls from officials, even if the content was accurate. Speaker 1 proposes a policy where officials must submit objections in writing instead of through phone calls. They express worry about intelligence agencies violating rights without proper oversight. Speaker 0 thanks Speaker 1 for their insights.

Speaker 0 asks if there are people paid by the CIA who contribute to American journals, television networks, and national news services. Speaker 1 prefers to discuss these details in an executive session. Speaker 2, from CBS, confirms that they were contacted by the CIA and continued working with them. Speaker 1 again defers to executive session when asked about specific news organizations. Speaker 2 believes it was acceptable for reporters to use CIA sources in the past, but acknowledges the need for caution due to public disfavor.