CIA Ties To Hollywood On Verge Of Being Exposed

hollywood
Source: ActivistPost.com
Clarice Palmer
June 27, 2016

An amendment added to Congress’ annual intelligence spending bill may help the public gain a better idea of the U.S. government’s relationship with Hollywood.

According to VICE News, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), and committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC), included an amendment to S. 3017 that would require the Director of National Intelligence to submit reports detailing the relationship between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) agencies and Hollywood. It would also require 15 other agencies to disclose the nature of their relationships with the film industry. These reports would have to be presented annually to congressional oversight committees.

Between 2006 and 2011, VICE reported, the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs (OPA) had a role in at least 22 of the U.S. entertainment industry’s projects. Some of the productions listed by VICE included the films Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, television shows like Top Chef and Covert Affairs, and documentaries such as the History channel’s Air America and the BBC’s The Secret War on Terror. The book, The Devil’s Light, also had the help of the CIA.

Some of the most controversial findings regarding the relationship between OPA officials and Hollywood insiders were tied to the blockbuster, Zero Dark Thirty.

According to the redacted and previously classified December 2012 CIA report released by Judicial Watch, the CIA granted “‘secret level’ access to the makers of the movie Zero Dark Thirty.” According to VICE, “filmmakers Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal showered CIA officers involved in the operation with gifts and received unprecedented access, which included the disclosure of classified information to Bigelow and Boal by CIA director Leon Panetta.”

While these revealing facts shocked the world at the time of their release, the relationship between the CIA and the entertainment industry actually dates back to the 1950s.

According to an interview with Public Radio International, Tricia Jenkins, author of The CIA in Hollywood, says that the CIA “developed a think tank to fight communist ideology, which negotiated the rights to George Orwell’s ‘Animal Farm’ – getting a talking pig on the screen 20 years before ‘Charlotte’s Web.’” The agency pressed for “line changes in 1950s scripts to make black characters more dignified, and white characters more tolerant” in order to promote “an attractive image of America to a world picking sides in the Cold War.”

Continue Reading At: ActivistPost.com

Celebrity Versus Literacy – You Decide

Source: DailyBell.com
January 18, 2016

Bowie’s death marks the Twilight of the Rock Gods …With David Bowie’s final curtain-call, we are witnessing the end of an era, as the original stars of the explosive rock culture that convulsed the world in the second half of the 20th century are slowly extinguished. We are entering the Twilight of the Rock Gods. – UK Telegraph

Dominant Social Theme: Where will we turn for greatness now?

Free-Market Analysis: We do not wish to speak ill of the dead but David Bowie’s passing does allow us an opportunity to pause and examine popular culture.

This UK Telegraph article does what most journalism does, which is accept the values of popular culture at face value. From the article’s point of view, there is no reason to question the reality of “Rock Gods” or why they came to be. The article takes another point of view entirely, which is what their passing will mean. In other words, what cultural import will it have.

Here’s more:

Deaths of the famous compel us all to contemplate the meaning of our own lives and times, and the deaths of rock stars carry a very particular sting. Its most iconic figures – those great, symbolic archetypes of an age whose art, lifestyle and spirit was substantially defined by the egotistic and energetic values of youth – have turned into old men.

Whatever your reaction to Bowie’s death (the most elegantly stage-managed exit in pop history), we can be sure of one thing: that there is more of this to come. And for a while, at least. I don’t want to tempt fate – indeed, I try not to even think about it – but when Bob Dylan, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards eventually shuffle off this mortal coil, we may have to mark the entire rock and roll era over. Who knows what forces of collective shock and sadness that will unleash?

The article goes on to explain that as “icons” age, their record companies are planning whole campaigns around their deaths to maximize sales.

Musicians like Michael Jackson are worth far more dead than alive. It is far easier, unfortunately, to manage the image of someone who is deceased than to create a marketing campaign surrounding a live person who is subject to arrest, a messy divorce or some other inconvenient episode.

Of course, the larger issue here is not the evolution of musical marketing but its significance. Over at Taki’s Magazine, Theodore Dalrymple has posted a commentary on Bowie’s death that attempts to put the recent coverage into perspective.

He writes:

I was astonished at the amount of coverage given to the death of David Bowie … On the day after his death, the supposedly serious newspaper that I take most often when I am in Britain, The Guardian, ran a special 12-page supplement on his life and activity, as well as five pages in its normal section. There have been articles about him on the two subsequent days. I wait patiently for the tide to turn.

Dalrymple makes it clear that the most puzzling element of Bowie’s death has to do with why he is seemingly so venerated. Dalyrmple even quotes one of his lyrics to make a point about the “banality” of Bowie’s output:

There’s a brand new dance
But I don’t know its name
That all people from bad homes
Do it again and again…

Dalrymple adds that he reviewed other Bowie lyrics but “did not find any that were of a much higher or deeper quality.” He closes his article with the “interesting question,” which is “why a newspaper [like the Guardian] … should devote so much space to the posthumous adulation of such a person as David Bowie, and why his activity should be treated with such breathlessly awed veneration.”

Continue Reading At: DailyBell.com