The CIA And U.S. Media (Self-)Censorship

December 19, 2010

One detail is the story about the recent drone strikes in Khyber agency makes Paul Woodward and me a bit curious about censorship in the U.S. media. While a CIA agent's name was discussed publicly in Pakistan and elsewhere, the U.S. media censored it out.

The CIA station chief in Islamabad, named as Jonathan Banks in various reports in English language Pakistani media for over two weeks now, left Pakistan last Thursday, December 16. The reason given was that his name was exposed in a law suit and that there were threats against him.

That may or may not be the real reason for him to leave (we think not). But what is curious is how and why the U.S. media is now censoring the name of the CIA man in its reports about the issue. As the Pakistani journalist Omar R Quraishi points out:

MSNBC, ABC News, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The Associated Press all ran stories but declined to name the CIA officer. Both MSNBC and the AP mentioned explicitly in the text of their main stories that they were not naming the official. The New York Times ran a story on December 17 raising the issue of the ISI’s involvement in the naming of the official but this was strongly denied by the intelligence agency. The Times then ran a story on December 18 quoting a senior ISI official as “strongly” denying any link to the CIA official’s name being outed.

The AP, too, ran a follow-up on December 18 of the ISI denying any involvement. However, this story stated the following:

The Associated Press learned about the station chief’s removal on Thursday [December 16] but held the story until he was out of the region. The CIA’s work is unusually difficult in Pakistan, an important but at times capricious counterterrorism ally.

Not all U.S. media blocked the name at all times.

The news website Monster and Critics ran a DPA news agency story on the lawsuit on November 30:

Karim Khan, a local journalist from the North Waziristan tribal district, said he had sent a 500-million-dollar claim to US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, CIA chief Leon Panetta and the agency's station head in Islamabad, Jonathan Banks, for the deaths of his teenage son and brother in a drone airstrike.

A November 30 story in the Washington Post suppressed the name.

A Friday, December 12 McClatchy story on the lawsuit in the Miami Herald said:

The lawsuit, which stands little chance of being won, is lodged against the CIA station chief in Islamabad, identified as Jonathan Banks; CIA Director Leon Panetta; and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

It seems that only after Jonathan Banks was leaving Pakistan, news the Associated Press suppressed (at who's request?) for 24 hours, did U.S. media start to suppress the CIA man's name. The LA Times, also not naming Jonathan Banks, tries to explain:

The officer, whose name remains classified, is returning to the U.S. because "terrorist threats against him in Pakistan were of such a serious nature that it would be imprudent not to act," said the U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing a sensitive personnel matter.

"Whose name remains classified"? So what, if it is all over the internets? Did the LA Times not report on the Pentagon Papers? Doesn't it quote WikiLeaks cables? In an administrative sense both are still classified but who cares and why should anyone?

If anyone with not-so-secret-access to Google can find the name in about 0.06 seconds, why do the U.S. media suppress the name of Jonathan Banks? Did they get orders to do so? If so why follow them?

Posted by b on December 19, 2010 at 13:36 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Most people in the US (or other western countries) just gets their news from TV or a newspaper front page. If any. Most won’t even bother with the international section.
The number who would be reading pakistani media, googling names or checking this or similar blogs is low and not the target for that kind of censorship.
Nevertheless they may actually feel more powerful when they force this kind of stunt on the compliant patriotic media. From the point of view of the media they are just defending the privacy and security of one of their own, a protector of their ‘liberties’ and country. Never mind the number of lives that could be directly attributed to that guy. Or that people from other countries could consider him just a plain killer or main conspirator in killings hundreds.

Posted by: ThePaper | Dec 19 2010 16:01 utc | 1

Murdered with impunity Journalists dead 341, 1995-2004

During the last decade, 341 journalists have been killed while carrying out their work. While conflict and war provide the backdrop to much of the violence against the press, CPJ research demonstrates that the vast majority of journalists killed since 1995 did not die in cross fire. Instead, they were hunted down and murdered, often in direct reprisal for their reporting. In fact, according to CPJ statistics, only 68 journalists (20 percent) died in cross fire, while 247 (72 percent) were murdered often in reprisal for their reporting. The remaining journalists were killed in conflict situations that cannot be described as combat–while covering violent street demonstrations, for example.

48 Journalists Killed 2005, 57 Journalists Killed 2006, 69 Journalists Killed 2007, 42 Journalists Killed 2008, 8 Journalists Killed 2009, 11 Journalists Killed 2010 = 235 from 2005-2010, total last 16 years 516 dead.
To many to be just a causality of war, murder inc. to hide the real story.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 19 2010 17:37 utc | 2

How the game is played…In other words, the military compartmentalization game. Watch the Pentegon Spokesman Lie to your Face?
Jeremy Scahill WikiLeaks Cables Confirm Black Ops in Pakistan

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Dec 19 2010 22:39 utc | 3

b asks: did they give orders to do so?
Woodward states in his article: the New York Times is now following government directions by refusing to reprint the CIA station chief’s name…
b, you mentioned on the related MoA thread that Jonathan Banks is probably not his real name. Woodward hints the same in his article. This seems plausible, so what does the government/media care if the guy has left the country and they report on a fake name ‘Jonathan Banks.’ Woodward also says that the media did print other info about this ‘Jonathan Banks’ provided by the CIA that Woodward decided to censure. Why bother to censure if it is probably fake also? Too much collusion for sure.
Anyways, I am glad you posted a comment on the Woodward site pointing to your MoA Coincidences thread.

Posted by: Rick Happ | Dec 20 2010 3:47 utc | 4

Back to Main