Brief 10 - Freedom of Information Act

The freedom of information act is a law that allows citizens to request information from their governments. And I don't know about you, but the first thing I would want to know about when this law came out is the CIA, and what they're getting up to over in Langley. And as it turns out that the CIA does have to comply with FOIA requests, at least to a certain extent.

The CIA has a page on their website called The Reading Room. This is a searchable catalog where you can read all the declassified documents from the CIA made possible through FOIA. They seem to have an appearance of being very open to FOIA requests, even having a link that explains how to file your very own FOIA request, and with a list of recently declassified documents near the bottom of the page.

Amusingly, they suggest you read their reports on UFOs first. I clicked on over to that, where you find many documents, but most of them are unsubstantiated reports made by random people that the CIA made record of. Of course this raises the question of why they would need to record this. The report I read even said that this report was based off of a second interrogation of the same individual.

Pictured: A diagram of the sighting of a "ball of fire" that the eyewitness claimed to have seen.

If you look through their other reports though, you start to see some of the classic CIA ideas come to the light. I personally read a document  that is writing to the Attorney General to get permission to use what could be considered "Aggressive interrogation techniques"

"Dear Mr. Attorney General:

[Here there is about a page censored]

"Nonetheless, the interrogation team now has concluded, and I agree, that the use of more aggressive methods is required to persuade Abu Zubaydah to provide the critical information we need to safeguard the lives on innumerable innocent men, women, and children within the United States and abroad. These [interrogation methods] include certain activities that normally would appear to be prohibited under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340B (apart from potential reliance upon the doctrines of necessity or of self-defense)" (emphasis not added.) 

[Here there is a few more paragraphs censored out.]

"I respectfully request that you grant a formal declination of prosecution, in advance, for any employees of hte United States, as well as any other personnel acting on behalf of the United States, who may employ methods in the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah that otherwise might subject those individuals to prosecution under Section 2340A of Title 18, United States Code, as well as under any other applicable U.S. law."

Abu Zubaydah is an alleged terrorist currently being held in Guantanomo Bay for connections to Al-

Qaeda. BBC writes...

"The Americans describe [Zubaydah] as "one of al-Qaeda's senior travel facilitators" and credit him with helping to smuggle the former al-Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and some 70 fighters out of Afghanistan into Iran."

This memo was written in the early 2000s during the time where water-boarding was being looked at as a controversial technique, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume this is the "aggressive interrogation technique" the document refers to. The CIA can let us know that they're only breaking the rules to protect the innocent children, but they won't tell us what they actually did.

So even though the FOIA does require the agency to cooperate with public requests, they still hold back much information, while pushing less-dangerous historical documents to the forefront, like UFO sightings or Bay of Pigs SNAFU reports. But even though I complain and moan about not knowing the full truth, the FOIA made it possible to get more information than ever before from our government. And that is worth reporting on.

Brief 9 - College Media

As a person who has worked with The Bray, I have firsthand experience with college media. I worked as a Videographer, who made videos to be shared on social media for The Bray. I also submitted some photographs.

My role at The Bray focused mainly on "fluff" pieces, rather than hard news Most of what I did was a series called "Meet the Students." I interviewed students (and in one case an alumni, but I had to make an exception for my sister of course.) about their 'college careers' as it were.

Meet SAU's Talia Burton

I also created and published trailers for SAU's theatre productions. I also created what I like to call a "Weather mood" video. This video is basically nature shots that show how the weather feels like on SAU at any given day. I also submitted photographs to The Bray as I took them on other news-worthy projects I was involved in, which was nice.

As a videographer, I had to be careful about what I put in my work. The majority of my music was under the creative commons liscense. If I was going to do a story about a piece of music I could use that under fair use. But the one story I did, which was an interview with Aaron Philip about his music, I just asked him for permission and he was happy to give it to me.

Meet SAU's Aaron Philip

A big factor in my role as a college media personnel--if that's not to pretentious to call myself that--was the casual atmosphere coupled with professionalism. Most of my interactions with my boss, Kayla Baugus, were done through the groupme application on our phones, and often times during what you wouldn't consider normal business hours. I have no frame of reference on whether this is normal in regular media as well, but I feel the flexible nature suited me well during my stay with The Bray.

I would say the second biggest notable factor in college media is that I was given a lot of levity when it came to harsh deadlines. I tried to give Kayla an Accurate time frame for my work, but as the semester dragged on, and I struggled more with sustaining my workload, I would sometimes not make the deadlines when I said I would be able to. And I know in the professional world this does not cut it at all, but because we're all also full time students she cut me a lot of slack, which I greatly appreciate.

But the biggest takeaway from my time in The Bray is that even though the atmosphere can be casual, and the bosses lenient, is that we are still a legitimate news organization. I discussed a concept with Kayla called "SAU news" where I would write and create a fictional comedy sketch poking fun at the college. Kayla made sure to let me know that even if I did step on a few toes at the administration (not that I ever would, of course.) that The Bray would have my back, because we cannot be censored by the school. There was a case in the past where The Bray wanted to publish something that made the school look bad, but the president actually tried to stop the story. If I remember correctly, The Bray actually took it to court and won, so the precedent has been set for reporters at The Bray. So even though we are a school organization, and a bunch of rag-tag students with cell phone cameras, we still get the benefits of free speech and freedom from influence.

Brief 8 - Investigative Reporting

Investigative Journalism is the backbone of freedom in the United States. With the prevalence of censorship technology in a post-911 world, the freedom of the press is paramount to uncovering truth in a time where truth is hard to find. One of the most infamous examples of undercover reporting that comes to mind is the Veritas Project's role in the recent 2016 presidential election.

The journalists at Project Veritas went undercover in order to expose corruption in the Florida Democratic Party, with implications reaching to the Clinton campaign in general. Journalists secretly recorded conversations with people from the party in incriminating conversations.

Democratic employee Mao on campaign ethics:
“I think the bar of acceptable conduct in this campaign is pretty low, to be fired I would have to grab Emma’s [Female Co-Worker] ass twice and she would have to complain about it, I would have to sexually harass someone...I think if I ripped up completed VR [Voter Registration] forms — like 20 of them — I think I would get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired,”

Scott Foval on provoking violence at Trump rallies:
"There's a script, sometimes the 'crazies' bite ... sometimes they don't bite...It is not hard to get some of these a******* to pop off, it's a matter of showing up to want to get into the rally in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt, or 'Trump is a Nazi,' you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you."

On a technical level, these videos are all just hypothetical conversations and claims by individuals, and do not provide a basis for legal action against the Florida Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign. However there were repercussions. Two of the individuals recorded, Scott Foval and Robert Creamer left within 36 hours of the video's release. Creamer was recorded appearing to brainstorm ideas on how to commit voter fraud, without committing to anything. The Democratic party then renounced the values communicated by Creamer and Foval, while also condemning the Veritas Project.

"Our firm has recently been the victim of a well-funded, systematic spy operation that is the modern day equivalent of the Watergate burglars,” the firm said. “The plot involved the use of trained operatives using false identifications, disguises and elaborate false covers to infiltrate our firm and others, to steal campaign plans, and goad unsuspecting individuals into making careless statements on hidden cameras. One of those individuals was a temporary regional subcontractor who was goaded into statements that do not reflect our values.”"

According to Max Steele, a spokesman for the state Democratic Party, Mao or anyone else would lose their jobs for destroying voter-registration forms.

"Sexual assault and harassment, and destruction of voter registration forms, are serious offenses,” Steele said in a written statement. “There is no question that a staff member who engaged in this kind of behavior would be immediately terminated, and we are investigating the claims. Remarks like these do not represent the Florida Democratic Party and are completely inappropriate."

In my humble opinion, comparing Watergate burglars destroying evidence to a reporter exposing truth is a bit of a stretch. But it's not just bitter Democratic representatives that are against this type of investigative journalism; according to politico.com it's also the law. Florida law requires citizens to consent before being video taped. It is unclear whether reporters have special protection in this case, but in any case no lawsuit has been brought forward. And even if the Democratic party chose to pursue legal action, the reporters themselves remain anonymous, which would make it problematic.

So even though the "victims" of investigative journalism have postured on the subject of the legal nature, the practice seems safe for now. In any case, the more people talk about the findings of Project Veritas, the more damage is done to the Democratic Party, so even if the law did allow them to prosecute the journalists, their game plan is to denounce the journalists, sacrifice some scapegoats, and then deny any wrongdoing.

Brief 7 - Exploiting a News Story

A recent object of media attention is the White Helmets organization in Syria. Officially known as the Syrian Civil Defense, they get the name White Helmets from, well their white helmets that they wear into combat. Their official stance is neutral in the ongoing conflict involving the Syrian government, ISIS, Syrian rebels, The United States, and Russia. However, they do receive funding from western countries. Specifically, the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth office is one of their single biggest backers.

Now, there are controversies surrounding the organization. While many Anti-Assad publications support their efforts as unilaterally humanitarian, others are more critical of them.

While claiming to be neutral, the White Helmet's PR group publishes anti-Assad images such as this.

Never mind that violent regime change is what led to the creation of ISIS in the first place, these images clearly violate their stance that they "just want peace."




Among other accusations are that the White Helmets are directly linked to Al-Queda, and serve primarily as their medics on the battlefield. Others say they fake their rescues for propaganda purposes with actors.




"The true source and real purpose of the White Helmets were exposed almost two years ago by investigative journalists. Max Blumenthal has written a two-part detailed examination of the “shadowy PR firm” behind the White Helmets. And Jan Oberg has written an overview survey of the “pro” and “con” examinations in his work “Just How Gray are the White Helmets”."




Now if these accusations are true, then the group is certainly exploiting the news for their own political advantages. But we also have to consider the other hand. Are the accusations of the White Helmets exploitative propaganda in and of themselves? Snopes seems to think so.

"While the article accuses the White Helmets of having terrorist ties in the headline (“EXCLUSIVE: The REAL Syria Civil Defence Exposes Fake ‘White Helmets’ as Terrorist-Linked Imposters”), it does not provide any proof in the body of the story. It instead heavily implies that the White Helmets are terrorists because they operate in areas held by the opposition, and because unnamed crew members of what the article calls the “REAL Syria Civil Defense in Aleppo” told the reporter that was the case. The article also contains an interview with a man she identifies as Dr. Bassem Hayak, who claims civilians in east Aleppo have never heard of the White Helmets organization."

So let's consider if the claims are entirely untrue, and entirely propaganda efforts by the Syrian and Russian governments. If this is true, then we can still find exploitation in this story. Technically it would be the Syrian and Russian governments trying to twist every news story to make their cause seem just.

Now the real question we have to ask is, which side is telling the truth? And for that, I don't think there's an easy answer. There certainly is no definitive proof that the White Helmets are working with terrorists, but there is circumstantial evidence. They only operate in the areas that the rebels operate in, and are funded by the states that also fund the rebels. But we can't easily prove them guilty by association. Is there any hard evidence that Russia is only making these claims for propaganda purposes? Again, there isn't. But what is for sure is that both sides have motives to bend the truth, and both sides have something to gain from exploiting this news story. Honestly, no one who reads this will be living in Syria, and we have no idea as to the complete objective truth of the matter. So I feel the only real solution to the problem of exploitative news stories is to read both sides of the issue and keep in mind that everyone has something to exploit, and a stone to grind.