C.I.A. Established Many Links To Journalists in U.S. and Abroad - CIA MURDERED German Journo UDO ULFKOTTE

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

CIA MURDERED German Journo UDO ULFKOTTE for REVEALING he was on CIA PAYROLL.



German Media controlled by CIA
UDO ULFKOTTE
https://imgur.com/a/UZL8oSk



This German Journalist died of HEART ATTACK "right AFTER" he DISCLOSED
that CIA paid him to write columns.



BUT, CIA had a HEART ATTACK GUN which MURDERS PEOPLE with "artificial
heart attack" and makes it look like "natural death".


The CIA's Secret Heart Attack Gun
https://www.military.com/video/guns/pistols/cias-secret-heart-attack-gun/2555371072001




William E. Colby, CIA Director

Asked in an interview last year whether the C.I.A. had ever told foreign
journalists, working as paid agents, what to write, he replied, ‘'Oh,
sure, all the time.”





What's the DIFFERENCE between dictatorships "directly CONTROLLING their
media" and "INFINITELY CUNNING and DECEPTIVE" Western White Countries
"STEALTHILY CONTROLLING their media and global media"?

Like I said a zillion times, EVERYTHING about Western White Countries is
"PATHOLOGICAL LYING, CUNNING and DECEPTION".

LITERALLY EVERYTHING.

I SUFFERED 21 years of NON-STOP TORTURE because "I was fucking NAIVE and
BELIEVED" the filthy sadistic perverted "Amrikkan WHITE VIRUS" telling
the world, that amrikka and the West are "angelic democracies" and they
respect HUMAN RIGHTS, and hence they NEVER TORTURE ordinary public for
NO REASON.

But the EVIL US Govt Psychopaths have been STEALTHILY TORTURING ME for
the last 21 years NON-STOP with Mind Control, DEWs and EVIL AI.

EVERYTHING about Amrikkan, UK, Aus, Can, NZ govts is a "LIE".

EVERYTHING.

I am merely trying to EDUCATE YOU ALL, so you LEARN from my 21 year
Non-Stop TORTURE ORDEAL and PROTECT YOURSELVES and START living in REALITY.


I sincerely hope western whites ZOOM OUT, take a deep breath,
introspect, STUDY and ANALYZE EVIL Western Government Psychopaths.

Your EVIL Govts constantly brainwash you 24x7 with COVERTLY CIA MI6
CONTROLLED western media that WEST is "ANGELIC", and REST OF THE WORLD
is "EVIL", so your minds are always FOCUSED on the rest of the world BUT
NOT your own EVIL Government PSYCHOPATHS who are STEALTHILY implementing
a DYSTOPIC STASI "NEURALLY ENSLAVED societies" where every human is
REMOTELY CONTROLLED.

If you know what I know about YOUR EVIL GOVT PSYCHOPATHS, you will PACK
UP YOUR BAGS and take the very next flight out of USA UK Aus Can NZ and
seek ASYLUM in Russia and China.

I am telling you 100% TRUTH.

ONLY Russia and China can help me and HELP YOU ALL, to "live with dignity".




=========================================================================



C.I.A. Established Many Links To Journalists in U.S. and Abroad


https://www.nytimes.com/1977/12/27/archives/cia-established-many-links-to-journalists-in-us-and-abroad-cias.html

Dec. 27, 1977


One day several years ago, a correspondent for a large Middle Western
newspaper, arriving in Belgraae, was asked by some colleagues whether he
would like to meet his newspaper's local “stringer,”

The following article was written by John M. Crewdson and is based on
reporting by hint and Joseph B. Trees ter.

Knowing that his newspaper duct not employ anyone in Belgrade, or so he
thought, the correspondent ascended the stairs of the stringer's hotel,
only to glimpse the man racing down another set of stairs on his way, he
shouted, to catch an airplane for Prague.

The correspondent was puzzled, but said he learned later that the man
had been an operative of the Central Intelligence Agency, fleeing to
protect his “cover,” and that he had obtained his press credentials
directly from the newspaper's publisher.

He and the publisher had agreed to keep the matter as their secret,
apparently never anticipating that one of the newspaper's legitimate
correspondents might turn up unexpectedly.

That instance was but one of dozens uncovered during a three‐month
inquiry by The New York Times into the C.I.A.'s three decades of
Involvement with the communications industry at home and abroad, and
especially its relationships with American journalists overseas.

In interviews with scores of past and present intelligence officers,
journalists and others with knowledge of the situ.) ation, The Times
checked the names of 200 individuals and organizations whonl

C.I.A.: Secret Shaper Of Public Opinion Last of Three Articles

sible intelligence connections. Nearly 20 correspondents were found who
said they had refused offers 0

employment by the agency. But The Times also obtained the nadlei of more
than 30 American journalist
Editors’ Picks
The Dentist Who Treated My Divorce
In Tennis, Racket Smashing Gets Out of Hand
Storyboard P: Where Is the Place for a Genius of Street Dance?

who have worked since World War as paid intelligence operatives, In most
cases for the C.I.A. and at least a doze other American reporters who,
althougls Continued on Page 40, Column 1 unpaid, were counted by the
C.I.A. among its operational “assets.”

In addition, at least 12 full‐time C.I.A. officers have worked abroad
over the last 30 years while posing as employees of American‐owned news
organizations.

Of the more than 70 individuals identified by The Times as falling into
one of these categories, several are dead and a score could not be
located. But a number of the others confirmed their involveMent, and
several spoke freely about their experiences, though nearly all
requested that their names not be used.

“I want to live over here in a country that I like without having to
worry about getting a bomb through my window,” said one man, a former
correspondent for ABC News who worked for the C.I.A. in the 1950's.

At ABC, William Sheehan, a senior vice president, has said that the
network is “satisfied there was no one on our staff in such a dual role.”

All of those interviewed, like one man who had been a Time stringer in
Rome, insisted that they had been able, though in some cases at
psychological cost to themselves, to maintain a separation betIveen
their intelligence work and their journalistic careers.

None said that the C.I.A. had ever encouraged them to slant their
dispatches to suit its purposes or to compromise themselves
journalistically in any other way.

Some expressed fear that publicity would cost them their jobs or make
future emplbyment more difficult. The C.I.A. made no financial provision
to lessen the shock of separation when terminated relations with the
last of its reporter‐agents last year, and one of them, until recently a
CBS reporter in Europe, is wrapping packages in Florida department store.

The Cold War Climate

Several of the journalists and C.I.A. officials interviewed made the
point that during the height of the Cold War it was acceptable to
cooperate with the agency in ways that both the C.I.A. and the
journalistic community now deem inappropriate.

“The thing to do was to cooperate,” said one retired intelligence
officer. “I guess that looks strange in 1977. But cooperation didn't
look strange then.”

Earlier this month, the C.I.A. made public a new executive order
proscribing, except with the explicit approval of the Director of
Central Intelligence, any paid or unpaid operational relationships with
reporters for general circulation American news organizations.

The agency's long‐standing relationship with American journalists was
first called to public attention in 1973, when William E. Colby, then
the Director of Central Intelligence, provided reporters in Washington
with some of the details on background basis.

The Washington Star reported on the practice, and that led to
investigations by two Congressional committees. One of the panels, the
House Select Committee on Intelligence, will hold hearings on the
subject beginning today, and its Senate counterpart is also considering
a public inquiry.

The issue was renewed three months ago when Carl Bernstein, the
freelance investigative reporter, wrote in Rolling Stone magazine that
some 400 American journalists had “secretly carried out assignments” for
the C.I.A. since the agency's founding in 1947, in many cases with the
knowledge and approval of top news executives.

However, all of the past and present C.I.A. officials who were
interviewed in The Times's investigation were unanimous in asserting
that the number of journalists who have been on the C.I.A.'s payroll
was, as one former official put it, “quite modest.”

“If you scan a history of 25 years, you could come up with totals like
40 or 50 people,” the former official said. Others put the total as high
as 100.

In that time there have been literally thousands of correspondents for
domestic news organizations working abroad.

Several former intelligence officers ° pointed out that the C.I.A.
itself does not know precisely, and probably can never know, how many
American journalists have been on its payroll over the years. Agency
files are widely scattered and incomplete, they say, and some of the
arrangements made abroad may never have been recorded at C.I.A.
headquarters.

A Delayed Effect

As attention to the C.I.A.'s past attempts to use the press in its
propaganda efforts has been renewed in recent months, correspondents
overseas have reported that intensified suspicions among citizens of
other countries have made news gathering more difficult.

A poll by The Times of its own foreign correspondents produced several
reminders that in some parts of the world American journalists, like
those of most other countries, have always been suspected of serving as
intelligence operatives on the side.

But one correspondent cabled from India that “a rather new practice
among some of us is to avoid public contacts with known C.I.A. people.”
Such contacts, he wrote, “might only confirm suspicions.”

In all, the three‐month investigation by The Times found that at least
22 American news organizations had employed, though sometimes only on a
casual .basis, American journalists who were also working for the C.I.A.
In a few instances the organization's were aware of the C.I.A.
connection, but most of them appear not to have been.

The organizations, which range from some of the most influential in the
nation to some of the most obscure, include ABC and CBS News, Time, Life
and Newsweek magazines. The New York Times, The New York Herald Tribune,
The Associated Press and United Press International.

Also included were the Scripps‐Howard chain of newspapers. The Christian
Science Monitor, The Wall Street Journal, The Louisville Courier‐Journal
and Fodor's, a publisher of travel guides.

Among the lesser known organizations were the College Press Service,
Business International, the McLendon Broadcasting Organization, Film
Daily and a defunct underground newspaper published Washington, The
Quicksilver Times.

Edward W. Estlow, president of Scripps‐Howard, said that although some
of the organization's correspondents might have had such connections
“back in the old days, we combed our organization thoroughly about five
years ago” and --could find none at that time.

For the most part, according to past and present C.I.A. officials, the
journalists who worked for the agency were a mélange of stringers and
freelance writers with a few staff correspondents

thrown in.

Stringers and freelancers, the officials said, were free from the
demanding schedules of the top foreign correspondents for major
news‐gathering . organizations and were also more likely to be in need
of the extra money that such service provided.

One former senior official said that he had always preferred
“hard‐plodding” reporters with anti‐American reputations, men “who found
not enough satisfaction in their jobs” rather than those seeking
monetary rewards. “I wasn't after mercenaries,” he said.

In general, the pay was not high. Several former station chiefs said
that a local stringer who performed occasional chores might be paid as
little as $50 month. For others more heavily engaged, the sum might
increase to a few hundred dollars.

Where cover jobs were involved, the money was passed through the
financial offices of the news organizations, but in most cases the
agency preferred to pay its agents through accounts in large New York banks

Reporters for major publications likely to have better access to foreign
officials and broader local contacts were sometimes offered amounts
equal to their regular salaries, however. Wayne Phillips, while a
reporter for The Times in New York in the early 1950's, said he was
offered $5,000 a year by the C.I.A. he agreed to work for them abroad.

Another man, a correspondent for Time magazine in Brazil, said he was
offered a similar sum about the same time. Keyes Beech, the longtime Far
Eastern correspondent for The Chicago Daily News, said he had been
offered $12,000 a year by the C.I.A. “to make inquiries and leliver
messages” as he made his rounds n Asia.

Mr. Beech and the Time correspondent said they declined the C.I.A.'s
offers, and the arrangement with Mr. Phillips fell :hrough because of
complications.

In nearly all of the organizations where employers were found to have
aided the C.I.A., executives said, in some cases after conducting
internal inquiries, that they had no knowledge of past relationships
between their correspondents and the C.I.A.

Eugene Fodor acknowledged in an interview that he had allowed C.I.A.
agents to “cover” themselves abroad by working as reporters for his
series of travel guides. “They were all highly professional,
high‐quality,” he said of the agents. “We never let politics be smuggled
into the books.”

Another who acknowledged a connection was Elliott Haynes, with his
father a co‐founder of Business International, a widely respected
business information service. He said that his father, Eldridge Haynes,
had provided cover for four C.I.A. employees in various countries
between 1955 and 1960.

Employer Not Informed

In many instances, sources said, the management officials were
unaware.that they had harbored C.I.A. agents or offi‐1 cers on their
staffs, and several former agency officials said that in cases where a
working reporter was recruited as an agent there was no requirement that
his superiors be advised.

On occasions when he added an American journalist to his string of
agents, one former official recalled, “I didn't ask to what extent his
employer knew about this activity.”

Most of the reporter‐agents, sources said, were asked to sign agreements
pledging to keep secret any confidential information that came their
way. But the agreements also bound the C.I.A. to pledge of
confidentiality, and the former official said that most of the reporters
“wanted it for their own protection.”

Only in instances where “cover” was supplied by a news organization for
a legitimate C.I.A. officer, officials said, was the management of the
organization certain to know of the arrangement.

In a number of such cases, the jobs they provided involved not the
reporting of news but such subsidiary functions as advertising,
circulation and distribution. Over an eight‐year period in the 1950's,
for example, three business managers in the Tokyo office of Newsweek
were reporting to the C.I.A.

Edward Kosner, Newsweek's executive editor, has said that the magazine's
policy “as long as I've been around here is that Newsweek employees work
for Newsweek and Newsweek only.” But he added, “I can't really go back
into ancient history.”

But jobs as correspondents were provided as well, and in some instances
the C.I.A. went so far as to reimburse the news organization for the
added cost involved. “We might contribute money for an office, or the
expansion of an office,” one former C.I.A. man said,

Even then, according to several sources, it was not likely that top news
executives would be called upon to arrange the details, even though most
C.I.A. directors, especially Richard Helms and the late Allen Dulles,
have been close friends with the chief executives of some of the
nation's most influential news organizations.

Keeping a ‘Lofty’ Plane

When such men met, as they frequently did, it tended to be on what one
C.I.A. official called a “lofty” plane. “They reviewed the world,” he
said, adding that he had never heard a discussion of the recruiting of
reporters or the providing of cover, “and I was there for brandy and
cigars on several occasions.”

Mr. Dulles is dead. Mr. Helms, reached at his residence in Washington,
said “I've decided that I won't talk about this, ever.” Mr. Colby has
consistently declined to comment in any detail.

But John A. McCone, who was Director of Central Intelligence from 1961
until 1965, confirmed the impressions of other agency officials about
the absence of top‐level involvement.

In an interview at his Seattle home, Mr. McCone said: “As far as any
top‐level discussion with Time or Newsweek or the Washington Post or The
New York Times, saying, ‘Look, we need a stringer over in Brazil and
we'd like him to be under Newsweek cover,’ there was none of that, to my
knowledge.”

Mr. McCone said that there had also been no high‐level discussions of
which he was aware that related to the C.I.A.'s

employment of American Journalists abroad on a part‐time basis,

“I would think if there were any formal relationships,” Mr. McCone said,
“they would have to be renewed. 2 wouldn't say any responsible publisher
would say, ‘I've got an arrangement with Allen Dulles and it goes
without saying that I have the same thing with John McCone.’ “

Asked whether anybody had come to him after he took over from Mr. Dulles
to renew such an arrangement, Mr. McCone replied, “Nobody.”

Major Outlets Used Most

In The Times's study it appeared that the C.I.A. relied on its
connections with Time, Newsweek, CBS News and The Times itself more
extensively than on its contacts with other news organizations.

Several sources said that there had been nothing in the files given by
the C.I.A. to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence last year to
indicate that such men as Henry Luce, the founder of Time Inc., or
Arthur Hays Sulzberger, for many years the publisher of The New York
Times, had ever been asked for or had ever given their’ personal
approval for such arrangements.

The Times has said repeatedly that can find no record of such
arrangements nor anyone on its staff with knowledge of them.

Edward S. Hunter, a retired C.I.A. man who was Newsweek's Hong Kong
correspondent in the late 1940's, said he believed that only Harry Kern,
then the magazine's foreign editor, and not Malcolm Muir, the magazine's
founder, had been aware of his intelligence connections.

Mr. Kern said that if he ever had been aware of such a relationship he
could not recall it, and Mr. Muir said he had never known that “Newsweek
chaps” had been taking money from the C.I.A.

The situation with respect to William S. Paley, the chairman of CBS
Inc., less clear. Sig Mickelson, a former president of CBS News, has
said he was in Mr. Paley's office some years ago when two C.I.A.
representatives acknowledged that Austin Goodrich, the network's
Stockholm stringer, was working for the C.I.A.

CBS said in a statement that Mr. Paley did not recall that meeting,
although he did remember a meeting with Mr. Mickleson and someone from
the C.I.A. to discuss “arranging press credentials for C.I.A. agent to
be assigned to an area of key interest to the agency, but of minor
interest to CBS News.”

“No one currently at CBS,” the statement said, “knows whether these
credentials were indeed arranged.”

When such arrangements were struck, one agency official said, they were
most commonly worked out “at the middlemanagement level” within both the
C.I.A. and the news organizations involved, but even then on an almost
casual basis.

No Binding Contracts

“It was not formal, there were no contracts, nothing that would carry
over,” the official said. “It was simply an understanding. There were
meetings sometimes to talk. But it was never, never reduced to any kind
of formal understanding.”

The official would not identify the middle‐level news executives who had
participated in making such arrangements, some of whom are understood to
still be active in the news business.

One C.I.A. agent who worked on an American newspaper, Robert Campbell,
acquired a reporting job several years ago with The Courier‐Journal in
Louisville, Ky. The C.I.A. had intended, one official said, to give Mr.
Campbell some newspaper experience before sending him abroad under
journalistic cover, but be-

cause of complications he never went overseas. Executives of The
CourierJournal said that they never knew until after Mr. Campbell had
resigned that he had been with the C.I.A.

One C.I.A. official said that the Ridder chain of newspapers, now part
of the Knight‐Ridder organization, had agreed to take part in a similar
arrangement, as had the San Diego‐based Copley News Service.

B. H. Ridder Jr., vice chairman of Knight‐Ridder and president of Ridder
Publications, said: “If any such services were rendered they would have
been rendered only at the request of the Government. I'm not at liberty
to discuss these matters, frankly.”

Copley has said that none of Its executives had any knowledge of such
arrangements with the C.I.A., and none of the sources interviewed could
provide the names of any Copley correspondents who had ever
simultaneously been on the C.I.A.'s payroll.

One former Copley correspondent recalled, however, that at important
news events in Latin America over the years she would sometimes find
herself surrounded by as many as a half‐dozen strangers bearing Copley
credentials. Upon inquiring of editors in San Diego, she said, she was
invariably told that she was the only Copley correspondent on the scene.

C.I.A. officers working under journalistic cover were not immune from
the oftenconsiderable pressures faced by those of their colleagues who
pose as American businessmen abroad or who work under other
“non‐official” cover.

Equal attention must be paid to both careers. “Journalistic cover will
not stand up for any period of time,” one former C.I.A. man said. “The
local newspapermen will spot a phony, unless he is prepared to spend
99.9 percent of his time in bona fide work, in which case he's just
about useless to us.”

One such example is Robert G. Gately, a C.I.A. officer who took a job in
the late 1950's as Newsweek's Far Eastern business manager In Tokyo.
When his work for the magazine began.ko suffer, he could not tell his
immediate superiors about the other matters that were occupying his
attention and so lost his job.

He wound up in the Tokyo office of Asia Magazine, a regional newspaper
supplement published in Hong Kong, only to lose that job as well for
poor performance.

Reached at his home in suburban Washington, Mr. Gately declined to
answer any questions about his past employment.

One indication of the general lack of knowledge among news executives
about the industry's ties to the C.I.A. was the astonishment recorded in
the New York’ offices of The Times some years ago when the newspaper's
correspondent in Germany mentioned in a letter that Henry Pleasants, a
stringer who reviewed music for the paper, was also chief of the
C.I.A.'s Bonn station. After the disclosure...The Times terminated his
work for the newspaper.

The same absence of knowledge at the highest levels appears to have been
the case with other news organizations as well. Several’ of the editors
closest to the late Henry Luce, for example, said he never gave them any
indication, he knew it, that any of Time magazine's reporters were on
the C.I.A. payroll.

James Linen, for 11 years the publisher of Time, said that although he
never knew for certain that any of his correspondents were working for
the C.I.A., “I always assumed that some of them must have been.” But he
said he never took steps to find out.

Assurance for Some

A number of major news organizations have asked the C.I.A. for
information about any connections that their employees may have had with
the agency, and in sonic cases partial assurances have been supplied.

For example, Benjamin Bradlee, executive editor of The Washington Post,
said his newspaper had been told by the C.I.A. that records going back
to 1965 did not disclose any ties with its staff correspondents, but
that it was the agency's policy ‘'not to comment on stringers.”

Even those news executives who had close working• relationships with the
C.I.A. in this country might not be told which of their correspondents
overseas were working for the agency.

Joseph G. Harrison, the longtime foreign editor of The Christian Science
Monitor, said that he had been “happy to cooperate” with the C.I.A., in
the 1950's, providing the agency with letters and memorandums from
correspondents that contained background information not included in
their dispatches, and occasionally assigning a story in which the C.I.A.
had expressed an interest.

But Mr. Harrison said he had never known that one of his reporters in
the Far East was also serving as a C.I.A., political adviser to the
Asian head of state about whom he was writing.

Not oll of the American journalists with intelligence connections were
paid by the C.I.A. One, Panos Morphos, a war correspondent for Newsweek
in Central Europe, was an agent of the Office of Strategic Services, the
C.I.A.'s World War II predecessor.

A few others, according to C.I.A. officials, were believed to be paid
agents of foreign intelligence services, some of them friendly and some
not. One, a Time magazine correspondent in Eastern Europe, was working
for a Soviet‐bloc intelligence service. But a former Time editor said
the magazine had known of the connection and “considered it a kind of
double bonus.”

At !cast one other journalist may have been a double agent. Edward K.
Thompson, the former managing editor of Life magazine, said he had been
told in 1960 by an American intelligence official that one of the
magazine's contributors was working simultaneously for the C.I.A. and a
hostile foreign intelligence service. He said that Life never again
employed the man.

Several former C.I.A. officials spoke of a minor “flap,” the agency's
term for a compromising situation, that they said occurred in the
mid‐1950's in the Mideast when the management of a major American news
organization discovered that one of its correspondents had secretly been
working for the agency.

Declining Practice

No formal directive was issued within the agency then or later requiring
the approval of management in future cases. But the agency's use of
reporters for prominent news organizations began to decline, partly
because approval from C.I.A. headquarters became harder to ob-

tain and partly because, as one former official put it, “it was felt
that they would refuse you and that their bosses wouldn't let you do it.”

Besides, the former official said, to take advantage of the local
contacts of the principal correspondents in a foreign capital “all you
really had to do was go to the cocktail parties they invited you to.”

Accordingly, the agency's emphasis in recruiting began to shift away
from the largest news organizations and toward I he less prominent ones.
In Tokyo, where the Newsweek office alone had contained at least four
C.I.A. employees during the 1950's, a C.I.A., man named Glenn Ireton was
sent out in the mid‐1960's as a correspondent for Film Daily.

Mr. Ireton is dead and Film Daily out of business.

Before an offer of employment could he made to an American Journalist,
agency sources said, it was necessary for C,T.A. investigators In the
United States to quietly check the reporter back- ground for any signs
that he or she might prove to be a security risk.

One agency official acknowledged that the investigations were carried
out without the subject's knowledge, but explained that under C.I.A.,
regulations “any time you have anything to do with a guy you've got to
run a check on him.”

In most cases the investigations amounted to a formality, but one former
station chief recalled that a married couple living in Mexico City, both
distinguished correspondents whom he had considered prime candidates for
recruitment, had failed to pass the background check because of
purported left‐wing associations.

One former C.I.A. station chief talked about the reasons for approaching
a local correspondent, whom he described as “the guy who knows where all
the skeletons are, what's the real story on so and so. The station
chief, a new one, makes an appointment with him. They talk. The agency
man has information to make him look good. If those meetings don't prove
fruitful to the agency man they will end. So it behooves the journalist
to make them useful.”

While they did not qualify as agents of the C.I.A., such correspondents
were often considered “assets” of the local C.I.A. station and
catalogued in the agency's files that way.

Not all of the relationships between journalists and the C.I.A. involved
money, nor were all of them formed abroad. Many correspondents who have
spent their careers in Washington have developed close friendships with
senior C.I.A. officials.

Charles J. V. Murphy, while a writer for Reader's Digest, was asked by
Allen Dulles after the latter left the C.I.A. in 1961 to help him
prepare his memoirs, and was actually given office space at the agency's
headquarters. The memoirs never appeared, and Mr. Murphy lost his office
shortly after it was discovered by John McCone, Mr. Dulles's successor.

New York Liaison

Several large American news organizations were themselves considered
assets, though in a different sense, and in New York, where most of the
major publishing’ and broadcasting organizations have their
headquarters, one man in the C.I.A.'s Manhattan office was assigned as
the liaison with several publications.

The man, who is still on active duty and asked that his name not be
used, was a frequent visitor at Life magazine, where he viewed
unpublished photographs taken by the magazine's worldwide battalion of
photographers.

He was also known as a frequent luncheon companion of editors at The New
York Times, where his chief interest seemed to be which correspondents
were soon to return to the United States on home leave and might be
.available for debriefing.

Until a few years ago It was virtually common practice for American
correspondents returning home or preparing to go abroad to spend time
with the C.I.A.'s experts on their region of the world, and the practice
continues, though less extensively than in the past.

Frequently, according to former agency officials, such reporters were
asked to keep alert for certain items of information of interest to the
C.I.A. when they reached their foreign posts, and many cooperated.

At yet another level of relationships, the C.I.A. would sometimes pay
the expenses of a correspondent who agreed to undertake such tasks,
especially if he were visiting an area where the agency was not well
represented.

“If a guy was going to Iraq,” said one former ofticer, “the C.I.A. would
say, ‘Will you stay a couple of extra days we pay your expenses?'” He
said that many did.

One journalist who was said by a senior C.I.A. official to have accepted
travel money was Hal Hendrix, who as a reporter for The Miami News won a
Pulitzer Prize for his stories on the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Mr. Hendrix said in an interview that he had never had anything beyond
“normal journalistic relationship” with the C.I.A. and that he had never
accepted money from the agency for any purpose.

Mr. Hendrix, the official said, was considered an asset by the agency,
and part of the confusion over the number of journalists with past
C.I.A. relationships may, be attributable to the distinction, clear to
those inside the agency but not to many outside it, between the two.

“The essence of an agent,” one official said “is that he is under some
degree of control and carries out assignments because you are paying him
to so do.” An “asset,” on the other hand, can be anyone the C.I.A. finds
useful as a source of information or in any other way.

Errands for the Agency

One such Individual, a C.I.A. official said, was Kennett Love, a former
New York Times correspondent in the Middle East who, though never paid,
had what the official described as ‘a cooperative relationship” with the
C.I.A. in which he “ran errands.”

Reached at his home in California, Mr. Love said that shortly after the
overthrow of Premier Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran in 1953, he helped the
C.I.A. distribute copies of a declaration naming Ardeshir Zahedi as Mr.
Mossadegh's successor. But Mr. Love said he had not known at the time
that Joseph C. Goodwin, the American official who had asked him for
help, had been a C.I.A. man and that he had never knowingly done
anything else for the C.I.A.

Another journalist said to have been an “asset” was Jules DuBois, the
late Latin American correspondent for The Chicago Tribune, described by
one former official as “well and favorably known” to the agency though
never on its payroll.

When Harold G. Philby, the .British double agent, was living in Beirut
in the years before he defected to the Soviet Union, the C.I.A., its
suspicions aroused but not substantiated, kept a careful watch on his
movements.

Several Americans in Beirut were engaged to help, officials said,
including Sam Pope Brewer, then a correspondent for The New York Times
who, by one authoritative account, had been an agent of the Office of
Strategic Services while a Chicago Tribune reporter during World War II.

“We were all told to keep an eye on Philby, and Sam was one of us,” said
former C.I.A. official, Mr. Brewer died last year.’

For several years In the 1950's and 1960's, former agency officials have
said, the C.I.A. placed great stress on the num• her of assets
“recruited” by each C.I.A. officer working abroad, As g result, one
said, a number of people were listed as assets ‘'who didn't even know
they'd been recruited.”

In such instances, the official said, an individual might be entirely
unaware that what he viewed as a social relationship with a C.I.A.
officer was taken far more seriously by the agency.

Several longtime C.I.A. hands expressed considerable skepticism about
the value of an American journalist as an intelligence agent,
particularly in Africa, Asia or the Middle East, where he would be more
likely to stand out.

“If you're seriously it i.erested in espionage,” said one former station
chief, “you clet't run around with guys who are sailing through Jakarta
for a couple of weeks. All they want to do is pick your brain. I would
treat them like the plague. What can a white‐faced American journalist
do for you, anyway?”

But others disagreed. In one case, a retired- C.I.A. man recalled that a
correspondent “could do things for me. They were marginal, they were not
clandestine. He would ask questions, snoop around. There was no money,
no subversion. But he could do these things.”

Once a reporter had signed up, the C.I.A. would provide him with
training in the “tradecraft” of espionage, the use of secret writing,
how to conduct surveillance or• arrange for clandestine meetings and the
like.

Training Varied

The training, another former station chief said, was “tailored to each
case” and might last “a day, sometimes a week, sometimes longer.”

“In no case,” he added, “did we try to make real spies out of the media
people. It doesn't pay to give them the whole course.”

Far from approaching the adventures of James Bond, the assignments given
journalists most commonly amounted to writing longer, more detailed
versions of the dispatches they had filed to their news organizations.

Not infrequently, the reports to the C.I.A. were spiced with unprintable
gossip and innuendo that might be helpful to the agency in gaining an
advantage with a foreign political figure—'whose wife was jealous of
what minister,” as one former C.I.A. man put it.

Another former officer said that oftentimes a reporter would be
“immensely valuable to any intelligence‐gathering operation. He can move
around town. He can open a post office box, he can open a safehouse, he
knows how to get a telephone in a place where it sometimes takes three
years.”

The value of such individuals, the man said, was more as “a support
asset, not necessarily somebody you want to use as a spy.”

There were, however, some instances in which American journalists had
considerable value as intelligence operatives, especially in Europe. “He
could talk with people that the station and the Embassy couldn't,” one
C.I.A. man said. “He could identify and talk with Soviets, could travel
places we couldn't.” An example of this cited by the C.I.A. man was the
Soviet Union. “It was considered much too risky to have deep‐cover men
there,” he said. “The only person we had there for years was an economist.”

In rarer instances—there were at least two several years apart in Hong
Kong and Beirut—the C.I.A. attempted, successfully in one case, to use
American reporters for the tricky assignment of acting as an
intermediary with a member of a foreign intelligence service who wanted
to defect to the United States, a . delicate task usually reserved for
skilled professionals.

At least once, the agency even used an American reporter in an
unsuccessful effort to induce another reporter to “defect.” During the
armistice talks in Korea, sources said, the C.I.A. persuaded Edward
Hymoff, then a correspondent for the International News Service, to
offer $100,000 to Wilfred Burchett, the Australian journalist who had
formed a close relationship with the North Korean Communists.

Mr. Hymoff said he argued with C.I.A. officials that Mr. Burchett could
not be won over, and that proved to be the case.

Other American reporters also recalled having done tasks for the C.I.A.
that, they said, seemed somewhat silly to them at the time.

Flattery by the C.I.A.

Noel Busch, a reporter for Time magazine in the Far East, said he had
been asked in the mid‐1950's by the agency to interview an Asian
political figure for an in‐depth profile.

Mr. Busch said he told the agency that the man was not of sufficient
importance that Time or any other magazine could possibly be interested
in such a story, but he said the C.I.A. agreed to pay him $2,000 for the
article if no one else wanted it.

No one else did, and Mr. Busch said he later learned that the C.I.A. had
simply wanted “to flatter this guy through an approach by an American
correspondent.” He said he left Time soon afterward to join the Asia
Foundation.

Perhaps more typical was the C.I.A. agent, a stringer for Time in a
remote Asian capital, who was assigned to “circulate in local society
and report what she heard.” The agent was finally let go after several
years of reporting that there was nothing worthwhile to report.

Executives of several news organizations pointed cut that it was far
more difficult for them to exercise control over the activities of their
part‐time reporters, or “stringers.” than over those of staff
correspondents.

Fred Taylor, executive editor of The Wall Street Journal, said that one
of his European stringers had been an employee of the C.I.A. a decade
ago and that he had never known it, nor could he confirm or deny it now.
“Who the hell knows what stringers were up to?” he said.

The work was not without its serious, and even dangerous aspects,
however. Darriel Berrigan, a New York Times stringer in Bangkok and a
C.I.A. agent for many years, was murdered under mysterious circumstances
in 1966,

Some intelligence officials believe that the C.I.A.'s new and more
stringent regulations governing relationships with American Journalists
will prove transitory, a pragmatic response to the current controversy
over the agency's past relations with the press.

“The pendulum will swing,” said one man who held a senior position in
the C.I.A. for many years, “and srm•adiu, we'll be recruiting
journor.,,.s again.”

When that day comes, he added confidently, “I will have no problem
‘recruilp big I see a lot of them, and I know they're ripe for the
plucking.” kin

The New York Times United Press International John A. McCone, left, and
Richard Helms, former directors of the C.I.A.

[Email]

In article <Ztb2K.535465$7F2....@fx12.iad>
FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer <FBInCIAnNSATe...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Flush.

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]