The Evolution of Media: From a Public Service to Propaganda

How and when did it go wrong and Is Qatar Pulling its own “Operation Mockingbird 2.0”?

Broadcasting was meant to inform, educate, and serve the public good. However, as media has transitioned, there is a growing concern that the public is no longer being informed with verified facts. Instead, people are being bombarded with narratives and opinions designed to shape public opinion. The line between reality, facts and fiction has blurred, creating a media ecosystem where truth is sacrificed.

Today, the media environment is saturated with narratives that serve specific agendas, whether political, corporate, or ideological, making it increasingly difficult for the public to discern the truth. The historical trend toward media manipulation has culminated in the current state, where media outlets are no longer just reflecting reality—they are actively shaping it. And as we look at the current state of affairs, we must ask ourselves: How much of what we see, hear, and read is the result of strategic influence rather than genuine reporting?

The role of media in shaping public opinion and controlling information has always been central to the power structures of the world. Whether it was the creation of the BBC Empire Service, the U.S. government’s control over wartime narratives, the CIA’s covert operations in the media during the Cold War, or the influence of foreign states over Western media today, the relationship between media and power—used to spread dis-information and propaganda—has consistently evolved to suit the needs of the time. To understand how we arrived at the current state of propaganda, and how things went so wrong, we must look at history and track the evolution of news reporting.

This week's events in media history, including some today, mark critical dates that have shaped the role of the media since World War II

• December 19, 1932, BBC Empire Service’s is created (Now known as BBC World Service), an international broadcaster owned and operated by the BBC

• December 19, 1941, US creates the “Office of Censorship” created to control info pertaining to WWII,

• December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy article detailing shocking covert operations by the CIA, leading to the formation of the U.S. Senate Church Committee. Eventually revealing “Operation Mockingbird”, the covert CIA operations that infiltrated the American media,

• December 12, 1995, the last Congressional conference was held before deciding to vote on "The Telecommunications Act of 1996," the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years in the U.S. The act allowed broadcasters to become for-profit entities, changing news from a public service into a race for ratings.

• December 31, 2006 - The U.S. government sets deadline for the switch from analog to digital broadcasting, allowing the transition to High Definition (HD) broadcasting, new technologies drove news away from reporting into “Storytelling”

• December 17, 2013: The first AJ+ (Al Jazeera) YouTube channel went live. Allowing Al Jazeera to now capture young audiences across the globe.

The Birth of the BBC Empire Service and The Creation of the U.S. Office of Censorship: Information Control During WWII:

The creation of the BBC Empire Service, 92 years ago, marked the beginning of a new era in media, where broadcasting would become a tool not just for information but for cultural and national influence. The BBC was initially created to serve the public good, informing and educating listeners. However, its role would evolve during World War II, when the British government used the new network as a key part of its wartime propaganda machine. The role of media was no longer just to report the facts—it was to support the war effort, boost morale, and control the public narrative.

Move forward a decade in the United States, media control during WWII took on an even more direct form. On December 19, 1941, just days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government created the “Office of Censorship”, granting the government the power to regulate press reports, radio broadcasts, and even private communications. The idea was simple: to protect national security during a time of war, information had to be tightly controlled. The public largely accepted this, seeing it as a necessary measure for the greater good, without fully understanding the implications and impact it will have for the future of the press.

Operation Mockingbird: The CIA and Media Manipulation During the Cold War:

As the Cold War unfolded, the U.S. government sought to expand its control over media narratives—not just for national security, but for ideological warfare. The CIA’s covert operations, particularly through programs like Operation Mockingbird, involved infiltrating major media organizations and influencing journalists to write stories that aligned with American interests. This wasn’t just about propaganda directed at foreign nations; it was about controlling the domestic narrative, shaping public opinion, and preventing dissenting voices from gaining prominence.

By the early years of the 1970s, a series of troubling revelations had appeared in the press concerning intelligence activities and covert operations. By December 22, 1974, The New York Times published a lengthy article by Seymour Hersh detailing operations engaged in by the CIA over the years, leading to the formation of the Church Committee.

The Church Committee (formally the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities) was a US Senate select committee in 1975 that investigated abuses by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency (NSA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),

Operation Mockingbird, which began in the late 1940s, soon after the formation of the CIA in 1947, is widely understood to have been an effort by the CIA to plant journalists in major media outlets. As part of this operation, the CIA recruited several journalists and editors to promote narratives in favor of U.S. foreign policy objectives during the Cold War. This covert program played a significant role in shaping how the American public viewed international affairs, including issues like the threat of communism, the Soviet Union, and the spread of democracy.

But what is even more striking is the history behind the CIA’s formation. The CIA, founded on July 26, 1947, officially began operating on September 18, 1947, was built in part by recruiting former Nazi scientists, engineers, and intelligence operatives from Germany after World War II—a strategy known as “Operation Paperclip”. The U.S. government allowed these individuals—many of whom were war criminals—to enter the country and work for the highest American intelligence agency.

Carl Bernstein spent years investigating the relationship between the CIA and the press during the cold war years, on October 20, 1977, he published an article in Rolling Stone, "The CIA and the Media". While there were rumors and whispers about the CIA’s manipulation of the press before, Bernstein’s investigative work was the first to bring it to the mainstream attention in detail.

The article detailed how the CIA infiltrated and influenced major media outlets, including newspapers, television stations, and magazines, through various covert programs, including Operation Mockingbird.

“American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor.…..”

---

“…Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services.”

---

The 1977 article also highlighted how American foreign correspondents, returning from abroad, would be met by CIA agents, who would routinely ask them to provide their notebooks and share their impressions as part of a "debriefing" procedure initiated by the CIA in the 1950s.

---

“….A former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice‑president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked…”

Before this, Operation Mockingbird was not widely known to the public, but the Church Committee hearings in the mid-1970s began to uncover some of the CIA's darkest secret activities. However, the Rolling Stone article was the breakthrough in exposing the media manipulation aspect of the CIA's operations and how the CIA had turned the media into a weapon—not against U.S. adversaries, but against the American people.

The question of the program’s authorization is complicated by a CIA memo from December 31, 1974. The memo, written by then-Acting Inspector General Scott Breckinridge, notes that CIA had no record of any “formal approval by Attorney General” Kennedy. Rather than conclude that the approval didn’t exist, Breckinridge wondered if the Department of Justice might have a copy of it. The question of the approval and authorization for Project mockingbird until today remains unresolved.

The relationship between the CIA and media outlets went beyond covert operations. Journalists were reported to be recruited, and entire publications were shaped to align with the government’s geopolitical objectives. At the same time, the government’s policies began to shift, and rather than regulating media for public benefit, the media became more and more profit-driven. Deregulation, particularly with the Telecommunications Act, paved the way for corporate consolidation in the media industry. The once-sacred principle of serving the public good was replaced by the drive for ratings and advertising revenue, controlled by a few.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996: The Shift from Broadcast as a “Public Service” to Profit-Driven Media

If you want to understand the effect “The Telecommunications Act” had in the integrity of the news, while embedding yourself in how the news are created, I suggest after reading the article, you spends some quality entertainment time and watch an old HBO series called, “The Newsroom”. Highly entertaining, quite accurate representation of what goes on inside a newsroom and how chaotic it is. It will give you a great insight into how the news are created, fabricated and the intertwines between media and government, ratings and integrity. All I can say is, this series nailed it! Until then, I try to explain.

The commercialization of the media industry drastically changed its role in society. What had once been a public service—informing citizens and holding power to account—was now a business, focused on maximizing profit. Major media conglomerates began to own large swathes of the broadcast, print, and online news industries. As a result, content became increasingly sensationalized, designed to capture attention and generate advertising revenue, rather than to inform or educate, while at the same it consolidated control.

While the Telecommunications Act was not directly related to cable TV, it gave rise to a relatively new type of media: cable news networks, starting with CNN in 1980. The act led to the creation of networks such as Fox News and MSNBC, fueling a race for ratings. The Telecommunications Act also blurred the lines between the traditional “six o'clock” news, which had been a public service of information, and the emerging cable networks.

The emphasis shifted from providing balanced, objective, and fact-based reporting to creating content that would "engage" audiences. As a result, opinions and facts began to blur in an attempt to "resonate with audiences" by providing “a different point of view”. In this new media environment, fact-checking and investigative journalism often took a backseat, catchy headlines designed to shock audiences, eventually became the norm.

Finding "eyewitness accounts," many of which did not align with each other, from unreliable witnesses began to flood the airwaves, especially during breaking news events. This was often done in an attempt to "break the news first," typically driven by the ratings a network would receive and directly tied to advertising revenue.

As a result, more confusion than information was created for the public, with sensational headlines, opinions, and shocking images scrambling people's minds instead of informing them. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 not only turned a public service into a business and consolidated media control into the hands of a few, but it also left people completely uninformed as a consequence.

The Rise of Sensationalist News Shows and the Normalization of Gore

The mid-1990s marked a significant shift across all media, particularly in how news was reported and consumed. The transition toward sensationalism and infotainment became more pronounced during this time, especially as media outlets sought to engage audiences through dramatic content rather than purely factual reporting.

Magazine-style news programming like Inside Edition (1988), Extra (1994), and A Current Affair (1986) had already emerged in the U.S. by the early 1990s. By the mid-1990s, it boomed, focusing more on emotional and scandal-driven stories over traditional hard news. These programs emphasized human interest stories, celebrity gossip, crime, and shocking incidents, which appealed to the growing desire for entertainment and easily digestible content. The sometimes gruesome nature of the images began shaping the acceptance of such content on television and eventually trickled into mainstream news, fueling a freedom for the news to display more graphic content, yet sanitized.

The turning point for the normalization of broadcasting violence and gore on the news was in August 2014, the first time news outlets broadcasted videos of decapitations by ISIS. Graphic violence and explicit images were typically restricted due to ethical considerations, broadcasting regulations, and concerns about public sensitivity.

The rise of ISIS and its deliberate use of beheading videos as a propaganda tool in 2014 marked a significant shift in how such extreme content was distributed. These videos were often widely circulated online, bypassing traditional media control and prompting significant debate about the role of digital platforms in spreading graphic content. Many news outlets faced pressure to cover these events, but some were cautious about showing the full videos due to the graphic nature of the material.

Fun Fact: Today in History, December 19, 2018, US President Donald Trump announced “victory over the Islamic State” and planned withdrawal of US troops from Syria. I would say, not much of a victory, considering the latest takeover of Syria after the fall of the Assad Regime.

The Digital Switch: A Turning Point from Opinion and Sensational Headlines to Storytelling in News

On December 31, 2006, another event marked the history of broadcasting, the U.S. Government Set a Deadline for the Switch from Analog to Digital Broadcasting, Allowing the Transition to High Definition (HD)

The digital switch was primarily a technical change, but as a consequence, it opened up a sea of opportunities for leveraging technology in ways that were not previously possible. It allowed for the transformation to High Definition, giving viewers a completely new experience while watching television. Virtual studios, augmented reality, and highly sophisticated graphics systems gave newsrooms endless possibilities for how to cover the news. From that moment forward, it became all about "telling stories" and helping viewers "embed themselves in the narrative."

With this change, our minds were no longer only scrambled by contradicting opinions presented as news and sensational headlines without substance, but our hearts were also now captured and engaged. One of the most historic examples of how the digital switch changed our experience and expectation as consumers of news occurred in 2008, when CNN “hologrammed” Jessica Yellin and Performer and Obama supporter, Will.I.Am, live into its studio during the 2008 U.S. elections coverage.

While the “Hologram” had zero journalistic value and didn’t contribute a single thing to understanding the election results, in fact the entire segment was about explaining the technology. The reality is, CNN “hologram” was just a gimmick, designed to leverage all available technology to attract viewers to CNN’s election coverage. This was not just a historic technical achievement—only possible due to the digital switch—it also transformed viewers’ expectations when watching the news. From that moment forward, the race for ratings became about who could “tell the story in more visually compelling ways,” while pushing the boundaries of newly available technologies.

This concept of storytelling soon trickled down from the creative teams to the newsrooms. Producers began to focus more and more on telling compelling stories, how they could combine them with 3D simulations, bringing the outside world into the studio, rather than simply reporting the news. News outlets started emphasizing emotional engagement and crafting narratives designed to resonate with audiences. This shift marked a new era in journalism, where facts and information took a backseat to the need for compelling, emotionally driven content, that would captivate the hearts and minds of the audiences to increase ratings.

The Rise of Al Jazeera as a Power Media House

Al Jazeera’s journey to becoming a significant media player in the West began with a highly controversial entry into the U.S. market. Al Jazeera English, the global news network launched by Al Jazeera in 2006, was initially banned from the U.S., due to concerns over its content and ties to groups hostile to U.S. interests. This ban prevented Al Jazeera from broadcasting in the country, limiting its access to American audiences.

In 2013, Al Jazeera made a bold move to establish a foothold in the U.S. media landscape. The network purchased Current TV, a media company founded by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and rebranded it as Al Jazeera America. The stated aim was to “provide a more global perspective” on news, positioning the network as an “alternative to traditional American media” outlets.

However, despite its ambitions, Al Jazeera America faced numerous challenges. One significant obstacle was the regulatory limitations on the content it could broadcast. At the time, Al Jazeera English was still blocked in the U.S., preventing the network from utilizing a vast library of content produced by its parent network in Qatar. Additionally, the network struggled to capture and retain viewership in a rapidly changing media environment, where younger audiences were increasingly turning to digital platforms and social media for news.

Al Jazeera America quietly closed on April 12, 2015, after struggling with low viewership and not meeting financial goals. Despite its failure to thrive in the U.S. broadcasting market, Al Jazeera’s parent company was already adapting to the evolving media landscape by shifting focus to digital platforms. This led to the creation of AJ+, a digital-only news platform which launched its YouTube Channel on December 17, 2013.

AJ+ bypassed traditional broadcasting regulations and aimed to cater to younger, more tech-savvy audiences by delivering short, engaging videos designed to spark conversation. By September 2014, AJ+ expanded across all social media platforms and launched its own mobile app, quickly gaining a following among younger audiences who were more inclined to consume news through digital means. While many media outlets have tried to leverage social media to spread their news, have launched new products targeting younger audiences, none have been as successful in captivating young audiences as AJ+.

After the closing of Al Jazeera America, on September 2016, Al Jazeera English was granted access to U.S. audiences via a live stream, after years of being blocked. This marked a turning point, the network's was now allowed in the U.S., allowing it to directly compete with American news outlets on digital platforms. At the same time, AJ+ continued to grow, further cementing Al Jazeera’s influence in the global media landscape, particularly among younger audiences. The eventual unblocking of Al Jazeera English in the U.S. marked the network’s transformation into a media powerhouse with global reach.

By February 2018, Al Jazeera Media Network appointed Euronews Group as its content and brand syndication agent to represent Al Jazeera’s digital flagship brand AJ+ at a worldwide scale. Euronews Group is now in charge of marketing and promoting AJ+ digital channels to third party clients and specifically to its well established worldwide network of content and syndication partners.

In 2020, AJ+ was ordered by the U.S. Department of Justice to register as an agent of Qatar, as required by FARA. Until today, Al Jazeera has not complied with the order, and the Biden administration failed to enforce the order. Since 2020 congress has followed-up in numerous occasions on the status of the order.

In 2023, the House Oversight Committee sent a letter to the Attorney General requesting an update on the “administration, enforcement, and recordkeeping practices associated with delays or decisions not to enforce FARA compliance.”

Is Qatar Pulling “Operation Mockingbird 2.0”?

Qatar, through its state-funded network Al Jazeera, has become one of the most influential global players in shaping narratives, disguised as news. Al Jazeera has long been accused of promoting Qatar’s foreign policy interests, and there is evidence that the network spreads propaganda aligned with the Qatari government’s agenda. Beyond Al Jazeera, Qatar has also invested heavily in Western media outlets, human rights organizations, activists, and educational institutions, further extending its influence and currently causing havoc around the world in the name of a “Free Palestine.”

However, Qatar’s influence extends far beyond media investments. Al Jazeera has faced significant resistance in some parts of the Arab world, with countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt banning the network for its alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood. Despite these bans in the Arab World, in the West, Al Jazeera is free to spread its influence unchecked, positioning itself as a prominent source of dis-information in the West.

But Qatar’s influence doesn’t stop with media. It also plays a strategic role in global geopolitics, particularly in its relationship with the U.S. Despite Qatar’s controversial ties to groups like Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. has maintained close diplomatic relations with Qatar. This includes hosting the largest U.S. military base in the region, Al Udeid Air Base, and deep economic ties, including their recent addition to the U.S. Visa Waiver Program.

The media landscape today is a far cry from the expected “objective reporting” and public service. From the creation of the BBC in 1932 to the U.S. government's wartime control of information, to the CIA's covert manipulation of the press during the Cold War, the media has consistently been shaped by those in power to serve their agendas.

Since Al Jazeera's rise in the West, many of its former journalists have moved across various Western media outlets, raising concerns about their alignment to Qatar’s agenda and how this affects what once reputable outlets like the New York Times or Washington Post publishes. As we’ve seen, especially after the October 7th attack by Hamas, many journalists with ties to terrorism and extremist ideologies are being exposed, not only in Gaza but across the entire western media.

Given Al Jazeera's global influence and its geopolitical role, now understanding the evolution of the media and its role in the past, we should ask ourselves: Is Al Jazeera pulling its own “Operation Mockingbird 2.0” on us?