TechnoTimeStop You're shadowbanned, and from what I can tell, with reason. I suggest you read the site guidelines and appeal to hn@ycombinator.com if you think you can abide.
The world of espionage is obviously extralegal as it operates in international space. The conflict between intelligence-agency activities, what it is willing to publicly admit, and spillover, is high. I'm not a fan of having my own activities, communications, and information surveilled or influenced. I'm a sufficient realist to accept that that's likely the case, whether by US agencies, its Five Eyes (and other) allies, hostile state and non-state actors, and/or third parties.
US journalism still has a fairly high (note, that is not a synonym for "perfect" or "spotless") reputation throughout the world. It has its faults, but is generally credible and independent. Journalists are not typically accused of, or at risk of being take for, intelligence agencts. (Some are, some have paid with their lives. Again, we're discussing the general case.)
Global US adversaries which have made heavy use of open-channels propaganda, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other states, typically authoritarian, do not have this benefit. Their press and journalism are inherently suspect, if not openly mocked. Even if information isn't taken to be directly false, it is considered slanted, censored, unduly inflammetory, and/or distraction. (And yes, these labels can all be applied to a degree elsewhere, the question is one of degree specifically.)
We've had specific information that long-term disinformational campaigns are a key role of other intelligence agencies. See especially Yuri Benzemov's comments here regarding KGB disinformation and moreale efforts: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
(The most effective way for any intelligence agency to have a grasp on information is for it to create it in the first place.)
I'm all but certain that there are elements within the US intelligence apparatus which would like to have a direct line on influencing global public discourse. One view is that doing so covertly has greater harm in the long run than operating openly (e.g., "a CIA source says..."), or indirectly --- there may be planted evidence, but it isn't chalnneled through specific journalists or publications directly controlled as assets. I have a suspicion that the PR industry, however, may have something to answer for (on top of what it already does, of course). Though it is inherently suspect already.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
The world of espionage is obviously extralegal as it operates in international space. The conflict between intelligence-agency activities, what it is willing to publicly admit, and spillover, is high. I'm not a fan of having my own activities, communications, and information surveilled or influenced. I'm a sufficient realist to accept that that's likely the case, whether by US agencies, its Five Eyes (and other) allies, hostile state and non-state actors, and/or third parties.
US journalism still has a fairly high (note, that is not a synonym for "perfect" or "spotless") reputation throughout the world. It has its faults, but is generally credible and independent. Journalists are not typically accused of, or at risk of being take for, intelligence agencts. (Some are, some have paid with their lives. Again, we're discussing the general case.)
Global US adversaries which have made heavy use of open-channels propaganda, including Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and other states, typically authoritarian, do not have this benefit. Their press and journalism are inherently suspect, if not openly mocked. Even if information isn't taken to be directly false, it is considered slanted, censored, unduly inflammetory, and/or distraction. (And yes, these labels can all be applied to a degree elsewhere, the question is one of degree specifically.)
We've had specific information that long-term disinformational campaigns are a key role of other intelligence agencies. See especially Yuri Benzemov's comments here regarding KGB disinformation and moreale efforts: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=bX3EZCVj2XA
(The most effective way for any intelligence agency to have a grasp on information is for it to create it in the first place.)
I'm all but certain that there are elements within the US intelligence apparatus which would like to have a direct line on influencing global public discourse. One view is that doing so covertly has greater harm in the long run than operating openly (e.g., "a CIA source says..."), or indirectly --- there may be planted evidence, but it isn't chalnneled through specific journalists or publications directly controlled as assets. I have a suspicion that the PR industry, however, may have something to answer for (on top of what it already does, of course). Though it is inherently suspect already.