Is Netflix Under CIA Influence?
I watch Netflix for escapism like you do but their endless offerings celebrating an intelligence agency agenda have made me suspicious. As a mere peasant viewer I can only make inferences based on the visual narratives they feed me and grope around on the web for clues. In this post I’ll explore what I found out about Spy Ops, a documentary. In a future post I’ll decipher some fictional CIA stories on Netflix.
Spy Ops is described as insider stories on spycraft. The first episode covers Operation Jawbreaker, a US action in Afghanistan after 9/11 with a goal to ally with the Northern Alliance and push back the Taliban. A heroic story told through interviews with a couple CIA participants and historical reenactments. What isn’t mentioned? Fifty years of US involvement in Afghanistan.
The CIA’s Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1992 during the Soviet intervention funneled billions of dollars worth of arms to the Afghan mujahideen, promoting and strengthening the force we would then, after 9/11, fight for twenty years at a cost of $2.3 trillion and a quarter million lives. The kicker: after all that, they’re back in charge. Is it deceptive to create a ‘documentary’ that excises a tiny portion of decades of conflict and covert operations leading to massive loss of life and money and ends in failure and rewrite that brief moment to lionize a couple CIA officers? Or is it propaganda?
The ethics of documentary film production are a work-in-progress. Loads of articles discuss topics like is it acceptable to alter chronologies or should the filmmaker ignore a protagonist’s flaws. But the International Documentary Association has concluded for the moment that since rules limit creative freedom, there’s no way to control or discipline documentary filmmaking. According to this perspective it’s the viewer’s responsibility. But if we’re told a show is factual, what recourse do we have? Either every viewer goes off on a quixotic internet quest like I did, or their belief structure about what is true gets molded without their knowledge.
The second episode of Spy Ops depicts Operation Just Cause, the 1989-90 US invasion of Panama ostensibly to arrest President Manuel Noriega and extradite him to the US to face drug trafficking charges. Not sure what this has to do with espionage but it provides another rousing account of the US military deployed to nail a bad guy that cuts out decades of context. Noriega was a star CIA asset beginning in the 1960s and served as Ronald Reagan’s point man for Iran Contra. The US government ignored Noriega’s drug trafficking (while the CIA was helping the Contras to ship crack cocaine to Los Angeles) until they didn’t. The intervention cost $164 million and 23 US soldiers’ lives along with 3000 or more Panamanians. Yet the episode depicts a triumph of US ethics and power.
Other episodes include Mossad assassinations of PLO leaders and conclude with the CIA’s Project Azorian where the CIA spent $5 billion in today’s dollars to secretly retrieve a sunken Soviet submarine from the floor of the Pacific.
Big Media is the producer of Spy Ops. Big Media describes itself as a producer of popular entertaining documentary series and accessible factual programming with a specialization in military and intelligence history. Here’s what founder and chairman Jon Loew says: “We are living in a time when it’s difficult to discern fact from fiction … and I think it is really important to highlight the successful missions of the CIA and other organizations who are working to protect us …” A Deadline article on Spy Ops mentions that “the agency is collaborating with the producer of the series, Big Media.” That is the only admission I could find anywhere that the CIA participated in the development of the series.
Netflix has bounced back to be the number one streaming platform and some think part of their winning formula is ‘spies, spies, spies.’ But there is a critical difference between a fictional spy story and a supposed documentary offering utterly warped versions of CIA operations.
When I clicked out of Spy Ops, Netflix thrust into my face the trailer for the upcoming American Manhunt: Osama Bin Laden, a high octane slam-bang of images ranging from 9/11 to stern-faced government officials vowing revenge to military jets dropping bombs to bin Laden himself. Is this another account praising the bravery of Seal Team 6 and the tough necessity to torture Guantanamo prisoners to get the name of bin Laden’s courier? Another Netflix glorification of US military/intelligence prowess?
We already had Zero Dark Thirty, the 2012 film that made it on to many critics’ top ten lists but stirred up controversies galore. Turned out the filmmakers’ relationship with the CIA was so cozy they agreed to suggest in the film that the use of torture at Guantanamo obtained the identity of bin Laden’s courier leading to the discovery of his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. That’s a CIA talking point designed to justify their use of torture which is contested by many. The NY Times, for one, reported that a Pakistani official informed the CIA of bin Laden’s location, and Seymour Hersch offers a version where the Pakistani government facilitated the raid. Senate intelligence committee reports concluded the CIA gave the filmmakers access to classified material and covered up their own role in the film’s production.
Is Netflix naively buying content from Big Media without awareness of the CIA’s role in its creation? Or is Netflix actively promoting CIA-influenced shows to curry favor with the government? Or what?? The history of the CIA’s clandestine manipulation of media of all kinds is vast. As mere peasant viewers all we can do at this point is arm ourselves with knowledge. Please let me know what you think.