In some cases, these books could almost be described as court
histories, official narratives that reveal some juicy tidbits and offer some
internal criticisms but largely they are revealed to be sanctions and apologias
for the subjects and institutions they address. The approach they take is more
a case of constructive criticism as opposed to a genuine adversarial exposé.
They are not exposing the deeper truth, revealing true guilt, unleashing a
story that's been suppressed and hidden.
This is why they need to be identified as
false exposé.
Here are some things to look for but even this list must be
qualified. The principles listed below are not always erroneous and even good
historians have to balance these things. Rather, when someone is presenting
their work as an exposé, but they still exhibit a strong adherence to these
principles, then there's a good chance that what you're dealing with is not an
exposé but a false exposé which may be simply 'safe' history or in other cases a
blatant whitewash. The most extreme examples stray into corrupt forms of
propaganda and some authors are not historians at all but agents and actors within
a bureaucratic hierarchy, facilitating and aiding the covering up of dark
deeds.
First of all does the author exhibit a great deal of genuine
respect or even reverence for the institution they're writing about? They may
levy criticisms but are they overall supportive of the institution and what it
stands for? Again, not every historian needs to be an overt antagonist but
someone who's doing investigative journalism and 'uncovering' scandal can't
really have a horse in the race or a finger in the pie. Access is important and
many authors sellout in order to get it. The adversarial types will be cut off
or will struggle to get the materials. It is at this point that the official
histories and false exposés still play an important role. They reveal much that
other more intrepid investigators can utilise to flesh out the larger story. There
are other occasions when an author reveals more than intended or does far more
damage to the institution than they initially realise. That's why even these
less than stellar examples of investigative journalism can still have some
value.
Will such an institution-friendly author be willing to follow
through on the evidence, even if it means effectively 'taking down' the
institution? If not, then there's little chance of a real exposé.
Secondly, does the author foster or embrace credulity with
regard to official proclamation?
It's kind of like when being seated on a jury and you're
asked if you would 'be more likely to believe the testimony of a police office
because of their position or office?'
Those who have spent even a small amount of time looking into
police scandals and investigations of corruption will quickly answer in the
negative. I would not trust a police officer above anyone else and in fact in
many cases I would trust them even less.
Those who embrace the mainstream, who believe police
officers, Pentagon spokesmen and the testimonies of CIA officials, FBI agents
and mouthpieces for the White House and State Department are not going to write
exposés. They're not capable of it. This is especially true if they put the
opinions of these people over and above the statements made by other
investigative journalists, contrarian academics, dissident mid- and low level
officials and ex-officials, not to mention the eyewitness testimony of regular
people.
Official statements have their place, but must be taken with
a grain of salt and any writer who takes them prima facie is not going to write an exposé.
Third, be wary of authors who are quick to identify
corruption as systematic only when outside the nation or institutions they seem
to revere. These things happen 'in other countries but not in the United
States' is a common viewpoint expressed in many false exposés. And at the same
time any hint of such corruption and scandal within the United States if unable
to be dispensed with is categorised as rogue and anomalous.
Fourth, the false exposé author will frequently demonstrate a
willingness and support for the idea of protecting operational secrets as
defined by the institution. In other words even though they're exposing
elements of corruption and mismanagement, they are still 'on board' with the
institution along with its assumptions and goals and as such are willing to
collaborate. Bob Woodward post-Watergate certainly comes to mind.
They are then given access to archives and data that others
would not be privy to. While this may not seem like an official imprimatur, it
often is. Again, the CIA is openly critical of Weiner's Legacy of Ashes and yet at the same time, he doesn't seem to have
burned his bridges and for all the attention the work has received, it might be
viewed as having an unofficial quiet imprimatur. They don't like everything he
says but it's already been said anyway and the information is already out
there. They're never going to acquiesce to a real soul-searching overhaul and
yet many in the organisation know that many of his criticisms are true.
However I would go further and say his criticisms are not
only lacking in quantity but in quality and depth.
These authors (and there are a multitude) reveal themselves
as incapable of writing a genuine exposé. Corrupt and often broadcasting their
corruptibility they cannot be trusted. They're telling you as much. They're
admitting that there might be file cabinets full of material which they will
not only ignore but deliberately avoid talking about.
Fifth, these authors exhibit a severe failure to grasp that
bureaucratic corruption is almost always systemic and often foundational. For
those who have worked and functioned within bureaucracies (unless they are
willfully blind) they will come to understand that there's a great deal of
systemic corruption. It permeates the budget, the power structures within the
hierarchy and plays out in how decisions are made, money is spent and how tasks
are assigned. And the deeper one goes, the more they will find, which also
indicates that for the average person, the corruption they're seeing is only
the tip of the iceberg. There are of course layers of corruption and it's not
always overtly illegal. Corruption doesn't always involve breaking the law.
The corruption is also foundational because when one studies
bureaucracies one quickly learns about how institutional mandates are quickly
lost and give way to other interests. Primarily the unspoken role of any
bureaucracy is self-perpetuation... a task which involves spending the budget
in a way in which more money can be requested, justifying existence and
expenditure and seeking new avenues in which to expand. Most bureaucracies must
grow or die. Though dynamism isn't something we usually think of when looking
at bureaucracies there's an element of it at work. You might see this more in a
backwater military unit trying to keep from being shuttered than you will in
the local transportation or social benefits office and yet even these
'necessary' bureaucracies can be streamlined or so marginalised as to become
virtually dysfunctional.
But when we're talking about executive level agencies, law
enforcement, intelligence, diplomacy and the like, there's a real cutting edge
energy present in which the survivors must sink or swim. And also the stakes
are much higher as real and genuine power is at stake and the higher echelons
of power are within view. These people are considerably more motivated than
then dead end social workers at your local assistance office.
This type of environment demands innovation and while we
don't usually associate bureaucracies with promoting and recognising incentive,
those rules begin to change when one attains a certain level.
All these things considered such people are not to be trusted
just because they hold mid- to high level positions in 'reputable' agencies.
Finally, beware of pro-institution authors who present their
exposés as little more than criticism of a particular period or of certain
leaders. Kessler clearly has an axe to grind with Louis Freeh. Posner clearly
doesn't like certain popes. This does not mean they're serious about taking on
the whole organisation and questioning its assumptions.
In every cited case, there seems to be a problem with
acknowledging the Deep State and how it operates. Jacobsen hints at it with
regard to Operation Paperclip. In her telling there are officials within the
State Department and even the FBI and Pentagon apparatus who are effectively
locked in a secret struggle with unseen forces within US intelligence. Their
moves are being subverted and circumvented as forces within the government are
determined to aid, assist and utilise certain figures from Third Reich. But are
they rogues? Is it just a rogue programme? Or is this something happening on a
massive scale, something systemic? Additionally is this revelation regarding
one programme at one time in reality the tip of the iceberg? Imagine if this
struggle is 100 times or even 1000 times as big and complex as what she
presents regarding Operation Paperclip?
I maintain it is and these authors play their part in
revealing it... even if it's not really their intention to do so.
These books have some value to be sure. They contain lots of
information but must be read with a grain of salt. They're hiding a great deal,
leaving much unsaid, assuming much and yet at the same time they (at times)
reveal far more than the authors ever intended.
Link to the Shenon NPR interview:
See also: