^^^^^^^
This may be true -- we simply can't know with certainty one way or the other. It's certainly
possible that Stone may be a 'soft' asset of sorts: largely unconstrained in pursuing his own political sensibilities, but occasionally assigned certain projects in furtherance of banal/mainstream narratives (see his films 'World Trade Center', or 'W.', as a couple recent examples, more so the former than the latter. I liked parts of W, but the script was based off CNN-news-coverage versions of events). His earlier film JFK opened a 'Pandora's Box' for a segment of the viewing public, inspiring many to re-examine the events of that day. Was he 'tapped on the shoulder' after making that film? We'll never know. Then again, propaganda-enfused storylines can simply be inserted via relatively mundane acts: executive producers or film
consultants/advisors with
intel agency backgrounds altering scripts, unbeknownst (or known but powerless to object) to the director.
My sentiment Re: Snowden is based on my default cynicism of our news cycle. It can be crudely summarized as follows: the more certain news items and/or events are made available -- or thrust -- into
The Public's awareness field, the more scrutiny should be applied (Hollywood movies, HBO/cable TV mini-series, documentaries, TED conferences with
Snowden as star attraction would certainly move the 'suspect needle' of such a hypothetical model into
red territory). Conversely, political ideas or theories largely stifled and/or generally inaccessible to the average consumer of media ('generally inaccessible' in this day and age largely equates to: anything that can't be found within 3-4 mouse clicks) tends to pose greater challenge to
status quo. Further, if/when 'less accessible' content manages to gain traction and move beyond the fringes into greater exposure, a useful gauge for determining the 'purity' of the content is to observe actions taken by establishment entities to
discredit, silence and/or stifle the messenger (see Gary Webb as a prime example).
When afforded with more downtime, I may dedicate more time to this premise, and corroborate the above with more substance.
For now, however:
Stone's acceptance speech at the 2017 Writers Guild Awards, which you alluded to in your reply, is worthy of reproducing here:
After being introduced by James Wood, Stone told reminded filmmakers that “you can be critical of your government and your society.”
“You don’t have to fit in,” the Oscar-winner went on. “It’s fashionable now to take shots at Republicans and Trump and avoid the Obamas and Clintons. But remember this: In the 13 wars we’ve started over the last 30 years and the $14 trillion we’ve spent, and the hundreds of thousands of lives that have perished from this earth, remember that it wasn’t one leader, but a system, both Republican and Democrat. Call it what you will: the military industrial money media security complex. It’s a system that has been perpetuated under the guise that these are just wars justifiable in the name of our flag that flies so proudly.”
Stone continued that our “country has become more prosperous for many but in the name of that wealth we cannot justify our system as a center for the world’s values. But we continue to create such chaos and wars. No need to go through the victims, but we know we’ve intervened in more than 100 countries with invasion, regime change, economic chaos. Or hired war. It’s war of some kind. In the end, it’s become a system leading to the death of this planet and the extinction of us all.”
He concluded with advice based on his own experiences. “I’ve fought these people who practice war for most of my life. It’s a tiring game. And mostly you’ll get your a– kicked. With all the criticism and insults you’ll receive, and the flattery too, it’s important to remember, if you believe in what you’re saying and you can stay the course, you can make a difference,” he said.
“I urge you to find a way to remain alone with yourself, listen to your silences, not always in a writer’s room. Try to find not what the crowd wants so you can be successful, but try instead to find the true inner meaning of your life here on earth, and never give up on your heart in your struggle for peace, decency, and telling the truth.”
And with respect to Chomsky: some have labeled him a 'gatekeeper' in the past for his views on 9/11 -- I imagine there's historical content within RI along those lines -- though of course it doesn't prove (or disprove) 'asset' status. Anyone is capable of blind spots. Stone and Chomsky are no exceptions. Perhaps that's all it is: the complexities and occasionally conflicting points of view inherent to the human experience, and the disparate interpretations of day-to-day
observable reality.
Or perhaps much of what's presented to us -- at least whenever projected from a medium for the purpose of mass consumption -- is manipulated, at least in part, to the benefit of the very few.
(these scenarios are not mutually exclusive)
