The Trump administration’s paid-influencer program is therefore the latest development in a much older media system.

Carpenter is careful to note one important difference: the current arrangement is, in some respects, more transparent than earlier operations.

The new influencers are reportedly government employees, and their official status can be established through government records.

That is considerably different from secretly coordinating with a supposedly independent commentator while concealing the relationship from the audience.

The older examples were far more elaborate.

During the Cold War, the CIA cultivated journalists and media organizations overseas.

During the post-9/11 period, the Pentagon cultivated retired military officers who appeared as independent television analysts while some maintained relationships with defense contractors and Pentagon officials.

In those cases, the appearance of independence was part of the value.

The audience trusted the message because it did not look like an official government message.

That is why Carpenter calls the current Trump-era version a “diluted” form of the same practice.

The government connection is more visible.

But Carpenter argues that even transparent government influence can still damage journalism when official spokespeople are placed into the media ecosystem under the broader label of “analysis.”

The distinction between a government spokesperson and an independent analyst exists for a reason.

If someone is paid by the government to promote its policies, the audience should know exactly that.

Otherwise, the line between public information and propaganda becomes increasingly difficult to see.

@americanmajority