What is the difference between Stratfor and the WSJ or Economist? They all are relatively expensive publications that provide information only to subscribers and not the general public. The author seems to be upset that Stratfor was making a lot of money.
Startfor is not the only private intelligence group. IHS Inc. [0] owns Jane's Information Group (defense/strategic intelligence) [1] and iSuppli (industrial intelligence). In my opinion Jane's publications and subscriptions are way overpriced.
The book Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2012) costs well over $1300 on Amazon [2]. I doubt there is anything in there that you can't find on Wikipedia (or, if not, a quick Google search). That does not stop every mil/intel office worldwide buying a copy of the latest edition each year. Their customers seem to like having all the latest information in a big heavy book. There is no point in hating on Jane's for providing a product that is demanded by the public.
So Stratfor does marketing to enhance their image and increase their subscriber base, what businesses don't?
I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for meeting consumer demand.
This article - besides what was already rightly said that it lacks substance and is full of lame comparisons - is downplaying Stratfor's role and influence on many decision makers in governments and industry.
This seems to be in line with Stratfor's own defense strategy against the Wikileak email publications - make yourself small, discredit your opponent (next step / previously happened already by others), downplay the importance of the information revealed and doubt the accuracy / genuineness of the material - claim that it might have been altered (what nobody but insiders can proof right or wrong).
You can say what you want about "The Atlantic" - but the quality of their journalistic work has always been kept to an high standard at least in previous years. I would be (very) surprised if they don't have a subscription/copy of Stratfor's information services themselves given their interest and coverage of geo-political topics.
If "Stratfor is a joke" so why have they so happily quoted from their analysis material in the past?
While Andrew Sullivan was writing his blog under The Atlantic's masthead, he regularly quoted Stratfor. Andrew Sullivan is a tool, was a tool long before he wrote for The Atlantic, and no longer writes for the Atlantic.
Apart from Andrew Sullivan's blog, I found exactly one other instance of Stratfor on The Atlantic (except articles either talking about Stratfor being hacked or articles talking about Stratfor being a joke): in James Fallows' blog, once.
My conclusion is that The Atlantic does not happily quote from Stratfor's "analysis material".
Very informative - I do recall to have seen quite some reference to Stratfor on the Atlantic, sometimes also just mirroring their opinions on some subjects without mentioning them, but can't recall if those where all from one person.
Nevertheless what checking on Google confirms once more how mediocre the results there have become, as Google seemingly does not differentiate between content, asides or widgets.
Hence you get dozens / hundreds of "Stratfor joke" results for pages on the Atlantic that have nothing to do with it.
The difference is what each makes themselves out to be. I have subscriptions to both the WSJ and Economist - neither is particularly expensive. And the WSJ/Economist are precisely what they make themselves out to be - a business newspaper (thought I haven't touched the actual paper in 3+ years), and a weekly magazine on international affairs (ditto with no physical magazine touched in several years).
Janes, WSJ, and the Economist all do original sourcing/reporting. Regarding Janes - $1300 for the good research report on Aviation Assets is roundoff error for the people who need it (typically people in the Airline Industry who need market research on airplanes - $1300 is eminently reasonable for a good market research report on a vertical sector) for people who don't "need it" (Almost all of us) We can get it from Wikipedia/Google searches - and much of that data you find will be sourced back to Jane's.
Stratfor makes themselves out to be some amazingly elite intelligence reporting organization, when, in fact, they offer little more than what you would get from a simply reading the WSJ/Economist + a bit of googling.
This would be fine if they admitted they were an aggregator with a small amount of local reporting - but when you charge $40K for a subscription, you expect to get something somewhat special.
That, is why people consider Stratfor to be a joke.
Whoah...what? If you're just receiving their memos, i.e. it's a one-way push relationship, you're paying a few hundred dollars a year at worst.
You start paying more when you ask them to * commission* you research. This is akin to you going to The Economist and saying 'write me a briefing or special report on Mongolia with a special emphasis on the PRC's influence'. It may turn out to be solely aggregated from open sources, but you're generally not paying for the raw intelligence - you're paying for analysis.
The Atlantic is basically asserting that STRATFOR is not Kroll or IGI, e.g. 'deploy assets in China and map out this individual's social and financial network, as well as a list of his beneficial ownerships and Party ties'. But it's not an Economist either. It's far more speculative, internalising the constant uncertainty and source verification involved in actual intelligence operations. I agree with The Atlantic when they say that STRATFOR is being plumped up by Wikileaks, and that comparing it to its image as a "shadow CIA" paints it in a bad light. But if you look at them as a firm of intelligence analysts it's no longer quite so insidious...or incompetent.
To further challenge the equating of publicly sourcing data with incompetence, take the asset management industry. This industry ostensibly bases its decisions on public information. But we pay them. Not because they're sleuthing around Chinese coal plants (some are), but because their analysis adds intrinsic value.
People -- and I would include both Wikileaks and The Atlantic here -- seem to be conflating or confusing the distinct displines of intelligence collection and intelligence analysis. Stratfor's strong suit is analysis: putting pieces together and making sense of them. Whether or not it does a good job at analysis is up for debate, but to my understanding, analysis has always been its bread and butter. Given that there are very few organizations in the world today doing cogent analysis based on accurate intel, it's not surprising that Stratfor has found a market for its wares. (To wit: even government agencies are having an increasingly hard time finding competent analysts, as the top talent at major universities typically goes to Wall Street instead).
If Stratfor is actually doing any intelligence collection -- or, more probably, puffing up its own reputation as an intelligence collection agency -- it's primarily doing so to lend credibility to its analysis. Stratfor's brand benefits from all the "private CIA" blather, if up to a point.
I can see why this would seem over-hyped and stupid to someone with experience and contempt for STRATFOR already.
And so far I haven't heard anything worth the "BIG NEWS COMING" hype from wikileaks.
It's still too dismissive of the benefits of the leak. As some commenters point out: maybe the people with no access to anyone, who are the targets of amateurs like STRATFOR would like to know what's going on.
Whatever they are, they are exposed now. Seems irrationally condescending to be so dismissive, it's not in line with the evidence presented. Contempt from a "real reporter" towards Wikileaks? It weakens his argument.
Stratfor subscriptions do are _not_ $40k a year. The article was being very misleading on that point, saying that this was what the price was in 2001. Perhaps that was because the subscrition page on Startfor was still down, but when I subscribed, it was something like $200 or so a year --- it was less than the cost of WSJ.
What I get out of Stratfor, and why I read it, is not "secret intelligence information", but analysis. It may not be as good as what the CIA has, but that's because it truly doesn't have access to "secret intelligence information". But at least they are trying to make sense of facts! Unlike the New York Times, which acts as a stenographer for the White House (the White House has leaked information from the CIA saying their analysts are sure Iraq had weapons of mass distruction, therefore it must be true) or for politicians (where Arthur Brisbane was caught wondering whether it was OK to label statements form political candidates that were false as not being true in newspaper articles, or whether newspapers should just run the quote), or the Television Evening News, which trot out "retired generals" who are still on the consulting payroll of the Pentagon without disclosing that fact. If I want the party line from the politicos, I know where to get it.
Not that I take Stratfor's conclusions as gospel --- I don't take the Times, the Economist, or other sources as gospel either. But hopefully by reading all of that, I can have a more informed view of the world. Other than satisfying my own curiosity, I have the naive and old fashioned view that being well informed is the responsibility of each and every citizen of a democracy --- and that means getting information and analysis from multiple sources, and then coming to my own conclusions.
Sorry, but Stratfor are routinely much, much better than everything the standard media delivers as "investigative research" these days, of which there isn't much to begin with. I go to newspaper sites when I want to read a rewritten version of some newswire release.
Also, people are complaining that Stratfor has a paid network of informants? Every serious newspaper should. Instead they have "anonymous government officials" denouncing people as terrorist per government propaganda. See for example http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4492
Well, "anonymous government officials" and people like Anthony Shadid and and Marie Colvin. How many Stratfor people died getting the story out of Syria?
I don't see it as if Wikileaks were fooled, they have debunked Stratfor, the "money-making scheme". They sell nothing for a fortune, I hope their subscribers will leave them.
I do - Assange branded this leak as far more momentous and STRATFOR as much more insidious than it is. The "secret cash bribes" are his wording, after all.
I was a corporate subscriber of STRATFOR's. The Atlantic is a bit harsh here, but it's harsh on STRATFOR promoting its brand as a "shadow CIA". That specific complaint is fair.
We never commissioned investigation from them, but I was quite happy with analysis we had them write up for us on how the US was likely to react to various situations. For example, they were the first source to bring it to my attention that for all the wailing about Putin messing with the Russian elections, the "true" winners were the right nationalist parties. CIA intel? No. But potentially worth knowing to judge the region's investment climate stability? Probably.
For deep digging I'd go to Kroll, IGI, Dilligence, etc. If Anonymous and pals could get into their servers I'd be legitimately impressed.
They don't sell nothing, they sell outsourced information gathering. They're pretty much exactly the same as any other outsourced service. You could do it yourself or pay someone else to do it. People have completely valid reasons for paying other people to do things they could do for themselves, in fact pretty much everyone does it all the time.
Any reporter who questions the validity of that choice is one who makes me question their own understanding of how the world works.
The very first leaked Stratfor email I looked at just now (see below) seems to have the same level of detail and passionate debate that we Hackernews types get into when we're discussing crypto policy or the design of network protocols.
I've never before read anything from Stratfor, and I was willing to accept the OP's assertion that they slap together public data, but seeing this one email makes me already doubt the OP. Do editors at The Atlantic and The Economist have intricate discussions about Medvedev vs Timoshenko to figure out Putin's actions?
From: "Marc Lanthemann"
To: "Alpha List"
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2011 1:48:33 PM
Subject: [alpha] INSIGHT - UKRAINE - Moscow-Kiev Spat - UA111
CODE: UA111
PUBLICATION: yes
ATTRIBUTION: STRATFOR sources in Kiev
SOURCE DESCRIPTION: A senior pro-western diplomat in Kiev
SOURCE RELIABILITY: B
ITEM CREDIBILITY: B
DISTRIBUTION: Alpha
HANDLER: Lauren
Yes, yes, the spat between Kiev and Moscow has been really fun to watch.
But Yanukovich may be overstepping his bounds with the Kremlin if he keeps
this up. He has already really ticked off Putina**who didna**t like him to
begin with.
You already pretty much know this storya**Putin never wanted Yanukovich in
power without a counter-balance to keep him in check. Putin knew
Yanukovich could win on his own, but wanted a super-majority in order to
solidify the Kremlina**s meddling in Kiev. He wanted that to be
Timoshenko, not because she is pro-Russian, but that she was the most
easily bought out of all the top politicians. Of course, this is what got
her in trouble and arrested.
But Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no
respect in any meeting and would only deal with Putin personally. Medvedev
made the decision that Timoshenko cana**t be put into power, so he made a
deal with Putin. Medvedev swore that he would keep Yanukovich in line if
Putin dropped his support of Timoshenko. Putin agreed in return for being
the one to draw up the list of new Ukrainians going into power in the SBU,
military, ministries, etc. Also that Russia would get the base extension
it had been pushing for.
So when Timoshenko and Yanukovich showed up in Moscow at the end of 2009,
the tandem broke the news to Yanukovich privately that they were willing
to drop support for Timoshenko if he would agree to Putina**s list of
demands. Yanukovich jumped all over it, naturally.
Now that Yanukovich is acting out, Putin has snapped the leash on Medvedev
to fix this. It is kind of a test for Medvedev. This is why the railing
against Ukraine has come from Medvedev, not Putin. Question is which lever
will Medvedev pull to get Yanukovich back in line.
--
Lauren Goodrich
Senior Eurasia Analyst
STRATFOR
T: 512.744.4311
F: 512.744.4334
lauren.goodrich@stratfor.com
www.stratfor.com
You may have a point. It is hard to find intricate discussions of Timoshenko and Medvedev. You have to know about news.google.com, and how to spell both of their names.
Seriously, though: remember also, because Stratfor is not a legit journalism outpost, they can spice up their output in ways that e.g. Reuters, The Economist, and Bloomberg can't. Bloomberg can't write "Medvedev has never liked Timoshenko, mainly because she gave him no respect..." without an attributable source. Stratfor, on the other hand, can just make shit like this up, or source from random people who are themselves just making shit up.
Well, the article plays on the "Coca-Cola spying on PETA" email, which is a little pathetic and hardly a smoking gun showing dirty behind-the-scenes tricks. But thats par for the course when it comes to corporate "intelligence" on subculture-based movements like animal rights. People in those movements know that the enemy is spying on them, but often times it seems like the corporate/military interests don't have a clue about anything going on... until something big like the Brandon Darby entrapment scheme comes up.
I would be interested in seeing what information of substance people find in the Stratfor leak, but its not going to be on issues like this.
Hi Everyone, I'm seeing a lot of talk of Anonymous in relation to this leak but there's no mention of them on http://wikileaks.org/the-gifiles.html at all that I can find.
Can someone point me to the info that shows they were involved? I may be suffering from internet blindness :-)
EDIT: Never mind, found it :-) must have had a Ctrl-F fail.
Startfor is not the only private intelligence group. IHS Inc. [0] owns Jane's Information Group (defense/strategic intelligence) [1] and iSuppli (industrial intelligence). In my opinion Jane's publications and subscriptions are way overpriced.
The book Jane's All the World's Aircraft (2012) costs well over $1300 on Amazon [2]. I doubt there is anything in there that you can't find on Wikipedia (or, if not, a quick Google search). That does not stop every mil/intel office worldwide buying a copy of the latest edition each year. Their customers seem to like having all the latest information in a big heavy book. There is no point in hating on Jane's for providing a product that is demanded by the public.
So Stratfor does marketing to enhance their image and increase their subscriber base, what businesses don't?
I am not interested in subscribing to Stratfor, but I don't hate on them for meeting consumer demand.
[0] http://www.ihs.com/
[1] http://www.janes.com/products/janes/index.aspx
[2] http://www.amazon.com/Janes-All-Worlds-Aircraft-2011-2012/dp...
Edit: Added Links. Clarified thought.