Military analysts for the media are actually Pentagon stooges

      Home » World events & politics » Military analysts for the media are actually Pentagon stooges

Military analysts for the media are actually Pentagon stooges

UPDATE - This article has won David Barstow of the New York Times the Pulitzer prize for journalism, yet there is no mention in the mainstream media of it

Propaganda is a loaded word, but one that accurately describes the relationship between the media and the military analysts they hire. When the media tries to analyse miitary actions they often hire for $500 to $1000 an interview independant military analysists to explain the situation in an 'objective' manner.

However the New York Times has shown that these talking heads are themselves in the pay of the Pentagon and are merely mouthing what they have been told to say. Some of them have been paid handsomely by the pentagon for their work as well.

So much for an independant free press. Read this, everything you are told about the war is wrong...

The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets.

But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.


... Quote:
You could see that they (the analysts) were messaging. You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.

Some days we were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”


Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show.

Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.”

Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”

Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents.

For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”

A long, but important and sobering read
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008...

military-analysts.jpg - 21.79kb
By netchicken: posted on 20-4-2008

This is actually their front page story; I happened to glace at today's or yesterday's NYT.

They usually have stories about Cats or some woman's struggle with educating girls in sub saharan Africa on the front page, so it was interesting to see this.
By IAF: posted on 21-4-2008

One of the few updates on this article below. It does look like the article embarrassed the Pentagon, yet the rest of the media, who are complicit in the actions are silent. This post discusses the media silence.

The Pentagon announced on Friday that it was suspending its briefings for retired military officers who often appear as military analysts on television and radio programs.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said the briefings and all other interactions with the military analysts had been suspended indefinitely pending an internal review.


On Sunday, The New York Times reported that since 2002 the Pentagon has cultivated several dozen military analysts in a campaign to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. The retired officers have made tens of thousands of appearances for television and radio networks, holding forth on Iraq, Afghanistan, detainee issues and terrorism in general.

Records and interviews show that the Bush administration worked to transform the analysts into an instrument intended to shape coverage from inside the major networks.

More here
 http://www.nytimes.com/2008...
By netchicken: posted on 4-5-2008

More on this topic with summaries of the emails

The following chart lists analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002,

 http://mediamatters.org/ite...


Note that the first person cited is David Grange. From his wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... is the following comment at the end
... Quote:
His reputation has suffered since being exposed in a New York Times article on April 20, 2008 as a Pentagon propagandist who was willingly used by the Bush administration to sell the invasion of Iraq.



Partial list of Pentagon stooges - more on the link

pentagon-stooges.gif - 10.33kb
By netchicken: posted on 14-5-2008

This article has won the Pulitzer Prize in journalism for its author David Barstow
... Quote:
The Times’s coverage of the war and political struggle in Afghanistan and Pakistan won for international reporting. And an examination by David Barstow of conflicts of interest among the military analysts who help television networks cover the wars in Asia won the Pulitzer for investigative reporting. http://www.nytimes.com/2009...


However this award has gone unmentioned in the wider media
... Quote:
Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story, but all find time for Hannah Montana

Since The New York Times reported on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on April 20, ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not mentioned the report. By contrast, during their April 28 evening news broadcasts, all three networks reported on the Vanity Fair photo of Miley Cyrus. http://mediamatters.org/ite...


I guess you don't want to kill the goose that gives you free news.
By netchicken: posted on 24-4-2009

Someone should go to jail for trying to manipulate the public to sell us on their war including most of the Bush administration.If it is not a crime it should be.I want to see evidence Iraq and saddam was an imminent threat or the Bush administration put in front of a firing squad and congress disbanded with not one of them allowed to run for office that supported George Bush's war.Without the fear and propaganda campaign they would never have got as much support as they did for Bush's war.They were able to use the events of 9-1-1 to their advantage knowing that they could get support from an emotional response to the events of that day.They are sick people.
By tenneguy: posted on 25-4-2009








Military analysts for the media are actually Pentagon stooges | [Login ]
Powered by XMB
Privacy Policy