Pentagon Manipulating TV Analysts 361
gollum123 notes an extensive article from the NYTimes on the evidence that the military, since the time of the buildup to the Iraq war, has been manipulating the military analysts that are ubiquitous on TV and radio news programs, in a protracted campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's war efforts. "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity of military analysts on the major networks, is a Pentagon information apparatus... The effort... has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air. Several dozen of the military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members, or consultants. Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks. ...[M]embers of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access."
Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:And... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well they aren't any more, when it's obvious that even the Surge has come up short on its objectives. But there was a time, not so long ago, when I think these "analysts" had a rather substantial influence on the electorate's feelings about the war in Iraq. They don't any more because everything they've said has turned out to be pure bullshit, but the US probably wouldn't be in this position if these puppets hadn't been delivering the White House's script on the major networks on a nightly basis.
Duh (Score:2, Interesting)
If you want to understand why righties think it is treasonous to protest an ongoing war, imagine what would have happened if, during the Vietnam war, we had been treated to television pictures of massive protests in Hanoi, with huge crowds demanding that the North Vietnamese government end the war, and high government saying it was impossible to defeat the US. Do you think it might have bucked up our fighting spirit, just a tad, to think that our enemy was near surrender?
Re:The real surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
People can blame the Pentagon or the Bush administration for BSing the media but the media ate it up hook line and sinker because they wanted to. It's because of the performance of the news organizations prior to the start of the Iraq war that I no longer have any confidence in any of them (including the ones that are considered near infallible). Ethics are journalism got divorced once profit became the primary motivation for reporting.
Re:Umm...and this is NEWS??? (Score:4, Interesting)
Just say "No" to mainstream media cartel.
Gods, how I love freedom of speech.
Re:Where The Fault Lies (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think there really is anything remotely approaching an unbiased news source.
Re:And... (Score:1, Interesting)
[T]he enemy is watching our media and we need them to fear what they see.
But seriously, "the bad guys"? The "bad guys" watch your TV and this is the reason the US need to kill innocent civilians caught up in the middle of this look-at-the-size-of-my-military-dick-fest? How old are you, 10?
It's not so simple (Score:5, Interesting)
I used to think that was the case. But watching over the last twenty years or so I've come to realize that it isn't quite that simple.
For example, during the Monica Lewinsky hoopla, it seemed you couldn't look at a newspaper or turn on a TV without hearing more than you wanted to know about the story. They certainly weren't trying to stay on Clinton's good side, even though he was very popular at the time.
Fast forward a decade, and if you keep your eyes peeled you can catch stories like this:
So it's not quite as simple as you make it sound.
If a popular president has an extramarital affair, the press shows no fear and shouts it from the rooftops night and day.
But if the least popular president on record [usatoday.com] (backed by his administration) maintains that he has the inherent authority to kidnap US citizens at will and make them watch while his goons crush their children's testicles, the "free press" covers his butt so well that if you blink you'll miss the story.
--MarkusQ
Re:And... (Score:4, Interesting)
Ostensibly, we're trying to promote freedom and democracy in Iraq. We cannot do that while being unwilling practice our freedoms and exercise our democratic power back home.
You cannot simultaneously save and destroy the village.
A circular argument... (Score:4, Interesting)
Very true. I knew that we were in trouble in the Iraq war when I saw a ship unload cars of equipment in PA. Rail car after rail car was loaded with battered and broken down HMMVs and other vehicles... everything looked used and beat up...
Re:Where The Fault Lies (Score:3, Interesting)
A lot of us knew it was horseshit and wanted the war anyway. Quite honestly, I did not care that Saddam maybe had no WMD and had no connection to 9/11. I just thought 9/11 was carte blanche for the USA to clean house of all of its enemies in the middle east. Had the war not dragged on for five years, nobody would give a shit that there were no wmds and saddam was theoretically innocent... Saddam was enough of a dick that a quick war to take his out would have been well worth it.
I mean, come on, if Bush had pulled it off, knocked off Saddam but kept Iraq from falling apart, and right now Iraq was pumping 5 million barrels a day to keep gas prices at around $1.50 / gallon, who would even care about the whether the war was honest or not?
Ok, a salacious scandal then... (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, let's pick a salacious scandal then. Surely you remember these stories:
So where's the media circus? Why haven't we heard about this to the blue dress and blood on the glove level that other similar stories get? Why do they just report it tiny bits and pieces and then let each one fade quietly into the night?
--MarkusQ
Fundamental question (Score:3, Interesting)
Then our government declares a state of war or "war". The first question is which you think it is: war or "war". If it's a real war, Churchill's dictum that "truth must be accompanied by an escort of lies" comes into play. We all know that "loose lips sink ships", and no one wants to be responsible for getting our brave boys killed, or even for harming civilian morale by revealing that, yes, one of our battleships was sunk with the loss of 4,000 sailors.
Trouble is, how do we know if it's a real war or a "war" arbitrarily declared by the government? As Orwell's 1984 pointed out, it is trivially easy for any government to proclaim a continuous state of war, thereby giving itself an excuse to suspend all civil liberties "for the duration" - i.e. indefinitely.
And this is where public patriotism comes in. In some countries more than others, a large fraction of the people readily snap into a patriotic, somewhat militaristic, unquestioning frame of mind as soon as they perceive any threat. In such a climate of opinion, the media would be insane to take an anti-government line or question the war. It's not necessarily a matter of prejudice, or vested interests, or black helicopters; it's just that they will lose their audience if they don't tell it what it wants to hear.
Just as we get the government we deserve (because we vote it in), we also get the media we deserve (because we buy it selectively). Only with a truly educated, rational, mature, objective citizenship can excellent media thrive.