Pentagon Propaganda & Antiwar Analysts Posted by Ari Melber

The Sunday Times' article detailing the massive, secret coordinated campaign by the Pentagon and all the leading television news channels to sell and defend the administration's Iraq policy is a critical piece of investigative journalism.  David Barstow provided meticulous and aggressive reporting, even referencing how The Times'amplified Pentagon "surrogates" without sufficient disclosure for readers. The Times also deserves credit, both for running the lengthy piece and suing the government to obtain related documents. 

(Read the whole thing here, or try this YouTube excerpt.) The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel is urging Congress to investigate the program exposed by the article:

In its rigorous documentation of the relationship between the government, the networks and retired military analysts, the lineaments of the corrosive structure and impact of a new military-media-industrial complex are exposed. This corrupt complex demands investigation by all relevant Congressional committees...

Glenn Greenwald, who has written extensively about the media's pro-war bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest, flags the galling (non)-response of several news organizations, near the end of the article:

The most incredible aspect of the NYT story is that most of the news organizations which deceived their readers and viewers by using these "objective" analysts -- CBS, NBC, Fox -- simply refused to comment on what they knew about any of this or what their procedures are for safeguarding against it. Just ponder what that says about these organizations -- there is a major expose in the NYT documenting that these news outlets misleadingly shoveled government propaganda down the throats of their viewers on matters of war and terrorism and they don't feel the least bit obliged to answer for what they did or knew about any of it....  The single most significant factor in American political culture is the incestuous, extensive overlap between our media institutions and government officials.

The article reports that most of the news organizations either didn't know or didn't care about their paid analysts taking direction from the administration while claiming to neutrally assess its policies; or taking expensive trips paid by the administration; or meeting secretly with senior administration officials and plotting military or political strategy; or competing for military contracts. 

So what does it take to disqualify a former general from on-air analysis? 

Criticizing President Bush.

While the article does not cover this incident, CBS did fire Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.) for criticizing President Bush's Iraq policy in a television ad.  As the former commander of the Army's First Infantry Division, which was deployed to Iraq in 2003, Batiste had unassailable credentials, but his views were too much for CBS.  This larger context is key, because while the Times exposed a sophisticated, deceptive domestic propaganda campaign for the administration, the flip-side is harder to document.  But antiwar perspectives are routinely marginalized or scrubbed from televised debate, even when offered by our nation's brave military leaders.  (Or as Michael Cohen might put it, the media has to make room for Michael O'Hanlon.) 

And as ABC News was reminded last week, the public expects more integrity and substance from these news organizations.  They are egregiously late in even commenting on these new reports, let alone reforming their policies, which demonstrates why Congress must investigate this propaganda program -- and the marginalization of experts who are critical of the war or the government.

Ari Melber writes for The Nation, where this post first appeared.

Comments

[Don Bacon]

I'm incensed! This is wrong! The public airwaves are involved here, so perhaps we could get the Federal Communications Commission to investigate. They've taken action before. The FCC upheld a 2004 decision to fine CBS stations a total of $550,000 for showing Janet Jackson's exposed breast during the Super Bowl halftime show in February of that year and previously there was a record $3.5 million settlement with Viacom Inc. over complaints about radio talk show host Howard Stern.

Kevin J. Martin, who took over from Michael K. Powell as FCC chairman, has indicated he plans to take a tougher stand and quicker action on decency violations.

We could file a Form 2000E - Media (General) Complaint form. (The other three complaint categories don't apply: Obscenity/Indecency, Slamming and Telemarketing.)

Let's see, the current FCC chairman, appointed by President Bush, is 41-year-old Kevin Martin. Before becoming a commissioner, Martin was a Special Assistant to the President for Economic Policy (we know what a winner that has been). He has also served as the Deputy General Counsel to Bush-Cheney 2000, on the Bush-Cheney recount team in Florida, and on the Presidential Transition (thank you, Kevin).

Nah, never mind. Waste of time. War is not considered indecent like a breast is. Rather it's a healthy demonstration of peacekeeping by the Defense Department, and the continuation of war is necessary to support the troops. Let's not bother Kevin with this trivial matter, anyhow he may not be abreast of the situation.

[Zathras]

I noticed that ABC's Sunday morning talk program avoided the analyst issue completely, though Torie Clark (whose Pentagon office under then-Sec. Rumsfeld was responsible for the Defense Department media analyst operation) is a regular commentator on the program. It may take a lot more prodding to get the television outlets to give this story any significant attention.

Having said that, it would be a mistake to focus exclusively on the television media. The temptation to do so is a strong one, given that most people who follow politics feel they understand television media much better than they do other institutions, and already have a list of grievances against it. Barstow's story, though -- so utterly damning of so many individuals and institutions, on so many levels -- should have very significant implications outside of television, not least on the military itself.

The picture that emerges of the many former officers enlisted by the Rumsfeld Defense Department to propagate administration talking points, on political as well as strictly military subjects, is not a flattering one. Barstow describes a group of vain and fairly shallow men, inclined to venality and easily manipulated. This is probably not very far from the view of senior officers already held by many junior officers, especially junior officers who have to serve in combat zones, but it is new to most of the public. The very reason these former officers were sought out was for their perceived ability to provide the television audience with the benefit of their expertise and independent judgment -- a reason that in Barstow's telling emerges as not only wrong, but completely wrong, not only because the ex-military analysts did not have any judgment independent of the Bush administration and the Rumsfeld Pentagon but because they did not want to.

A powerful sense that the military's senior leadership had failed in Vietnam was one of the major reasons for major changes in the way the services operated in the years after than war ended. What Barstow's story has done is to throw a spotlight on a corruption pervasive among officers who reach a certain rank -- a kind and level of corruption that is bound to impact morale among junior officers and enlisted personnel, and could well undermine the high public regard now accorded senior officers. I expect that within the military, and perhaps outside it, The Times' investigation is going to be discussed for years.

[Don Bacon]

I would point out again that these actions were using the public airwaves, over which we have a watchdog who is supposed to protect the public interest. The print media differ in this respect.

Looking back, Donald Rumsfeld often reiterated that the terrorist enemies had media committees to manipulate propaganda while the Pentagon lagged in this regard. He did get involved years ago with his crude attempt, along with General Casey, to promulgate propaganda in the Baghdad press.

from the Rumsfeld file [remember that when Rummy said "disinformation" he meant "truth," and vice versa]: "In Iraq, for example, the U.S. military command, working closely with the Iraqi government and the U.S. Embassy, has sought nontraditional means to provide accurate information to the Iraqi people in the face of an aggressive campaign of disinformation. Yet this has been portrayed as inappropriate: for example, the allegations of 'buying news.' The resulting explosion of critical media stories then causes all activity, all initiative, to stop. Apparently, it is -- was not stopped. It was put under review, and I don't have knowledge as to whether or not it's been stopped. I do have knowledge that it was put under review, and I was correctly informed, and I just misstated the facts.

"We need to consider the possibility of new organizations and programs that can serve a similarly valuable role in the war on terror. Although the enemy is increasingly skillful at manipulating the media and using the tools of communications to its advantage, it should be noted that we have an advantage as well. And that is, quite simply, that truth is on our side. Ultimately, the truth wins out. I believe with every bone in my body that free people, exposed to sufficient information, will, over time, find their way to the right decisions. We are fighting a battle in which the survival of our free way of life is at stake. It is a test of wills, and it will be won or lost with our public and the publics of free nations around the world. We need to do all we can to correct the lies being told, shatter the appeal of the enemy and attract supporters to our noble and necessary efforts to defeat violent extremism around the globe."

[mpetti]

Hi everyone – we are trying to give people a way to take action on this issue. An administration secretly forcing favorable views via the press is not a partisan issue. This is a violation of every conceivable standard of journalism -- and possibly of federal law.

It's time the truth about the selling of this war came out. You can help make this happen. Take Action here: http://tinyurl.com/3ra7e3. Signing this letter does work. If we can get 50,000 people to join this call to Congress, they will likely take action to stop government propaganda. The public has help stop fake news in the past. (http://www.freepress.net/fakenews)

You can watch this video for more information, and evidence of this issue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo.