MyFox
 

Jay_Kumar's Blog

by Jay_Kumar from Los Angeles

Last Post 73 days, 11 hours Ago




"...A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis."

Retired Generals promoting war policies as independent analysts on TV news networks, end up making money off the Wars they've sold to the public, and are now having second thoughts about it. That's the gist of an article Sunday NYT called "Message Machine Behind Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand."

All this may seem obvious to many - that retired Generals basically make money promoting War policies they have personal doubts about, but ALSO personal investments in. The thing that makes this article unique is the rich  details hard fought to get:

 
"Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But 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."

"...To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world."

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, 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.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

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."

"...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.”

The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities."

U of M Professor Juan Cole:

"The NYT revealed today that the Pentagon and the Bush administration has been propagandizing retired military "analysts" who appear frequently as talking heads on television, to ensure that the Bush point of view has hegemony on the airwaves. Bill Maher has joked that we have heard from two sets of analysts, the generals and the retired generals. It is these secret networks of corrupt agents of influence that have Orwellized our society in recent years. And it will go on unless the public wakes up and demands a change. If you see a network or cable news segment with *only* Establishment commentators (i.e. two retired generals, or one and someone from the American Enterprise Institute), then get up an email campaign to complain to the anchor. Threaten an advertiser boycott. Our country is in danger from this stuff. McCain gets his ridiculous talking points on Iraq from these corrupt "analysts" and people like them inside the Pentagon."
Harper's Mag Ken Silverstein:

"...And that’s the problem I have with the whole Pentagon P.R. project. The government is picking certain people as ‘surrogates’ to the exclusion of many others and feeding them news. These bloggers purport to broadly represent military and national security opinion, but there are plenty of military officials and conservatives who disagree with the administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere. With rare exceptions, those people are not invited to the Pentagon’s briefings."

Molding the Message

The Defense Department has supplied military analysts with thousands of talking points since 2002. Many were echoed on TV.

Talking points issued in December 2002 and February 2003




11 Comments |  Add a Comment

Member Comments Total Comments: 11
Page 1 of 1
statueman read my blog view my photos
Apr 21, 2008 | 1:33 PM

Well... guess we should have waited until a Pearl Harbor happened. Could you imagine what the world would be like now if Saddam Hussein had stayed in power? How many other terrorist activities would have happened around this world and even here in the USA?

OH that's right... I forgot that 9/11 was an inside job and nobody can prove it but everybody believe it!

No... we did the right thing going into Iraq and we will do the right thing when Iran starts cruisin' for a bruisin'. That's why President Carter is there now so we can set the stage for a serious military operation in Iran if it becomes necessary... and have no doubt, it will unless alot of folks in that country start reading the writing on the wall and pull a Phillipines style protest.

No... our course is sure and our resolve is set... everything else is just playing to the world camera's so the world won't think less of us. We say we love peace and freedom... but few of us are willing to pay the price.

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 22, 2008 | 1:31 AM

To all of you - if you had read the article and judged the facts presented for yourself, and then commented on that - you'd be more effective, and you might even learn something.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals
.html?em&ex=1208923200&en=a4ee1c89d3b31d22&ei=5087%0A

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 22, 2008 | 6:59 AM

Statueman -

As brutal and horrible Saddam was, you have to admit that 90s style containment (embargoes, aerial bombardment) was a much better policy than invasion and occupation, right?

How can you bring about peace and freedom through war, violence, and occupation? How does that work exactly?

Saddam was not connected to Bin Laden, and there were NO Weapons of Mass Destruction. UN Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter was all over the place telling us this before the 2003 invasion.

Saddam was not a threat to America or the UK. I mean barely over a decade before 2003, he was an ally of the Reagan Administration. And through the 90s Saddam was tremendously weakened by sanctions. A million Iraqi civilians died for God sakes!

We took out a toothless tiger based on specious reasons that turned out to be nothing more than nonsense. And now brave soldiers have lost their lives in the process. Isn't that clear to anyone whose been following this stuff by now at least!? How many soldiers need to die for you to realize this is the greatest foreign policy disaster of our lifetimes? 10,000? 100,000?

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 3:42 AM

ATTORNEY GLEN GREENWALD:

"Media organizations simply ignore -- collectively blackout -- any stories that expose major corruption in their news reporting, as evidenced by the fact that no major network or cable news programs have ever meaningfully examined the fundamental failures of the media in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. As Bill Moyers noted at the beginning of his truly superb documentary on the media-government collaboration concerning the invasion: "The story of how the media bought what the White House was selling has not been told in depth on television." Thus, one of the most significant political stories of this generation -- what Moyers described as "our press largely surrender[ing] its independence and skepticism to join with our Government in marching to war" -- has simply been rendered invisible by our largest media outlets. That scandal just does not exist, particularly on television.

And now we have what is by all metrics a huge new story regarding more fundamental media failures (at best), and they collectively invoke the Kremlin-like methods of Dick Cheney -- they refuse to comment, refuse to reveal even the most basic facts about what they did, and do everything possible to hide behind the wall of secrecy they maintain. They don't even feel the slightest bit obligated to say whether they have any procedures to prevent manipulation of this sort in the future. And those classic information-suppressing tactics are all being invoked by news organizations -- which claim to be devoted to disclosing, not concealing, scandals, corruption and facts a

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 3:43 AM

And those classic information-suppressing tactics are all being invoked by news organizations -- which claim to be devoted to disclosing, not concealing, scandals, corruption and facts about how our political institutions function.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 6:38 AM

"...The media advocacy group Free Press is calling on Congress to investigate the Pentagon’s propaganda program that recruited dozens of retired military officers to appear on TV to help sell the Iraq war. Free Press Executive Director Josh Silver said, “Government-sanctioned propaganda violates every conceivable standard of journalism. That it has been allowed to continue unquestioned and undisclosed for years is an indictment of both this White House and a docile American media.”

DfDeportation read my blog view my photos
Apr 23, 2008 | 8:07 AM

Sounds like the same FOX11 information-suppressing tactics used when covering the Illegal Alien Crisis. No concealing any FACTS on FOX11, huh?

statueman read my blog view my photos
Apr 23, 2008 | 12:04 PM

Jay-

How can you bring about peace and freedom through war, violence, and occupation? How does that work exactly?


Well I sincerely believe that savage uncivilized societies fall prey to less savage and civilized societies with better laws because that is one area of humanity where evolution makes a little sense. Democracy is not a very good form of government... but it is the best one we humans have up to this point.(Churchill I think…) Now we can go Dances with Wolves and act like all the natives were noble or we can follow the basic instinctual knowledge that the greater good prevailed for the greater good.

Are we so blind as to not see that in correcting a situation our own evils must also be humbly recognized so that more than one trail of tears are remembered? We want to put labels but individually we all profited from the immortal words of the American messiah who said, “My names Forrest Gump and people call me Forrest Gump.”

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 1:18 PM

Statueman - I guess my point is that democracy is a nice term that makes us feel good here at home at the start of a War; it gives us some comfort that our so-called leaders are doing something positive and hopeful in our name - which, by the way, I fully support. But this Iraq War, and this regime, has not lived up to the values of a democracy here at home, so how can they implement one overseas?

They haven't it. The Chalabi/Allawi/Maliki "governments" all feel like puppet regimes that are more about pacifying the electorate here at home, than providing any real government to the people we're "saving."

Ever heard that term from Vietnam - "We had to destroy the village to save it?" I think that's an apt mindset of what's got us in trouble in the War in Iraq, and Afghanistan for that matter.

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 23, 2008 | 1:22 PM

Just Wondrin'

As you know, on Sunday the Times published a blockbuster article detailing how the Pentagon has used a mix of control of access, defense contracts and more to get network "military analysts" to spout Pentagon talking points in their on-camera analysis. In some cases they even appear to have gotten the analysts to report back to them on what news stories the nets had coming down the pike.

Anybody notice any of the networks -- broadcast or cable -- picking up the story?

--Josh Marshall

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/190887.php

Jay_Kumar read my blog
Apr 25, 2008 | 1:49 AM

A Video Clip summary of the Pentagon Pundits story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP7ASBdwdo

Page 1 of 1


Write your comment below:




Jay_Kumar

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people." - John Adams

Member Since: 3/6/2008