Media National Politics War

War’s Message Machine

barry-mccaffrey.gif


This weekend’s Must Read Story Award goes to
…….

….The piece on the cover of Sunday’s New York Times titled Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.

Admittedly, for the grudge-holding among us, talk from the NYT about military and foreign policy analysts with agendas still brings up unpleasant memories of Judy Miller. Yet this is a very well-researched and extremely unsettling story that deals with the near wholesale co-opting of many of TVs regular talking heads.

Here’re a few ‘graphs to give you an idea
of what the article explores:

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.

[SNIP]
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.

These records reveal a symbiotic relationship
where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

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.”

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.

There’s much, much more. It’s reading that packs an unpleasant wallop….and is very much worth your time.

26 Comments

  • This was great reporting. Like most great reporting, it’s too little, too late – but I’m not really complaining. That’s the nature of investigative journalism.

    The picture this paints of the “Wolf Blitzers of the world” is far more damning than it is of Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. I expect government hacks to be opportunistic propagandists and, unfortunately, I don’t expect the military fraternity to be the ultimate source of objective analysis once we’re in a war. But for the networks to assume that they’ve engaged some kind of “objective” analysts in the case of these guys and not demand higher standards and greater distance from the folks being “analysed” is appalling.

  • This falls into the category of “those who believe that the reporting of The NY Times is fair and objective deserve to believe and live by the false conclusions it propagates.”

  • In this Iraq war, there were many Generals and Ex-Generals opposed to the way Bush and Rumsfeld handled the Iraq War, It didn’t really matter what the paid military analysts said. Most people heard the ex-generals loud and clear. Never in history have so many ex-military generals broken ranks with their commander and chief.

    I still remember my debates with Woody when he once told Celeste to listen to the “military experts”, except Woody didn’t like what so many ex-generals were saying, including those Generals who recently quit, in disgust with Bush and Rumsfeld.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070923-9999-1n23generals.html

  • “those who believe that the reporting of The NY Times is fair and objective deserve to believe and live by the false conclusions it propagates.”

    What specifically is false in the Times story and what proof do you have that it is false?

  • Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

    Welcome to the real world of business. Most companies do this; of course a defense contractor is going to hire retired colonels to mange their projects.

    Any large construction company who wants to do city construction projects is going to hire a connected ex-city employee to help them get new business. I get hired as a consultant, by other small companies for my connections and contacts to a couple of large companies which the small companies want to do business with.

  • Lost (who clearly is): Never in history have so many ex-military generals broken ranks with their commander and chief.

    That’s a pretty stupid and false statement.

    – – –

    Randy, something doesn’t have to be false to be misleading–especially with the way it is slanted and the information omitted. Smart people understand that.

    – – –

    LINK: The New York Times Agenda

  • Randy, please see my comment, for which you question isn’t necessarily applicable.

    I get so tired of your wanting “proof” for the obvious to knowledgeable people. As I’ve said before, it’s just your way to avoiding a discussion that you can’t win.

    Now, go back to Central Park to play with your CNN friends.

  • OK I will make a correction….

    Never in U.S. history have so many ex-military generals broken ranks with their commander and chief.

  • Is the “liberal” San Diego newspaper and all the other news media which cover this story, lying? Should I post all the YouTube videos of the Generals own words, as I did in the past.

    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070923-9999-1n23generals.html


    “What might be called The Revolt of the Generals has rarely happened in the nation’s history.

    In op-ed pieces, interviews and TV ads, more than 20 retired U.S. generals have broken ranks with the culture of salute and keep it in the family. Instead, they are criticizing the commander in chief and other top civilian leaders who led the nation into what the generals believe is a misbegotten and tragic war.”

  • Lost Resident, in relative terms, I assume that you’re not including the Revolutionary War or MacArthur. But, any breaks with the Commander in Chief is unique to this era in America beginning in the 1960’s and has less to do with the mission as much as it has to do with ambitions, liberal politics, and mass communication.

  • It is way too late, didn’t tell us anything we didn’t suspect, and is a stronger indictment of the media even than it is of administration practices. But is nonetheless worthy reporting, important to read, and extremely creepy.

    Good point, LR. And we thank them, every one.

  • I get so tired of your wanting “proof” for the obvious to knowledgeable people. As I’ve said before, it’s just your way to avoiding a discussion that you can’t win.

    I have to respond to this. It’s not obvious because you believe it’s obvious. It’s not unreasonable to expect for you to back up your numerous groundless claims with some facts. I’m not the one avoiding the discussion: I genuinely want to evaluate and comment on the veracity of your claims.

    Indeed, the only one avoiding discussion is you with your opinion masquerading as fact and your claim that I am trying to avoid a discussion as well as your puerile comments like this: “Now, go back to Central Park to play with your CNN friends.” There is a word for this: projection.

    If it’s your intent to appear to be a ranting buffoon, you’re succeeding. If not, then you could at least consider backing up your bloviating with some proof.

  • “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

    – James Madison

  • You’re pathetic, Randy. This is a forum for dicussion–not a high school debate where all points must be refereced and totaled to detemine a winner. If you don’t want to accept the obvious, then ignore it or stay out of the discussion.

  • Randy, your question didn’t cover my comment. If you had anything, you’d present it rather than boil everything down to “I don’t believe you, and even if you prove it, I wouldn’t accept it.” It’s not worth wasting time with you.

  • “I don’t believe you, and even if you prove it, I wouldn’t accept it.”

    Woody, if you ever offered a shred of verification for a point you made – and opinion doesn’t rise to the level of verification – you would genuinely astonish me and I would probably review it.

    But you don’t. Instead, you offer contradiction as your way of making an argument and truthiness instead of truth. You’re not a serious man.

  • This is a forum for dicussion–not a high school debate where all points must be refereced and totaled to detemine a winner.

    It’s also not a place where people can mouth off and make ridiculous unsupported claims and no on can challenege the veracity of their claims.

    If you can’t stand the scrutiny, Woody, you shouldn’t make the sort of claims you make.

Leave a Comment