Since the build-up to Iraq, retired US military generals, presented as independent mediate analysts, were in fact part of an extensive Pentagon program called "Message Force Multipliers."
The New York Times reported last week that the experienced personnel, appearing to want nothing more than to help Americans assess a post-9/11 world, were actually part of a carefully organized Pentagon information apparatus used to disseminate a message favorable to the Bush Administration.
The effort began with the build-up to Iraq, and television stations continued to use these retirees, who also had extensive and current military contracts, until yesterday when the Pentagon suspended the program.
The Pentagon's spokesman said that the media-infiltration operation was being reevaluated due to criticism that the retired officers offered Pentagon talking points as their own.
Who do you think is more to blame for this dishonest representation —the Bush Administration, or the willing television networks ready to use war for ratings? Do you think they collectively and gravely deceived the American public, or should it have been obvious to viewers that the "analysts" were puppets of the Pentagon? Is this fraud? Treason? Or politics as usual?
Issa
Religion
Valentino
I sighed when I read this.
Though disturbing and not very surprising, it seems to be just politics as usual--doesn't every politician have their surrogates out there promoting the particular worldview that benefits their candidate/party/whatever?
The burden and blame don't just lie on one party. The administration will do whatever it can to promote its own agenda, and so will the networks (their agenda, of course, being viewership). Viewers have to watch infotainment cable news channels and the like with a grain of salt, aware that not everything they're being fed is the truth. If people weren't so eager to lap up everything CNN, Fox, and etc. spewed out, then this propaganda campaign wouldn't matter as much.
1I guess I just don't see the big deal. Ok so they were on the Pentagon's payroll, ok... Maybe that was because since they are former military they can actually UNDERSTAND the entire ramifications of strategies. So when the Pentagon releases this info, they don't have Joe Schmoe saying all sorts of erroneous things.
Maybe its because since these guys were prior military, they have security clearances that journalists don't have.
My only point is that there could be a lot of factors going into this, do we have 100% conclusive evidence that they were taking Pentagon talking points and repeating them verbatim? No. What if they just agreed with the talking points and that was their opinion? Does that mean something licidious is going on?
"Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air." That part makes me laugh because, umm, where are high ranking military people supposed to go work after they retire? McDonalds? No, they go work for contractors! Duh! So of course they have ties!
2Besides, they obv didn't do a very good job since everyone seems to be against the war!
3I think we should just pick people at random to be military analysts, clearly they are more qualified.
4I think this is a great attempt by the pentagon to overcome the liberal bias that is so pervasive in the American media market. Why not try to plant people who are going to be pro pentagon decisions, to offset the negative perception they get from the media daily?
5"Besides, they obv didn't do a very good job since everyone seems to be against the war!"
Now that's a good point, cabaker!
6cabaker: i can see your points, but they are just not strong. this is propaganda, plain and simple. yes, all wars have their fair share of it, but what's despicable is that this isn't propaganda designed to convince people in iraq that the US is doing the right thing - this is propaganda aimed at US citizens. and sadly, it is not surprising in the least. at this point anyone who takes anything they hear on msnbc or fox or cnn without a grain of salt is clueless anyway.
7"this is propaganda aimed at US citizens"
and the liberal media bias and the likes of micheal moore etc. aren't propaganda aimed at US citizens?
8They did the same thing to sell WWII. Make sure the people see the positive results of their sacrifices, so that we can continue to get the funding we need....
9They must have been better organized in WW2 because you have to look REALLY hard to find any new outlet that will cover positive things happening in Iraq.
10news*
11"and the liberal media bias and the likes of micheal moore etc. aren't propaganda aimed at US citizens?"
The difference being, I think, that the media and Michael Moore don't work for the government.
12So basically then everyone can spew lies and propaganda and the gov't just has to take it?
13that doesn't seem fair...
14They were better organized, and the media wasn't looking for a way to cast a negative light to sell their own newspapers/air time/whatever. The other thing they were able to do was limit the number of non-military personel who went anywhere near the fighting. Only military reporters were allowed to write about the goings-on at the front lines, and those were censored through the channels to make sure nothing overtly negative came out. That's why the catastrophy in the Ardennes was painted as "the best strategic retreat this reporter has ever seen."
15cabaker: yeah, we supposedly have a free press here in the US.
16Aren't we the government? In a democracy don't voters need accurate information so we can make informed decisions regarding how we want to use our precious blood (military) and treasure (tax money)?
17"So basically then everyone can spew lies and propaganda and the gov't just has to take it?"
Of course not. But remember that, liberal or not, the media and Michael Moore are not nearly as accountable to the American public as the government is. The media and Michael Moore are not responsible for the nation.
If the government wishes to counter any kind of lies and propaganda, it can do so--with the truth. If its actions and aims are effective, that should be enough; if its actions and aims are not effective and require copious PR airbrushing and concerted propaganda campaigns to be made palatable to the public, then it needs to work on what it is that's so wrong that the truth itself--or the effects themselves--are not enough.
18jude c: nicely said. the only thing worse than the US media is the US government's propaganda campaign!
19I don't think there's a liberal bias in the media. It's a corporate bias and corporations don't really think in terms of liberal or conservative. They more or less let the bottom line dictate morality. If the war helps them achieve their financial ends, then you will only see people on the news who will assist in that view. And let's face it, this war has helped a great many corporations get very, very rich.
20"the only thing worse than the US media is the US government's propaganda campaign!"
Agreed
21Exactly, raciccarone.
22But this is the chicken and the egg Jude...
"If the government wishes to counter any kind of lies and propaganda, it can do so--with the truth. If its actions and aims are effective, that should be enough;"
If the gov't DOES do so with the truth, but no one reports it? Then what? It goes no where! No one knows about it! Which means its not effective.
A good example was the progress of the surge, practically no one reported that the surge was in fact working, instead they just stopped reporting on Iraq in general.
So thats what I mean, the media has its agenda and the gov't has theirs, its like a staring contest and whoever blinks first, loses.
23Cabaker, there is no proof that the surge worked. In fact, I think a stronger case can be made that it just happened to coincide with a cease fire with Sadr.
24But cabaker, that's like saying that because the "news" media has no integrity left (a sentiment with which I agree), then the government has no need for integrity, either.
Look, if the surge works, then it works, and there will be plenty of honest analysts to tout that (perhaps even some of the ones in the Message Force Multipliers program). And they deserve, and will, get airtime, clearly, since these guys did.
What I object to is, again, the concerted propaganda effort made by the administration.
25Cabaker, the media can't report 'the surge is working' because there is conflicting evidence. Some people in Iraq say it is working, others say it is not. THAT's what the media should be reporting- which is not having an agenda, it's presenting the 'fact' that there IS mixed evidence concerning the results of the surge.
26there's simply no excuse for this and defending it makes no sense. why defend a government that's LYING to YOU? this is what i don't understand about people who want to stick behind the bush administration, and this war, at all costs. WHY?
27I can see your point about lowering standards, Jude.
Steph, sorry but I don't buy that the media wants to know all the facts before they present a story. I think the NYT John McCain affair article taught us better than that.
There's conflicting evidence about global warming, but that doesn't slow the media down on reporting that.
Conflicting evidence only slows the media down when it interferes with their agenda.
28i think the conflicting evidence about global warming is whether or not we caused it (we did), so the media reporting on the fact that we need to deal with it, and it's the biggest crisis facing us at this point, is not an example of them reporting on something that is not definitive, because that point is not disputed. it IS happening and we DO have to deal with it.
the media is not unbiased... that is known. the problem with this situation is that it's the government lying to their own people about a war a majority of the people don't see going anywhere and want us to END.
29A lot of people in the media do want all the facts - I've seen several careers suddenly go up in flames because of a fact not clearly presented or worse, carefully checked. And I've yet to see anyone who seriously secrewed up a story come back - people like Judith Miller will keep writing, but her integrity will always be questioned.
30You can also say that not everyone at the Pentagon wants all the facts presented for reasons similar to the media. Public reaction to unpleasant facts get in the way of the agenda, careers are at stake. We're all just people doing our jobs; hopefully, we're doing the best we can.
Yep, there are definately many sides and aspects to consider.
31think the conflicting evidence about global warming is whether or not we caused it (we did)
The point on the cause of global climate change is precisely what is being debated.
32yes, the point i was making was that the media reporting on climate change is not a good example of covering a topic that is not definitive (like the effectiveness of the surge). most of the coverage i see about climate change has more to do with the impact of it, and what we can do to stop it. because whether or not we caused it is irrelevant, we still have to do something about it. people who want to argue that point just don't want to face the facts.
33But I would then argue that if it is natural, why do we need to do anything? If it's part of the ebb and flow of the earth, why do we need to do anything but prepare for the ride?
34ok. i suppose you'll also be the one standing under the erupting volcano, putting yourself right in the impact zone of the next meteor, and crossing your fingers that you'll be on a scaffold somewhere during the next earthquake, dave? we should do something about it because it has the potential to wipe us out... that's why.
35As long as we're at it with the whole ebb and flow, let's not inoculate against diseases either. Hey, it's just nature.
36As long as we're at it with the whole ebb and flow, let's not inoculate against diseases either. Hey, it's just nature.
I think we can both agree that diseases are a bit different. As for the warming of the environment wiping us out, it would need to get a lot hotter to wipe us off the planet. The earth was a lot warmer than now, and we weren't decimated. Let's not get all fear mongering over something that we don't know about, causes or effects...
37How is disease different, Dave? Because it causes human suffering and we have the knowledge to heal people and alleviate their pain? If there is something other than a disease that causes human suffering, do we not have the same obligation to try to mitigate the effects? It is indisputable that we have contributed to global warming. During past swings in climate (both cold and warm), there were not 6.7 billion people living on Earth. Modern man has only been around for about 200,000 years, during which time climate has been fairly stable.
We definitely don’t know everything, but we certainly know enough about the causes and effects of global warming to take action to try to prevent future suffering.
38Disease is different because it kills immediately. We don't know the full effects of global warming, and wether the temp is going to go down in a few years without any help from us. Before we go forward and spen a great deal of time and money, let's make sure it's something we absolutely have to do.
39"Before we go forward and spen a great deal of time and money, let's make sure it's something we absolutely have to do."
Funnily enough, that's what I always said about Iraq. But to each their own, I suppose, whether we consider invading a nation or trying to preserve the planet for future generations important enough to invest time and money.
40I thought this was supposed to be about propaganda?
heh
41Given how many American people already believe that the administration duped the nation into this war through a campaign of misrepresentations, manipulations, and outright lies, it's entertaining to me that the way the administration chooses to try to cast a better light on the war is through...a campaign of possible misrepresentations, manipulations, and potentially a lie or two here and there. What a gaffe.
42oh and on that topic - I think the whole thing is pretty stinky, as was the whole Armstrong Williams case. But to be honest, I think these stories actually harm the integrity/credibility of news professionals more than they hurt the government.
Reason being, consumer confidence in the credibility of the media has been declining for years now (go look up gallup polls) so when stories like this break, it almost makes you wonder where was all the wonderful investigative and fact checking reporting?
Not saying that's how it SHOULD be, but that's how I think it is regarded.
43"when stories like this break, it almost makes you wonder where was all the wonderful investigative and fact checking reporting?"
That's a truly excellent point.
44and then you remember, oh right, it was on cable news.
45Does anyone fact check anymore??
46I think they laid off that department and added "bloggers" and "new media professional"
screw facts, we want FLASH!
47"screw facts, we want FLASH!"
That's infotainment for ya
48(I hope citizen and lib didn't take offense to that comment, I was referring to daily newspapers and cable news wanting to have blogs and everything that could fall under the new media category)
I love you guys
49No worries! Main Stream Media's identity crisis drives me crazy on a regular basis!
50Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.