Daily Kos

Tag: Military analysts

The Definition of Insanity

Thu May 29, 2008 at 04:30:26 PM PDT

So, the right-wing's response to McClellan's confirmations of deceit and duplicity seems to be coalescing around, "This sure doesn't sound like the Scottie I knew ..."  I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean or how they hope it will provide cover for their man Bush: should Scottie's head be scanned for slithering alien worms and his closet checked for body-snatching pods? Whatever, we can slap it down right now: It doesn't matter if McClellan was motived by money or revenge or a whole chorus of little Gaelic voices singing in his head. The former press Secretary has merely confirmed what we all knew already by the embarrassing truckload and that has conservative apologists squirming like slimy, salted snails (Apologies to innocent mollusks the world over). Of course, McClellan actually has the temerity to blame the media for letting his boss get away with all that shit. David Gregory to the rescue!

Well, shucks Stretch! If you and your fellow Warriors for Truth really want to demonstrate their integrity going forward, the opportunity to restore that sorely needed credibility is sitting right in front of your studio made up faces:

Glenn Greenwald -- The Pentagon has posted to its website the roughly 8,000 pages and audio tapes it was forced to provide to the New York Times regarding its "military analyst" program. Anyone who reads through them, as I've now done, can only be left with one conclusion (other than being extremely impressed with David Barstow's work in putting together this story): if this wasn't an example of an illegal, systematic "domestic propaganda campaign" by the Pentagon, then nothing is.

Here we have a story with almost everything any 'serious news' outlet could possibly want right at the time they need it most. It's been reported already, so there's little work and no risk involved, it concerns the entire electorate on the most pressing foriegn policy issue facing the nation during an election year, Congress may soon conduct an investigation into it, if true it's at the very least unethical and perhaps blatantly illegal, it's organized and vast; most important of all for the media incredulity vis-a-vie the Bush administration and Iraq, it involves, well, the integrity of the media regarding the Bush administration and Iraq. Best of all, those same Serious and Responsible new outfits have some of the allegedly corrupt military analysts on their payroll and/or under contract, some of them no doubt sitting happy and fat in a corner newsroom office. All a reporter has to do is walk a few hundred feet at most with camera and mic in hand and, you know, and ask the analyst about it. Wow, shouldn't be too hard to do some hard-hitting, investigative journalmalism, eh?  

And yet for over a month there's been nary a peep about it on those very cable news stations that are under assault, and now righteously defending themsselves, for lazy, sloppy, and naive reporting in the recent past. My question to them: the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So, traditional media, who's running your asylum?

Open Thread for Night Owls & Early Birds

Tue May 13, 2008 at 10:16:34 PM PDT

Twenty-four days of silence and still counting.

On Sunday, April 20, The New York Times published David Barstow's article on the propaganda conduit the Pentagon had built for itself to television, radio and cable channels, turning retired military-cum-media-analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse - an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."

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."

Since then, as a number of bloggers have repeatedly noted, almost zero coverage about Barstow's story has appeared on the television and radio networks and cable stations where these analysts have appeared. Not even 30 seconds in most cases.

That's high contrast with how many times the analysts themselves have appeared.

Media Matters, which has been doing an excellent job of hammering on this story, has conducted a review which found that since January 1, 2002:

...the analysts named in Barstow's article collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues. ...

Media Matters used the Nexis database to tabulate appearances by [20] analysts on networks with which they were affiliated that included discussions of issues related to national security or U.S. government policy. Instances in which analysts appeared on networks other than those with which they were affiliated were not counted. (My emphasis - MB)

For instance, Thomas G. McInerney, a terrorist-promoting retired lieutenant general, appeared on Fox News 144 times. Retired Brigadier Gen. David L. Grange analyzed for CNN and CNN Headline News 921 times. Retired Major Gen. Wayne A. Downing analyzed 270 times for NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC.

A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances is available at the Media Matters' link above.

Someone else who has been doing a fine job of dogging the military analyst story since it broke is Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com. He is one of those rummaging around in the document dump of 8000 pages and audiotapes that the Pentagon was forced to provide The New York Times.

Greenwald's latest piece, on Tuesday, asked, Was Karl Rove involved in the military analyst program?:

I have no idea whether the "Karl" with whom they had weekly briefings and were planning to brief on the military analyst Iraq trip is Karl Rove. I asked Larry Di Rita by email about this exchange and specifically whether Rove was ever briefed on the program, and he has not replied.

In the documents I reviewed, I haven't seen any other "Karl" referenced who works at the DoD. These are fairly high-ranking DoD officials and there aren't many people they're worried about having to explain themselves to (Smith's position as Assistant Defense Secretary was one requiring Senate confirmation and he reported to Rumsfeld). Given the significant possibility that this program was illegal, and given Perino's denial of the White House's knowledge of it, this question -- whether the "karl" being briefed on the program was Karl Rove -- certainly seems to be one that should be asked.

UPDATE: I think it's fair to call this "confirmation" that Rove was involved in the military analysts program. First, a March 16, 2006 email from Dallas Lawrence (6548), referencing a briefing of military analysts -- which, he wrote, was "a closed call opened only to our retired military analysts" in order "to get them on message heading into the weekend on Iraqi troop strength, advances, etc."

Some bloggers have wondered why anybody should make such a big deal of this story. After all, we've known for years that  government propagandists exaggerated, distorted and lied about the Iraq war before it started and have continued to do so as the occupation has dragged on and on. So nobody should be shocked that this Pentagon project occurred. Moreover, it is said, this is nothing new in U.S. history.

That misses the point. Yes, our government did not begin engaging in this kind of media-mediated propaganda on September 12, 2001. Starting in the 1950s, for instance, the CIA eventually put together a cohort of 400 American journalists at highly respected newspapers that it could count on to provide information about countries they visited and leaders they talked to as well as to get story angles the agency wanted published into print.

This latest domestic propaganda project is no surprise, and only a shock to the naive. But just because it's not surprising doesn't make it any less outrageous. And those who are digging out the details of what went on, how the project came about, who thought it up and carried it out, deserve our kudos for their efforts just as the media who operated as conduits for this propaganda deserve our jeers for failing to vet these experts in the first place and for keeping silent about them now.

+++

The Overnight News Digest is posted.    

The Propaganda of Silence

Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM PDT

Twenty days ago, David Barstow broke his story in The New York Times about the Pentagon’s use of network and cable military analysts to reinforce its talking points and present a favorable picture of happenings in Iraq. Ever since, the print and television media have delved into the scandal, prying out new details in interviews and document searches, and discussing the implications for democracy when the Department of Defense shapes the debate with the help of triple-dipping former employees who present themselves as objective observers of U.S. policy.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. In some parallel dimension.

In our dimension, what we’ve got isn’t a flurry of follow-up reports but rather one of the key elements of propaganda: killing a story by ignoring it.

The media typically employ their pervasive power to reinforce the dominant ideology through repeated exposure to every element of their biased agenda. But silence should not be underrated. It provides a marvelous tool of control when accompanied by the never-ending distractions and distortions of infotainment.

No surprise whatsoever that the network and cable stations who hired these ex-military analysts without disclosing to audiences their conflicts of interest or other biases have been – let us be generous – reluctant to acknowledge their role in passing along exaggerations and outright lies to Americans in the run-up to the war and its bloody, treasury-sucking aftermath. They have a big stake in silence.

On the other hand, it might be thought that editorialists of major print outlets which didn't pay for the free-lance "expertise" of the Pentagon’s domestic propaganda brigade would be eager to write something excoriating. Or that print reporters would be digging into the documents on the subject that the Pentagon has dumped at this Web site. Alas, such modest aggressiveness is also confined to that other dimension.

Just how silent the media have been has been examined by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (TV News Blackout on Pentagon Pundits) and the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (Media Passes on Times Pentagon Piece). In the first week after Barstow’s story appeared, Pew found two stories about it in other media, both of them on PBS. Since then, there have been a handful of others.

Only in wwwLand and among a few in Congress has the story been given any significant attention. Senator John Kerry urged a "thorough investigation" by the Government Accountability Office, as he noted here at Daily Kos in Investigate the Pentagon Pundit Program. Senator Russ Feingold also wrote the GAO. Michigan Senator Carl Levin has written to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote to news executives at the broadcast and cable networks asking them to explain what criteria they use for hiring military analysts. Only ABC and CNN responded. She and 40 other congresspersons have asked the Pentagon’s Inspector General to conduct a probe. She joined with Michigan Rep. John Dingell and others requesting the Federal Communications Commission look into the matter:

"While we deem the DoD’s policy unethical and perhaps illegal, we also question whether the analysts and the networks are potentially equally culpable pursuant to the sponsorship identification requirements in the Communications Act of 1934 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission," the letter stated.

"When seemingly objective television commentators are in fact highly motivated to promote the agenda of a government agency, a gross violation of the public trust occurs," it continued. "The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching."

About all this too, megamedia silence.

It’s not as if there hasn’t been anything fresh to report. Media Matters, which has followed the story since it broke, actually spent some time perusing those documents the Pentagon posted. For those who claim there was nothing nefarious about the domestic propaganda program, that it was merely a program of courtesy briefings to ensure that the military analysts were up to speed on what was really happening with regards to Iraq, Media Matters found this audio-taped exchange of ass-kissing and subversion from an April 18, 2006, Pentagon meeting with several analysts, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Peter Pace, who was then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

UNIDENTIFIED 1: I'm an old intel guy, and I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. And that is "psyops." Now, most people, when they hear that, they think, "Oh my God --

RUMSFELD: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- "they're trying to brainwash [inaudible]."

RUMSFELD: "What are you, some kind of nut? You don't believe in the Constitution?"

UNIDENTIFIED 2: Well, he is.
[laughter]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: Some have characterized [inaudible]. But I would also disagree with you, sir, respectfully. You are absolutely brilliant in front of the camera. And anybody --

RUMSFELD: It's by acting. Because I don't spend any time --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: It doesn't matter. The point is that you are. And I think most of us would agree with that. And --

RUMSFELD: But I -- but -- but --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- to take the offensive is -- because many of us go on every day. We don't agree with everything the administration does, maybe with some of your decisions and -- but we get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating, and then we take the -- and we're all thick-skinned, or we wouldn't continue to do this.

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: But we would love -- I would personally love -- and I think I speak for most of the gentlemen here at the table -- for you to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.
[crosstalk]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.

The Pentagon wouldn’t say who those unidentifieds were, but it gave Media Matters a list of confirmed participants at the meeting. Among them were Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, military analyst for Fox News who recently suggested using terrorism against Iran.

On Wednesday at its Web site, Media Matters asked the media: "Have you hosted on air the person who told Rumsfeld at the  meeting with military analysts: 'You are the leader. You are our guy'?

In that other dimension, they might have gotten an answer. But in that dimension, they wouldn't have had to ask the question.

+ + +

Glenn Greenwald has written an excellent piece based on the documents on the Pentagon Web site.

PROPAGANDISTS, not "pundits".....

Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:05:13 AM PDT

I was very happy to see Senator Kerry spearhead an effort to delve into what he calls the "Pentagon Pundit Program", and I highly recommend that you read his diary.

While I signed the Senator's letter in response to his e-mail yesterday, his term "pundits" in describing these military analysts, though, it too kind.

They were propagandists, plain and simple.  This should be called the "Pentagon Propaganda scandal", not the "Pentagon Pundit program".  Actually, it's as much of a media scandal as a pentagon scandal.

Investigate the Pentagon Pundit Program [updated]

Tue May 06, 2008 at 08:15:35 AM PDT

Like me, I know you’ll be following the election returns today – but it’s imperative that we not lose focus on some of the issues in play that may be obscured by the election – and I can tell you that if you’re watching the returns on television news, there’s one story you’re almost guaranteed not to see tonight.

It’s now been two weeks since the New York Times published their story on the Pentagon Pundits.

I wanted to call out the cavalry here because we still don’t know exactly what was going on and exactly what steps were taken to try to shape the news. You can help make sure we find out.

Earth to Rockefeller. Come in, Rockefeller.

Thu May 01, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM PDT

Regarding FISA, I've said it before:

Every time Congressional Dems actually slow down and take stock of the situation ... new revelations arise that should make all Americans who value our freedoms glad they did.

And I'll say it again. While Congressional Democrats have bought us yet more time to consider the folly of Jay Rockefeller's insane drive for Get Out of Jail Free cards for the telecoms, what has the world -- minus Rockefeller, apparently -- learned that should give us pause?

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.

Yes, that's right. We found out that -- gasp! -- the "administration" might very well be lying to us!

But not in Jay Rockefeller's world! No, siree! Everything's on the up-and-up there, even though he is occasionally moved to write secret letters to himself (Dick Cheney certainly wasn't reading them) hinting that he thinks something might be wrong.

Everything's hunky-dory, because Jay Rockefeller has had the help of the government in "studying" the situation:

Over the past year, the Senate intelligence committee has examined this issue, along with the need to bring the warrantless surveillance program within the law. We closely studied the facts, the documents and the alternatives to liability for the companies. Ultimately, we concluded that if we subject companies to lawsuits when doing so is patently unfair, we will forfeit industry as a crucial tool in our national defense.

No doubt "the facts, the documents and the alternatives" were presented oh-so-much-more fairly and honestly than were the facts, documents and alternatives presented by the Paid Pentagon Pundits. Yes, the "administration" arranged for ex-generals to lie through their teeth on national television about the run up to war. But they'd never do that to a rich guy, right?

So everything's cool, America! Jay Rockefeller's looking out for you, and he's got trust in his heart.

Ain't he sweet?

Unbelievable - MSNBC blatantly quashes Pentagon analyst story!

Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM PDT

On "Verdict with Dan Abrams" tonight, the topic came up about whether the Rev. Wright story was an invention of the media.  But then, Roy Sekoff from HuffPo fires back at Dan Abrams, and asks why MSNBC wasn't covering the paid Pentagon military "analyst" story.  Here's what Dan had to say:

Sekoff:

And we've heard absolutely NO followup about the military analysts, who were paid and trained to go on TV and lie to the American people about the war.  None.

Abrams:

But that's not... that's not about the presidential... Look, that's about whether people are covering the administration enough, and I assure you that on this program we do, and on this network we do.

Sekoff:

You haven't covered that story, Dan.

Abrams:

Look, I don't want to argue with you about that story.  I'll argue with you about that story off-line, because I've investigated that story myself.  Tony, let me talk about this...

Abrams then goes off about the media and Wright.  More below the break...

Nine Days of Silence from the Willing Accomplices

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:43:29 AM PDT

One of many questions that Chris Wallace failed to ask Barack Obama during his 45-minute interview on Foxaganda Sunday was what the Senator thought about David Barstow’s devastating exposé in The New York Times the previous weekend.

No surprise. What would be the percentage in replacing one of the plethora of Jeremiah Wright questions with an inquiry about the megamedia’s hiring of retired military officers who sexed up the case for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and then exaggerated, distorted and lied about what was happening when the war and subsequent occupation got underway? Would that help the bottom line? Nah. Hence, none of Wallace’s pals at Foxaganda are talking about this. Indeed, mum’s been the word on Barstow’s bombshell throughout the megamedia. The talking point – or perhaps the memo from on high – seems to be: Don’t talk.

Don’t tell viewers that retired generals and colonels and majors engaged in a war-drumming, flag-waving perversion of patriotism. Or that those in the Pentagon who ordered special briefings for these analysts as part of a domestic propaganda campaign ought to get their mail deliveries slipped between the bars at Leavenworth for the next few years. Avoid the subject and maybe it will go away like so many other stories which have been disappeared as if they were dissidents in some backwater military dictatorship.

No news coverage, no commentary, no questions for any candidates. No abject apologies to viewers from station CEOs who paid double-dippers and triple-dippers to give an official patina to fabrications that have caused the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of Americans and other coalition soldiers. Plus millions of Iraqis. Business as usual. Even two days after the Pentagon suspended the briefings last Friday, Foxaganda was still employing retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney without disclosure.

You want to know more about the story, you go to Barstow’s follow-ups, to those of Glenn Greenwald at Salon, to the folks at Media Matters, and to excellent work of Ari Melber at The Nation. As a matter of fact, if you’d like to see Senator Obama’s answer to that question Wallace should have asked, you can find it (and Senator Clinton’s answer, too) at Melber’s blog here.

We’ve arrived at this situation because of three sets of cowards.

First among these are the military analysts themselves, supposedly men of courage who donned the uniform of the United States and swore an oath to uphold its Constitution. As Barstow wrote:

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members 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.

Tell the truth on the teevee and say poof! to that lucrative retainer, that seat on the board of some major player in the military-industrial complex, that ability to get the Pentagon to assign a favorable contract to the guys who are filling your bank account. What would retirement be like with a lowered cash flow? Yikes! Can't have that. So, instead of calling government policy into question, instead of acting like an officer and a gentleman, sell the country out and keep the moolah flowing. Spit on the men and women sent to fight. Spit on the Constitution. Spit on the truth. Once, they painted a yellow stripe down the back of cowardly soldiers.

Not merely cowards. As Daily Kos Contributing Editor BarbinMD wrote when this story was new:  "These men willingly deceived the American public to protect their access to power and more importantly, their profits. Perhaps traitor doesn't even begin to describe them." Indeed.

The second set of cowards are all those well-coifed news-readers and commentators and interviewers at CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and Foxaganda who’ve not seen fit to discuss The New York Times story except to briefly note that the Pentagon has stopped giving the briefings.

We know why Bill O’Reilly hasn’t stepped up with a mea culpa. On April 14, less than a week before Barstow’s piece appeared, according to Media Matters:

During the April 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly declared: "I can't base my opinion" about the Iraq war "on anything" other than "what my military analysts, people paid by Fox News, say to me." O'Reilly added that he could trust only Fox military analysts because "[t]he newspapers ... all have an agenda" and "only give you a snapshot of the war." Later in the broadcast, O'Reilly reiterated his position, saying, "I have to base my analysis on what our Fox News military analysts, who I think are the best and always [have] been the best, are saying." Further, O'Reilly described as "ridiculous" a caller's efforts to base his view of the war by "reading the Internet and the newspapers and forming a definitive opinion [based] upon what they say."

No retraction since. No mention at all. Silence from him and his colleagues throughout the industry – how appropriate that word. They didn’t vet the analysts or check out their possible agendas the way any good journalist would do. They ignored sources that might have called into question the claims of Lt. General Disinformation. Couldn’t find the wherewithal to let viewers know that Major Mendacious worked for a military contractor with a stake in the occupation of Iraq. Just broadcast his lies and cut his checks.

Of course, pointing out the cowardice of the megamedia’s on-camera crowd is thoroughly redundant. As Greenwald wrote Monday after a little praise for the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz – one of the few print journalists of note to say anything about Barstow’s revelations:

Kurtz's specific criticism of the media's behavior regarding this story highlights a broader and even more important point. In general, the establishment media almost completely excludes critiques of their own behavior, and discussions of the role the media plays in bolstering deceitful narratives is missing almost entirely from media-controlled discourse.

One of the most significant political stories of this decade, if not this generation -- the media's full-scale complicity with the Government in the run-up to the Iraq war -- has never been meaningfully discussed or examined on any establishment television network, including cable shows. While piecemeal quibbles of media coverage can be heard (of the type Kurtz typically spouts, or the Limbaugh-driven complaint about the "liberal media"), no fundamental critique of the role the media plays, the influence of its corporate ownership, its incestuous relationship with and dependence on government power -- among the most influential factors driving our political life -- are ever heard.

And we’re not likely to because of the third group of cowards. The guys who actually own and run the channels who paid the military shills to present the Cheney-Bush administration’s Iraq case for the past six years. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, they refused to appear on PBS last Thursday when the public channel took its look into the role of the military analysts.

In the old days in Japan, so the story goes, bosses who engaged in illegal, destructive or merely shameful behavior made a deep bow to those they had offended and headed off to a private room for a date with the blade of a tanto.

Even for those who’ve betrayed their fellow citizens and helped deliver thousands to their deaths for profit, seppuku’s admittedly a bit harsh. But if the craven news chiefs and channel owners were the least bit honest and upstanding, they’d be setting aside 15 or 20 minutes of broadcast time to apologize to the American people for acting as propagandists, for their malicious, intentional, long-running disinformation campaign. And they’d end with an on-the-air resignation and a vow never again to head up a media operation.

But then, if they were honest and upstanding, they wouldn’t be who they are. And we wouldn’t be where we are, mired in Iraq with no end in sight.

A hundred years of scrubbing will not remove the blood from their hands.

"Which master do these analysts serve?"

Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 09:48:18 AM PDT

"Which master do these analysts serve?" That is the question Democrat Ike Skelton (MO-4) asked in a recent House floor speech. He, of course, was referring to last weekend's New York Times revelation that retired military analysts were acting as media surrogates for the Pentagon in a deliberate and coordinated effort to sell the Iraq war to the American people. Some of these "analysts" were even employed by defense contractors and were profiting from the war as they made these appearances. Not exactly the impartial observers they were portrayed to be by their hosts.

But the same question could just as easily be asked of Skelton. Which master does he serve?

The Endemic Corruption Of The United States Government

Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:54 AM PDT

As an old "Mexico hand", I used to tell people who complained about the rampant corruption south of the border, that there was/is little difference between Mexico and the U.S. on this issue. The difference, if any, is simply measured by how much it costs to make the corruption happen. Things are less expensive, generally speaking, in Mexico, but it is no more corrupt than the U.S.

The fact is, corruption in the U.S. is as much if not more endemic than in Mexico, but it is certainly more sophisticated. It's costing the taxpayers of this nation TRILLIONS of dollars, in addition to turning our nation's politics into a fascist embracing-neocon infested-corporatist nest of evil. Follow me as I present some proof....

The New York Times and the Invisible Soccer Ball

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 06:52:44 AM PDT

By now we've all read or at least heard about yesterday's New York Times piece exposing the Pentagon's manipulation of military analysts.

To paraphrase Captain Renault from Casablanca, "I'm shocked, shocked that our government would do this!"

While it's good for the media to revisit this periodically, we shouldn't be shocked, or even surprised.  As responsible citizens, we should always be looking for The Invisible Soccer Ball.

More after the jump....

Poll

How do you look for Invisible Soccer Balls?

5%1 votes
0%0 votes
0%0 votes
94%16 votes
0%0 votes

| 17 votes | Vote | Results

Top Stories on the Our Troops Newsladder, 4.20.08

Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 02:28:59 PM PDT

Here are the top stories this week related to our soldiers here and abroad, taken from the Our Troops Newsladder.

Pentagon using Psyops to control opinion on War

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 11:14:40 PM PDT

The NY Times is reporting that they have records showing that a highly coordinated and sophisticated operation was and is currently underway to control public opinion on the War in Iraq.

The Pentagon cultivated dubious realtionships with influential military analysts through giving extraordinary access to senior officials. The analysts acted as surrogates for the Pentagon when commentating on military affairs and in return many benfited financially in their roles as lobbyists and employees in the military-industrial complex.

Iraq War Sold by Pentagon Stooges

Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:48:26 PM PDT

Interesting article in the New York Times investigating the role played by so-called Military Advisers/Pundits on MSM TV.

Any elaboration I could give would not do it justice, please read the full article instead:

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand


::

Advertise on the Liberal Blog Advertising Network.

Hate ads? Subscribe.






Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!


On Mothertalkers:

Girls ARE good at math

Saturday Open Thread

How Did You Hear about MotherTalkers?

Twentysomething and Living on Daddy's Dime

The Holy Grail for Moms: Part-Time Work

On Street Prophets:

Coffee Hour – Party Planning Edition

News from the 'Net

TGIF Happy Hour with coffee/Open Thread

Dude

The Prayer Closet, a daily prayer request thread