Democracy Now's EXCLUSIVE interview with NYT's Barstow on Pentagon Pundits Scandal
May 08, 2009 1:06 pm ET by Karl Frisch
Democracy Now's Amy Goodman sat down for a fascinating interview with the New York Times' David Barstow to discuss his Pulitzer Prize wining explosive reports detailing the hidden relationship among numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. Specifically, Barstow uncovered last year that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."
He also wrote: "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."
Following Barstow's story, Media Matters released an exhaustive report which found that since January 1, 2002, those named in the Barstow's report appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times by news outlets.
To put a finer point on it, Barstow's exposé came out more than a year ago and Goodman was still able to call her interview an "exclusive." As Barstow notes, he hasn't received "any invitations" to appear on "any of the main network and cable programs."
Be sure to watch this entire interview, it is must see web tv:
Previously:
Post ignores DOD inspector general's repudiation of report the Post covered in Jan.
NBC report on NY Times' five Pulitzers ignores military analysts report
Barstow wins Pulitzer for military analysts story; will networks notice?
McCaffrey again discusses Afghan security forces without disclosing ties to company training them
Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR
Networks continue to ignore NY Times' military analyst story, but all find time for Hannah Montana
Networks reportedly refused to appear on PBS' NewsHour to respond to NY Times' military analysts story; several continue blackout
Multiple choice: Of the following, which outlet covered two recent major national security stories -- NBC, CBS, NPR, PBS, or ... Comedy Central?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
It's the dirt that was 'whitewashed' by the DOD IG Report released in January (No. IE-2009-004), and because the 'whitewash' didn't hold, and because the dirt showed through, the DOD withdrew the report this past week... I've got a copy of the report, so I didn't have to waste time trying to find it (the DOD withdrew it from their website, but there are many copies still to be found on the Internet Wire).
The dirt has everything to do with the fact that these 'military anylists' on television were in truth DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and DEFENSE LOBBYISTS, and nothing at all to do with 'propaganda' or any other vague and hard to define thing.
Again, these televised 'military analysts' were in truth DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and DEFENSE LOBBYISTS... that's everything here, that's truly where the bone is buried in this matter.
And as David Barstow points out in the Democracy Now interview, that's the "factual problem" with IE-2009-004, and it's why that report was withdrawn: the report lied on behalf of a number of these 'military analysts', indicating in the report's Appendix K ("RMA Relationship with Defense Contractors and Competeive Advantage", specifically page 74 "Analysts Not Affiliated With DoD Contractors"), where those analysts scrambled to be listed there, as not being DEFENSE CONTRACTORS or DEFENSE LOBBYISTS... Appendix K is full of lies... the analysts listed in it do in fact have relationships with DoD contractors... they did in fact make money, selling the IRAQ invasion and occupation on television, disguised as 'military analysts'.
You see this also being indicated in the memo this week, announcing the wthdrawal of IE-2009-004:
"...inaccuracies in the data concerning retired military analysts (RMA) relationships with defense contractors that appeared in Appendix K and elsewhere in the report" is the first reference, and then "the methodology used to examine RMA relationships with Defense contractors (searches of public websites) would not reasonably yield evidence needed to address the issue" of the relationship of the 'military analysts' to DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and DEFENSE LOBBYISTS.
What that really means, where "searches of public websites" is referred to, is that in the researching and writing of the report, as long as the 'military analysts' were able to have the information of them being DEFENSE CONTRACTORS removed from their companies websites, and even removed from their Wikipedia biographies, then that was all the excuse the writers of the report needed, to state that no such financial relationship was detected that these 'military analysts' were in truth DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and DEFENSE LOBBYISTS, and that they were personally making millions of dollars selling the IRAQ invasion to the American People, on the public airwaves of television.
That's the dirt.
It can have truly extraordinary consequences on the cable and network television broadcasters that promoted these DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as 'military analysts', and on the analysts themselves of course, and on the DoD and the Defense contracting industry in general...
That's the dirt, showing through underneath the 'whitewash'.
It's got nothing to do with 'propaganda': that nonsense could be chased forever, without getting anywhere... that's why the report itself made a big deal about it, but in truth 'whitewashed' the fact that the 'military analysts' were DEFENSE LOBBYISTS.