Networks again refuse to go on the record about NY Times' military analyst exposé
SUMMARY: ABC, CBS, and NBC have still not reported on any of their news programs The New York Times' revelations about the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon. Further, the major broadcast networks and cable news networks all reportedly declined to discuss the issue for an NPR report; the networks similarly reportedly declined to participate in an April 24 PBS NewsHour segment on the issue.
Continuing their silence, the major broadcast networks and cable news networks all reportedly declined to discuss the April 20 New York Times front-page article on the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon on the record with NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik. Further, according to a search* of transcripts available in the Nexis database, the broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- still had not reported on the revelations in the Times story on any of their news programs through May 1. According to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's (PEJ) News Coverage Index, there were "only two related stories in the week of April 21-27, both of them in the April 24 PBS NewsHour broadcast." As Media Matters for America previously noted, the three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- and the three major cable news networks -- CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC -- all reportedly declined to participate in a segment on the April 24 edition of PBS' NewsHour about "the role of military analysts on TV and in the Pentagon."
In a May 1 segment on NPR's All Things Considered, Folkenflik reported that "the New York Times story has stirred discomfort within network news divisions already bruised by the media's failure to challenge the administration before the invasion over claims Iraq had weapons of mass destruction" and that "[n]ews executives and consultants wouldn't comment for this story, but privately say their on-air comments were honestly held beliefs," an assertion disputed by several of the analysts quoted in the Times article. Folkenflik also quoted former CBS News president Andrew Heyward blaming the Pentagon: "There was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public by having analysts whose real allegiance was to the Pentagon and who apparently were given at least special access for that allegiance, were presented as analysts whose allegiance was to the networks and therefore to the public."
Folkenflik further reported that NPR managing editor Brian Duffy said, "We're reviewing our commentators agreement to basically tighten up the language on that so that we are asking more rigorous questions about anyone that we're paying as a consultant."
From the May 1 broadcast of NPR's All Things Considered:
ROBERT SIEGEL (host): From NPR News, this is All Things Considered. I'm Robert Siegel. When news networks try to explain the state of things in Iraq or Afghanistan, they often interview their own paid consultants, retired military officers. But as a recent New York Times investigation found, in fact the Pentagon cultivated those former officers as a secret weapon to win over hearts and minds of the American audience. As NPR's David Folkenflik reports, that revelation is making media executives squirm.
FOLKENFLIK: Think back to April 2006. A group of retired senior military officers surfaced to blast then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld over Iraq. It became known as the "Generals' Revolt." Rumsfeld retaliated by rallying his own troops for a closed-door meeting. Fifteen retired senior military officers who were television commentators strategized with Rumsfeld on how to convince the public the military could succeed.
Retired Air Force Major General and CNN consultant Don Shepherd went on the air that very day to talk about the meeting.
SHEPHERD: Our message to them as analysts was, look, you have got to get the importance of this war out to the American people. This is a forward strategy. It is better to fight the war in Iraq than it is the war on American soil.
FOLKENFLIK: In fact, as The New York Times reported last week after getting 8,000 pages of Pentagon emails and documents, that meeting was part of an initiative stretching back to 2002 to co-opt those military analysts, carefully feeding them access to senior defense officials, arranging trips abroad, and issuing talking points. Some who strayed were dropped from the invite list. Others, including CNN's Shepherd, had other reasons to boast of access to Pentagon officials: They worked for, or on behalf of, military contractors.
Shepherd declined to be interviewed. But retired Army Major General John Batiste sure has strong feelings about all that coziness.
BATISTE: This is a very deliberate attempt on the part of the administration to shape public opinion.
FOLKENFLIK: Batiste commanded the U.S. 1st Infantry Division in Iraq before leaving the military in 2005. He was briefly a commentator for CBS News, but has been outspoken against the Bush administration and did not get invited to the Pentagon briefing sessions. In all, 75 former flag officers were included in the Pentagon initiative, but not all were complete cheerleaders. Yet emails show some of them repeatedly sought to help military officials make their case, and Batiste says their upbeat comments often rang false.
BATISTE: And it also sounded to me as if they were parroting administration talking points. It sounded very much to me like I was up against an information operation. I had no idea that it was so extensive.
FOLKENFLIK: The Defense Department has suspended the so-called surrogates program while saying it did nothing improper. But The New York Times story has stirred discomfort within network news divisions already bruised by the media's failure to challenge the administration before the invasion over claims Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. News executives and consultants wouldn't comment for this story, but privately say their on-air comments were honestly held beliefs.
Andrew Heyward was president of CBS News until 2005. He says the networks relied on paid consultants for their expertise.
HEYWARD: They all had sources inside the military and often were able to get access to information that supplemented the information that our own correspondents were gathering. And based on their experience, they could also provide perspective on different aspects of the war as it unfolded, including policy.
FOLKENFLIK: But Heyward says the Defense Department exploited the network's hunger for military know-how.
HEYWARD: There was a deliberate attempt to deceive the public by having analysts whose real allegiance was to the Pentagon and who apparently were given at least special access for that allegiance, were presented as analysts whose allegiance was to the networks and therefore to the public.
FOLKENFLIK: Retired Army General Robert Scales was a Fox News channel analyst and a consultant for NPR from 2003 till 2004. Since then, NPR has interviewed him without pay. Scales' work for defense contractors has rarely been mentioned on our air. NPR managing editor Brian Duffy says changes are in the works.
DUFFY: We're reviewing our commentators agreement to basically tighten up the language on that so that we are asking more rigorous questions about anyone that we're paying as a consultant.
FOLKENFLIK: Duffy also says Scales did nothing wrong, and that a review of his remarks, in which he was often critical of progress in Iraq, found he wasn't unduly influenced by the Pentagon. But retired Major General John Batiste argues the media, like the rest of the country, was unduly uncritical of its military leadership for far too long. And that failure of scrutiny extended to its own consultants. David Folkenflik, NPR News.
*Media Matters previously documented that according to the Nexis database, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News had not covered the story through April 28. A Nexis search conducted on May 2 for "publication (ABC or CBS or NBC or Fox) and (Pentagon OR (Department w/2 Defense) OR New York Times OR (military w/10 analys!))" found no coverage of the military analysts story through May 1. Programs searched in the Nexis database on networks that didn't mention the Times report include:
ABC = Good Morning America, Nightline, World News with Charles Gibson
CBS = CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, The Early Show, Face the Nation
NBC = Nightly News with Brian Williams, Today, Meet the Press
Fox = Special Report with Brit Hume, The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity & Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren















My little thing was to reprint 100 copies of a NYTimes article from 4/20/2008 concerning twenty generals(BEHIND TV ANALYSTS, PENTAGON's HIDDEN HAND) and sent them to every local paper, big and small here in the Pittsburgh area. Also passed them out at Pitt,CMU and Duquesne Universities. Also to friends who had never heard of this outrage..treason. Remember, 4000 have died because many have lied.
Something for the next generation to read. I wonder how the Tribune Review, Ricard Scaifes' rag will react? Any guesses. It was fairly thick paper so the anato,y "wiping" won't take place.
This is one of those situations where you knew it was going on, but almost didn't believe it because it was so blatant. Ever since the lead-up to the invasion, I've seen these "military experts", and much of the time I've sort of told myself "ah, they just hunted around until they found a real gung-ho guy, if it was a scheme they'd be a little more subtle about it".
I catch right wing nutball Hugh Hewitt's radio show on the way home from work sometimes. He has this military officer on the phone occasionally (wish I could recall the name) and it's one of the most stiffly scripted bullsh*t puppet shows you've ever heard outside of a late night infomercial.
Hewitt reads some make-believe "tough" questions, and the guy pretends to think about it, then answers with a slew of figures and survey numbers that sound like they're coming right off the teleprompter (or a 3" x 5" card, it's radio so they could go low tech).
The military man has some title like "communications officer", something like that, he's a cheesy salesman, and the Hewitt audience eats it up. It's funny when it's righty am radio, more sad when it's our major news outlets.
Eddy, are you in Southern California? That's the station tag line here, "Intelligent Conservative Talk!".
Still gets a laugh out of me every time.Hewitt is interesting. Just articulate enough, enough of a pseudo-intellectual to blurt out the most crazy lapses in logic without causing his listeners to question anything he says.
Eddy, I'm not going to ask you again !!
Sorry, don't know how that happened.
I think the network morning shows could have put a brief item in between their news of the latest celebrity blow up and the recipe section, like: "the NYT story about the Pentagon proctoring retired generals who were news analysts on the networks since 2002 was disputed today by Karl Rove, Faux News Anaylst. Our interview with Mr. Rove will be part of our exclusive new series, "flag pin collections for American patriots" Now a word from our sponsor, military hardware r us."
The Networks are refusing to respond because it would be confessing to complicity in war crimes.
Republicans, phony democrats, and the telcoms are scrambling for immunity, because they repeatedly broke the law; otherwise, immunity would be unnecessary and they wouldn't try to sneak it in under the radar in the supplemental budget
You can be sure the various producers of the nightly newscasts of the networks NBC, ABC, and CBS, didn't miss David Barstow's expose ("Message Machine: Behind TV's Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand")... you can be sure of this for any one of several reasons:
1. It was on the front page of the New York Times! And it would be hard to believe that the newscast producers at even one of those networks had failed to know what was on the front page of the NYTimes (New York, where those newscasts are produced and broadcast from), but for all three networks to miss the NYTimes front page expose? Impossible.
2. It was about the television news business! And it would be hard to believe that a network news producer would answer "no", to the question of "did you see the NYTimes front page expose about your business?" I can't believe that. I believe for certain, that the news producers at all three networks would know about a NYTimes expose of the television news business, the moment the bundles hit the early morning streets... even before that, I'd guess.
3. It was about them!
Now, if the NYTimes published a front page expose about me, I'd know about it! There's no sand deep or remote enough, that I could bury my head in, and stay unawares for long, that I was the subject of a front page expose in the NYTimes!
From David Barstow's article (linked to in the above MMFA item):
"Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist..."
"...the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers... The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too"
"Soon after signing on with CBS, General [Joseph W.] Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN"
"Mr. [William V.] Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. ...At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq"
And of course the fact that the networks were asked for input to the NYTimes article, before it appeared, would certify their interest in and knowledge of it, after it appeared:
"CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts"
"NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts.”
"Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said."
"A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article."
"CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest."
Ok, so it's obvious that the newscast producers at NBC, ABC, and CBS know well enough about David Barstow's "Message Machine: Behind TV's Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand", because it's not only about them, but because they were asked for information in the writing of it...
So then why are they continuing to ignore the danged thing, like as if it were a bum on a New York street with his hand out?
I can only guess these several, perfectly understandable reasons, as to maybe why:
Embarrassment... Shame... Guilt?
Or maybe some sort of legal liability, if not a criminal one, then perhaps a Regulatory one... because of course, what NBC and ABC and CBS have done, and do, they did and do by way of an FCC License (which is a privilege, revocable, not a Right)... they did it on a Public Resource of ours, the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, that We (through our FCC and our agents in Congress that oversee the FCC) Licensed them to use, as a powerful privilege, to broadcast to us the American People.
And so they hide from us, NBC and ABC and CBS do, in response to David Barstow's "Message Machine: Behind TV's Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"... they ignore us, like as if We were just a bunch of bums on a New York street, with our hands out to them, for help.
Of course, General Eisenhower warned us of this, in his Farewell Address to us... what he described to us, he called a "threat"... that's the word he used, "threat"... that's not a word the General would have used, without carefully choosing it, or without meaning it.
Of course, you know what it is he said, and what it is he described. Two sentences, verbatim, are worth repeating here:
"In the Councils of Government, we must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.
The potential for the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
General Eisenhower said that on January 17, 1961: more than 47 years ago.
"...the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Will persist for more than 47 years: that's an awful long time to labor under a threat.
Yes, but then according to this lot, Eisenhower would be an America hating traitor. I've never seen him wear an American flag lapel pin. Have you?
"Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield."
It astounds me that the chicken hawks in BushieCo would be of the same party as the honorable general.
I have contacted as many friends as possible to e-mail or write every network and every news paper in their respective areas about this story. Media Matters makes it easy as hell to make such contacts. The only other blog I subscribe to that did anything with the story was Arianna Huffington, who, in my humble opinion, is just irritating. I seriously searched and searched all this week and found nothing.
I am going to throw out an idea that may upset many of you, but here it is: could this whole thing be a sting operation similar to the "revelations" about Georgie Bush and his Air National Guard performance? That suckered in Dan Rather and CBS, and resulted in Rather's resignation and CBS's embarrassment. In that case, what was being revealed was true, but the documentation was bogus, thereby tainting the whole story. A murderer can get off because one witness is unrealiable. Am I just being my usual paranoid self?
(by the way, Eddie, loved your post although I haven't heard Hewitt. He sounds like so many of these radio talkers. Here we have Lars Larson, a slick debater who is sadly using his talent to be divisive and deceitful.)
I'm not sure how there's any kind of conspiracy involved here, that could serve in any way, anyone at the Pentagon or in the Bush administration, or even at the network and cable broadcasters (unless it is a conspiracy of silence, which I'd say is what we're seeing, or not hearing, or whatever).
The crux of the matter is this: DEFENSE LOBBYISTS, men with financial ties to DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, were promoted by the network and cable broadcasters as "military analysts", and aired by them as men who were just giving an "expert opinion"...
Again, DEFENSE LOBBYISTS disguised as "military analysts", that's what it's about.
It's akin to DRUG COMPANY LOBBYISTS pretending to be Doctors on those same news shows, selling the American People both a fictitous "disorder" and the drug to "treat" it.
I don't see how in any way it's akin or similar to the phony Texas ANG memo business.
But I can appreciate the suspicion just the same... a good healthy dose of suspicion is required in these matters.
As for whoever that guy is who posted those micro-scopic comments: How about flagging them, and asking that they be removed? MMFA will remove your own comments ASAP, if you posted them in error...
You didn't really mean to mess up the comments thread like that, did you?
(I bet he did! I bet he meant to screw up the comments thread, so that no one would see the words and thoughts expressed by us! HA! I can do the suspicion thing as well as anybody... HA!)
Now now, he was just demonstrating one of the primal forces in the universe, bloodymindedness. It worked this time.
I was able to read it condensed, s'a good post. Just in the end, too much of it. ;-)
On Dan Abrams a guest panelist, I forget his name, but I think it was Thursday brought up the topic and Dan Abrams said it was off-topic and he would only discuss it with him"offline."
I wonder why more guests haven't brought it up. Are they that afraid of not being called back? Has Olbermann covered it? Has Rachel Maddow a paid regular mentioned it either on her radio show or Olbermann?
Are commentators afraid of being blacklisted?
Another story which apparently evaporated over night was McCain's little Oil War gaffe. Can you imagine the furor if Clinton or Obama had said it?
This is why I always laugh when these overpaid douchebags act like they have no choice but to saturate their coverage with Jeremiah Wright. At least Chris Matthews finally admitted last week that they've "beaten it to death". Of course, after that comment he resumed beating it to death.
After that, read "1984".... then go sit in a corner and ponder how these works of fiction have turned out to be eerily prophetic.
Especially because the oil economy is in a long slow decline, wages are stagnant, the U.S. dollar is devalued, the U.S. has outsourced crucial manufacturing and has crumbling infrastructure. Physical reality will expose the spin and delusion.
Of all the stories done by this web site, documenting the antics of Rush and BillO and laughing at FOX, this is one of the most important stories in years. We have already seen the effects of an uncritical press (Iraq, widespread corruption in the Bush administration, etc). Now, the curtain is pulled back and we see some of the ugliness behind the scenes. The corporate media (there is no other term or explanation for the profit-making media) is shown for the whore it really is. Selling news to people like they sell cars or dedorderent. As long as it sells, don't worry about the facts.
This sad episode also reflects badly on the "news" people sitting in front of the camera and pretending they are a) newspeople and b) telling you the truth.
In fact, they are no better than quack doctors being paid to tell people about a new drug that will cure all you problems. In fact, the drug kills people ("There are WMDs in Iraq") or destroyes their lives ("Single payer health care is Socialism").
I cannot believe that not a single "newsperson" is brave enough to stand up and tell us the truth, rather than sit there quietly with blood on their collective hands.