Military analysts named in Times exposé appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times on broadcast nets, cables, NPR
SUMMARY: A New York Times article detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries, reporting 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." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in the Times article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- 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.
On April 20, The New York Times published an article by investigative reporter David Barstow that detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries. Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients or work for companies with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow's article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- 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.
A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here.
The following chart lists 20 analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002, as tabulated by Media Matters:
|
Military analyst |
Networks |
Number of appearances identified by Media Matters |
|
David L. Grange |
CNN, CNN Headline News |
921 |
|
Donald W. Shepperd |
CNN |
713 |
|
Barry R. McCaffrey |
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC |
642 |
|
James Marks |
CNN |
299 |
|
Rick Francona |
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC |
296 |
|
Wayne A. Downing |
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC |
270 |
|
Robert H. Scales Jr. |
Fox News, National Public Radio |
176 (Fox News) 73 (NPR)* |
|
William V. Cowan |
Fox News |
189 |
|
Kenneth Allard |
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC |
180 |
|
Thomas G. McInerney |
Fox News |
144 |
|
Montgomery Meigs |
NBC, MSNBC, CNBC |
125 |
|
Robert L. Maginnis |
Fox News |
113 |
|
William L. Nash |
ABC, ABC News Now |
96 |
|
Paul E. Vallely |
Fox News |
81 |
|
Charles T. Nash |
Fox News |
54 |
|
Robert S. Bevelacqua |
Fox News |
48 |
|
Jeffrey D. McCausland |
CBS, CBS Radio Network |
43 |
|
Timur J. Eads |
Fox News |
28 |
|
Joseph W. Ralston |
CBS, CBS Radio Network |
19 |
|
John C. Garrett |
Fox News |
8 |
NOTE: Transcripts for all programs on CNN are available in the Nexis database, but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows.
*This figure includes 31 appearances from 2005 and later, when -- according to NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik -- Scales was no longer serving as an official NPR consultant but rather was an unpaid guest.
Methodology
Media Matters used the Nexis database to tabulate appearances by 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. Media Matters counted as appearances both instances in which an analyst appeared as a guest on a show -- either live during the show, or in a pre-taped interview aired during the show -- and instances in which a report included a clip of an analyst's commentary. The study was limited to appearances made after January 1, 2002.
Re-airings of news programs in their entirety were excluded from the study. However, instances in which the same report, interview, or quote was aired on different shows or more than once during the course of the same program were counted as separate appearances in this study. If an analyst appeared several separate times during the same show, Media Matters counted each one as a distinct appearance.
Nexis includes transcripts for all news programs on CNN but for the other cable news networks transcripts are available for only some shows; appearances on programs whose transcripts do not appear in Nexis were not included in this study.
Finally, the Times article reported that some of the analysts "pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other" and that "[m]any analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war." In conducting this study, Media Matters did not assess whether individual instances of commentary -- or the analysts themselves -- were supportive of administration policy.
DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS appearing on television, under the guise of being "military analysts", commenting upon Iraq (and for that matter, probably "al qaeda" too) and yet no one ever mentions on-air that these guys are making money from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
The title of David Barstow's New York Times article is "Behind Military Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand"... but as you read the article, you're struck by the fact that these "military analysts", in what seems to be most cases, are DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS... that even seems like what the title of the Barstow article should truly have been:
"Behind Military Analysts, DEFENSE LOBBY'S Hidden Hand".
Above, on MMFA's list of these "military analysts", sorted by number of appearances, at the top is David L. Grange.
David L. Grange is founder of ViaGlobal Solutions, who according to their own Press Release of April 21, 2008, less than 3 weeks ago, "ViaGlobal Group, LLC is pleased to announce that it has been awarded a contract to conduct an Advanced Urban Combat Course. With a deadline of less than two weeks, ViaGlobal has designed and will execute this highly elite training for an exclusive unit within the Department of Defense."
So David L. Grange makes money (perhaps millions of dollars) on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Next on MMFA's list, with second most appearances as a "military analyst", is Donald W. Shepperd.
Donald W. Shepperd is president of The Shepperd Group, "a defense consulting firm that he founded" (and "defense consulting" means DEFENSE LOBBYING). In addition, Donald W. Shepperd is on the board of directors of The NORDAM Group, and in their Press Release announcing his appointment to their board, they siad he "will provide invaluable insight and leadership to allow NORDAM to best serve the needs of its military and defense customers"
So Donald W. Shepperd makes money (perhaps millions of dollars) on the U.S. occupation of Iraq.
Third on MMFA's list of those "military analysts" who made the most appearances on television, is Barry R. McCaffrey.
Barry R. McCaffrey is mentioned in Barstow's article, along with Wayne A. Downing (who is sixth on MMFA's list of most "military analyst" appearances), and it is stated "Both men also had their own consulting firms, and sat on the boards of major miltary contractors" (and again, where you read the word "consulting" in the business of defense contracting, that's what they also call LOBBYING).
But of speacial note in Barstow's article, is the fourth name on MMFA's list of most appearances as a "military analyst", James Marks.
David Barstow concludes his article by informing us of James Marks, and this conclusion (and Mr. Marks himself) summarize this business of DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS disguised on television as "military analysts", and this is Barstow's conclusion to his article:
"CNN ...said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.
General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts.
As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies.
But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.
“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.
In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts.
“I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.
CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company.
If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network.
But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq.
In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.
General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN.
“I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.
But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.
“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said."
We'll all be waiting for Wesley's wiggle words in response to your post. A post that directly undermines his assertions that no war profiteering has transpired.
Thanks for your dilligence.
I appreciate it RH, thanks... but there's hardly any original thought of mine in my post ...more than half of it is simply lifted from David Barstow's article, and most of the rest is simply facts and information gathered from the Internet Wire, about the businesses these "military analysts" were really in, while they went on television selling the American People the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There's only one thing though that I'd point at myself about, because it seems like it's near everything important in this matter, and it's the crux of the thing to me, but I see too many folks (not you RH) kind of missing the point, or maybe just seeming to.
It's the fact that these guys went on television as "military analysts", but were in fact DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS... that's the flesh and the blood and the bone buried in the backyard in this matter... that's everything!
That these men may be considered "agents" of some sort, of the Department of Defense, is really nothing... it's not about that... it's no crime, or even anything improper, to be a spokesperson for the DOD... it's no crime to even be a cheerleader for the invasion and occupation of Iraq (for if it were, our prisons would be bursting at the seams with Congressional Republicans and all the members of the Bush administration, and most of the hacks in the media and all of them at Fox News Channell).
"Propaganda" is not what it's about... it's about DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS going on television, and selling the American People Iraq, and making millions and millions of dollars the whole time, while 4,000 U.S. Troops die, and hundreds of billions of dollars are siphoned off from the U.S. Treasury... that's what it's about...
That's what David Barstow's article is about, and what he writes about James Marks in the conclusion to his article... a conclusion I put in my post, and that says it all.
It takes no original thought, or hardly any thought at all, to know and appreciate all these things... as Mr. Barstow's article is so well written, that all it takes is to read it, in order to get it.
And I will conclude here myself what I think may be, if not an original thought, then at least one outside the box: This term you're hearing of late, to describe all this... the term "Pentagon Propaganda Program"?
That itself is propaganda... that's what that term is, it's spin and distraction and persuasion and smokescreen... it's meant to draw your mind away from the truth, and keep thinking (by repeating the term) that this is about "propaganda"... again, it's not... and we are seeing it being spun that way though, with the repitition of the term "Pentagon Propaganda Program"
I suggest a different, more true description:
THE DEFENSE LOBBYIST AND MILITARY CONTRACTOR DISGUISED AS A "MILITARY ANALYST" PROGRAM... TO SELL, ON THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AN INVASION AND OCCUPATION OF IRAQ, AND SIPHON HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT OF THE U.S. TREASURY IN SO DOING
It's harder to say, and takes more words, but it's the truth... and I personally find it to be that way often, that it takes many words to speak the truth, and they are hard to find sometime.
David Barstow did a fine job of it, I say.
Let's call them what they really are - war profiteers. Didn't we used to prosecute war profiteers? Didn't Truman open investigations into war profiteering? Is war profiteering now legal?
Not last year, but the year before I think... in the First Session of the 109th Congress I think... Senate Democrats attempted to bring back the "Truman Commision", to oversee and audit defense spending and contracts, and to investigate waste fraud and abuse in that spending...
It was defeated on strict party lines: every Democrat who voted, voted to bring back such a Commission; and every Republican who voted, voted against it... and Republicans had the Senate in the 109th, as you all remember.
Some feistier activists at the grassroots level backing our intrepid few solid justice seeking, public-trust-affirming liberals would be welcome. Those crooked profiteering merchants of death and war all have their hands on all the levers of power in our democratic government and in our public institutions. They have demonstrated no compunction over squashing any life out of the liberal movement with that power. That's our opposition in the debate over our future. That's who the ultraconservatives have allowed themselves to become; snivelling but powerful con artists afraid to meet progressives on neutral ground.
It would be swell if we could utilize alternatives to the corporate media to present our people first, bottom up, populist values to the public. But what would that look like? What outlets, what other methods do we have to move our story beyond the choir here and at so many other liberal blogs?
Think small. A thirty second ad here and there about the common good or community values on Limbaugh radio stations could do the trick. It can be done the progressive way too; pool the resources of the grassroots, buy ad time in small markets ( I hear it's pretty cheap and easy enough since radio station operators love money enough to sell their grandma) on Limbaugh stations and riff on shared American values.
Gotta take the longview, though. It took a well funded, highly organized conservative movement 30 years to persuade hearts and minds to buy the conservative worldview. The Republicans have done such a bang up job of selling the left as all things contemptible that it's going to take some time communicate with red state righties.
Anyway. Pipe dreamin'.
I've heard them say "media activism", and by them I mean the media hacks themselves, they say that term when they're pointing the finger at others, at the "liberal media": "Media Activism", and I guess "Media Activists"...
What a nice bullchit word for it... it paints it like the person is actively participating in our Democracy, like a Political Activist... instead of a liar... or instead of a DEFENSE LOBBYIST disguised as a "military analyst".
Excellent post, Dem.
Thinkprogress has also been dissecting the Barstow release, and has found this lovely little gem of an internal e-mail between Pentagon public affairs officials:
From: Gordon, Jeffrey D LCDR OSD PA
To: Ruff, Eric, SES, OSD; Bryan Mr OSD PA; Keck, Gary L Col OSD PA; [Redacted] AFIS-HQ/PIA
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: articles on detainees
Gentlemen,
As requested, attached document contains four thoughtful articles/columns about Guantanamo, from Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I have a call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs as well. I Envision that I will have more material tomorrow a.m.
You filled in whatever blanks there were for me. Did you read all the comments on the Barstow piece in the Times?
Strawman. These military leaders were being touted by the news organizations as independent analysts, but the Whitehouse and DOD have described the leaders as their "surrogates". The viewers were not informed that these guys were largely carrying the Administration's water. They should have been or other independent analysts without a potential (or in this case demonstrated) conflict of interests should have been found.
I have no problem with the administration putting out their argument, but they need to do it without the deceptive "trojan horse" tactics.
Maybe you saw and clicked the link on MMFA's front page, to the video of Mr. Moran (D-VA) speaking on the House floor, about this matter... here's what he said:
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. "Mr. Speaker, a report released today by the nonprofit research organization Media Matters has found that military analysts secretly cultivated by the Pentagon's communications apparatus appeared over 4,500 times on major TV and radio networks since 2002 in segments covering the Iraq War, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and other foreign policy and national security issues.
The New York Times exposed this extensive, coordinated campaign by the Pentagon and the Bush administration to influence the commentary of what viewers rightfully believed were independent television military analysts. It is an unethical, possibly illegal propaganda machine, a media Trojan horse designed to shape war coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
It was also apparent that the motivation on the part of many was the extraordinary access they were granted to the Pentagon for their defense contractor employers.
One particularly disturbing example is when troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues, ``I think our analysts ..... can push back in that arena.'' The analysts, of course, were 75 retired military officers.
This is conduct unbefitting of our military officers and our Nation, Mr. Speaker."
I'm glad Mr. Moran didn't neglect to mention that these "military analysts" were in truth DEFENSE LOBBYISTS and MILITARY CONTRACTORS (although his mention was a bit oblique), because that's crucial... and the only thing I'd add to what Mr. Moran said, is the name of David Barstow, because his name is crucial also, to discussing something that seems to have it's genesis, in good Journalism, and a good Journalist.
The New York Times isn't a person... it's a collection of people, and some are good Journalists (like David Barstow), some not good Journalists (like carl hulse and adam nagourney and sheryl gay stolberg), and some aren't Journalists at all (like william kristol)... it's good policy to invoke the name of the author of a good article, like the one that ran in The New York Times.
David Barstow.
It’s a conspiracy involving ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR.
You Media Matters Fools of America really blew the lid off of this one! You take a conspiracy theory article by David Barstow, run a nexus search on the names, count the times they come up, and that’s your expose? And every news organization is in on the conspiracy?
This Bush derangement circle-jerk is out of control.
Yes, Irony, in most cases I know that the analysts have connections to the Pentagon or military contractors. And in the cases where I don’t know, I assume such a connection. That’s who they hire.
As far as the laziness and incompetence of the media goes, I realized that when I was about ten years old and read my dad’s Time magazine and watched Walter Cronkite on the evening news. And now examples abound everyday on CNN, ABC, MMFA, etc.What I think the rightwingers fail to notice is that diseases are named after the people who have it. Bush derangement syndrome can only refer to George W. Bush himself and his own followers.
BDS can only really refer to the deranged 20% or so that continue to believe in the integrity and effectiveness of President Bush and his Administration.
This Bush derangement circle-jerk is out of control.
By your statement above is it safe to assume that you approve of the incompetent and corrupt machinations of the Bush administration? If so, I am sorry I even wasted the time responding to such hoplessly clueless remarks.
Any thoughts? We can wait until you get your daily talking points.
Will Rogers
I think someone is addressing it, not the media however...
Lorelei: “Congress has moved swiftly to examine the hidden ties between media military analysts and the Pentagon. On April 22…”
Was that April of this year? The MMFA article claims that this fascinating and rare phenomenon goes back to January, 2002. It doesn’t sound like congress has moved too swiftly. What were these guys doing for the six years before that? Perhaps trying to get defense contract money for their states?
Of course now that the money has been appropriated, and since this is an election year, they have decided that the matter needs to be investigated – in all haste.
I'll also remind your ignorant behind of the nuclear option your candy asses were threatening. I'll remind you that no hearings were allowed under your cowardly Republican reign.
When any of them did speak out, the right-wing media trumpeted them as unpatriotic or basically, not right in the head to be against such a grand and worthy escapade as the Iraq war.
80% of this country has seen the light. What's taking you so long?
-- You...really blew the lid off of this one! -- brutus
That was my first thought. They assigned at least 10 staffers to research this story and the best they can come up with is a nexus search...citing frequency rather than content.
-- In conducting this study, Media Matters did not assess whether individual instances of commentary -- or the analysts themselves -- were supportive of administration policy. -- mmfa
There is the meat of the coconut on this "expose"...and at this point...it's damned little. Me and my staff of one found the following "cheerleading" in a couple of minutes:
-- "Clearly the presence of more combat forces on the ground would have been needed." -- Gen. James Marks
-- “It doesn’t look like there is light at the end of the tunnel.” -- Gen. Donald Shepperd
-- I don’t think they can sustain the rotations the way they are right now without really starting to have severe readiness issues in the Army much more than another year -- Gen. David Grange
-- the Army will unravel. -- Gen Barry McCaffrey
I don't have any problem with the fact that mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy...but until they bring more to the party than a census survey...pretty weak.
I don't have any problem with the fact that mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy...but until they bring more to the party than a census survey...pretty weak.
I think you mean that you have no problem with the fact that you think mmfa thinks this is a great conspiracy.
I agree that a more detailed analysis of what these gentlemen have been saying is in order. However, even the few random quotes you cite are suggestive of a position that the U.S. needed to escalate its involvement, and spend more money, in the Iraq war. The real issue is that underlying connections between these analysts and the war machine were kept secret.
Lots of things are kept secret in the course of prosecuting a war.
mmfa seems to think that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the war effort...without citing much evidence to the contrary.
Or maybe they think that the secrecy proves some damning evidence of a great "conspiracy plot"...perpetrated by Pres. Bush and his media allies.
In either case, I don't believe they have provided anything more than political pandering. And that could be the reason for mmfa's howls of disgust that the media will not follow them down the rabbit hole.
Lots of things are kept secret in the course of prosecuting a war.
I was unaware that it was the duty of the media to keep secrets. I thought the job of the media was to provide accurate information and unbiased analysis.
-- I thought the job of the media was to provide accurate information and unbiased analysis. -- irony
hahaha...if only that were really the case.
actually, that is really the case. Just because our corporate-owned media fails miserably at that one task every day does not mean it's not how it is supposed to be.
At one time our press corps was the envy of the world. Objective analysis is a wholly American idea, one that we pioneered and, in recent years, have given up on. It's a large part of what made this country great to begin with...a properly informed electorate is a cornerstone of any democratic society.
The media in Europe is arranged completely different from what our American media should be. There, each town has six or seven papers, each with it's own viewpoint, all wholly un-objective sources of news.
"mmfa seems to think that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the war effort"
MMFA seems to think, like a great many people who take the time to really familiarize themselves with this story, that this conspiracy proved detrimental to the truth's ability to reach the American people through the "liberal" media.
When the president wants to sell us his propaganda, he has every right to access the media, either personally or through his known surrogates, but I refuse to be apathetic like you when war propaganda is sold to us under the label of objective military analysis.
-- propaganda is sold to us under the label of objective military analysis -- pete
I don't disagree with your position...if it's true. I'm not apathetic to the situation...I just haven't seen much meat on this bone that mmfa is picking.
This clip shows just a handful of examples of administration propaganda being absorbed and repeated almost verbatim by "objective military analysts."
I hope that MMFA digs deeper now that they have their search results, because I think what's shown in this clip is just the tip of the iceberg.
We're already there. The media has been led there by these very people. Many of these men profited by using their expertise to sell the war to a gullible nation. They shilled for the administration and for their employers, the defense contractors.
IO don't recall seeing many of the the former military men who had reservations about the war being given a pulpit by the media.
We're now in the sixth year of a war that should have never been waged. A war that we've charged on our grandchildren's credit card. A war that has squandered our reputation and the lives of untold thousands of our citizens, whose lives will never be whole again.
-- Many of these men profited -- king
That is an opinion...not a proven fact.
I'm not here to support the efforts of Pres.Bush and these military meetings. I'm also not here to support any illegal gains by retired military people with ties to defense contractors.
My point is simply that mmfa has provided little in the way of facts to support their claim. Until they can make their case...this is little more than partisan electioneering by mmfa.
Big suprise.
-- had ties to military contractors -- mary
Do you or mmfa have any evidence that these ties produced unlawful or unethical outcomes?
If you do...I'll support your position. Until then, it's guilt by association. If you feel that association is a reason for proclaiming their guilt...fair enough...but that also means that Obama's guilt by association with Rev.Wright is fair game...sans any evidence.
It was unethical, in a sense of journalism, because they never said that they were tied to defense contractors, OR the Pentagon. Responsible journalism exposes these things when people are writing a story, or reporting on something if they might have a conflict of interest, or if they might have some bias in there.
Assuming it, as you guys have been saying is what the rest of us should have been doing, is stupid.
-- the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts -- mmfa
The point of this thread is stated clearly...a partisan dig at Pres. Bush...not the efforts of the media.
If mmfa has evidence that these retired military people benefited illegally or unethically...get a rope. However, mmfa has provided nothing more than innuendo at this point.
Is the media, in general, unethical...damn skippy.
I don't believe, and I believe that the others don't believe, that anything illegal was done here, but highly unethical on the face of it. If something illegal was done, then Congress is investigating this, and looking into it, and indictments could get handed down.
It's not about illegality, it's about lying to the American people, and selling a bill of goods that was not there. It's about credibility of what we have coming from the media, and this story IS about the media. It's not a dig at Bush at all, it's about how the media used these analysts, and how the Bush administration got them placed into our media to give us false and misleading information AND propaganda.
Wow... You fail to see that. How am I not surprised?
Excellent commentary, Mag...
The Republicans are the ones who have complained for quite some time about media bias...the so-called liberal media. If the shoe was on the other foot here they would be screaming bloody murder. The simple fact that the interests of the military analysts were concealed casts suspicion on everything they said. No further proof is necessary. Sometimes even the appearance of bias or imropriety is sufficient to undermine trust in public institutions...and the media are a public institution established on trust. The Republicans don't see it that way. They regard the media as simply another tool in manipulating the public. THAT is the bottom line...
-- what about John McCain's 28 year association with a drug-addicted thief -- irony
It is fair game...if you have evidence that he influenced McCain's decisions.
I'm not a fan of the media in any way, shape or form and there are lots of arguments that can be made about the performance of the media in this case.
However, mmfa has provided nothing tangible to support their theory...other than guilt by association.
It's not guilt by association. It's guilt by false pretense.
It may not be a violation of written law, but it most definitely is a violation of the public trust.
Why do you guys even bother trying to pursuade an authoritarian like wesley? It's a waste of your time.
People like him automatically trust authority simply because they ARE the authority. They always trust authority implicitly and will always give it every benefit of any doubt. They will work actively to avoid any situation or knowledge that will upset this relationship. They will actively refuse to connect A to B to C, if these connections will cast a bad light on beloved authority.
They will always dismiss stories like this as "conspiracy theory" and will never be satisfied with any amount of evidence proving the story.
They will never, ever get it.
-- He must be among the 28% who still support Bush -- irony
I clearly stated that I am not here to support the meetings conducted by Pres.Bush.
But it's pretty shallow of you to adopt a McAuliffe/Dean tactic of stretching the truth. However, no offense taken...even if it was intended.
So you're not here to support the meetings, and yet you're defending the administration against what MMFA has printed on here? It makes the head spin. So by not defending, you're defending?
You seem to keep defending these analysts, and arguing for them, and things like that.
-- You seem to keep defending these analysts -- magnolia
Nope. I'm not defending any analyst that illegally made money with defense contractors during this time of war.
Nowhere have I supported the meetings the president conducted with the retired military.
I also concur with most of the posts here that the media does a damn poor job of reporting ethically and without bias.
Read slowly in order to understand...I don't think mmfa has proven anything with their nexus search and trying to pin guilt or blame by association. It is pandering to the nth degree.
If mmfa's assertions are founded...I'll be right with them...in fact I'll pick out the tree. Until then...I'll keep a sharp eye on the developments and see if mmfa is all hat...or do they really own cattle.
If mmfa's assertions are founded...I'll be right with them...
As Pete asked you prior, in your view, what is MMFA's claim?
Wesley,
I think that is a fair postion. Personally, I am most disturbed by the media not disclosing likely conflicts of interest. Secondly, I believe the Bush Administration likely broke the law in coordinating their message/propaganda through (supposedly independent) surrogates. As I understand it, it is illegal to run psy-ops on the American public. This is not the only example of breaking that law IMO. Of course, that is merely my opinion at this point and not a point of fact. I would like to see the results of an investigation into these allegations - assuming it is ever done on a satisfactory level.
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
The mere fact that all the media outlets were duped in this mess only solidifies my belief that Dubya & his lot had all the bases covered---SPECIFICALLY this aspect of their propaganda war effort.
How gullible the media has been....maybe some of the media bretheren with not continue down the corporate yellow brick road in future news pursuits.
Me....., I'll stick to the Mother Jones & Nation's of the media world.....with a questionable eye of course.
They will adopt the liberal position that dissent is patriotic and claim that they have never said otherwise. I wouldn't be suprised if they try to argue that it's been liberals all along who have been calling dissenters traitors.
Per a recent Pew pole, the most informed veiwers are those who watch the Daily Show. Ironic at too many levels.
I have talked to few people about this program. One response was, "Well yes, but thats expected from this administration." Some hearing is coming up. Wonder if the media will mention it. I'm doubtful.
Will Rogers
I saw Feith on c-span promoting his book. There were about 5 panelists who all spoke glowingly of his work in Washington.
It about made me want to puke. He's the #2 warmonger, second only to Cheney.
This article saddens me. Of course we are going to have our apologists come around and name call and criticize this study and those of us who comment on it, but they refuse to even analyze the issue. The Bush Administration has enlisted these men to hide connections and compromise the lives of our troops by waging a, for lack of better term, propaganda war on the American people.
We have given the Bush administration everything they could possibly want in this war. My generation, not his, will pay its bill. There have been no military reporters embedded in the field. There is almost no coverage of the military funerals and when one family wanted theirs televised, Bush refused. There is little to no footage of disabled American soldiers and even less coverage of the depleted and devastated American military. The GI Bill should be passed with 100% approval and there is one major politician who to this point, isn't on board, John McCain. People who oppose these wars are labelled "unpatriotic" at best "traitors" at worst. The memory of a man the Pentagon at one point lionized, Pat Tillman, is disgustingly discarded as quickly as he was canonized. His poor mother will never know why his uniform and journal were burned. Do we get any kind of investigation? Of course not!
None of the Bush defending folks can explain how to maintain the "success" of the surge tactics. None of them even dares brings up the word "draft" which will become inevitable if we "deal" with Iran like so many of them want to. Unless we stand up this November, how are these problems going to get any better?
Will we bomb Iran anyway?
Ha...when was the last time Bush let the facts get in the way of a good bombing? Reminds of when Bush told the Israeli Prime Minister that he didn't subscribe to our own National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iran. Yea, Dick Cheney has a proven track record of superior intelligence gathering and analysis than our own intelligence agancies. We can trust him, too... ;>)
First, who is Dick Cheney? Aren't we paying him to do some work around here?
Second, all you hear from the Righties, concerning others, is PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Many in this phony administration have stated that they take full responsibility for their failed actions concerning the various strategies of this occupation. GREAT...but what price has been paid for these DEATH INDUCING screw-ups? Generals and on up the chain should resign immediately if involved in major gaffes.
I am the Prince and I approve of the above post.
Achrisage wrote:
>>I wonder how the Shiite extremists in Sadr's army obtained Iranian made weapons? Did Santa Clause bring them?
The Pentagon cancelled a press conference in which it was going to display the Iranian made weapons found in Iraq. Is this what you are talking about?
Beyond that, I would say that the Iraqis got the weapons the same way the Vietnamese got the Soviet made and *American* made weapons, the way all guerilla forces get them in war: through the black market.
and just what does FULL RESPONSIBILITY mean anyway? They continue in their jobs as if nothing was amiss. Full responsibility means absolutely nothing because nothing, and I mean nothing happens to these people that take full responsibility.
Might as well say, yeah, I did it, SO WHAT.
Homeboy was too arrogant to give even a two word answer.
Is it even one hundredth as important as Monica Lewinsky giving Bill a hummer? I guess not.
Why is this important? Because the same LIARS who insisted that Iraq was about to bomb us into oblivion and eat our pets are now telling us suspiciously similar stories about Iran, with little or no evidence to back it up. Before we jump head first into another pile of sh*t, shouldn't we at least reconsider the credibility of those urging us on?
Nerz, you've probably touched on the most important point that some are missing. There is a presently a steady drum beat for an invasion of Iran. And, just like in the case with Iraq, sufficient evidentiary justification for another war is lacking. If we were fooled by Bush and a complicit media with regards to Iraq we must be extra diligent to prevent that from happening again. Shine a light on all this crap and let the cockroaches scramble...
And, what is doubly insulting is the media spend such an inordinate amount of time on stories that lack the importance of this.
Irony,
I truly fear that Bush will attack Iran on false pretenses before he leaves office. You're right, we need to make sure that they CANNOT lie about Iran the way they lied about Iraq.
COLUMBUS
You were asking for proof of this last week, where are you?
Looks like MMFA is really irked that most people are yawning about the "news" that military analysts attended briefings and got some tours of Iraq sponsored by the Pentagon.
Yawn...
Umm, OK, if that's what you think happened. Just forget that what these independent analysts kept telling us was lock, stock, and barrel what the administration line was, and forget that they were being portrayed, or touted as analysts for news shows, which normally and should state the ties that these guys have, and or had to the Pentagon and defense contractors, you know, something called journalistic integrity, and never mind that what these guys were telling us was being used to sell the war to the American public, and so on and so forth.
Keep turning a blind eye to this. I'm certain that you're a 28 percenter and all. And if say someone like Clinton were in the White House when this happened, you would be calling for impeachment already. I'll remember this when Obama is President, and he sends out some silly string of propaganda puppets, and a-holes like yourself get all apocoleptic about it, that, it's just a big yawn... But that wouldn't happen anyway...
What happened to the republican mantra of responsibility? Seems to take a back seat when it is a republican who is being made responsible for something.
First, of course, the NY TIMES own reputation is so shoddy after the Jayson Blair affair and it's comically stupid and lying hit piece on John McCain (to name just a few examples of poor "journalism"!) that they have no business talking about "journalism standards" or "ethics"!
Second, even the shoddy NY Times noted that, "The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts."
Third, you called them "independent analysts" The fact is that they were military analysts. We expect them to have ties to the pentagon - and maybe even do some business as private contractors. When the military analysts give their opinions on television they generally talk about weapons and tactics and other topics that help people understand what is going on.
Now I'm sure that on "planet MMFA" this shoddy NY Times story is really big, big news. However, in the real world there is almost no impact. Let's be honest - could the Iraq war possibly be more unpopular? And, of course, the irony is that now that Iraq is in much better shape with great leadership and a good plan, there is probably no way for the public to accept the new facts on the ground in Iraq. This is the real story - not the MMFA fable.
Dittobot, maybe you should extract your head from Rush Limbaugh's fat butt and watch the news (other than FUX); things ain't so great in Iraq right now.
This just shows you how stupid this administration is. They think just because they don't understand history- no one else does either.
As my Grandma used to say just because you have an idea- it doesn't make it a good idea.
The only reason they have gotten away with it for so long, is they cheated . lied and who knows what else to be in power.
But their problem is they are so weak, once they got the power the only thing they could think of to do is make more money?????
I say SHAME ON THEM
The MSM have persisted in projecting a very frightening image to the American public in spewing their HYPE, PANIC, SPIN, FEAR, BIAS, INNUENDO, ILLUSION, PERSONAL OPINION AND PROPOGANDA. The MSM is a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION. Until they can start being 'true journalists' and reporting TRUTH AND FACT, my family have decided that we will (and have) BOYCOTTED them entirely. If we cannot find the news we need on-line, then we can live without it. If everyone (with a brain) would BOYCOTT the MSM, perhaps they would start being "journalists" instead of the TABLOID RACISTS they insist on being today.
The motto of todays MSM is as follows:
"What the eyes see and the ears hear; the mind believes - WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT"! This is as FRIGHTENING as a nuclear accident and needs to be curtailed particularly since we have so many ill-informed, lazy or uneducated people voting today!
My Name is General Rock and I'm a perfect example of disagreement with the Pentagon , unlike my lapdog counter parts , hooraa .
In stead of 2000 lb bombs during shock and awe , we should have used more 5000 lb bombs.
In stead of using Surface to surface missiles from battle ships , we could have used more artillery , try tour new ordnance .
In stead of working for CNN, I heard the buffet at Fox was a helluva lot better , with unlimited croissants . Hooraa .
NPR is the only radio mentioned but i have personally heard "military experts" on local and national GOP talk radio....
The problem here is there are no written transcripts to study to get any idea of how the uncontested repetition of talk radio trickles up into the rest of the MSM.
Most political and media analysis is done while discounting or even ignoring the effect of the Republican talk radio monopoly. Most media analysts read and watch. There are no talk radio transcripts to search to analyze to demonstrate the power of that coordinated uncontested repetition that reaches 50-70MIL Americans 24/5/365 and is used by the Roves and Norquists like an invisible hammer to whack their opponents in the democratic party and anyone in the media who would dare to criticize their annointed leaders and irrational policies.
Since the Fairness Doctrine was killed by Reagan the GOP has had near complete free rein to frame and control the debate and the limits of the debate, to threaten and intimidate politicians without having to face those they threaten, to censor and to swiftboat anything and anyone progressive. The loudmouths lay out a smorgasbord of prechewed and tested one liners and talking points for the lazy celebrity media to pick from and most analysts only see the final result.