Pentagon suspends war propaganda

spike

New Member
Some of it anyway.

Pentagon Suspends Briefings for Analysts

By DAVID BARSTOW
Published: April 26, 2008

The Pentagon announced on Friday that it was suspending its briefings for retired military officers who often appear as military analysts on television and radio programs.

A spokesman for the Pentagon said the briefings and all other interactions with the military analysts had been suspended indefinitely pending an internal review.

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that since 2002 the Pentagon has cultivated several dozen military analysts in a campaign to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance. The retired officers have made tens of thousands of appearances for television and radio networks, holding forth on Iraq, Afghanistan, detainee issues and terrorism in general.

Records and interviews show that the Bush administration worked to transform the analysts into an instrument intended to shape coverage from inside the major networks.

The analysts, many with undisclosed ties to military contractors, have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior government officials, given access to classified information and taken on Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, The Times reported.

Internal Pentagon documents showed that Defense Department officials referred to the retired officers as “surrogates” or “message force multipliers” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” in the form of their own opinions.

The documents, which included transcripts of private briefings between senior military leaders and the military analysts, also reveal a symbiotic relationship in which the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Military analysts have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Several said they had used their special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.

A Pentagon spokesman said the decision to halt the briefings, which was first reported on Friday by Stars and Stripes, was made by Robert Hastings, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.

The decision came amid criticism and questions from members of Congress.

Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, wrote Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, this week asking the Pentagon to investigate the program.

Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a speech on Thursday that he and many other members of Congress were “very angry” about the issues raised by the article. “The story does not reflect well on the Pentagon, on the military analysts in question, or on the media organizations that employ them,” he said.

“There is nothing inherently wrong with providing information to the public and the press,” Mr. Skelton added. “But there is a problem if the Pentagon is providing special access to retired officers and then basically using them as pawns to spout the administration’s talking points of the day.”

A third member of Congress, Representative Rosa L. DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, wrote to the heads of the five major television networks this week asking each to provide more information on procedures for vetting and hiring military analysts.

“When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed,” Ms. DeLauro wrote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/w...igg&adxnnlx=1209398445-doPthcCK4FY8aID+XFrTLA

"Message force multipliers" :rofl3:
 
Records and interviews show that the Bush administration worked to transform the analysts into an instrument intended to shape coverage from inside the major networks.


HA! The NYSlimes reporting about "shaping coverage". :rofl: They can't be serious!

When will they talk about the mainstream media's extended 5 year project to slather doom and gloom on the American people in an attempt to bias their support against OIF and George Bush?

The decision came amid criticism and questions from members of Congress.

Boooooosh!

:laugh:


I'll bet libs are mighty proud of Congress' accomplishments since their "mandate". :rolleyes:
 
HA! The NYSlimes reporting about "shaping coverage". :rofl: They can't be serious!

Oh they're serious. So are many other news outlets.

The Pentagon is suspending this propaganda effort. Less dishonest propaganda from the govt is a good thing. :beerbang:
 
Weird. I just bought this WW2 poster for my wall a week or so ago at an army surplus store.

rumors.jpg
 

If the mainstream media ever decided to change their focus to support the country that keeps them alive rather than force feeding the American public the fiction they'd like them to believe they'd have some credibility. :shrug:

Uh, huh, huh: I said "Rather".

200px-Dan_Rather.jpg
 
If the mainstream media ever decided to change their focus to support the country that keeps them alive rather than force feeding the American public the fiction they'd like them to believe they'd have some credibility. :shrug:

Absolutely! They should certainly quit pushing the administration's fiction and dishonest propaganda and "message force multipliers".
 
What is an example of "the administration's fiction and dishonest propaganda" as spoken by these retired military analysts?

What is wrong with an attempt to generate favorable coverage of the administration’s wartime performance?

Most normal people would like hear about how we rolled into Baghdad and overwhelmed Saddam's forces, how we eventually captured and executed him, how we brought democracy to an otherwise 3rd world country, how we have laid the foundations for peace in the ME, how we have shown the inciters of the GWoT that we will not back down--that they will have to.

But not liberals.
 
What is wrong? Really?

You don't see anything wrong with lying to the media? Having military people appear in the press pimping the follies of the administration while acting as if they haven't been fed a line of crap to deliver and acting as though they are just expressing their own opinions?

Normal people want the truth not a bunch of spoon fed propaganda and lies.

we brought democracy to an otherwise 3rd world country, how we have laid the foundations for peace in the ME, how we have shown the inciters of the GWoT that we will not back down

:rofl3:

Obviously not conservatives. :laugh:
 
Having military people appear in the press pimping the follies of the administration while acting as if they haven't been fed a line of crap to deliver and acting as though they are just expressing their own opinions?:

YOu do have evidence for your accusation, correct?
 
Read up a little. Retired military officers posing as independent "analysts" when they were actually being fed propaganda. That is not being vetted or full disclosure. That is using the media to mislead the public.
 
What is wrong? Really?

You don't see anything wrong with lying to the media? Having military people appear in the press pimping the follies of the administration while acting as if they haven't been fed a line of crap to deliver and acting as though they are just expressing their own opinions?

All this talk of lies and propaganda and violations of virtuous journalistic standards. :rolleyes: It is only such when it contradicts the goals of the left.

I understand liberals resent the fact that not all the news coming out of Iraq is bad, but please: good news reported from Iraq is actually Pentagon and WH manipulation?

What is an example of "the administration's fiction and dishonest propaganda" as spoken by these retired military analysts?
 
The retired officers could work for CBS or the NYTimes where they could just make shit up instead of getting briefed on what is happeneing.
 
All this talk of lies and propaganda and violations of virtuous journalistic standards. :rolleyes: It is only such when it contradicts the goals of the left.

Uhhh no. Certainly though you would only care if it contradicts the goals of the right.

I understand liberals resent the fact that not all the news coming out of Iraq is bad, but please: good news reported from Iraq is actually Pentagon and WH manipulation?

Nope. This clear evidence of pentagon manipulation is pentagon manipulation.

What is an example of "the administration's fiction and dishonest propaganda" as spoken by these retired military analysts?

Having people pose as independent analysts who were actually told what to say by the pentagon is fiction all by itself. You can see this right?
 
The retired officers could work for CBS or the NYTimes where they could just make shit up instead of getting briefed on what is happeneing.

Or they could maybe not conceal the truth in the first place.
 
Having people pose as independent analysts who were actually told what to say by the pentagon is fiction all by itself. You can see this right?


Even when they were once a dem running for President?


200px-General_Wesley_Clark_official_photograph.jpg



These were people hired by the networks. They got paid by them. What words could be called "fiction" and "propaganda" that they spoke? For example, when they talked about how Zarqawi was killed by a US airstrike do you mean that they should have minimized the incident instead of saying it was a score! for the good guys?

The article is another attempt to smear the President and the military's efforts in the GWoT.
 
Even when they were once a dem running for President?

If he was one of these "message force multipliers" posing as independent analysts then sure. Do you have some evidence that he was briefed by the Pentagon before he went on the air.

These were people hired by the networks. They got paid by them. What words could be called "fiction" and "propaganda" that they spoke?

"Having people pose as independent analysts who were actually told what to say by the pentagon is fiction all by itself. You can see this right?"

For example, when they talked about how Zarqawi was killed by a US airstrike do you mean that they should have minimized the incident instead of saying it was a score! for the good guys?

I don't know how much more clear I can make this. If they they were being briefed by the Pentagon on what to say before they go on the air there shouldbe full disclosure and they should not be posing as independent analysts.

The article is another attempt to smear the President and the military's efforts in the GWoT.

Nope, It's an attempt to expose the truth about dishonest propaganda efforts.
 
If he was one of these "message force multipliers" posing as independent analysts then sure. Do you have some evidence that he was briefed by the Pentagon before he went on the air.

Do I? You are the one who is all worked up over this NYT article. :shrug:

"Having people pose as independent analysts who were actually told what to say by the pentagon is fiction all by itself. You can see this right?"

I don't know how much more clear I can make this. If they they were being briefed by the Pentagon on what to say before they go on the air there shouldbe full disclosure and they should not be posing as independent analysts.

Let me get this straight. Because the media can't or won't do their job with any integrity, let alone objectivity, as evidenced by the endless string of stories only reporting death and destruction coming from Iraq, the Military is forced to do it for them.

They gave briefings to military analysts so they would be up to speed on the situation that they were commenting on and the media whines because their steady stream of pro-terrorist propaganda is contradicted.

And that is your definition of "dishonest propaganda"?

I seeeeee.

I would think the definition would lean more towards Newsweak's "koran flush"
story and the riots and deaths that can be directly blamed on them as a result of that fiction, but OK.
 
Do I? You are the one who is all worked up over this NYT article. :shrug:

You implied that Clark was also one of the "message force multipliers" posing as independent analysts. I was just wondering if you had any reason to think that.

Seems you didn't.

Let me get this straight. Because the media can't or won't do their job with any integrity, let alone objectivity, as evidenced by the endless string of stories only reporting death and destruction coming from Iraq, the Military is forced to do it for them.

Seems you don't have it straight at all. The Pentagon didn't do anybody's job, they mislead the public.

They gave briefings to military analysts so they would be up to speed on the situation that they were commenting on and the media whines because their steady stream of pro-terrorist propaganda is contradicted.

No they told them what to say and then had them pose as independent analysts without full disclosure. Go back and read that last sentence again.

Getting the picture yet? No, of course not. You fully support misleading the country to push propaganda right? You don't care if government planted "message multipliers" are posed as independent analysts. In short, you don't care if your government misleads the country.
 
You implied that Clark was also one of the "message force multipliers" posing as independent analysts. I was just wondering if you had any reason to think that.

Seems you didn't.


Wes is a military analyst---->Wes speaks gov propaganda

Isn't that the way liberal theory goes?
 
Back
Top