Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

[edward]

Government Curries Favor With Military News Analysts

The Pentagon may influence the analysis of some retired military personnel who appear on television news programs, the New York Times recently reported. Media insiders discuss the details of this murky world of defense companies, the current administration and the war in Iraq.

We all knew that Bush had fake news correspondents attend his press meetings. Here is a new twist. The Bush administration provided military analysts to the general media.

Their excuse: It was a better way to inform the public.

There was a New York Times Article on this last week, the main stream news media choose to ignore it, PBS did not. Available in audio. text and streaming video.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html

 

[edward]

Here is a direct link to the Times article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/w...scp=1&sq=behind+tv+analysts&st=nyt&oref=login

 

[russ_watters]

So...the military used military analysts hired by the media to push pro-military positions and the media is upset that their military analysts are pro-military and have been talking to the military? I'm forced to ask: is the editorial staf of the NYT composed entirely of infants? To anyone older than about age 4 this should be self-evident. By publishing a story about it, they are exposing their ongoing naivete.

 

[mjsd]

Since the adminstration needed to sway public opinion into supporting the war 5 years ago, they had to flood the news media with "experts"... who happened to "agree" with the stance of the administration almost 99% of the time. surprise, surprise... now, that's state propaganda/deception to a whole new level... no threats (possibly), no prosecutions for saying anything against the party line, no violence against journalists... BUT it serves the same purpose: brainwash the masses with wrong facts and biased opinion... god helps us!

 

[drankin]

This makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't the administration put out military experts to give the media information. The administration could just as well not have done it then everyone would be screaming they aren't informing the public enough. b*tch if they do, b*tch if they don't.

 

[Poop-Loops]

If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I tell your best friend to convince you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.

If I then go "See see! Even your friend agrees!" I am being very dishonest.

I'm also hearing a slurping sound come out of Bush's crotch for some reason. I wonder why that is?

 

[Gokul43201]

So...the military used military analysts hired by the media to push pro-military positions and the media is upset that their military analysts are pro-military and have been talking to the military? I'm forced to ask: is the editorial staf of the NYT composed entirely of infants? To anyone older than about age 4 this should be self-evident. By publishing a story about it, they are exposing their ongoing naivete.

You don't see a conflict of interests when "analysts" that are in the pay of defense contractors appear on TV and make a case for more military spending?

 

[drankin]

If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I convince your best friend to tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.

I'm still not going to give you $50. My best friend must be chump. LOL

 

[Poop-Loops]

Yeah, at that point I decide to take it from you anyway.

5 years later, I am still claiming to be almost ready to repay you the money. In fact, it's your fault I have it in the first place.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why wouldn't the administration put out military experts to give the media information. The administration could just as well not have done it then everyone would be screaming they aren't informing the public enough.

Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.

 

[edward]

One of the more disgusting aspects of this whole thing is that the television media now refuses to own up to the fact that they bought the Bush administration product, and passed it off as news for the past five years.

The media used to go out and find news to report on. Now they sit on their a$$es and buy a totally biased source.

 

[russ_watters]

You don't see a conflict of interests when "analysts" that are in the pay of defense contractors appear on TV and make a case for more military spending?

Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?

ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR and no doubt, their association with NASCAR hasn't actually ended (though that really isn't relevant - they are going to be pro-NASCAR biased either way). Are these unbiased commentators? Should we be so naive that we need to get upset when they say NASCAR is better than Indy?

Serioiusly, I'm floored here: how can a news outlet be so naive about the concept of bias? This is a central issue to their entire operation! Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists - some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve (well, some wear it on their collar) - say about the rest of their reporting? Is the NYT completely incapable of evaluating the sources of the information they publish? That's what "journalism" is! That certainly would explain a lot about the [lack of] quality of what's been coming out of there lately. They've basically come out and said that they are incapable of 'doing' journalism!

 

[russ_watters]

Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.

Apparently the NYT still does.

 

[Gokul43201]

Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?

From the NYT article:

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.

I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.

 

[quadraphonics]

Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists -

The issue is not that military analysts are "pro-military." That's past obvious and into tautology. The issue is that they were all in favor of certain specific military policies, giving the impression that said policies enjoyed unanimous support within the military community, when in fact this was far from the truth. The questions they were asked to respond to were not "is the military a good thing?" but rather "is sending the military into Iraq a good idea, and do we have a good plan for it?" Your own conflation of support for the military with support for the Iraq mission is an example of the sort of misrepresentation the administration was aiming for.

 

[Alfi]

backyard politics

I have no reason to disbelieve that the SadMan Insane bluffed. And got caught.
He had to maintain power by fear. He had neighbors that he just picked a fight with and others from other fights. He had to look strong. He fluffed up his feathers and strongarmed any grumblers. He had no major WMD's but he better not let the others know it. He was no threat to the U.S. He was nothing more than a fluffed up dictator.
Then he got called on his bluff ( opportunity knocks ) and fell in a month.

The rest is news spin.

 

[drankin]

backyard politics

I have no reason to disbelieve that the SadMan Insane bluffed. And got caught.
He had to maintain power by fear. He had neighbors that he just picked a fight with and others from other fights. He had to look strong. He fluffed up his feathers and strongarmed any grumblers. He had no major WMD's but he better not let the others know it. He was no threat to the U.S. He was nothing more than a fluffed up dictator.
Then he got called on his bluff ( opportunity knocks ) and fell in a month.

The rest is news spin.

In a nut-shell.

 

[mgb_phys]

ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR
...
some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve

Isn't that the obvious solution ?
Simply plaster their clothes with the name of their sponsors in the same way as NASCAR drivers - they could have Haliburton baseball caps and Boeing/Lockhead/MCdonald Douglas patches on their jackets.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, if these gents had disclosed the fact that the Bush admin had asked them to help disseminate information related to the Iraq invasion, or if they only gave their personal opinions, that would be one thing, but this is just another example of the Bush admin governing by deception.

What is really sad is that Bush supporters apparently WANT to be lied to. This is seen as being acceptable - deception.

 

[edward]

The rest is news spin.

The point is that it was the media that was spun by the Bush administration.

And it was done using people that were recruited explicitly to deceive.

 

[drankin]

Ok, what are these intentional deceptions? Are we back to that debate?

 

[russ_watters]

From the NYT article:

I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.

Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections? By the way, the PBS discussion in the link in the OP seems to agree with me (I only skimmed it):

So I wasn't surprised at all, except by the amount of space devoted to this piece by the New York Times.

And if I were giving advice to anybody, it would be, if you have an admiral on who is or a general who is currently a consultant to the Pentagon, that should be disclosed right at the top of the interview.

But we don't -- as networks, we didn't have these people on because they were neutral; we had them on because they knew what they were talking about. They had spent their lives in military affairs.

Duh.

 

[Gokul43201]

Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections?

I think it's the job of the media outlet to specify the connection. And I think it's unethical of the analysts to not inform their media employer of their conflicting connections. I also think it's unethical (of both the outlet and the analyst) to continue to disburse "information" with the knowledge that disclosure of the conflicting connections is not being made to the public.

 

[edward]

Ok, what are these intentional deceptions?

Surely you jest? Those intentional deceptions were used as the reason to invade another country. But it doesn't stop there, the recruited analysts are still at work.

They will now start spinning why they spun.

Are we back to that debate?

No, but we just now learned exactly how the press was manipulated into spinning things in the Bushco direction.

 

[Gokul43201]

Politics is a PR game, and on this count, I hold the media and the analysts responsible for the deception. The White House will do what it has to do to sell its story, and telling tall tales is the norm with this WH - it is the job of the press to not respond with "how high?"

 

[edward]

Politics is a PR game, and on this count, I hold the media and the analysts responsible for the deception. The White House will do what it has to do to sell its story, and telling tall tales is the norm with this WH - it is the job of the press to not respond with "how high?"

Perhaps the press should be required to read a disclaimer at the beginning of each newscast.

WARNING!
The information in this program may not be true or accurate. Individuals presenting information may be employed by a special interest group or government agency who may intend to deceive you.

FOX news would need to have one of those fast talkers who read the list of side effects of prescription medications advertised on television.

Politicians need to be required to glue a permanent disclaimer label on both sides of their mouths.

 

[Art]

Despite admissions by many in the MSP they didn't do their job well in the run up to the invasion of Iraq it seems many incidents of what many would consider state sponsored terrorism still go unchallenged. For example

BBC NEWS
US confirms Somali missile strike

The US military has confirmed that it carried out a pre-dawn missile strike which killed a senior leader of an Islamist militant group in Somalia.

A spokesman said the target of the attack in the town of Dusamareb was an al-Qaeda leader, but would not name him or say whether it had been successful.

The strike hit the home of Aden Hashi Ayro, the military head of al-Shabab, which controls much of Somalia.

At least 10 other people, including another al-Shabab leader, also died.

But local elders have said up to 30 bodies have been recovered from the scene, according to unconfirmed reports.
snip
Locals said the missiles hit Ayro's home at about 0300 (0000 GMT).

"We heard a huge explosion and when we ran out of our house we saw balls of smoke and flames coming out of house," Dusamareb resident Nur Geele told the BBC.


The house that was attacked was a small concrete villa and it has been destroyed- the sight is quite horrific
Dr Ahmed Mahdi
Dusamareb Hospital

"The house was totally destroyed to the ground, also other houses nearby," local elder Ahmed Mumin Jama said.

Dr Ahmed Mahdi at Dusamareb Hospital told the BBC he was treating eight civilians, including women and children, for burns and shrapnel wounds.

"The house that was attacked was a small concrete villa and it has been destroyed," he said. "The adjacent houses which were made from traditional mud were also destroyed. The sight is quite horrific."

One of the women has since died, bringing the death toll so far to 11

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7378502.stm

It seems those who command the US military care absolutely nothing for the lives of innocent bystanders. This type of action might be justifiable if it was to preempt an imminent attack on the US but not even in the most fevered of imaginations could Somalia or it's various factions be considered a threat much less an imminent one.

The US gov't needs to realize when you kill innocent people you alienate their relatives, friends and kinsmen and create new enemies for generations to come or perhaps they do realize it but are so contemptuous of foreigners they just don't give a damn.

The US used to enjoy styling itself as the world's policeman, these days it is simply the world's bully. It is high time the US MSP insist the gov't explain it's actions.

 

[mgb_phys]

Interesting that the article is factual, balanced, doesn't blame anyone, attributes all the quotes to identified people and lacks phrases like
"screaming supernukem missiles kaboomed into screaming terroists - here's a computer graphics simulation of the action"
Ah for a profesional state-controlled news media.

 

[Art]

Interesting that the article is factual, balanced, doesn't blame anyone, attributes all the quotes to identified people and lacks phrases like
"screaming supernukem missiles kaboomed into screaming terroists - here's a computer graphics simulation of the action"
Ah for a profesional state-controlled news media.

The BBC is state funded but by the terms of it's charter is fully independent as evidenced by the long running saga between it and Blair over the alleged 'sexing up' of intelligence information by Downing Street.

 

[drankin]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

 

[mgb_phys]

The BBC is state funded but by the terms of it's charter is fully independent

Yes I know - I was comparing it's journalistic standards to the totally free and independant news coverage of for example 'Fox' !

 

[Gokul43201]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

But what if you only found out when someone read the news to you in hospital, while your limbs were being stitched back on?

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

Guilt by proximity? Guilty until proven innocent or dead, whichever happens first?

 

[Art]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

Yep, that's the arrogant 'who gives a fcuk' type of attitude I referred to.

I'd be interested to see if you would have had the same smug, arrogant attitude if the British had launched missiles at the houses of IRA sympathisers in the US killing their families and neighbours? And the British would have had more justification because they had actually been attacked by the IRA.

 

[W3pcq]

At this years North Atlantic Treaty Organization they gave an award to the former british prime minister, the highest ranking us general, and the ceo of the largest news conglomerate in the world. Their roles were fundamental to the success of the organization. The OK and support for action, the method of action, and reasoning and justification for action. We couldn't have done it if our allies didn't first give us the permission, we couldn't have done it without the force of the military, and we couldn't have done it without support in the media.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Hmmm, if I knew of a military leader of an organization that could be bombed by aircraft at any moment in my neighborhood, I think I'd move.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume that all bystanders are "innocent".

I seriously hope you are trolling. For your sake.