Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - US TV NEWS Refuses to Report the News That They Brainwashed You With Pentagon PSY-OPS

host · 05-10-2008, 02:52 PM

It is a crime from the US Military to wage propaganda and psychological warfare operations within the United States. It appears from this evidence, supplied as a result of settling a lawsuit brough by the NY Times, that this is exactly what the US Military has done.

Many in the US believe that the press is "too liberal", or has a "liberal" bias. The TV network news operations show no indication that they resisted these military "Ops", or any admission, even now, that they have done anything wrong, or intentionally misled anyone. Most disturbing of all, they refuse to broadcast any reports of this news story, as it has unfolde over the past four weeks. The most viewed TV news network anchor, NBC News' Brian Williams, has actually defended his and his network's role in these "OPs"....only on his blog, not on television:

Quote:

http://dailynightly.msnbc.msn.com/ar...29/958477.aspx
Different Times
Posted: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 4:41 PM by Barbara Raab
Filed Under: Brian Williams

By Brian Williams, Anchor and managing editor

......A few of you correctly noted I’ve yet to respond to the recent Times front-page article on the military analysts employed by the television networks, including this one.....

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...ams/print.html

Brian Williams' "response" to the military analyst story
The NBC News anchor is finally forced to address the NYT exposé -- on his blog. His self-defenses raise far more questions than they answer.

Glenn Greenwald

Apr. 30, 2008 | (updated below)

"Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand - New York Times
The Pentagon has cultivated “military analysts” in a campaign to generate favorable ... wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. ..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/wa...pagewanted=all

Is it possible for anyone who believes that the media is "too liberal", to consider that maybe, instead, their POV is too conservative, to the point that it has encouraged the military to break the law and damage it's relationship with the American people?

Should those in the military and in the executive branch be prosecuted for what they have done to our opinion shaping process in this country?

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/bu...ll&oref=slogin

April 21, 2008
Talk to the Newsroom
Q & A With David Barstow

An article by David Barstow on Sunday reported that the Pentagon has cultivated “military analysts” in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the Bush administration’s wartime performance. Since publication of the article, The Times has received more than <a href="http://community.nytimes.com/article/comments/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html">1,400 comments</a>. Mr. Barstow is responding to readers’ questions on the article.

Timeliness

Q. Thanks for this one Mr Barstow. I guess if I have a question it's: What took you so long?
— Daniel Abraham, Long Beach, Calif.

A. Thanks for the question, Mr. Abraham. This article would have come sooner, but it took us two years to wrestle 8,000 pages of documents out of the Defense Department that described its interactions with network military analysts. We pushed as hard as we could, but the Defense Department refused to produce many categories of documents in response to our requests under the federal Freedom of Information Act. We ultimately sued in federal court, yet even then the Pentagon failed to meet several court-ordered deadlines for producing documents. Last week, the judge overseeing our lawsuit threatened the Defense Department with sanctions if it continues to defy his deadlines for producing additional records.

Legality

Q. One question not pursued in the article, and which may be of continuing relevance, is whether or not it was/is legal for the military to mount a covert "psychological operations" effort whose explicit target is Americans on American soil.
— Bill, Austin, Tex.

A. It is not legal for the U.S. government to direct psychological operations or propaganda against the American people. But the lines between ordinary public affairs and propaganda are sometimes blurry, and there are varying views as to whether this particular campaign crossed those lines. A Pentagon spokesman said its intent was to keep the American people informed about the war by providing prominent military analysts with factual information and frequent, direct access to key military officials. As Lawrence Di Rita, a former senior Pentagon official told me, they viewed it as the “mirror image” of the Pentagon program for embedding reporters with units in the field. In this case, the military analysts were in effect “embedded’’ with the senior leadership through a steady mix of private briefings, trips and talking points. But internal documents show that Pentagon officials also viewed the military analysts as “surrogates” or “message force multipliers’’ who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages’’ as if they were their own views, and several analysts asserted in interviews that they were sometimes given false or misleading information on a variety of topics related to the war.

Taxpayer Dollars

Q. I am wondering if you have any statistics concerning the amount of taxpayer dollars spent on these so-called analysts?
— NHD, Ann Arbor, Mich.

A. It is difficult to assess the total amount of tax money spent on this effort. Significant sums were spent taking military analysts on trips to Iraq and Guantanamo. For example, when a group of analysts were taken to Iraq in 2003, they were flown each morning on military transport planes from their hotel in Kuwait to Baghdad, and then back to Kuwait at day’s end. They traveled around Iraq in heavily guarded convoys. In recent years, the Pentagon has paid the commercial airfare of some analysts who participated in trips to Iraq. The Pentagon also paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a private contractor to monitor their news media appearances.

The Networks' Side of the Story

Q. While this is an excellent piece of reporting in covering the relationship between the networks' star military analysts and the Pentagon, the networks themselves essentially get a free pass. To say that the networks simply neglected to investigate conflicts of interest obscures the fact that overall there was a huge gap between the picture of the war presented through news reporting and that presented through so-called expert analysis. That gap must have been as obvious to the networks themselves as it was to anyone else. The editors and executives who made no effort to close that gap have questions to answer. Why did you not dig more deeply into the network side of this story?
— Paul Woodward, Asheville, N.C.

A. We did dig into the network side of this story. Two networks, CBS and Fox News, declined to answer any questions about their use of military analysts, including what specific steps they took to vet them for business ties that could pose conflicts and what ethical guidelines they established for them. NBC would not allow any executives to be interviewed, but released a short statement saying it had “clear policies in place’’ to avoid even the perception of a conflict of interest. Spokesmen for CNN and ABC said that while their military analysts were expected to keep them informed of outside sources of income, neither network had written ethics policies governing potential conflicts of interest with their analysts. But the question you raise – why didn’t the network news executives try to “close the gap’’ between what journalists were reporting and what some analysts were saying – is a good one. One possible answer: Several analysts said in interviews that network news officials tended to defer to their experience and expertise in military matters.

Policies of The New York Times

The following two questions were directed to Bill Keller, executive editor, and Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor.

Q. Does the Times have any "military consultants" on staff, and do they have any ties to the military-industrial complex? How much do you pay them? Do they profit from this war? Do they have any ties to the White House - or were they supplied by the administration? Perhaps those in glass houses should not throw rocks.
— Mary Hilton, Norway, Me.

A. The Times does not employ military consultants, nor do we pay sources (military-industrial or otherwise) for information. Our reporters who cover military affairs, like all of our journalists, are prohibited by our ethics policy from having any financial holding that would represent a conflict of interest.
— Bill Keller, executive editor

Q. Which NY Times Op-Ed pieces were written by the Pentagon influenced analysts, and why did the NY Times use them? Have you taken steps to prevent this from happening again?
— Neale Adams, Vancouver

A. According to reporting by The Times, nine of the military analysts who received briefings or trips from the Pentagon as part of an effort to produce more favorable news coverage of the war in Iraq have written articles that were published on our Op-Ed Page. We published those opinion articles because we believed the authors had expertise in the areas about which they were writing, and that their opinions -- which often had nothing to do with the war in Iraq -- were worth our readers' notice.

It is important to note that these were presented as opinion articles on our Op-Ed page, not as military analysis or objective reporting, and that in many cases, we asked the authors to write about topics of our choosing. They were not articles that were offered to us. In any case, none of the articles reflected the Pentagon's efforts to paint a falsely rosy view of events in Iraq, nor was there any conflict involving any author's business interests. As a matter of policy, The Times requires its Op-Ed contributors to disclose any business or financial connections they may have with the subject of their articles. The contract Op-Ed contributors are required to sign mandates that they fully and truthfully disclose any conflicts.

One of the nine authors was named in The Times's article on the Pentagon program: retired Army Gen. James Marks. General Marks wrote an Op-Ed article entitled "Rebels, Guns and Money," which we published on Nov. 10, 2004. It discussed the tactics, strategies and techniques involved in urban warfare, looking ahead to an impending military assault on the city of Falluja. General Marks did not take a stand on how the war was going in Iraq.

Of the other eight authors, who were not named in The Times article on the Pentagon campaign, one was a consistent and prominent critic of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and four wrote articles that were not about the war in Iraq. None of the remaining three offered assertions about the course of the war in Iraq or based their articles on Pentagon briefings or junkets.

It is the policy of The Times's editorial department to do everything we can to tell our readers what our Op-Ed contributors bring to the table -- whether it is a political affiliation, a business interest, or anything else that helps readers evaluate the authors' opinions. We will continue to do so in the future. The article about the Pentagon program gives us valuable information to use in that effort.
— Andrew Rosenthal, editorial page editor

The Origins of the "Message Machine"

Q. In speaking of Torie Clarke, the former Pentagon public relations executive, the article states: "...even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit key influentials -- movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities." I'm wondering what Mr. Rumsfeld's priorities were before 9/11, and why was the Pentagon building a network of "influentials" to shape public opinion before 9/11?
— SLOreader, San Luis Obispo, Calif.

A. Ms. Clarke’s team reached out to so-called “key influentials” before Sept. 11 to generate support for a variety of Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities, including ballistic missile defense and his plan to transform the military into a leaner and more agile force. In her 2006 memoir, "Lipstick on a Pig: Winning in the No-Spin Era by Someone Who Knows the Game," Ms. Clarke wrote: "I was obsessed with reaching out to people who were, in turn, reaching out to thousands and millions on a regular basis." Beyond retired officers, the Pentagon also reached out to a range of leaders -- from religious groups, non-governmental organizations, labor unions and major corporations. But the retired officers received by far the most attention in the years after Sept. 11 because of their impact on the coverage of the war, especially as TV and radio military analysts.

Network Standards

Q. Network news is rife with "hired expert" analysis, in fields ranging from medicine to finance. Is there any evidence that the conflict of interest standards were bent more severely for generals than others? Isn't this evidence of a much bigger problem, and more reason that real reporters ought to be getting all the air time on news programs, and the so-called "experts" either interviewed without pay or relegated to the TV talk shows?
— Paul, Lake Luzerne, N.Y.

A. This is not the first time TV news organizations have confronted questions about undisclosed conflicts involving outside consultants or analysts. The financial news networks, for example, confronted this issue several years ago in connection with hidden financial interests of some stock market commentators. The subsequent outcry led to more disclosure. But with military analysts, the networks have not been as diligent about disclosing to viewers outside ties that could present a conflict of interest. Military analysts are typically introduced to viewers with brief descriptions of their military backgrounds. Viewers are not told whether they do or do not have ties to military contractors with interests in the subjects they are asked to discuss.

Q. Your article refers to the fact, on several occasions, the various network "handlers" are unaware of the liaison the "military analysts" enjoy with Pentagon staff. How can that be? Are they that naive?
— desertrat, Las Vegas, Nev.

A. In interviews, many military analysts said the same thing -- that the network officials they deal with the most (the bookers, producers and anchors) had only the vaguest idea of the frequency or subject matter of their interactions with the Pentagon. In part, this is because the sessions were almost always kept "off the record" or "on background," and some analysts interpreted this to mean that they could not even disclose these sessions to network news executives. Several analysts said that on the basis of a briefing, they might then pitch an idea for a segment to a producer or booker. Sometimes they would even help write the questions for the anchors to ask during the segment.

A Change in Protocol?

Q. Has Secretary Gates changed the DOD protocol?
— Richard Melanson, Annapolis, Md.

A. Military analysts have told me that under Secretary Gates, they still get plenty of access, but not in quite the same way. They have not, for example, had the kind of regular meetings with him that they used to have with Mr. Rumsfeld, although they are briefed almost weekly by other senior military officials.

Here is the damning evidence contained in just two pages of the Pentagon release:

Quote:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanaly...20-%207922.pdf

From: Oi Rita. larry, elv. OSD·OASD·PA I Sent: Monday. January 17, 2005 7:27 AM To: I
~~:;~,~;:~~~~~P~~~~~d~~'O~::\~~~~~~l •.i:;f:.. ;X}"1
Ca t. USMC, OA~~::. Lawrence, Dallas, OASD PA, Keck. Gary, Col, OASD4j;!i,;~,/il I
c~: ~=~.-.FIS·HQlPIA I
Subject: Re: New Ideas for Military analyst coverage • Iraq trip I
. This is a thoughtful note ...r think it makes a lot of sense to do as you suggest ana 1
I
guess I thoughjt we already were doing a lot of this in terms of quick contact, etc...we
ought to be doing this. though, and we should not make the list too small ...
I
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
I I
-----Original Message----From:
Merritt, Roxie T. CAPT, OASD-PA <Roxie.Merritt
I
~~~i~~R~~~~i~5tW;0~,%h:l;c~~~~;~.~~~~~;~,<~~~~y~~~:;~ <Allison.B~~~;~~~~t;0!i:i:Wf¥00t\
w~~~~~~
I
I I I Bryan, SES, OASD-PA <.B .W· a" 0 <George. Rhynedance;~W~;//'?>' .. Lawrence, Dallas OASD-PA <Roxie ,Merritt LCD cc: Sent: Fri Jan 14 19:25:08 2005 Subject: RE:New Ideas for Military analyst coverage -Iraq trip
BACKGROUND:
One of the most interesting things coming from this trip to Iraq with the media \
analysts was learning how their jobs have been undergoing a metamorphosis. There are
several reasons behind the morpho .. with an all voluntary military, no one in the media I
has current military background. Additionally, we have been doing a good job of keeping
these guys informed 50 that ~hey have the ready answers when the network comes calling.
I
CURRENT ISSUES:
I
The key issue here is that more and more, media analysts are having a greater impact
I
on the television media network coverage of military issues. They have now become the geI
to guys not only on breaking storys. but they influence the view5 on issues. Th~y also h.ave a huge amount of influence on what stories the network decides to cover proactively I I with regards to military. In media ops, I have been using them more frequently to get our side of the story out II with media sensitive departments such as USD!, which is typically hard to penetrate with traditionally media, but that we have found to be receptive to talking to the analysts I I such as ~en Robinson. RECOMMENDATION:
I
1.1 I recommend we develop a core group from within our media analysts list of those
I
that we can count on to carry our water. They become part of a "hot list" that we
I
immediately make calls to or put on an email distro before we contact or respond to media
I
on hot issues. We can also do more proactive engagement with thiB list and give them tips
on what stories to focus on and give them heads up on upcoming issues as they are I
I developing. By providing them with current and valuable information, they become the key
go to guys for the networks and <h3>it begins to weed out the less reliably friendly analysts I
I by the networks themselves.</h3>
2.) We need to continue with Dalla's initiative to do regional trips for the analysts I
I on a routine basis. Even though some of these guys on this trip had been to Iraq last
llumm9r, the l:lndacapCl had changed 100 dramatically th-.t they were "wowed" at the changee in I
such a short amount of time. would like to arrange a trip to Afghanistan next.
I
3.} Media ops and outreach can work on a plan to maximize use of the analysts and
I
figure out a eystem by which we keep our most reliably friendly analysts plugged in on
I
everything from crisis response to future plans. Th!s trusted cote group will be more
I
than Willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter, and the more
I

NY TIMES 7815

they know the more valuable they are to the networks. t.) I am also going forward on working regional media trips and looking at trips for publishers, columnists and. specialty media, including radio.
5.) As evidenced by this analyst trip to Iraq, the synergy of outreach shop and media ops working t09~ther on these type of projects is enormous and effective. will continue to exam ways to improve processes.
Roxie T. Merritt Captain, U.S. Navy Director, DoD Press Operations Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Pentagon. Room Washin ton DC 2030 -1400
Pursuit of All Who Threaten It"

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwa...sts/index.html

....So the Pentagon would maintain a team of "military analysts" who reliably "carry their water" -- yet who were presented as independent analysts by the television and cable networks. By feeding only those pro-Government sources key information and giving them access -- even before responding to the press -- only those handpicked analysts would be valuable to the networks, and that, in turn, would ensure that only pro-Government sources were heard from. Meanwhile, the "less reliably friendly" ones -- frozen out by the Pentagon -- would be "weeded out" by the networks. The pro-Government military analysts would do what they were told because the Pentagon was "their bread and butter." These Pentagon-controlled analysts were used by the networks not only to comment on military matters -- and to do so almost always unchallenged -- but also even to shape and mold the networks' coverage choices. 

Even a casual review of the DoD's documents leaves no doubt that this is exactly how the program worked. The military analysts most commonly used by MSNBC, CNN, Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC routinely received instructions about what to say in their appearances from the Pentagon. As but one extreme though illustrative example, Dan Senor -- Fox News analyst and husband of CNN's Campbell Brown -- would literally ask Di Rita before his television appearances what he should say (7900, 7920-21), and submitted articles to him, such as one he wrote for The Weekly Standard about how great the war effort was going, and Di Rita would give him editing directions, which he obediently followed. 

Among the most active analysts in this program were all three of the most commonly used MSNBC commentators -- Gen. Montgomery Meigs, Gen. Wayne Downing, and Col. Ken Allard. They were frequently summoned by Chris Matthews and (in the case of Downing) by Brian Williams as NBC's resident experts. Matthews referred to them as "HARDBALL's war council" on January 17, 2005, when he had all three of them on together to bash The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh for reporting that the Pentagon was preparing attack plans against Iran -- an article that, like most Hersh articles, infuriated Di Rita and other DoD officials. The next day, Allard proudly wrote to Di Rita:<blockquote>As you may have seen on MSNBC, I attributed a lot of what [Hersh] said to disgruntled CIA employees who simply should be taken out and shot.</blockquote> <a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SCWdjjTKuWI/AAAAAAAAAwU/MItfoplgSX4/s1600-h/allard.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://bp3.blogger.com/_MnYI3_FRbbQ/SCWdjjTKuWI/AAAAAAAAAwU/MItfoplgSX4/s400/allard.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5198734578965723490" border="0" /></a> In light of all of this, it is very hard to dispute the excited analysis of an unnamed Lt. Col when, in a March 4, 2005 email to various Pentagon officials (7751), he described the military analyst program as producing a "big payback." He then went further:<blockquote>There are about 50 retired military analysts that are part of this group. . . . these are the folks that end up on FOX, CNN, etc. interpreting military happenings. These calls are conducted frequently and offer HUGE payback. . . . these end up being the people who carry the mail on talk shows.</blockquote>

I think a military/civilian conservatives coup may have already taken place, and the news that the TV networks are not reporting is that they and the coup plotters are the winners, and the rest of us have already lost!