Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Myself and at least another poster have cited and quoted the laws and regulations that have been broken, the evidence from the pentagon's own website of the Pentagon strategy to control the flow of information exclusively to those in agreement, and the financial and political conflicts of the two generals reporting as military consultants for six years, in the words of the most watched network news anchor who denies that the conflict of interests is even his business to find out about or tell his viewers about, even though the seriousness of the details of the generals' conflicts were published five years ago.
Then....you weigh in from your residence in a foreign country where no criticism of the government by the media or by anyone, publicly, is permitted, to say that you see nothing sinister here, only sophisticated PR.
A rather wide gulf between us, on this issue???
|
I don't see the illegality of what you are listing. Sorry, just don't. I do see that it is unethical on the part of the Pentagon and certainly lazy journalism on the media's part.
Public Relations, by it's nature, is not necessarily an evil thing. Put simply an organization, whether they are the Pentagon, a maker of vacuum cleaners or a film company, has a story they would like to get covered. They will do any number of things to get their story to the public via the editorial news media (as opposed to paid ads, though good campaigns will often use both). They will, issue press releases, stage press conferences, supply experts, etc.
On the "fluffy" side of things, a company that supply baking ingredients might send a baking expert to do a spot on the morning news show, giving a demonstration of how to bake using their products. On the "sinister" side, nation states like Kuwait will stage a press conference to show how their babies are being killed by an invading army in an effort to win US public opinion to supporting them.
What the Pentagon is doing is controlling their message. They want their version of events to be carried in the media. They have been stung in the past by "negative" messages that have turned public opinion against them. It is not in their interest to let this happen again. Why wouldn't they hire experts that can spread their point of view?
The issue for me sits squarely in the lap of journalism. It is their job to dig beyond the PR, beyond the spin. When they simply parrot a press release, or report a
Pseudo-event as fact rather than offering alternative points of view... they are letting down their end of the balance.
It is quite easy for some to say, "start your own network". Clearly this is just a way of avoiding the issue. Quite frankly, television news is largely pap. They rarely do investigative pieces anymore. They are victim of their own success (business success). They chase ratings rather than "truth".
And Host... your comments about my current place of residence are way off base. Please stick to the issue and leave where I live out it.