Charlatan

I can agree that the discussion really should be one that discusses how PR is carried out by the government in general.

Levin's letter above makes the whole thing much clearer.

1) Special access given to those who would provide positive spin while denying or curtailing access to those who don't

2) Some of the analysts have were on the payroll of Defense contractors at the same time.

The first point is really just about access and who gets it. Should there be equal access to all? To answer this you need to look at the government as a whole. Who gets access to information. Who gets briefed by congress, the president, etc? Are other branches offering this sort of access while (deliberately or inadvertently) excluding others?

The second doesn't have much to do with the PR message but does have everything to do with giving Contractor X, with an analyst that has access, more information than Contractor Y that does not. This could possibly have an effect on the fairness of bidding processes (though I suspect that this is a bit of a red-herring as there are likely many other ways to get this information and it probably isn't all that relevant to the bidding process).

The key issue in point two really falls to the media. They should be disclosing any conflict of interest. Any real journalist (as opposed to an analyst) with a potential conflict would make these disclosures.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke