Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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 give 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.
|
Which is why there should be an FCC investigation in addition to the DoD internal review...as requested in Cong. Dingell's letter to the Chair of the FCC:
Quote:
As a result of the program, analysts, many of whom represented military contractors or ran their own military consulting or contracting firms, were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent. According to the report, analysts that were critical of the administration’s policy could “lose all access,” creating an environment in which these analysts felt compelled, and at times eager, to convey specific Defense Department talking points to the American public, even when they did not necessarily agree with them. It could appear that some of these analysts were indirectly paid for fostering the Pentagon’s views on these critical issues.
Our chief concern is that as a result of the analysts’ participation in this DoD program, which included the DoD’s paying for their commercial airfare on DoD-sponsored trips to Iraq, the analysts and the networks that hired them could have run afoul of certain laws or regulations, among them the sponsorship identification requirements in the Act and the FCC’s rules. For example, we are concerned that the military analysts may have violated Section 507 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 507, which, among other things, prohibits those involved with preparing program matter intended for broadcast from accepting valuable consideration for including particular matter in a program without disclosure. Similarly, the Commission’s rules require a station to make an appropriate announcement when it receives a disclosure from someone involved with preparing program matter for the station, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6558164.html
|
This is not about starting your own station if you dont like what the DoD and networks did... as some have suggested with offhand comments.
It is about ensuring that laws and regulatory rules and procedures are not violated for political (or financial) purposes.