TPM's got some funny stuff out of the DOD document dump on their defense consultants propaganda project, but as Alyssa Rosenberg points out at the end of the day, the joke's on us here. I'd go further and just note that though public derision may be fun, that'll be the only consequence anyone involved suffers.
« More on Luttwak | Main | Home Court Redux »
Early Returns
12 May 2008 08:49 pm
Comments (25)
Other than the fact that we're led by sociapathic morons who use Comic Sans as their default email font to discuss war propaganda I couldn't find anything in my (brief) search.
Mark, the damnation in that case is for Michael Medved, not the PR official who recognized him as a good outlet for propaganda.
Mark, the damnation in that case is for Michael Medved,
How is that damning? You think when Howard Dean would go on Rhandi Rhodes he didn't know he was going to get softballs? It's absurdly naive to be either surprised or offended to learn that some talk show hosts treat with kid gloves those guests with whom they are ideologically sympathetic.
(Pssst. KC, when Limbaugh interviews Cheney, he's actually trying to help promote Cheney's message.)
You think when Howard Dean would go on Rhandi Rhodes he didn't know he was going to get softballs?
Yes, we know that when Limbaugh interviews Cheney, he's actually trying to help promote Cheney's message. Cheney is, I believe, the Vice President, and actively involved in creating governmnet policy.
The issue here is that these people were put forth as "military experts," not paid government spokesmen. Are you suggesting Howard Dean might appear on Randi Rhodes' show in the role of an unbiased, independent observer?
I mean, how dare a government press shop look for sympathetic coverage.
You're out of character, Al. Put the mask back on.
If what you're saying is that the higher echelons of the US military are wholly-owned subsidies of the GOP messaging operation, I don't suppose you have a problem with that?
The issue here is that these people were put forth as "military experts," not paid government spokesmen.
Huh? Are you talking about Jed Babbin? Babbin was subbing for Medved and if I remember correctly, Babbin was well known as a conservative hack in June of 2006. He filled in for Hugh Hewitt back then. He had written a book for Regnery two years prior. There wasn't any secret about who Babbin was. In any event, there isn't any indication Babbin was being shopped around.
And I assume you aren't talking about Casey who as commanding general in Iraq would be assumed to be a spokesman for the government position.
If what you're saying is that the higher echelons of the US military are wholly-owned subsidies of the GOP messaging operation, I don't suppose you have a problem with that?
What the hell does the GOP have to do with it? The DOD press shop was looking for a friendly interview for one of their generals.
Honestly, I don't know what world you people live in. This is standard operating procedure for any PR department.
>>This is standard operating procedure for any PR department.
I didn't realize news outlets were PR departments of the government. The issue is the networks. They passed off propaganda shills for the DOD as "independent military analysts" or as simply "network analysts." This was all part of an organized propaganda campaign undertaken by the DOD.
I don't know what world you live in, but in the United States, government propaganda campaigns like this are illegal -- which is likely the main reason the networks refuse to report on this story. Well, that, and it reveals how either incompetent or corrupt they are.
When you have a network of "analysts" that claim to be/are advertised as "independent" when in fact they are part of a covert propaganda program run by the agency of the government these people are supposed to be reporting on, well, some people have a problem with that. At least outside of Soviet Russia or China.
I assume you aren't talking about Casey who as commanding general in Iraq would be assumed to be a spokesman for the government position.
Assume what you like. I'm asking whether you're fine with the fact that Casey's shop behaved like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP messaging machine.
What the hell does the GOP have to do with it? The DOD press shop was looking for a friendly interview for one of their generals.
And just happened to land upon one of the reliable outposts of wingnut radio.
Please to be remembering that the US taxpayer, regardless of party affiliation, pays the salaries of everybody in the DoD, and that includes the PR hacks. (Are you one of them? You sound like Al, but you smell like a flack.)
The "Huh?" is a tip-off that Mark Adams is Al. Or, at least, someone equally dense.
If you don't support the President's using of the military to promote a particular foreign policy by sending covert surrogates to America's news networks, it means you hate the troops. After all, what are the troops for if not to promote their particular President's political arguments?
Jim: I didn't realize news outlets were PR departments of the government.
Honestly, if one you guys would actually explain your argument maybe I'd be sympathetic but I don't understand what you're saying. Is the idea that Babbin was being promoted as an objective military analyst when all along he was a Pentagon shill? If so then see what I wrote above: Babbin was well known as a right-wing hack. He was filling in for Michael freking Medved. I don't think anyone was under the impression he was a wonk at the Carr Center.
pseudonymous in nc: I'm asking whether you're fine with the fact that Casey's shop behaved like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the GOP messaging machine.
Except they didn't. They acted like a wholly-owned subsidiary of the POTUS and Pentagon -- which, you know, they are. (You may not realize this but President Bush is a member of the GOP and the commander and chief of the military so the DOD's messaging may sound remarkably similar to the GOP's.)
pseudonymous in nc:And just happened to land upon one of the reliable outposts of wingnut radio.
Um, yeah. When a conservative is looking for a sympathetic outlet, wingnut radio will be a common destination.
Ryan: The "Huh?" is a tip-off that Mark Adams is Al. Or, at least, someone equally dense.
No, not Al. (I'm not sure why he would suddenly take on a pseudonym.) Perhaps I am equally dense. But what that says about the rest of you isn't encouraging since no one has come close to addressing my points.
El Cid: what are the troops for if not to promote their particular President's political arguments?
Not "the troops" as in the troops in general. But I think it's safe to assume that the commander of operations in Iraq is going to be generally supportive, at least in public, of the President's Iraq strategy.
Keep it up guys. Really making some winning arguments.
Mark Adams: Wow! A government agency PR official recognized that an interviewer would conduct a softball interview with someone from the agency. What a great and damning find.
Why don't you direct this sarcasm to the Defense Department? They're the ones who said "probably wouldn't put "softball" interview in writing. If that got out it would compromise jed and general casey." I'm not sure why you think you know better than they do, but perhaps you can persuade them that you're right and they're wrong.
23456: Why don't you direct this sarcasm to the Defense Department?
The main reason is because I don't know of a DOD sponsored online discussion on the topic where I can respond.
Secondly, because I suspect the response of the press flack from the Secretary of Defense is a defensive measure. He doesn't really think there is anything wrong with Gen Casey doing an interview with a friendly talk show host. Rather he knows that the MYs, TMPs and the people in this thread will respond as they have a create a headache he'd rather not have to deal with.
23456: I'm not sure why you think you know better than they do,
Well, because in the excerpt I read, the DOD provided no argument on the topic at all and the people who have tried to provide an argument here have been unpersuasive.
23456: but perhaps you can persuade them that you're right and they're wrong.
Perhaps. Or perhaps I will just argue with other laymen on the internet like most people. But the next time you have a criticism for McCain, or Obama, or Clinton, or an elected official, or a government agency I trust that you will not share it with anyone except for the person, official or agency in question.
Honestly, if one you guys would actually explain your argument maybe I'd be sympathetic but I don't understand what you're saying.
You're looking for an "argument", but the thread amounts to simply an observation: It's funny. What's funny? The DoD was evidently more concerned with the appearance of cozy relations between interviewer and subject than the media outlet was. And yet it's the media outlet that's supposed to have the ethical standards in such matters.
Yeah, Babbin was known as a hack and a shill but here we have the Pentagon requesting that he *not be so obvious about it*. That's funny!
but here we have the Pentagon requesting that he *not be so obvious about it*. That's funny!
Heh. Fair enough. That is funny.
I suspect the response of the press flack from the Secretary of Defense is a defensive measure. He doesn't really think there is anything wrong with Gen Casey doing an interview with a friendly talk show host. Rather he knows that the MYs, TMPs and the people in this thread will respond as they have a create a headache he'd rather not have to deal with.
No shit. He doesn't really think there's anything wrong with it. However, he doesn't want Congress or the people who pay his salary with their taxes to actually know what he's doing, so he doesn't want any written record of it.
I guess I come down on the side of governments having to keep honest records of what they're doing, even if in some bureaucrat's personal judgment this might "create a headache" for him. Among other reasons, that's because governments often do (as in this case) have laws about this kind of thing.
But you disagree. Fair enough.
Among other reasons, that's because governments often do (as in this case) have laws about this kind of thing.
There is a law against sending officials to do softball interviews? I would be interested in reading it. I have Westlaw and Lexis access so all you need to do is send me the citation.
Thanks.
Or maybe there is a law requiring records of what kind of media interviews are being schedule for government officials ("tough but fair", "hatchet job", "personal interest fluff" and of course "softball")?
Once again please send cite.
Thanks.
Not to speak for 23456, but I took him to mean there are laws about *record-keeping* in the Pentagon (including its PR shop, where in this case the flack requested that the "softball" nature of the interview not be put in writing). I can't speak to whether or not that's true, though I would assume it is.
There is a law against sending officials to do softball interviews? I would be interested in reading it. I have Westlaw and Lexis access so all you need to do is send me the citation.
Yes, there actually are federal laws prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for domestic propaganda, as well as laws requiring that the government keep full and accurate records. Not only that, federal law also prohibits federal employees from embezzling money. Apparently this all comes as stunning news to you, so I'll let you look these laws up yourself as part of the learning experience.
The Pentagon program as a whole was almost certainly illegal. This clearly was a concern of Rumsfeld's, since he mentioned it at one of the meetings. I suspect this worry had also been communicated to this particular flack. But whether the program as a whole was illegal or not, and whether this particular part of it crossed any legal lines, can't be determined without accurate records. And determining this kind of thing is, in fact, one of the reasons why there are laws requiring accurate records.
But apparently it would be fine with you if someone at the Pentagon who cuts checks told someone else not to put something in writing. And your natural response to anyone concerned about this would be to demand to be shown where in the federal code there's some sort of law against embezzlement. And whether or not they'd done something illegal, your perspective is that Pentagon bureaucrats handling money should be able to conceal things whenever convenient.
As I say, fair enough. Not my view of how governments should work, but you're free to feel that way.
Yes, there actually are federal laws prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for domestic propaganda, as well as laws requiring that the government keep full and accurate records.
Are you seriously saying that keeping full and accurate records is synonymous with recording how sympathetic each figure of the media is expected to be with a government official prior to a media appearance?
Not only that, federal law also prohibits federal employees from embezzling money.
Someone is embezzling money now?
Apparently this all comes as stunning news to you,
No, what comes as stunning news to me is the idea that people are surprised and/or offended at the idea of a press shop wanting to get their guys sympathetic coverage.
so I'll let you look these laws up yourself as part of the learning experience.
Because you don't know yourself.
The Pentagon program as a whole was almost certainly illegal.
Of course I wasn't addressing the program as a whole.
But apparently it would be fine with you if someone at the Pentagon who cuts checks told someone else not to put something in writing.
No, it's fine with me if every media appearance by a government official isn't pre-categorized according to how sympathetic the media is expected to be
And your natural response to anyone concerned about this would be to demand to be shown where in the federal code there's some sort of law against embezzlement.
Once again, I don't know who is being accused of embezzlement. (And for the record, I wouldn't want to know where in the code embezzlement is b/c it's pretty widely known to be against the law. On the other hand, the idea that it is illegal not to keep records of anticipated softball interviews is not common knowledge and so yes, that is my response.)
And whether or not they'd done something illegal, your perspective is that Pentagon bureaucrats handling money should be able to conceal things whenever convenient.
Nope. Only when what they are concealing is not illegal to begin with and is not required to be recorded.
As I say, fair enough. Not my view of how governments should work, but you're free to feel that way.
Not my view either. But you knew that.
Only when what they are concealing is not illegal to begin with and is not required to be recorded.
Actually, there's a strong case to be made that the actions of the flacks in this instance were illegal. I would think the legal issue was completely obvious, but apparently not, so I'll spell it out: it doesn't have to do with Casey, but with Babbin. And the most relevant language is not just the "softball" part, but the reference to "our military analysts [emphasis added]." If you actually want to learn about this rather than bloviating, you can read this article that has most of the relevant information, including a 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that's directly applicable.
The relevant law in FY2006 was P.L. 108-447, Div. H, Sec. 620:
SEC. 620: No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofor authorized by the Congress.
Because this specific language is found over a thousand places online, and this specific topic has been mentioned in hundreds of news articles (both about the Pentagon experts and other actions by the Bush administration) I'd assumed you had some basic knowledge of the issues here. My mistake.
23456,
First off, kudos for actually making an argument and offering clarification.
so I'll spell it out: it doesn't have to do with Casey, but with Babbin.
Thanks for spelling it out since I had asked for clarification on whether we were supposed to be upset about Bannin or Casey and not received a good answer.
And the most relevant language is not just the "softball" part, but the reference to "our military analysts."
So am I safe in assuming that we have dropped the whole argument that the problem is record keeping of whether or not interviews are hostile or friendly? Or embezzlement?
If you actually want to learn about this rather than bloviating,
I like both learning and bloviating. I don't see why I should have to choose.
you can read this article that has most of the relevant information, including a 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel that's directly applicable.
Thanks. As I said above, I am not "addressing the program as a whole." If you are correct and the whole military analyst program is illegal it doesn't affect my point which is that there is nothing sinister in a DOD flak recognizing that an interviewer would be sympathetic to the general. The fact that Babbin was making the DOD's case in the media would be a violation of law under your understanding regardless of whether or no he interviewed Casey.
Because this specific language is found over a thousand places online,
Wow! A thousand? How did I miss it? I mean there are only like two thousand places on the whole world wide web.
23456,
Thanks for an important clarification -- I only just realized, upon reading your comment, that the "our" in "one of our military analysts" meant 'the Pentagon's'. I had assumed the email being quoted was from the Michael Medved show, and thus that "our" meant 'the show's'. (Guess I should have gone to the original source but I was relying on TPM's exerpting.)
Beyond that, thanks generally for your contributions here, past and present -- you're a wealth of information useful for keeping 'wingers (and I don't mean to include Mark Adams in that category) at bay. I always end up with new bookmarks after one of your interventions.
Comments closed May 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Wow! A government agency PR official recognized that an interviewer would conduct a softball interview with someone from the agency. What a great and damning find. I mean, how dare a government press shop look for sympathetic coverage.
Posted by Mark Adams | May 12, 2008 9:06 PM