Michael Calderone and Avi Zenilman: "'Deafening silence' from networks on military analysts". It's as if The New York Times' famous ability to set the agenda for TV news magically evaporates when wholesale corruption on the part of TV news becomes the story. They were complicit in lying to the public, they got caught, and they're not even slightly embarrassed or ashamed.
« The Reminder | Main | Good Old Socialism »
Nothing to See Here
08 May 2008 01:41 pm
Comments (19)
One would have to be a moron or a left-wing hack to think that there was any "corruption" on the part of anyone.
The story wasn't covered because there isn't any story.
One understands why people like Matthew are so pissed off: respected military men were independently reviewing information about the war and were saying we're winning. Heaven knows that creates significant cognitive dissonance for someone like Matthew, who wouldn't accept that we're winning if OBL himself came to Matthew's house and said so.
It's almost as if the media can control the narrative of what gets reported by the media.
Nathan says: "well, for one thing there were some, uh, problems with the story (such as several of the people named were in fact critics of the Iraq War)"
Like hell they were.
I don't know why Matthew is linking to this ridiculously bland article when Glenn Greenwald has done the definitive work on this subject.
well, for one thing there were some, uh, problems with the story
Funny, then, you'd think the TV networks would have gone on the air and SAID SO in response to this baseless attack on their integrity. And yet, no. Wonder why? Have these famously thin-skinned journalists suddenly decided that turning the other cheek is the proper response to an unfounded assault on their basic ethics?
See Spackerman today for a particularly telling excerpt from a conversation between Rumsfeld and some of these generals.
al writes: "respected military men were independently reviewing information about the war and were saying we're winning"
of course that's not what the article showed. they were being briefed about talking points.
they may have agreed with the talking points but to cal what they were doing "independently reviewing information" is highly debatable.
One understands why people like Matthew are so pissed off: respected military men were independently reviewing information about the war and were saying we're winning. Heaven knows that creates significant cognitive dissonance for someone like Matthew, who wouldn't accept that we're winning if OBL himself came to Matthew's house and said so.
Posted by Al | May 8, 2008 2:10 PM
They weren't "independently reviewing information about the war". They were being spoon-fed talking points for a domestic information campaign.
Al knows this, and still tries to bullshit the group.
And "winning" the war? I doubt that even Al believes that we are (or ever were).
Victoria Clarke, then the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, launched the Pentagon military analyst program in early 2002. These supposedly independent military analysts were in fact a coordinated team of pro-war propagandists, personally recruited by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and acting under Clarke's tutelage and development.
One former participant, NBC military analyst Kenneth Allard, has called the effort "psyops on steroids." As the Times reported, "Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.' "
Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said "a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war."
Don't forget, shortly after the Times article appeared, the Pentagon suspended the program.
If there was nothing to the Times story, why did they do that?
oh there appears to have been something to the story, but it's the extent to which the Times article takes it that appears rather questionable.
one can't begin to understand what nathan means: your government spent your tax dollars enabling propaganda spoonfed to you, nathan. do you like that?
meanwhile, of course the networks are embarassed: that's why they aren't commenting.
Not only did the government pay for false propaganda, they did it inefficiently. Those hacks were rainmakers at military contractors, a la 'vice-president in charge of government business development': the Government had to give their companies some goodies to keep the show on the road.
That had to mean buying gear that was unnecessary, low quality, or more expensive than necessary.
Far cheaper to just pay those suits in cash and get it over with. I'm sure they would have sold out for beer money, like most people.
they were being briefed about talking points.
They were being briefed on accurate information.
You just don't like it when someone in the media actually relays accurate information to the public, rather than the left-wing anti-war extremism that is normal fare for the MSM.
What this really shows is the extent to which the left-wing believes that the MSM is "theirs", and that any effort for the Administration to counter left-wing anti-war propganda with accurate information is deemed to be invalid. The left-wing hates it more than anything when their "own" devices - like the network news - doesn't spew left-wing anti-war propaganda 24/7. So here, we get independent military men analyzing accurate information and coming to conclusions that are at odds with the left-wing anti-war propaganda normall seen in the MSM. And the left-wing hates it - and wants to do everything it can to make sure nothing like that ever happens again.
Al writes: "So here, we get independent military men analyzing accurate information and coming to conclusions that are at odds with the left-wing anti-war propaganda normall seen in the MSM. And the left-wing hates it - and wants to do everything it can to make sure nothing like that ever happens again."
Except that they weren't "independent" and the information was cherry-picked to make it look like the war was going well.
Al, you're a liar and a fool. You devote every post here to sucking shit out of Cheney's ass and telling us the peanuts taste like peppermints.
"Al knows this, and still tries to bullshit the group."
This is what Al does. Are you new here?
And Fred, and Powell, and Mixner, and SLC, and a number of others.
Bullshitting is their middle name, their profession and avocation, their calling, their...whatever.
It's called being lying, corrupt, moronic assholes.
MoeLarryandJesus: "Al, you're a liar and a fool. You devote every post here to sucking shit out of Cheney's ass and telling us the peanuts taste like peppermints."
He wins the thread. I should probably have not bothered posting.
See, this:
left-wing anti-war extremism that is normal fare for the MSM
is what distinguishes Al from the right-wing regulars on this site: total, apparently wilful, detatchment from reality. One can converse with Fred or Robert Powell, but with Al one has no common reference points in the real world, so dialogue is impossible. I recommend contempt instead.
The first rule of Press Club is, Don't report on Press Club.
no, the networks couldn't give a rat's ass. and the fcc is backing them up. in response to a complaint i sent in, i was informed that the networks and stations are free to lie their heads off in their news programs, they have no legal obligation to confine themselves to the truth.
why does none of this surprise me?
me: "they were being briefed about talking points"
al: "They were being briefed on accurate information"
the pentagon "they were being briefed on themes and messages."
this was obviously a massive proganda mission aimed at american citizens, the kind of thing i'd expect from state television in some third world banana republic.
some people don't have a problem with that.
odd, really.
Shortly after the Times article appeared, the Pentagon suspended the program.
now, if you're interested, you can pop over the the defense department website and view all the documents related to the program. there's quite a lot to wade through over there.
| 
Heads in the Sand
well, for one thing there were some, uh, problems with the story (such as several of the people named were in fact critics of the Iraq War)
Posted by Nathan | May 8, 2008 2:07 PM