Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditThe Sunday Times' article detailing the massive, secret coordinated campaign by the Pentagon and all the leading television news channels to sell and defend the administration's Iraq policy is a critical piece of investigative journalism. David Barstow provided meticulous and aggressive reporting, even referencing how The Times'amplified Pentagon "surrogates" without sufficient disclosure for readers. The Times also deserves credit, both for running the lengthy piece and suing the government to obtain related documents. (Read the whole thing here, or try this YouTube excerpt.)
The Nation's Katrina vanden Heuvel is urging Congress to investigate the program exposed by the article:
In its rigorous documentation of the relationship between the government, the networks and retired military analysts, the lineaments of the corrosive structure and impact of a new military-media-industrial complex are exposed. This corrupt complex demands investigation by all relevant Congressional committees...
Glenn Greenwald, who has written extensively about the media's pro-war bias and undisclosed conflicts of interest, flags the galling (non)-response of several news organizations, near the end of the article:
The most incredible aspect of the NYT story is that most of the news organizations which deceived their readers and viewers by using these "objective" analysts -- CBS, NBC, Fox -- simply refused to comment on what they knew about any of this or what their procedures are for safeguarding against it. Just ponder what that says about these organizations -- there is a major expose in the NYT documenting that these news outlets misleadingly shoveled government propaganda down the throats of their viewers on matters of war and terrorism and they don't feel the least bit obliged to answer for what they did or knew about any of it.... The single most significant factor in American political culture is the incestuous, extensive overlap between our media institutions and government officials.
The article reports that most of the news organizations either didn't know or didn't care about their paid analysts taking direction from the administration while claiming to neutrally assess its policies; or taking expensive trips paid by the administration; or meeting secretly with senior administration officials and plotting military or political strategy; or competing for military contracts.
So what does it take to disqualify a former general from on-air analysis?
Criticizing President Bush.
While the article does not cover this incident, CBS did fire Maj. Gen. John Batiste (Ret.) for criticizing President Bush's Iraq policy in a television ad. As the former commander of the Army's First Infantry Division, which was deployed to Iraq in 2003, Batiste had unassailable credentials, but his views were too much for CBS. This larger context is key, because while the Times exposed a sophisticated, deceptive domestic propaganda campaign for the administration, the flip-side is harder to document. But antiwar perspectives are routinely marginalized or scrubbed from televised debate, even when offered by our nation's brave military leaders.
As ABC News was reminded last week, the public expects more integrity and substance from these news organizations. They are egregiously late in even commenting on these new reports, let alone reforming their policies, which demonstrates why Congress must investigate this propaganda program -- and the marginalization of experts who are critical of the war or the government.
(Updates below after the video.)
Update 2: On Monday afternoon, Free Press launched a petition urging Congress to investigate:
The pundits trade on their access to the media and the White House to secure high-paying jobs as lobbyists, consultants and contractors -- vying for hundreds of billions of dollars in military business generated by the war. An administration secretly forcing favorable views via the press is not a partisan issue. This is a violation of every conceivable standard of journalism -- and possibly of federal law.
Update 1: Some commenters argue the Democratic Congress will not investigate, since so many members voted for the war and they'd rather not revisit this history. Mask writes: "the media will turn on them and point out all the conservative Dems who VOTED FOR the war and ask 'What's worse, folks?'"
But a majority of Democrats in the House voted against the war -- a fact that is often forgotten, since the Congress has failed to alter war policy or rein in many of the administration's abuses. There are many reasons to still be pessimistic about the Congressional leadership, of course, but plenty of House Democrats would benefit by probing this Pentagon propaganda. And commenter Darladoon points to the Democrats' progress in confronting "Bush on telecom immunity" as another example where aggressive leadership actually worked -- undercutting the pessimistic conventional wisdom.
that has to be the worst response i've ever read from mask.
great article, btw, and thanks for citing greenwald.
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 11:38am
How will the resident apologists respond? Let me speculate:
a.)"So? Bill Clinton...(whatever)"
b.)"It's a free market! They're just giving the people what they want!"
c.)"Good for them! It's the media's PATRIOTIC DUTY to back the president on whatever he wants!"
THEY MUST FIND IT DIFFICULT...THOSE WHO HAVE TAKEN AUTHORITY AS THE TRUTH, RATHER THAN TRUTH AS THE AUTHORITY!
Posted by MATTMAN at 04/21/2008 @ 11:39am
you see, this is why we need more citizens with critical studies' backgrounds, rather than business backgrounds.....the business people are like sheep out there.
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 11:39am
Posted by DARLADOON 04/21/2008 @ 11:38am
Great article; horrific implications aside, I'm afraid Mask is unfortunately correct. Whether or not it's because they would fear that the media would turn against those dems that authorized the war and why (we all know who that is at this point, specifically which presidential candidate that is), do you really expect the democratically controlled congress to suddently act...on this issue? I don't think this probably comes as much of a surprise to any of those dems anyway.
Posted by MATTMAN at 04/21/2008 @ 11:44am
mattman, studies have shown that whenever democrats stand up for democratic ideals and principles (or, gasp, even progressive ideals and principles), their poll numbers go up. whenever Dems stand up to the administration, and fight back, their numbers go up.
in short, the more Dems act like Dems, and stand up for We The People, the more favorable they become. poll after poll shows this.
the more the Dems sulk in the corner (see Harry Reid) the more unfavorable they become.
this tired, lazy, beltway, mask-ian logic is precisely what the Dems want to avoid. it's a tired narrative.......which nobody wants to hear any more.
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 12:02pm
Posted by DARLADOON 04/21/2008 @ 12:02pm
All the empiricla evidence thus far suggests that congress will not stand up for progressive, let alone democratic ideals. I would presume then that the probablity is more than slightly in favor of congress doing NOTHING. Be it healthy skepticism, cynicism, or "beltway maskian logic", what you or I want and what will actually happen are two very different things.
Posted by MATTMAN at 04/21/2008 @ 12:13pm
mattman, no forecaster is 100% correct. you cannot predict every future event with certainty.
one of the reasons why Dems are so weak is because they listen to people like mask. they hear that tired, old narrative, and they believe it. they succumb to the propaganda.
the Dems stood up to bush on telecom immunity, and it looks like they won.
that is an example to which i can point, which betrays mask-ian logic. and i am right on that.
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 12:22pm
that is an example to which i can point, which betrays mask-ian logic. and i am right on that.
Posted by DARLADOON 04/21/2008 @ 12:22pm
I hope you are righ Darla, but if you're not I'm holding Mask personally accountable!
Posted by MATTMAN at 04/21/2008 @ 12:33pm
mask, it wouldn't be logical to forecast what congress will or will not do.
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 1:08pm
NO NO NO NO!!
The media is LIBERAL!
The Admin would NEVER use propaganda to support a position that is correct to begin with, why bother? That would be a waste of money.
We HAVE TO LISTEN to the troops, even these guys, why would they put aside positions they know to be true just to make money and connections? That is not what military types do, they STAND UP for what is right, regardless of the personal cost.
The media is not reporting the TRUTH from Iraq. Therefore we need to have propaganda!
Only the left has propaganda, not the White House. The Bush admin is very forthright, they never lie.
Got it!!
Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2008 @ 2:15pm
Oh, and Gee Wally, there is no connection between the MIC and former military. Nope, another hippy lie.
there is no war profiteering going on, all hippy lies to help AQ keep the US in Iraq.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2008 @ 2:18pm
If anybody caught George Stephs show on Sunday, you will know that the liberal media does not take criticism. They are doing everything just fine, think you. They were perfectly correct to spend 50 minutes talking about lapel pins and what people did 40 years ago.
they did a perfect job in the lead up to war, being good liberals, they held the feet of the war mongers to the fire, dug deep.
aaaannnd, WALLAH!
they get to keep their licenses and buy up more market share, consolidating their power, like any good liberal.
Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2008 @ 2:27pm
Hey, why don't I call my rep, Wahlberg (drone, republican) and ask him to look into this?
I am sure, him being a representative of thee people, he will jump right o this and get to the Truth.
PONTI explained it to me a while back, congress ALWAYS does what the people want. Right masky fellow?
Posted by crabwalk at 04/21/2008 @ 2:30pm
mask, i've already cited telecom immunity as an instance in which grassroots activism affected public policy in washington.
you have cited a future event as evidence.....
and i would hardly call my response "vitriolic"
Posted by darladoon at 04/21/2008 @ 5:43pm
Let your opinions be known, unless you take action nothing will change! The NY Times told us what we already knew. We are controlled by big money, big media, big government........!!!! Its' great to comment here but you all need to do more. Login to the House of Representatives and the US Senate. Select the Armed Services committee and post your comments to them, specifically request a full investigation on this issue. Also, contact the networks. Personally I e-mailed Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and Colmes, and Brit Hulme requesting a show on why they let themselves be used by Donald Rumsfeld and his spoon fed analysts. If you do not let these people know how you feel you are to blame as well as them. Let them know we are sick of this sxxt...........!!
Posted by Snoop at 04/22/2008 @ 12:40pm
this thread further illustrates the moral bankruptcy of the left. Until they have priorities that resonate with the average American, the left will thankfully remain the little fringe group standing that they currently hold.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 1:15pm
You keep telling yourself that.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/22/2008 @ 3:35pm
You keep telling yourself that.
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/22/2008 @ 3:35pm
I will. I'm rather fond of facts. The evidence shows there is no massive political swing to the left. Even you leftists here complain that Obama is actually a marginally approved candidate compared to what you seek. And there is no major groundswell of leftist candidates for the Senate or the House (a few for the House but insignificant).
There are no serious leftist candidates for Governor in any state. And on, and on.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 3:46pm
The EVIDENCE shows that their IS a movement brewing but the neo-cons are trying to stop it any cost. That's the real EVUDENCE. The reason Obama came to be a serious democratic nominee in the first place was due to a process that started right after Bush's so called re-election in 2004. Peaple had ENOUGH and were going to take the Bush administration apart Brick by Brick. So whether it's a people's movement or "leftist" movement as you call it, it will continue no matter what happens this election. Some of these people that post on this site are easily manipulated and easily appeased. That's just a symptom of conformity. The movement will keep growing no matter how many of these low-level operatives have a personal ax to grind and try to blur the issues with their snark. Count on it.
Posted by jimijazz at 04/22/2008 @ 4:39pm
In other words we're headed into unventured territory for some of you and it's going to be interesting one way or another.
Posted by jimijazz at 04/22/2008 @ 5:02pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 3:46pm
To assume that electoral politics reflects the politics of the people of the United States...well, it's a rather bad assumption. I don't see any right, libertarian candidates for Governor for any state either, but you don't see me jumping to silly conclusions about it.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/22/2008 @ 7:20pm
I don't see any right, libertarian candidates for Governor for any state either, but you don't see me jumping to silly conclusions about it.
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/22/2008 @ 7:20pm
But I'm not claiming any massive righwing movement, so your point is irrelevant.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 7:28pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 7:28pm
Actually, it is quite relevant. Your original comment was:
"Until they have priorities that resonate with the average American, the left will thankfully remain the little fringe group standing that they currently hold."
You then went on to claim that your evidence for this perspective is that the "left" isn't making significant inroads into electoral politics. When I point out that electoral politics isn't a good reflection of the politics of the U.S. population and that this same criteria can even more aptly be applied to the right, then you want to pretend it doesn't matter. Rather...interesting.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/22/2008 @ 8:23pm
You then went on to claim that your evidence for this perspective is that the "left" isn't making significant inroads into electoral politics. When I point out that electoral politics isn't a good reflection of the politics of the U.S. population and that this same criteria can even more aptly be applied to the right, then you want to pretend it doesn't matter. Rather...interesting.
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/22/2008 @ 8:23pm
Ok, let's look at it your way.
We (conservatives) hold the presidency, nearly half of the House of Representatives, and about a third of the Senate (conservative Republicans and Dems). We hold the State Legislatures in more than 1/3 of the States. We hold the majority in the Supreme Court.
In a year when all issues point towards what should be a major victory for a Dem presidential candidate, McCain is not only in a statistical tie, in an electoral college count, he leads in more states than Clinton or Obama (and by a greater margin over Obama).
So, we conservatives may not be in a upswing, but we are more than holding our own in terms of political power as given to us by the voters.
But I will repeat from your perspective, where is the evidence of a massive groundswell of the populace for a progressive/leftist agenda? The anti-war protests have died, compared with Vietnam where by now they were quite large and regular. Where are the massive demonstrations for Universal Healthcare, or Abortion rights? Where are the people rising up to demand higher taxes?
It doesn't exist, except on these types of websites, in college gatherings (and mostly of activist groups and/or leftist academics), and small gatherings. Nothing of note.
On the right, we have never needed the public demonstrations because we do accomplish our goals at the ballot box.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/22/2008 @ 9:48pm
Posted by MASK 04/23/2008 @ 12:24pm
That was not the context of my dialogue with SRJ. The context was about whether there is a serious progressive movement that is making inroads in the US.
I state that they are not.
On conservatives, I am not claiming that we are on an upswing in popularity. However we do still hold a dominant position when considering the presidency, SCOTUS, and the Senate(the Senate because we still can block leftwing legislation), and a majority of state legislatures.
On another level, you are correct. We do not have a pure conservative movement in leadership and probably never will. But I would rather get 2/3 of the pie than none at all.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 04/23/2008 @ 2:03pm
Posted by LVLIBERTY1 04/22/2008 @ 9:48pm
...where is the evidence of a massive groundswell of the populace for a progressive/leftist agenda?
Democratic turnout that is at record levels and is twice Republican turnout, doesn't strike you as a potential electoral problem for conservatives?
Interesting little piece from Pew:
"A year before the 2008 presidential election, most major national opinion trends decidedly favor the Democrats. Discontent with the state of the nation is markedly greater than it was four years ago. President Bush's approval rating has fallen from 50% to 30% over this period. And the Democrats' advantage over the Republicans on party affiliation is not only substantially greater than it was four years ago, but is the highest recorded during the past two decades...The voters' issues agenda also appears to benefit the Democrats. Along with Iraq, the economy, health care and education rate as the most important issues for voters."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=366
Now, I don't consider the average Democrat a "leftist" any more than I consider the average Republican "right wing", but if you are going to argue that conservatives, broadly defined, reflect the values of the U.S. citizenry more than liberals, you're wrong. It simply ain't so.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/23/2008 @ 2:20pm
3) Belief in smaller Gov't & more Personal Liberty
4) Belief in the Pledge of Allegiance in school/anywhere
Posted by HAPPY2 04/23/2008 @ 8:07pm
aren't these contradictory?
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/23/2008 @ 10:20pm
The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Christian Socialist named Francis Bellamy in 1892. I'm sure this info will result in a massive national petition to remove this perfidious piece of treachery. How could this happen?
Posted by Sorelish at 04/24/2008 @ 01:02am
People are missing the key to the story. Follow the money. This should be a story about corruption being directly linked with propaganda. Not the other way around.
The generals aren't doing this solely so they can get their mugs on TV, nor so they can get junkets or even get to play general again with all the perks and fawning from military underlings.
The generals are rainmakers in corporate America. If they refuse to play the game, they not only are cut off TV, they are cut out of the gravy train of remunerative corporate boards, stock options, highly paid consulting fees, etc. Worse, look at David Barstow's story and you'll see that the generals aren't merely getting paid for advising on weapons systems, these same corporations are now bidding (or no bidding as it appears) on contracts for the entire $3.1 TRILLION annual federal largess.
Under the Bush/Cheney model of selling the government to the GOP as a wholly owned subsidiary (Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job), these generals' kind words in support of the wars are getting the generals' corporate patrons to the head of the line for food, phone, fuel, etc. Three letter agencies not associated with DoD are now getting their directions to look kindly on the generals' friends. FEMA, HUD, GSA all have deals going.
I dare an editor or reporter to tell me I'm wrong on this. Take the top 20 generals on that list, check their board relationships, and tell me there isn't an incentive to keep their mouths shut and their kudos for the war continuing.
Posted by INSECURITY at 04/24/2008 @ 01:17am
Posted by HAPPY2 04/23/2008 @ 8:07pm
Conservatism, as best I can tell, has three major strains that overlap: cultural, religious and fiscal. Your list has elements from all three and some that are in conflict with one another.
For instance, the pledge of allegiance is in some ways contradictory to freedom of speech. Smaller government is at odds with creating more school choice since choice has costs, many of which are not profitable and can only be made viable with government support. I also find it interesting that you didn't have much focus on the fiscal in this list.
There is also some interesting problems in something like belief in God. Does this include God when s/he is called Vishnu, Allah or Amaterasu?
Or how about my personal liberty not to pay taxes for war? Or following my sense of personal responsibility by feeding the homeless in my or your neighborhood through an organization like Food Not Bombs? Particularly if that means more homeless living around your rental properties?
The devil, as always, is in the details.
Posted by srjenkins at 04/24/2008 @ 09:41am
Does this include God when s/he is called Vishnu, Allah or Amaterasu?
•••••••••••••
seems like many people now call god "credit".
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 1:16pm
<b>testing</b>
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 8:49pm
Too bad we can't Ken Starr Rumsfeld, who made sure to exit "to spend time with his (hairy-knuckled, two-backed) family" in their bunker under a bridge in Transylvania.
Posted by winyahn at 04/24/2008 @ 9:48pm
Dear Nation, please change the site format back to the way it was before... this sucks.
Posted by jorcheim at 04/25/2008 @ 10:36am
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=jorcheim
fat chance.
Posted by emile duBois at 04/25/2008 @ 2:10pm
I like the post that said this story is about corruption and the war. This war is defined by corruption. The violence has decreased in Iraq because the US is paying the Sunni militants to stop attacking us. The ex-generals on tv as experts are getting theirs from the haliburtons and Caccis and other Corporations that are profiteering from the war.
Posted by koroviev at 04/26/2008 @ 04:36am
There is an absolute, that is to say irreconcilable metaphysical, split on the inner side of the NATION (country and mag) between:
`1. those who have led or gone along with this farce since 2000 and can't turn back because of guilt for it all the unnecessary destruction, death, pain, abomination.
These include: (firstly) all Republicans, conservatives, neocons; WHIGs, OSPs, AEIs, AIPACs, Pentagon-military TV socks; N. Korea-Syria nuke strikers; Hillary Clinton "obliterate Iran" ejaculators; Jimmy Carter lynchers; Wright crucifiers; "Cripple" McCain adulators; and all their reptilian associates. ...
.... versus 2. those who are still capable of relating to reality to some extent and will never be reconciles to the anti-American, anti-Christian, inhuman force the others, under Bush, have brought. (Note: this is not "blame America" -- the reptiles have taken over the names)
btw, by way of explantion of the psychosis: Individual paranoids are known to fantasize a magical shield that makes them invulnerable when attacking the omnithreatening "enemy" (who also has magical weapons)
That is what this entire "missile shield" crap is -- a bible scale group fantasy evoked by the crazy idea that Iran poses an "existential threat" to Israel, and "somebody has got to do something about" immediately.
Posted by jones at 04/27/2008 @ 02:13am
Damn Jones, that's some seriously fine writing. Nice work.
Posted by winyahn at 04/27/2008 @ 3:00pm
this is a blog HTML code acceptance test <a target=_blank style=color:red href=http://screwthechoir.com/web_small/wingnut_coffee.png><b>WingNut</b ></a>
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:22pm
well, that produced a lot of nothing: test2 <a href=http://screwthechoir.com/web_small/wingnut_coffee.png>WingNut</a>
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:24pm
huh ...wonder how some folks are alb e to post active URLs and others can't .. egads this new blog engine bites.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:25pm
huh ...wonder how some folks are alb e to post active URLs and others can't .. egads this new blog engine bites.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:26pm
huh ...wonder how some folks are alb e to post active URLs and others can't .. egads this new blog engine bites. (sometimes when I hit "submit", I get directed to my "ignore" list...
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:26pm
sorry about the multiples - I kept getting directed to my ignore list and didn't know it actually posted the comments
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008 @ 4:37pm
Hey, winyahn! 16 graciases
Posted by jones at 04/27/2008 @ 4:49pm
huh ...wonder how some folks are alb e to post active URLs and others can't .. egads this new blog engine bites.
Posted by leftofcenter at 04/27/2008
i think those posted links are from the pre-"makeover" period.
Sunday, April 27, 2008 9:50:25 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2008 @ 9:46pm
when redirected,
just backpage and refresh.
Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2008 @ 9:47pm