Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
The New York Times reported Sunday that over 75 retired US military officers who have been frequent media commentators are being used to disseminate administration talking points on the war in Iraq and the “war on terror” in an effort to manipulate US public opinion.
(As Representative Peter De Fazio notes in a letter to his colleagues — which your Representative should be urged to sign — the use of defense dollars for unauthorized domestic propaganda appears to have violated an explicit Congressional prohibition.)
Many of these “analysts” have serious conflicts of interest, since they work on behalf of defense companies seeking contracts from the Pentagon running into the billions of dollars. Yet, US television networks have portrayed them as independent commentators and failed even to reveal these conflicts of interest.
While the Times report focused on TV stations, newspapers including the New York Times have also cited or published op-eds from these retired officers. Just Foreign Policy is asking the New York Times, as a follow-up to their excellent report, to do a public review of their past use of these retired officers and to fully disclose conflicts of interest when citing or publishing retired officers as military analysts in the future.
The Times article reveals that many of these commentators did not share their private doubts over the war due to a well-founded fear that a failure to echo the Pentagon’s line would cut off their access to top leaders. The analysts were closely monitored by the Pentagon, and one analyst who criticized the Pentagon in an appearance was then denied access.
News media have a responsibility to warn their audience when a commentator has an economic interest in the issue they discuss — especially when that conflict of interest leads them to repeat government propaganda supporting war.
The New York Times sets a standard for much of the media. Join us in asking them to take the next step, following this well-done investigation, and implement a policy identifying economic links to the Pentagon of any retired officer cited or published in their newspaper as an analyst on policy issues.
– by Robert Naiman
Popularity: 1% [?]
Does it surprise anyone that the NYT, while publishing a piece exposing the fact that retired miliatry officers are illegally spreading Pentagon propaganda at tax payer expense, also publishes some of that very same propaganda on its own pages ? The NYT always likes to be safe and play both sides of the fence. That way, liberals might feel justified in calling it a liberal newspaper while it also serves the conservative cause. But we must remember that the fundamental issue here is that the NYT in helping the Pentagon as a courtesy from one corportation to another: a media corporation to the top honcho of the militry industrial complex. They are joined at the throat.
Rupert Murdoch….furthering his New World Order agenda.

Written by veteran media critic and Emmy winner Rory O'Connor, Shock Jocks features unsparing profiles of the ten worst conservative radio talkers in America, including Michael Savage, Bill O' Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Don Imus and the rest.

FREE TRIAL SUBSCRIPTION
This quarterly journal highlights trends in the coverage of current issues and includes research about the effects of media coverage on business, politics, society and the economy. International Issue: Yearly subscription only 90$ including VAT!