Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

  1. Apr 29, 2008 #1
    We all knew that Bush had fake news correspondents attend his press meetings. Here is a new twist. The Bush administration provided military analysts to the general media.

    Their excuse: It was a better way to inform the public.

    There was a New York Times Article on this last week, the main stream news media choose to ignore it, PBS did not. Available in audio. text and streaming video.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june08/tvgenerals_04-24.html
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 29, 2008 #2
  4. Apr 29, 2008 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    So.....the military used military analysts hired by the media to push pro-military positions and the media is upset that their military analysts are pro-military and have been talking to the military? I'm forced to ask: is the editorial staf of the NYT composed entirely of infants? To anyone older than about age 4 this should be self-evident. By publishing a story about it, they are exposing their ongoing naivete.
     
  5. Apr 29, 2008 #4

    mjsd

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Since the adminstration needed to sway public opinion into supporting the war 5 years ago, they had to flood the news media with "experts"... who happened to "agree" with the stance of the administration almost 99% of the time. surprise, surprise.... now, that's state propaganda/deception to a whole new level... no threats (possibly), no prosecutions for saying anything against the party line, no violence against journalists... BUT it serves the same purpose: brainwash the masses with wrong facts and biased opinion..... god helps us! :smile:
     
  6. Apr 29, 2008 #5
    This makes no sense to me. Why wouldn't the administration put out military experts to give the media information. The administration could just as well not have done it then everyone would be screaming they aren't informing the public enough. b*tch if they do, b*tch if they don't.
     
  7. Apr 29, 2008 #6
    If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I tell your best friend to convince you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.

    If I then go "See see! Even your friend agrees!" I am being very dishonest.

    I'm also hearing a slurping sound come out of Bush's crotch for some reason. I wonder why that is?
     
  8. Apr 29, 2008 #7

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You don't see a conflict of interests when "analysts" that are in the pay of defense contractors appear on TV and make a case for more military spending?
     
  9. Apr 29, 2008 #8
    I'm still not going to give you $50. My best friend must be chump. LOL
     
  10. Apr 29, 2008 #9
    Yeah, at that point I decide to take it from you anyway. :smile:

    5 years later, I am still claiming to be almost ready to repay you the money. In fact, it's your fault I have it in the first place.
     
  11. Apr 29, 2008 #10

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.
     
  12. Apr 29, 2008 #11
    One of the more disgusting aspects of this whole thing is that the television media now refuses to own up to the fact that they bought the Bush administration product, and passed it off as news for the past five years.

    The media used to go out and find news to report on. Now they sit on their a$$es and buy a totally biased source.
     
  13. Apr 30, 2008 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?

    ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR and no doubt, their association with NASCAR hasn't actually ended (though that really isn't relevant - they are going to be pro-NASCAR biased either way). Are these unbiased commentators? Should we be so naive that we need to get upset when they say NASCAR is better than Indy?

    Serioiusly, I'm floored here: how can a news outlet be so naive about the concept of bias? This is a central issue to their entire operation! Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists - some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve (well, some wear it on their collar) - say about the rest of their reporting? Is the NYT completely incapable of evaluating the sources of the information they publish? That's what "journalism" is! That certainly would explain a lot about the [lack of] quality of what's been coming out of there lately. They've basically come out and said that they are incapable of 'doing' journalism!
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2008
  14. Apr 30, 2008 #13

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Apparently the NYT still does.
     
  15. Apr 30, 2008 #14

    Gokul43201

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    From the NYT article:

    I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.
     
  16. Apr 30, 2008 #15
    The issue is not that military analysts are "pro-military." That's past obvious and into tautology. The issue is that they were all in favor of certain specific military policies, giving the impression that said policies enjoyed unanimous support within the military community, when in fact this was far from the truth. The questions they were asked to respond to were not "is the military a good thing?" but rather "is sending the military into Iraq a good idea, and do we have a good plan for it?" Your own conflation of support for the military with support for the Iraq mission is an example of the sort of misrepresentation the administration was aiming for.
     
  17. Apr 30, 2008 #16
    backyard politics

    I have no reason to disbelieve that the SadMan Insane bluffed. And got caught.
    He had to maintain power by fear. He had neighbors that he just picked a fight with and others from other fights. He had to look strong. He fluffed up his feathers and strongarmed any grumblers. He had no major WMD's but he better not let the others know it. He was no threat to the U.S. He was nothing more than a fluffed up dictator.
    Then he got called on his bluff ( opportunity knocks ) and fell in a month.

    The rest is news spin.
     
  18. Apr 30, 2008 #17
    In a nut-shell.
     
  19. Apr 30, 2008 #18

    mgb_phys

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Isn't that the obvious solution ?
    Simply plaster their clothes with the name of their sponsors in the same way as NASCAR drivers - they could have Haliburton baseball caps and Boeing/Lockhead/MCdonald Douglas patches on their jackets.
     
  20. Apr 30, 2008 #19

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Well, if these gents had disclosed the fact that the Bush admin had asked them to help disseminate information related to the Iraq invasion, or if they only gave their personal opinions, that would be one thing, but this is just another example of the Bush admin governing by deception.

    What is really sad is that Bush supporters apparently WANT to be lied to. This is seen as being acceptable - deception.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2008
  21. Apr 30, 2008 #20
    The point is that it was the media that was spun by the Bush administration.

    And it was done using people that were recruited explicitly to deceive.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Bush stacked news media with military anlysists
  1. Bush Bush Bush (Replies: 6)

  2. Space and the Military (Replies: 23)

Loading...