Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

  • News
  • Thread starter edward
  • Start date
  • #1
67
166
Government Curries Favor With Military News Analysts

The Pentagon may influence the analysis of some retired military personnel who appear on television news programs, the New York Times recently reported. Media insiders discuss the details of this murky world of defense companies, the current administration and the war in Iraq.
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 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #3
russ_watters
Mentor
20,126
6,644
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.
 
  • #4
mjsd
Homework Helper
726
3
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:
 
  • #5
drankin
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.
 
  • #6
692
0
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?
 
  • #7
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
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?
 
  • #8
drankin
If I tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, you'll laugh at me. If I convince your best friend to tell you it's in your best interest to give me $50, it carries a lot more weight.
I'm still not going to give you $50. My best friend must be chump. LOL
 
  • #9
692
0
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.
 
  • #10
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
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.
Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.
 
  • #11
67
166
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.
 
  • #12
russ_watters
Mentor
20,126
6,644
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?
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:
  • #13
russ_watters
Mentor
20,126
6,644
Not likely. I doubt anyone anymore confuses anything that comes from the Bush White House with information.
Apparently the NYT still does.
 
  • #14
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Of course I do - what does that have to do with anything?
From the NYT article:

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror.
I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.
 
  • #15
quadraphonics
Going further: what does their inability to comprehend the pro military bias of military military analyists -
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.
 
  • #16
Alfi
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.
 
  • #17
drankin
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.
In a nut-shell.
 
  • #18
mgb_phys
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,774
13
ESPN hires former NASCAR drivers to be commentators on NASCAR
.....
some of whom quite literally wear their bias on their sleeve
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.
 
  • #19
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,260
301
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:
  • #20
67
166
The rest is news spin.
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.
 
  • #21
drankin
Ok, what are these intentional deceptions? Are we back to that debate?
 
  • #22
russ_watters
Mentor
20,126
6,644
From the NYT article:

I think that's one of the key issues in the article. Full disclosure is a good thing.
Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections? By the way, the PBS discussion in the link in the OP seems to agree with me (I only skimmed it):
So I wasn't surprised at all, except by the amount of space devoted to this piece by the New York Times.

And if I were giving advice to anybody, it would be, if you have an admiral on who is or a general who is currently a consultant to the Pentagon, that should be disclosed right at the top of the interview.

But we don't -- as networks, we didn't have these people on because they were neutral; we had them on because they knew what they were talking about. They had spent their lives in military affairs.
Duh.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Certainly - and who'se job is it to identify and report the connections?
I think it's the job of the media outlet to specify the connection. And I think it's unethical of the analysts to not inform their media employer of their conflicting connections. I also think it's unethical (of both the outlet and the analyst) to continue to disburse "information" with the knowledge that disclosure of the conflicting connections is not being made to the public.
 
  • #24
67
166
Ok, what are these intentional deceptions?
Surely you jest? Those intentional deceptions were used as the reason to invade another country. But it doesn't stop there, the recruited analysts are still at work.

They will now start spinning why they spun.:rolleyes:

Are we back to that debate?
No, but we just now learned exactly how the press was manipulated into spinning things in the Bushco direction.
 
  • #25
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,051
18
Politics is a PR game, and on this count, I hold the media and the analysts responsible for the deception. The White House will do what it has to do to sell its story, and telling tall tales is the norm with this WH - it is the job of the press to not respond with "how high?"
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Bush stacked news media with military anlysists

  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
50
Views
5K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
38K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
Top