Major Revelation: US Media Deceitfully Disseminates Government Propaganda
[Sunday] morning’s “blockbuster” New York Times article by David Barstow, documenting the Pentagon and U.S. media’s joint use of pre-programmed “military analysts” who posed as objective experts while touting the Government line and having extensive business interests in promoting those views, is very well-documented and well-reported. And credit to the NYT for having sued to compel disclosure of the documents on which the article is based. There are significant elements of the story that exemplify excellent investigative journalism.
At the same time, though, in light of questions on this very topic raised even by the NYT back in 2003, it is difficult to take the article’s underlying points seriously as though they are some kind of new revelation. And ultimately, to the extent there are new revelations here, they are a far greater indictment of our leading news organizations than the government officials on whom it focuses.
In 2002 and 2003, when Americans were relentlessly subjected to their commentary, news organizations were hardly unaware that these retired generals were mindlessly reciting the administration line on the war and related matters. To the contrary, that’s precisely why our news organizations — which themselves were devoted to selling the war both before and after the invasion by relentlessly featuring pro-war sources and all but excluding anti-war ones — turned to them in the first place. To its credit, the article acknowledges that “at least nine” of the Pentagon’s trained military analysts wrote Op-Eds for the NYT itself, but many of those same sources were also repeatedly quoted — and still are routinely quoted — in all sorts of NYT news articles on Iraq and other “War on Terrorism” issues, something the article fails to note.
What the article also does not disclose, but should have, is that the NYT itself already published, back on March 25, 2003, right after the invasion of Iraq, an article by John Cushman raising the thorny questions posed by the media’s extensive reliance on retired generals as “military analysts”:
Old soldiers, it turns out, don’t just fade away not when a war is being carried live on CNN, MSNBC, Fox News and the broadcast networks. Instead, a whole constellation of retired one-, two-, three- and four-star generals — including many who led the recent wars in Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Persian Gulf — can be seen night and day across the television firmament, navigation aids for viewers lost in a narrative that can be foggier than war itself. . . .
But the generals’ performances raise some questions, including how much they really know and whether they are disclosing more than they should. Some receive occasional briefings from the Pentagon, but like most reporters, they stay current by checking with their friends in the military and studying all the public information they can gather.
On the other hand, their evident sympathies with the current commanders, not to mention their respect for the military and immersion in its doctrines,sometimes seem to immunize them to the self-imposed skepticism of the news organizations that now employ them.
Rarely, unless pressed, do the generals bluntly criticize the conduct of the war, a detailed review of their recent remarks discloses. Instead, they tend gravely to point out the timeless risks of combat.
That 2003 article, at the very beginning, highlighted the obvious conflicts raised by this morning’s article, as it quoted Gen. Greg Newbold on ABC News as praising the invasion as follows: “If things haven’t gone exactly according to script, they’ve gone according to plan,” even though Newbold himself “until late last year [] was helping to draw up those plans as the director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
In fact, that 2003 article noted that while Wesley Clark had said on CNN that he wished there were more troops used for the invasion, retired Generals were reliably praising the war and the administration’s strategies. That article even quoted one of the retired Generals cited in this morning’s article as one of those on the Pentagon’s list of puppets — Wayne Downing — to illustrate the type of pro-government commentary typically spouted by these “military analysts”:
More typical was a description by Gen. Wayne A. Downing, a former Army leader of the Special Operations Command and a gulf war commander in 1991, of Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the Iraq war’s overall regional commander. “Tommy started off as an enlisted helicopter door gunner in Vietnam,” General Downing said, rattling off the story of his old comrade’s career as if by rote. “He’s not going to go down there and mess with his people. Not only is Tommy comfortable and well liked by his superiors, which a lot of people are, but Tommy hasn’t made his money by looking up. He’s made his money by looking down.”
That 2003 article didn’t seem to give any of these news outlets — including the NYT itself — the slightest pause about continuing to use these sources as “objective” analysts. It’s true that the 2003 article did not raise the added conflict that many military analysts were simultaneously working for corporations in the defense industry which stood to profit from the war policies they were praising, but is that really news to anyone? It’s long been clear and obvious that these retired generals were used by the U.S. media to provide an authoritative and artificially objective stamp of approval to the Bush administration’s positions. In his book Lapdogs, Eric Boehlert cited numerous examples of that, including:
And for viewers that night who didn’t get a strong enough sense of just how obediently in-step the press corps was with the White House, there was the televised post-press conference analysis. On MSNBC, for instance, “Hardball’s” Chris Matthews hosted a full hour of discussion. In order to get a wide array of opinion, he invited a pro-war Republican senator (Saxby Chambliss, from Georgia), a pro-war former Secretary of State (Lawrence Eagleburger), a pro-war retired Army general (Montgomery Meigs), pro-war retired Air Force general (Buster Glosson), a pro-war Republican pollster (Frank Luntz), as well as, for the sake of balance, somebody who, twenty-five years earlier, once worked in Jimmy Carter’s White House (Pat Caddell).
Meigs was one of the retired Generals on whom the NYT article this morning focused (and as a frequent and highly respected guest on MSNBC, here’s the type of propagandizing commentary he routinely spewed, consistent with what the Sainted David Petraeus was doing at the same time). Doing whatever they could to promote the Government line on the “War on Terrorism” was a central function of our propagandizing press corps; the use of allegedly objective retired generals was a critical instrument in their arsenal; and the NYT article this morning, while commendably disclosing new evidence to prove that, does not reveal anything not previously known.
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. (And it doesn’t appear that Barstow even asked the NYT itself to comment about what they knew or what their procedures were when using these sources). CNN did answer by claiming they were unaware of these relationships and rely on their sources to disclose them.
The single most significant factor in American political culture is the incestuous, extensive overlap between our media institutions and government officials. The former is a dependent appendage of the latter far more than they are anything else. This article discloses some new details and proof of how that toxic process functions, but the fact that our major news organizations — with some exceptions — largely serve as government propaganda outlets is not news. It’s the central fact of American political life, and the NYT itself — along with every other news organization — more than five years ago was obviously aware of this specific problem but not particularly concerned about it.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy“, examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
First off, through clenched teeth, I’d like to thank Bush Administration officials for their consummate efforts to reach a new zenith in the whoring of America by having the Pentagon use former military officers as talking-head mouthpieces for government ‘talking points.’ “Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.” Most of these analysts were also defense industry consultants who made a lot of money by going along to get along. The orchestrated propaganda began before the Iraq War and has continued non-stop. The old Soviet Union’s Pravda would be proud and amazed by this easy manipulation of the masses. A few ex-generals with flag lapel pins and patriotic spiel, all well choreographed for maximum impact, left anti-war opponents looking like unknowledgeable defeatists, shouting in distant cordoned ‘free speech’ internments. The corporate media has acknowledged that they paid little attention to the obvious conflicts of interests involved with the ex-military officers and their defense consultant jobs. Actually Fox news has made no comment on this, and surprise, surprise, the largest contingent of Pentagon mouthpieces was affiliated with Fox news. For the military-industrial complex it’s just business, but in an ironic twist to market-oriented capitalism, truth is that rare commodity that has very little value in America.
Major Revelation: Sun rises in the East
Ever hear of the Creel Commission from WWI? One can only imagine how fine tuned it must be by now. This is Public Relations 101, not a major revelation.
Public Opinion by Walter Lippmann, 1921, Excerpts
Mr. Creel assembled machinery which included a Division of News that issued more than 6000 releases, had to enlist 75,000 Four Minute Men who delivered at least 750,000 speeches to an aggregate of over 300,000,000 people. Boy scouts delivered annotated copies of President Wilson’s addresses to the householders of America. Periodicals were sent to 600,000 teachers. 200,000 lantern slides were furnished for illustrated lectures. 1,500 different designs were turned out for posters, window cards, newspaper advertisements, cartoons, seals, and buttons. The chambers of commerce, the churches, fraternal societies, schools, were used as channels of distribution. This was the largest and the most intensive effort to carry quickly a fairly uniform set of ideas to all the people of a nation.
http://theformofmoney.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/25/3477029.html
Anybody with common sense (rare these days) that has been paying attention for the past decade would not consider this a major revelation, just a validation of the obvious.
But this revelation means nothing if it only reaches those of us who know all of this allready - we need candidates for major offices saying this on a regular basis so that joe q. public can learn these facts and can start to rethink THEIR positions.
from the article—”…self-imposed skepticism of the news organizations…”
really? where? how about “…uncritical, even enthusiastic parrotting of MIC propaganda…” instead?
maybe those of us who watch only footbal or american idol on TV are on to something. those who rely on TV for useful information are hobbled out of the gate.
William Schaap, a media scholar and expert witness as well as an attorney, while testifying in the Martin Luther King conspiracy trial in 1999 which found that a government-led conspiracy was behind the murder of Dr. King, stated under oath that the government, and specific intelligence agencies, spend hundreds of millions a year on manufacturing and disseminating “news” for the specific purpose of influencing public opinion. He gave very specific examples of this.
After nearly 40 years of hearing James Earl Ray shot King, most Americans now-a-days if asked would repeat this as fact. Even though the conspiracy trial settled the question of Ray’s guilt, and established the murder as the result of a military operation, very few people know this, or are even aware of the 1999 trial. The disinformation machine, with oftentimes willing complicity of the mainstream media conglomerates, has made this manipulation possible.
Such is the case with the myth of culpability for the September 11 attacks.
“There is no such thing in America as an independent press, unless it is in the country towns.
You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to writes (sic) his honest opinions, and if you did you know beforehand that it would never appear in print.
I am paid one hundred and fifty dollars a week for keeping my honest opinions out of the paper I am connected with–others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things–and any of you who would be so foolish as to write his honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job.
The business of the New York journalist is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his race and his country for his daily bread.
You know this and I know it, and what folly is this to be toasting an “Independent Press.”
We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping-jacks; they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.”
John Swinton, editor of the New York Tribune, in the 1880s, at a banquet of his fellow editors
This is a Major Revelation??? Anyone with half a brain in the past 15-20 years knows that the corporate media peddles the fascist line because it’s in their best interest to do so. Remember, what’s most important in this world is to maintain the moneyed class’s life of priviledge, keep the profits rolling in, and to keep the working class in line. In fact, the entire purpose of the government is to keep the working class under control and to exert the power of the moneyed class.
A major revelation? Hardeeharhar!
Okay, the conservatives are right about there being a news bias, but wrong about its direction.
Want change?? Stop watching these programs and stop buying the sponsors products.
“Military honor” seems to have been lost to most of the “top brass”. The revolving door between the Pentagon and the boards of corporations that manufacture war goods is an entrenched system. Despite Eisenhower’s warnings, the military-industrial complex just gets stronger.
Now that the corporate world owns media, Eisenhower might warn against the “military-industrial-media complex”.
The media spreading propaganda? This is news!!!!NOT.
What the Earth is not flat Glen Greenwald?
This is news? Not to anyone here.
heav y runner - got some links for your graphs?
And:
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act (S.1959) is currently in committee after passing the House last year with no media scrutiny and no real debate by a 404-6 margin. Co-sponsored by GOP Senators Coleman(MN) and Collins(Me)
Let’s see if the press carries any ‘news’ about the Seenate version after failing to disclose the Dem sponsored house version.
Why not hire retired European officers as talking heads? Wouldn’t that be more objective?
Alex:
Perhaps, but then, they don’t want “objective”.
Objective = Bad-for-Business
“Lippmann, who was the first to translate Sigmund Freud’s works into English, was to become one of the most influential of political commentators. [4] He had spent World War I at the British psychological warfare and propaganda headquarters in Wellington House, outside of London, in a group that included Freud’s nephew, Eduard Bernays. [5] Lippmann’s book Public Opinion, published one year after Freud’s Mass Psychology, which touched on similar themes, was a product of his tutelage by the Rees networks. It is through the media, Lippmann writes, that most people come to develop those “pictures in their heads,” giving the media “an awesome power.”
The Rees networks had spent World War I studying the effects of war psychosis, and its breakdown of individual personality. From their work, an evil thesis emerged: Through the use of terror, man can be reduced to a childlike and submissive state, in which his powers of reason are clouded, and in which his emotional response to various situations and stimuli can become predictable, or in Tavistockian terms, “profilable.” By controlling the levels of anxiety, it is possible to induce a similar state in large groups of people, whose behavior can then be controlled and manipulated by the oligarchical forces for whom Tavistock worked. [6]
Mass media were capable of reaching large numbers of people with programmed or controlled messages, which is key to the creation of “controlled environments” for brainwashing purposes. As Tavistock’s researches showed, it was important that the victims of mass brainwashing not be aware that their environment was being controlled; there should thus be a vast number of sources for information, whose messages could be varied slightly, so as to mask the sense of external control. Where possible, the messages should be offered and reinforced through “entertainments,” which could be consumed, without apparent coercion, and with the victim perceiving himself as making a choice between various options and outlets.”
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=25169
How timely..
As an Internet Organizer for Progressive Future, I’ve been trying to spread the otherwise buried reports of the atrocities and abuses committed by military contractors in Iraq. As outraged as they made me, I had to wonder why these stories failed to reach the mainstream American public. Now I know why.
Ironically, while the administration uses the claim of defending American security abroad as justification for the war, they have stripped the American people of our personal security. They are attacking our freedoms at home first by tapping our phones, and now by interfering with the free press that is foundational to a free society. Join Progressive Future’s campaign to repair these breaches to our freedom of information by signing our Petition for an Open Press, targeting the news networks and calling for the removal of any “military analyst” whose conflicts of interest prevent him or her from unbiased reporting: http://progressivefuture.org/contractor-accountability/propaganda-war2?id4=BLCD
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005_docs/PC2.pdf
The Historical Roots of “Political Correctness”