Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Journalists' Recent Work Examined Before Embeds
As more journalists seek permission to accompany U.S. forces engaged in escalating military operations in Afghanistan, many of them could be screened by a controversial Washington-based public relations firm contracted by the Pentagon to determine whether their past coverage has portrayed the U.S. military in a positive light.
Seth Moulton, a journalist with the Dan Rather Reports television show embedded with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, photographs an Afghan boy in the Nawa District bazaar in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 19. (Photo: U.S. Marine Corps photos by Staff Sgt. William Greeson) U.S. public affairs officials in Afghanistan acknowledged to Stars and Stripes that any reporter seeking to embed with U.S. forces is subject to a background profile by The Rendon Group, which gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq's supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.
Rendon examines individual reporters' recent work and determines whether the coverage was "positive," "negative" or "neutral" compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company.
"We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography," said Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a public affairs officer with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in Kabul. "It's so we know with whom we're working."
U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter "refused to highlight" good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.
Professional groups representing journalists are decrying the Pentagon's screening of reporters.
"That's the government doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that's not the way journalism is meant to work in this country," said Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism.
"The whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming," said Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association.
"It speaks to this whole issue of trying to shape the message and that's not something the military should be involved with," he said.
Mathias said the Rendon reports are generated only after a reporter has been assigned to cover a unit and are done on an ad hoc basis, typically for lesser-known journalists and those new to covering the war in Afghanistan.
The reports are useful for familiarizing commanders with topics the journalists could address and for facilitating coverage specific to a journalist's interests, she said.
Mathias also contended that the Pentagon has begun shifting away from the positive-negative-neutral scale and is now evaluating news coverage more for its accuracy.
"If it's accurate, that's a successful news story, whether good or bad," she said.
The recent merger of U.S. and NATO public affairs outfits in Kabul has resulted in a one-stop shop for media information and embed requests. It also gives more public affairs officers access to the background reports and other services provided by The Rendon Group.
The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million "news analysis and media assessment" contract, according to military and company officials.
The work includes statistical analysis of reporting trends inside and outside of the country and coverage of specific topics such as counternarcotics operations. It also analyzes how effectively the military is communicating its message.
"This allows them to measure the strategic effect of U.S. and allied activities as reflected in the local and international media," according to an e-mailed statement from Rendon.
As of Friday, there were 60 media outlets - excluding Afghan media - on the ground with U.S. and NATO forces, a significant increase compared to just a few months ago, said Mathias.

21 Comments so far
Show AllMaybe it's not exactly like the old Soviet propaganda machine, but it's getting close ...
Will the USA have a fate similar to the Soviet Union?
Everybodys empire must fall.
I think it's much better--very proactive, and very sneaky, much more professional--many don't even know it's bullshit.
I think it's much better--very proactive, and very sneaky, much more professional--many don't even know it's bullshit.
More like the Ministry of Truth. MSM is still inventing the 'news'
What really stands out about the piece was that it originated in Stars & Stripes. Also scary is Third world style censorship carried out by hired PR flacks, thus combining two really things: corporate greed & suppression of the news.
Well, after all it IS called the MILITARY Industrial Complex...
Is the Military Industrial Complex listed in the DSM?
Joe
"Is the Military Industrial Complex listed in the DSM?"
Yep, right there between "loony" and "nutso."
The entire concept of embedding is, of course, wrong. Still, it wouldn't really matter because any story once filed must go over the obstacle course of military censors, as well as editors and editorial policy for publications and broadcast media. That's where the real embedding takes place with compromised editorial staff who do what they are told or else.
One possible solution would be anonymous blogs where reporters would be uncensored and unknown. Of course for that to take place the would need accomplices to front the web sites--any takers?
Poet
duplicate
Poet, I'm not convinced the practice of embedding is "wrong", but I object to it being the ONLY way to get the news. What we have seen, basically since Viet Nam, is that no independant news is allowed to exist, and the 'official' versions are screened. I recall during the first few days of the "war" in Iraq, when a young Marine stopped a news reporter from photographing an injured comrad.... I guess the American people were not suppose to see that war has down sides. Anyway, foreign news coverage is much better, not only for war, but for the Olympics as well.
WHY AM I NOT SURPRISED?????
That anyone with a margin of intelligence would 'lend' that intelligence to the 'reporting' of an illegal war of aggression, or the fools who willingly participate---is surprising enough. But that those 'reporters' would believe that their 'reports' would not be censored, gutted, or otherwise rendered 'palatable' to an audience that thrives on fantasy and illusion like the majority of Americans--is even harder to fathom.
The Pentagon and the professional criminals who make careers out of staffing it could do little that would surprise this reader, but I am suspicious that they have let this story 'escape'. And why?
The vast majority of Americans are marginally literate, and the ones who do read over the 7th grade level seem as delusional as the ones who do not. If there are any readers out there in the 'la la land' of fantasy that passes as information and reporting of it who actually believe what they read or hear on ANY news organization; they are in some real trouble.
News programs in the USA are for selling products and services of the 'sponsors'. The recent 'calling down' of Glen Beck (at best a mediocre reporter) by boycott protests and the publicity around it should be considered as one thing only. The 'media' is playing the viewers for fools, when they allow the readers/listeners/viewers to believe that their 'boycott' is effective, when in reality, the audience that Beck and even the 'other side' play to are Americans. They would rather be lied to, deceived and manipulated than be responsible for their own conduct.
The fact that the Republicans will use the 'logic' that 'America will be attacked again if we reveal the extent of the Bush admin lawlessness' as another scare tactic is simply a reinforcement of my argument.
America may have some time to make the necessary changes, but they do not seem to have the 'collective integrity' to actually accomplish it. While the world watches them in 'shock and awe' they also grow more fearful of the USA with each new day; and justifiably so. The USA IS A DANGEROUS ROGUE NATION, and the Americans are some very dangerous people. How much longer the world will tolerate the USA is only a matter of time.
"If the USA were another nation, the USA would invade the USA, in order to keep the world safe; and they would be justified."
Good Luck America, you really need it.
There is nothing new here--been that way since gulf war--just as the presidential debates taken over by the two party system--they won't ever let it change--it's up to us to change it--the only hope left is that God will enable us to make things right back in the US, back in the US, back in the USSR. No press at all is better than propaganda press!
From the article:
"Rendon examines individual reporters' recent work and determines whether the coverage was 'positive,' 'negative' or 'neutral' compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials."
Which begs a boatload of questions: exactly what ARE the mission objectives? Are they the same for outsiders as for insiders? If the mission objectives change, must the reporter's slant be trimmed to fit?
This stinks on ice.
If I want news I suppose I will have to stick to Pravda.
The Rendon Group vetting our war correspondents?
Let's see, isn't their motto: "To Embed You Need to Be In Bed with the Pentagon?"* And this project is being funded by us, the taxpayers? I demand a refund!
NateW: actually, as you must know, quite a bit of Pentagon-critical material has come from Stars and Stripes, such as opposition to stop-loss.
*and please don't pull the covers.
This article was in the "Stars and Stripes". I am very curious about how the readers reacted. Do the soldiers think this is necessary for some reason or do they see it as covering up their true experiences in the invasions?
Joe
Just another HUGE slap in the face of the people of the United States of America who are probably wondering is it still considered a democracy and just where is the RESPONSIBLE press that keeps the people informed but here is direct evidence of corporate america 'controlling' the information for their benefit and profit for the industrial military congressional complex.
Ikes warning..corrupting military Industy complex..
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e794c4dbdec73af80f69f4a4b266138e