NEW YORK - As U.S. television networks continue their silence about their use of retired military officers to 'sell' progress in Iraq, members of the U.S. House of Representatives are calling on the Defence Department Inspector General to investigate the Pentagon-sponsored public relations effort.
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Connecticut Democrat, and 40 others members of Congress, want the Inspector General (IG) to investigate how high-ranking officials within the Defence Department were allowed to operate a programme 'aimed at deceiving the American people'.
'When the Department of Defence (DoD) misleads the American people by having them believe that they are listening to the views of objective military analysts when in fact these individuals are simply replaying DoD talking points, the department is clearly betraying the public trust,' the lawmakers wrote in a joint letter to DoD Inspector General Claude M. Kicklighter.
'Not only must the inspector general now account for what it did and did not know about this state-sponsored propaganda effort, but they must also explain why, if they knew about the propaganda campaign, it was allowed to proceed,' DeLauro said.
'Additionally, we are calling for the inspector general to launch an investigation to ensure no detail surrounding this programme remains hidden,' she added. The House members also want to know if the inspector general considers the programme to be illegal.
Retired officers who acted as military analysts for major news outlets were given V.I.P. access to the Pentagon, with regular briefings by then-Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and a sponsored trip to the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
The operation was abruptly halted after it was reported by The New York Times. The paper's massive probe revealed that some 75 retired military officers, prepped by the Pentagon, served as paid television commentators since the run-up to the Iraq war -- and many also have conflicting ties to defence contractors. These business links were seldom disclosed to viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks on which they appeared, the newspaper said.
The Times report said the officers got private briefings, trips and access to classified intelligence meant to influence their comments.
'Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks,' the newspaper wrote.
The Pentagon has since released 8,000 pages of documents related to the propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst programme, at the website https://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/. Officials continue to defend the programme, saying the analysts were given only accurate information. Ken Allard, a retired Army colonel, pointed out in the Times article that it was 'sometimes enough just for the Pentagon's cynical commissars to make retirees feel important, to give them a sense that they were still players.' For other so-called 'talking heads', pleasing the Pentagon was strictly mercenary. The Times' revelations have sparked a serious backlash among many journalists and advocates of more transparency in government. Among them is Steven Aftergood, who heads the Project on Government Secrecy for the Federation of American Scientists.
Aftergood told IPS, 'It is unrealistic to expect the Pentagon to do anything other than to advance its own institutional interests in the media and elsewhere. Furthermore, it is not surprising when retired career military officers present a perspective that coincides with that of their former cohort.'
But he added, 'Two things are disturbing, however. One is the secret, unacknowledged coordination between the Pentagon and the purportedly independent spokespersons. That stinks. But what's worse is the failure of the media to come to terms with the way it was manipulated. Media organisations are supposed to be sceptical of authority, and evenhanded in their approach to public policy issues. This story illustrates how badly they failed to justify the public trust.'
Despite an avalanche of similar criticism throughout the blogosphere, and by a handful of journalism veterans and critics, the news chiefs and on-air hosts at CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, and CBS, have had little reaction to the revelations concerning the 'Media Generals'. Most declined to comment publicly, but have ceased using the officers on-air. Some are reportedly tightening their guidelines for hiring military commentators.
This is not the first time the Pentagon has engaged in concealed efforts to influence public opinion. In December 2005, at the beginning of the insurgency in Iraq, media reports revealed that a contractor to the Defence Department was paying off Iraqi journalists to write 'good news' stories about U.S. progress there.
The Pentagon carried out the effort as part of an organised and well-funded programme, and did so in secret. The Los Angeles Times broke the story.
Marjorie Cohn, president of the National Lawyers Guild, also pointed out to IPS that 'During the run-up to the war on Iraq, the Pentagon gave its 'analysts' talking points: Iraq has chemical and biological weapons; Iraq is developing nukes; Iraq could give its WMD to Al Qaeda; and an invasion would be quick and cheap. This disinformation campaign was designed to condition Congress and the American people to accept Bush's illegal and unnecessary invasion of Iraq.'
Now, she warned, 'we are seeing the same pattern as many in the Bush administration prepare for an attack on Iran. Petraeus, Crocker, Gates, Bush and Cheney are mouthing the mantra that Iran has nukes and is a danger to America. Watch for other 'analysts' to parrot this line. Since there appears to be a split in the administration about the wisdom of such an attack, public pressure could tilt the balance away from war.'
The Defence Department scheme to commission 'good news' from Iraq was being carried out at the same time the State Department's exchange programme was working to teach foreign journalists about the role and responsibility of a free press.
Some critics saw this as the worst aspect of this situation because it added to the perception of U.S. hypocrisy -- at a time when the government is spending millions of dollars trying to 'win hearts and minds' around the world.
Only one senior administration official commented on the 'Iraq Payola' scheme. Appearing on ABC's 'This Week' programme, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley joined Iraqi journalists in the view that, if the Defence Department investigation supported the allegations, the idea was bad policy and should be stopped. It is unclear whether the programme remains in operation.
Earlier, the media uncovered another DOD programme known as 'Total Information Awareness'. TIA was an advanced form of 'data mining', that would have effectively provided government officials immediate access to personal information such as phone calls, e-mails and Web searches, financial records, purchases, prescriptions, school and medical records and travel history.
Disclosure of the programme triggered a furor among the public and in Congress and it was shut down. But nobody was fired or reprimanded.
(c) 2008 Inter Press Service
