SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Erik Prince, former chairman of the Prince Group, LLC and Blackwater USA, testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
New York Times Slammed for Running 'Advertorial' by Notorious War Profiteer
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?"
Aug 30, 2017
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. If you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy