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)
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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. |
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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
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.