With "analysts" like these...

...who needs P.R. hacks?

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found. ...

[C]ollectively, the...several dozen...military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

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. ...

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.

(Hat tip: copndor.)

Comments

[copndor]

I read the report and then the transcripts from briefings given by Gen. Peter Pace and Sec. Rumsfeld to the "military analysts" (which the NYTIMES sued the Pentagon for). One of the most shocking exchanges is on p. 22 of the PDF:

“Analyst to Rumsfeld: --detailed, logical analysis that ends up being countered by detailed, logical counter-analysis and the American people just turn to American Idol or something. World War II, sacrifice equals victory. Simple themes. Every day, every classroom, billboards, on TV, in movie theatres. Same thing with the Cold War. …
Secretary Rumsfeld: You people should be taking notes. I’m taking all the notes!”

Hmmm... somebody thinks you’re stupid. These Generals would then go on TV, not disclosing that they were being paid by the Pentagon. It should be kept in mind that the media outlets are blameworthy as well for not requesting such information from the “analysts.” One other disturbing part of the Rumsfeld briefing of the analysts was the following (p. 21):

“Analyst to Rumsfeld: But we would love, I would personally love and I think I speak for most of the gentlemen here at the table, for you to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on we’re forgive me, we’re parroting, but it’s what has to be said. It’s what we believe in or we would not be saying it. We’d love to be following our leader as in fact you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.”

Now, just think, that was the “independent” military analyst on with Wolf Blitzer an hour from then, wanting to "parrot" what Rumsfeld just said.

[gahrie]

OK...who should be doing military analysis then...Cindy Sheehan and Code Pink?

[copndor]

Right, because all of humanity neatly subdivides into two classes. Either you are paid by the Pentagon and personally briefed by the Secratary of Defense, or else you are a female protestor from California obsessed with the color pink. God help us, if only there were a third class of people, then we could have some objective news analysis. Alas-- only female protestors dressed in pink, or Pentagon-paid former generals.

[Brendan Loy]

Seriously, gahrie, what an absurdly dumb comment. If that's the best you can do, this must be an even bigger scandal than I thought.

News flash: the issue is NOT that retired generals are the ones giving these "analyses." (Everyone knew that already.) The issue is that they have apparently been engaged in a well-orchestrated administration propaganda effort dressed up as journalism. If you can't acknowledge that there's something wrong with that, then I never, ever, ever, ever, ever want to hear you complain about "media bias" in any other context, ever again.

[David K.]

Raise your hand if this revelation surprises anyone....what? no one? yeah me either

[copndor]

I don't consider myself a fan of this administration, yet sometimes, purely as a observer of world events, I wonder: if all of this stuff has come out while this administration is in power, what kind of information about the administration is to come when they get out of power, when members of the administration feel free to talk with the press, when they write books, when records are released. God only knows what the historians are in for in uncovering these last eight years.

[franklinstein]

The NY Times? Un-named sources? "Some analysts" said this? "A few" expressed doubts? Uh-huh. I'm sure this is entirely on the up and up and completely accurate and representative reporting. And, perhaps, I am a Chinese jet pilot.

[copndor]

Here's an idea. Read the article, and then bring something substantive to say next time.

[gahrie]

1) If it wasn't for the anti-military and anti-war on terror bias in the media, the Administration and the Pentagon wouldn't need to make an effort to get it's position heard.

When is the last time the media covered any of the servicemen who have received the Medal of Honor? All we ever hear are doom and gloom, never positive news.

You can hardly argue that the Pentagon's effort has duped the media into presenting a favorably image of the war.

2) If any other administration, or government agency did the same thing, would it be the shocking story you think it is? For example, do you think the Department of Justice under President Clinton held briefings for lawyers who were lobbyists, and members of high priced law firms, and sometimes appeared on TV as analysists? And that maybe they gave better access to those lawyers who agreed with them?

3) There was a time, say anytime prior to 1960, that the American media and the American people would take it for granted that U.S. media analysists were on the side of the United States and it's military.

What do you think would have happened if the media had covered World War II or the Korean War the way the media is covering this war?

"Is it worth American lives and wealth to remove Hitler? The war with Japan is only about oil. Executing German spies and carpet bombing German and Japanese cities are war crimes. Our troops will have to be in Germany and Japan fifty years from now. The government is using propoganda methods to build support for the war. American tanks aren't adequate. Thousands of American were killed today in Normandy. Why are we sending billions of dollars to Great Britain and the USSR when we could use that money at home?"

[David K.]

Wow Gahrie, thats the biggest load of bullshit i've seen on here for awhile. The vain and futile attempt to equate World War II with the current Debacle on Terror is further proof that the right wing is out of touch with reality.

The reason we get doom and gloom news is because it IS doom and gloom news. Iraq has been and continues to be a mess because of how poorly this administration has handled the situation, because they didn't fully understand the situation going in, and because they continue to deny reality.

Perhaps someday you will be able to differentiate anti-whatever bias claims from actual this situation is bad reporting, perhaps not. I have never seen anything that lead me to believe that the media is anti-military any more than i have been led to believe that those of us who think the war is a mistake are anti-military. Its only through the twisted mind of the right wing that the only way to support our military men and women is to support sending them to die in a pointless mismanged war. If you are so interested in the war on terror then why aren't you calling for Bush's resignation over his failure to capture Osama bin Ladin, terrorist numero uno, while instead diverting resources to the non-terror related attack on Iraq?

Fortunatley the majority of American's accept this war is a massive mistake and that the bias and mis-information are coming not from the media but the government.

[Mike]

Gahrie: "Strawman strawman strawman, strawman strawman."

David: "Strawman strawman strawman, STRAWMAN strawman."

Look, while this is sleazy and not all that surprising (for any Administration, not just this one), the story makes it sound like Rumsfeld was some puppetmaster controlling the minds of his zombie generals. A little more honest reporting and little less hyperbole would be preferred.

[Mike]

For the record, the previous comment is not by the Mike who is most often labeled as Mike around here.

[Mike B.]

Grr, sorry. My apologies, forgot to change my moniker to avoid trampling on the locals here.

[gahrie]

For the record, I wasn't comparing World War II and the War on Terror. I was contrasting the media coverage of World war II and the War on Terror. Average reading comptrehension skills should have sufficed to understand this.

[David K.]

Gahrie
then what you are saying makes even less sense, you are so paranoid that you believe that the media is some vast conspiracy that would cover two distinctly different events exactly the same?

Mike B.
instead of coming in here and being a jackass why don't you try and make arguments and discuss things

[gahrie]

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/19/iraqis-forces-seize-mahdi-stronghold-in-basra/

[gahrie]

How much coverage did this receive?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050404-5.html

[gahrie]

David K:

No. I'm merely pointing out that the media used to be on our side during war. They used to support the efforts of the administration and military. Now they oppose them. It lost us Vietnam, and they are doing their best to see that we lose the War on Terror.

Cite the last four positive stories about the war that the NY Times has printed...especially on Page 1. Or the network news shows.

They don't cover our heroes, they don't cover our successes, they don't cover schools and hospitals opening, power and running water restored, or the fact that the military retention rates are above quota.

[Joe Mama]

I have to agree that nothing in this story is terribly surprising . . . retired generals having Pentagon contacts, the Pentagon handing out talking points and providing special access, retired generals having business interests in the defense industry. And? The only question in my mind is whether the Pentagon's "hidden hand" was the cause of, or the reaction to, MSM coverage. It is ironic, however, that the NYTimes believes retired military officers are insufficiently objective in their analysis of the war in Iraq.

[Mad Max, Esquire]

It shouldn't surprise anyone that this was happening. However, what should be condemned is CNN, MSNBC, etc, for dressing these guys up as impartial analysts. The fact is they should have been using their official titles (e.g. Associate Partner, RAND Corporation or whatever). At least the news outlets shouldn't be parading these guys around like they are impartial when they certainly weren't.

[Soren]

In moments like these I go back to Jurgen Habermas's Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (especially capter VI, section 22, "Manufactured Publicity and Nonpublic Opinion" if anyone wants to follow up on this) and I think two things: 1) He really captured a major issue of the conteporary democratic nation-state, even in 1962; and 2) Holy crap, he hadn't seen the half of it! (of course by now he has; see here amongst other places)

The question nowadays really is this: How do you get a broadly sourced, well-informed debate that gives voice to positions from across the political spectrum and that does not deteriorate into strawman- or with-us-or-against-us arguments, and then turn that debate into effective political action (voting, public protests, lobbying) in a way that does not primarily benefit political or business interests but some version of "the people"? What could be the platform for such a forum, how could it be moderated, adjudicated, judged, and disseminated, what are going to be the mechanisms of opinion formation and the transformation of opinion into effective action?

(Disclaimer: Web 2.0 of course comes to mind immediately as both a platform for opinion formation and political organisation, but right now I have my doubts 1) whether even that environment is truly free of political and business steering, or whether those forces can at least be uncovered sufficiently to isolate them from the general debate; and 2) I have my doubts as to the reliability of the sources and voices on Web 2.0 - it is now easy for anyone to claim the status of specialist, but that term really means something more, and needs to mean something more, than occasional dipping into a topic if the political debate is going to be truly and deeply analytical, if it is going to break open the political discourse in order to get at some of the deeper structures of global and national politics.)

[Soren]

And I apollogise for the meny spaling mistoikes in moy prevous pposd.

8D

[Casey]

An important correction -- some analysts in the article (as well as gahrie, apparently) view this propaganda effort as fair play a two-sided debate. It's sort of a dog-eat-dog logic. The other side is doing everything it can to spin things to its favor, and so we're entitled to do the same to make our case. Ultimately both sides are on equal footing, and the one with the best combination of cause and advocacy will come out on top.

The report makes clear that war advocates at the Pentagon have enjoyed an unfair advantage in public debate. They strategically exploited the trust that Americans placed in military analysts with Pentagon access. I'm curious to see whether that trust holds up after this article. A rational public would understand that analysis coming out of people affiliated with the Pentagon is strategic (IE, misleading), and discount it accordingly. This would diminish the Pentagon's ability to advocate for any of its causes.

Of course, the fact that there are people in this country who still trust Pentagon-sourced info after Vietnam suggests that the public can be fooled repeatedly without consequence. I'd wager that Pentagon folks understand this, and that the response to this article will be marginal at best.

[Joe Mama]

Stop The Presses!

Hold the front page! Heck, on second thought, hold three full inside pages as well. Notify the Pulitzer jurors. The New York Times has a blockbuster scoop. Its ace reporter, David Barstow, has uncovered shocking evidence that . . . the Pentagon tries to get out its side of the story about Iraq to the news media.

Are you surprised? Outraged? Furious? Apparently the Times is: it’s found a new wrinkle in what it views as an insidious military propaganda campaign. You see, the Defense Department isn’t content to try to present its views simply to full-time reporters who are paid employees of organizations like the New York Times. It actually has the temerity to brief retired military officers directly, who then opine on TV and in print about matters such as the Iraq War.

As I read and read and read this seemingly endless report, I kept trying to figure out what the news was here. Why did the Times decide this story is so important? After all, it’s no secret that the Pentagon–and every other branch of government–routinely provides background briefings to journalists (including columnists and other purveyors of opinion), and tries to influence their coverage by carefully doling out access. It is
hardly unheard of for cabinet members–or even the President and Vice President–to woo selected journalists deemed to be friendly while cutting off those deemed hostile. Nor is it exactly a scandal for government agencies to hire public relations firms to track coverage of them and try to suggest ways in which they might be cast in a more positive light. All this is part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism in which the Times is, of course, a leading participant.

I think I got to the nub of the problem when I read, buried deep in this article, Barstow’s complaint that the Pentagon’s campaign to brief military analysts “recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism.” But the Times would laugh at anyone who claimed that activities “subversive” of America’s national interest are at all problematic. After all, aren’t we constantly told that criticism–even “subversive” criticism–is the highest form of patriotism? Apparently it’s one thing to subvert one’s country and another thing to subvert the MSM. We can’t have that!

How dare the Pentagon try to break the media monopoly traditionally held by full-time journalists of reliably “progressive” views! The gall of those guys to try to shape public opinion through the words of retired officers who might have a different perspective! Who might even be, as the article darkly warns, “in sync with the administration’s neo-conservative brain trust.”

The implicit purpose of the Times’s article is obvious: to elevate this perfectly normal practice into a scandal in the hopes of quashing it. Thus leaving the Times and its fellow MSM organs–conveniently enough–as the dominant shapers of public opinion.

[Angrier and Angrier]

You miss the point, Joe Mama. It's not like these "military analysts" are positioned as Pentagon spokespeople. They have been hired by the media outlets to serve as impartial commentators. The fact they are getting their marching orders - behind the scenes and without public acknowledgment on the air - from the Pentagon is a conflict of interest.

To be fair, CNN shouldn't be parading Donna Brazille as an impartial political analyst when you know damn well she is getting her orders from the Clinton camp.

[gahrie]

They have been hired by the media outlets to serve as impartial commentators.

Wrong. They were hired as expert analysists. Everytime I saw one appear on TV his military background was identified, and he was called on to give military analysis.

No one (OK almost no one) who appears on TV these days to give commentary is impartial. When they want commentary about abortion, they go to Planned Parenthood, and if we are lucky, an organization opposed to abortion. When they want commentary on civil rights, they go to the ACLU. It's the way the media works.

[Angrier and Angrier]

gahrie-

To my point. None of those people are identified as a network's "analyst," a paid representative of a news organization versus someone working for Planned Parenthood or the ACLU. If a former military officer wants to go on TV as a Fellow of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and give his "analysis," the viewer at least has an idea that he is approaching it from a conservative point of view. Same goes for someone representing Brookings, which is left of center. Being paid by the networks as a network "military analyst" only to feed the official line of the Pentagon is strictly deceptive.

[Brendan Loy]

I don't say this often, but: Angrier and Angrier is exactly right. The main problem isn't that these generals were on TV, feeding us the Pentagon line. The main problem is that they did so without being identified as such.

It would be equally absurd for a network to have, as its official "legal analyst," someone on the ACLU or Planned Parenthood payroll -- and you would raise bloody hell if they did, gahrie & co. You would (rightly!) demand that this "analyst" be properly identified as an ACLU/PP flack, so the public can make a informed judgment about his or her credibility.

The same thing applies here. And if you can't acknowledge that, then you are being grossly intellectually dishonest, possibly even with yourself.

These generals should have been labeled as as "Pentagon spokesmen," or -- at the very least -- as spokesmen of the various military-connected organizations for which they worked. Instead, they were identified simply as "our military analyst" (i.e., they speak for the network) and as "retired generals." The impression those labels give off, quite clearly, is of a person knowledgeable on the topic, who may have certain ingrained biases in their worldviews colored by their personal history (just like any other human being), but who isn't simply towing the company line for one of the protagonists in the very topic under discussion!!

In other words, the public was led to believe that, while these generals may not be strictly "neutral" or "unbiased" (after all, who is?), they were still speaking for themselves, not shilling for the Pentagon. Their "analyses" might be pro-military because, well, they're retired generals -- but any such bias is strictly personal, not based on externally imposed constraints ("say what we want you to say or you're fired/we'll cut off your access/etc."). That's what we were told. And it was a lie. And you hypocrites are okay with that.

As I said: I never, ever want to hear you people talking about "media bias" ever gain. You now officially have ZERO credibility on the topic.

[Joe Mama]

Are these analysts impartial? No (at least if the NYTimes' account is to be believed -- note that, buried deep in the story, several analysts are quoted as denying that they are not impartial, thus refuting the broad generalization of the article itself).

Is this different from how any other gov't branch or department tries to get out its side of a story? Not at all.

[Brendan Loy]

Is this different from how any other gov't branch or department tries to get out its side of a story? Not at all.

Are Commerce Department flacks on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, touted as "financial analysts," without their affiliations being disclosed?

Are Justice Department flacks on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, touted as "legal analysts," without their affiliations being disclosed?

Are Congressional aides on MSNBC, CNN, and Fox, touted as "legislative analysts," without their affiliations being disclosed?

The ideological blinders you people wear are incredible.

[Angrier and Angrier]

"I don't say this often, but: Angrier and Angrier is exactly right."

I like to think you think it even when you don't say it ;-)

[Brendan Loy]

Heh.

[Joe Mama]

The media is too biased.

[gahrie]

Brendan:

If you don't think that every administration has been doing exactly the same thing since FDR you are deluding yourself.

Could you cite the names of any "impartial" analysists that have appeared on network television in the last 5 years?

[Brendan]

Gahrie, your question clearly indicates that you have not remotely comprehended my point, or the distinction I have drawn. So, I will simply repeat:

In other words, the public was led to believe that, while these generals may not be strictly "neutral" or "unbiased" (after all, who is?), they were still speaking for themselves, not shilling for the Pentagon. Their "analyses" might be pro-military because, well, they're retired generals -- but any such bias is strictly personal, not based on externally imposed constraints ("say what we want you to say or you're fired/we'll cut off your access/etc."). That's what we were told. And it was a lie.

The question isn't whether they were "impartial." Of course they weren't "impartial." Nobody's "impartial." Lack of "impartiality," whatever that even means, isn't the problem. The problem is, they were shilling for the Pentagon while being presented as "military analysts" who were speaking for themselves. The way they were presented to the public, the public would naturally presume that any "bias" (or lack of "impartiality") was personal in nature, not professional. I.e., there's a difference between being pro-military and being effectively a Pentagon P.R. flack, just as there's a difference between being pro-civil liberties and being on the ACLU payroll (directly or indirectly).

Speaking of which, to repeat myself again, in response to your ACLU/Planned Parenthood analogy:

It would be equally absurd for a network to have, as its official "legal analyst," someone on the ACLU or Planned Parenthood payroll -- and you would raise bloody hell if they did, gahrie & co. You would (rightly!) demand that this "analyst" be properly identified as an ACLU/PP flack, so the public can make a informed judgment about his or her credibility.

SAME. THING. HERE.

[gahrie]

Media bias is not expressed in the choice of talking heads. It is expressed in the choice of stories covered. I'm still waiting for someone to provide me a citation for any major media covering any of our Medal of Honor winners from the War on Terror, or the last 5 articles printed in the NY Times witha positive point of view about the war.

[Brendan]

So you're choosing not defend your position, and are going to change the subject. Okay then.

For the record, I agree that the type of media bias you describe is indeed a problem. That doesn't mean the total betrayal of trust that I've described is NOT a problem.

[Joe Mama]

I can't speak for gahrie, but the reason I don't wet my pants over this "total betrayal of trust" on the part of these analysts or the DoD they were purportedly flacking for is because the Pentagon was already playing against a stacked deck. All other things being equal, I'd be just as furious as Brendan claims to be about this. But the notion that only the Pentagon's version of events was being heard by the public is laughable, and the exact opposite of the truth. This was nothing more than the DoD making an ill-advised attempt at getting its story out, coupled with news outlets not doing due diligence in retaining military analysts (although, to be fair, the pool they had to choose from isn't exactly deep, so I don't know who else CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc would've gotten anyway).

[gahrie]

No. I have defended my position. I have stated that:

1) There is nothing new here. All administrations, and governmental agencies, do exactly the same thing. It's only a problem when it is the Bush Pentagon.

2) There is no such thing as an "impartial" expert analysist in the major media. (at least no one has been able to answer my challenge to come up with one)

3) This effort was necessary only because the media has shifted from a position of supporting the efforts of the US military to opposing it. (still no citations of any coverage of US Medal of Honor winners or positive coverage by the NY Times)

4) The media can hardly be accused of shilling for the administration.

5) Any "betrayal" was at the hands of the media outlets, NOT the Pentagon or retired generals. They hired the generals, titled the generals and put them on the air.

[David K.]

This effort was necessary only because the media has shifted from a position of supporting the efforts of the US military to opposing it. (still no citations of any coverage of US Medal of Honor winners or positive coverage by the NY Times)

Its ok to do something wrong cause did something wrong too!

Hilarious. Blame some vast media conspiracy rather than admit that the stories in this war ARE bad. The media isn't opposing the US Military, the situation is just bad. The media shouldn't be supporting or opposing period, it should be reporting. Admittedly the various outlets aren't perfect, but this right wing fantasy that the directors of every network but Faux News get together each week and plan to make our military look bad is hilarious.

Iraq is a MESS. Its been a mess since day one. But rather than admit it you have to come up with twisted logic, twisted excuses and outright fairy tales. Your position is built on the idea that there is some vast conspiracy of the majority out to get you, and its absolutely laughable. The contortions right wingers have been putting themselves through to try and justify this administrations actions should qualify you for starting spots in Cirque du Soleil.

What these men did was WRONG, they presented themselves as one thing, while being another. Brendan has allready pointed out that this is wrong and why. Suffice it to say I am not surprised that Bush apologists will try and blame everyone but the administration when reality doesn't fit their world view.

[Andrew]

Unbelievable. Brendan, you seriously posted this story and take it seriously? You want us to get outraged because the media likes to hire retired generals to do military analysis? My friend, you need to step out of your process/lawyer/journalist bubble and actually spend some time with some down-home rednecks while you're still in Knoxville and try just a little bit harder to understand why the majority of Americans simply do not take these kind of exposes seriously (and try to avoid keeping your nose high and being elitist about it like Casey and Soren in the process).

The question nowadays really is this: How do you get a broadly sourced, well-informed debate that gives voice to positions from across the political spectrum and that does not deteriorate into strawman- or with-us-or-against-us arguments, and then turn that debate into effective political action (voting, public protests, lobbying) in a way that does not primarily benefit political or business interests but some version of "the people"? What could be the platform for such a forum, how could it be moderated, adjudicated, judged, and disseminated, what are going to be the mechanisms of opinion formation and the transformation of opinion into effective action?

Soren, I started laughing before I even finished this paragraph. You couldn't achieve such "a broadly sourced, well-informed debate that gives voice to positions from across the political spectrum and that does not deteriorate into strawman- or with-us-or-against-us arguments" if it was limited to you, Casey, Becky, and Brendan! Come on, dude, people from the real world don't have time for political bullshit, they have to pay the bills and pick up the kids from soccer practice. This ain't Oxford -- or even UC Santa Barbara, for that matter!

Now, let me take this opportunity to slightly rewrite Casey's paragraph to paint a slightly different picture of the reality he is attempting to portray:

"The report makes clear that anti-war journalists in the media have enjoyed an unfair advantage in public debate. They strategically exploited the trust that Americans placed in newspapers and TV news correspondents who had special access to Pentagon leadership, senior administration officials, and the war situation on the ground. I'm curious to see whether that trust holds up after this article. A rational public would understand that analysis coming out of people affiliated with the media is left-leaning (IE, biased), and discount it accordingly. This would diminish the media's ability to advocate for any of its causes."

Now THAT is a bit more accurate!

Of course, the fact that there are people in this country who still trust Pentagon-sourced info after Vietnam suggests that the public can be fooled repeatedly without consequence. I'd wager that Pentagon folks understand this, and that the response to this article will be marginal at best.

Or perhaps most of us trust the military more broadly than other parts of our government because we have access to it, in the form of friends and family in the service and such. But that's okay, you probably last had a member of your family serve in the military back in WWII, when the Pentagon was still angelic and all.

Besides all that, your facts are off-base: The misinformation in Vietnam primarily came from the successive administrations and politicians (shocking!) who were struggling to maintain public support for a war at a time when hundreds of thousands of protesters preferred to spit on veterans and cheered the likes of Jane Fonda for materially aiding the communist North. Not to mention, these officials were merely continuing the same kind of propaganda push that the government engaged in for all the previous wars (going back to the Revolutionary War) to gin up support for the cause (nobody complained much when Hollywood was making all of those pro-war, anti-Jap WWII propaganda movies, and my guess is half the women who frequent this blog still have Rosie the Riveter on their wall). Little did these sinister officials know that the media paradigm shifted to a new prevailing notion that it was a journalist's responsibility to be "unbiased" between the Soviet-sponsored communists and the United States of America. And so we're left with a media lens that is profoundly amoral, non-judgmental, and extremely cynical, as perfectly evidenced by this NY Times, which pretends to be shocked, shocked, that the military dares to make any attempt to get a voice of reason past the deafening, suffocating anti-war spin saturating the newspapers and news networks.

LAME!

[gahrie]

David K:

There are dozens of independent reporters/bloggers in Iraq reporting positive stories about military successess and improvenments in the life of Iraqis everyday. Sadly the mainstream media refuses to cover them.

Also I thought the lefty meme was that: "we support the troops even if we oppose the war"? Surely in that case acts of heroism and sacrifice by our servicemen are worthy of coverage...so why no coverage?

[Brendan]

There is no such thing as an "impartial" expert analysist in the major media.

Again, gahrie, I have already explained why THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE. When I say "you're choosing not to defend your position," this is what I'm referring to. You are completely ignoring the distinction I've made (repeatedly now) between "lack of impartiality" and towing the company line.

It's one thing to speak for yourself but have a personal bias. It's another thing entirely to be regurgitating the talking points of one of the protagonists in the issue in question, not because you agree with them (that would be, at least arguably, some form of "analysis"), but because you're effectively a P.R. flack for them.

I'll concede that you're actually bothering to defend your position if you will 1) refute the above-described point, and 2) say with a straight face that you wouldn't be outraged if the exact same thing were happening with, for instance, someone on the ACLU payroll being presented as a network's "legal analyst" without their ACLU ties being mentioned (which is NOT the same thing as having a left-leaning legal analyst who is personally sympathetic to the ACLU's causes). Until then, however, I continue to maintain that you're simply ignoring the arguments that I'm making. Because you are.

Which is your right, by the way. I'm ignoring the arguments that Andrew is making, because I don't have time or inclination to give them a full rebuttal, and Andrew and I operate in different universes when it comes to our worldviews on these things anyway (his is strictly Machiavellian, mine is... well, not). So you're certainly under no obligation to respond to what I'm saying. But don't give non-responsive responses and then claim you're responding. You're just repeating yourself and/or changing the subject and/or raising new arguments -- you're not responding to what I've said in response to your previous arguments.

[Andrew]

You're right, Brendan: I'm Machiavellian, you're Manichean. Live the gray, my friend!