Boot, Podhoretz: Pentagon Propaganda Machine Is No Big Deal
Boot, Podhoretz: Pentagon Propaganda Machine Is No Big Deal
A long, investigative piece in yesterday’s New York Times revealed the Pentagon’s extensive propaganda machine built around wooing friendly military analysts “in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” The Times revealed that these analysts were given special access to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his staff, along with VIP visits to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay.
Though most Americans would be disturbed to discover that the Pentagon was operating what one analyst called “psyops on steroids,” two prominent conservatives don’t see what the big deal is. Neoconservative Max Boot wonders, “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…and tries to influence their coverage by carefully doling out access. … All this is part and parcel of the daily grind of Washington journalism in which the Times is, of course, a leading participant.
Right-wing neocon John Podhoretz agrees:
Barstow’s endless tale reveals nothing more than that the Pentagon treated former military personnel like VIPs, courted them and served them extremely well, in hopes of getting the kind of coverage that would counteract the nastier stuff written about the Defense Department in the media.
Boot and Podhoretz seem to have missed the point of the story. Hardly run-of-the-mill briefings, Rumsfeld and his staff planted friendly analysts into the media while expressly forbidding them from revealing their ties to the Pentagon and used lucrative defense contracts as their leverage. The Times explains the corruption:
– “Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as ‘message force multipliers’ or ’surrogates’ who could be counted on to deliver administration ‘themes and messages’ to millions of Americans ‘in the form of their own opinions.’”
– “The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.”
– “One…participant [of a hosted trip to Iraq in Sept. 2003], General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly ‘artificial’ that he joked to another group member that they were on ‘the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,’ a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had ‘brainwashed’ him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965.”
– “Mr. [Robert] Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. … Mr. [Robert] Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being ‘manipulated’ to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.”
The Washington Post’s media critic Howard Kurtz acknowledged that “it’s hardly shocking that career military men would largely reflect the Pentagon’s point of view.” Yet he added, “the degree of behind-the-scenes manipulation — including regular briefings by then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other officials — is striking.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Max Boob and John Pudhurtz
2 of the biggest cowards ever crapped out , trying to further military propoganda ; and what exactly , are their qualifications to be discussing this topic ?
Video war games ?
Stratego ?
Battleship ?
The neocons going to trot out Crayola’s CEO to discuss art next ?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pmCFFI…Cannon Fodder For Iraq . Any more takers? Felons? blind? just plain stoopid?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:39 pmBush and his cronies have been using tactics straight out of the Nazi Handbook.
“No big deal?” I’d like to know why the MSM isn’t making it more of a “big deal.”
April 21st, 2008 at 1:40 pmThese guys only have part of a conscience – the “con” part.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pmAs per usual, Howie Kurtz strikes out with a wet noodle.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:46 pmI hardly think that Boot and Podhoretz “missed the point of the story”. Typical right wing damage control. Deny everything. Admit nothing. Ever.
And #3, I believe you answered your own question, in the first sentence of your post.
April 21st, 2008 at 1:47 pmTwo more worthless lying traitorous Bush crime family cowards and bull-throwers… Will we ever be rid of this loathsome regime?
April 21st, 2008 at 1:55 pmOnce again we see the usual tactics of the right wing. Gross misrepresentation started with some fairly simple statements with which no one would have a problem agreeing.
No one would contend that briefings should be provided to the press. No one would argue that having been a retired general, admiral or colonels. No one would argue that such status would probably give you some good internal sources from past relationships. Makes an easy sound bite for television or on the blog. We need to learn how to fight back with sound bites. I would suggest the following:
1. Consultants sell out objectivity for access to Pentagon briefings. (Use one sound bite of consultant admitting to pressure to toe the line and one sound bite of consultant cut off for disagreeing with the administration view of the war.)
2. Consultants sworn to secrecy over their role as propaganda mongers for the administration. (One or two quotes.)
3. Consultants hide propaganda role and relation to defense firms. (Quote of one or two consultants admitting that it gives them access to information that helps their firms and clients.)
4. Consultants used as propagandists also spy on the free press. (Couple quotes of the consultants providing advance information concerning news articles adverse to administration position.)
It is important to phrase the argument in terms of dishonesty (selling opinions), propaganda, secrecy and quid pro quo. Tie it to the administration’s views. The pentatgon may be the contact point but it is the partisan politicians pulling the strings.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:01 pmAnd all that military industrial complexification thingy President Eisenhower warned us about, nahh, not so much, right Booty & PodCreature?
April 21st, 2008 at 2:06 pmHow funny…they accuse liberals of being pinko commies yet they run a Maoist style propaganda campaign
April 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pmsilly rabbits, it’s not corruption, it’s just business as usual in the revolving door game of let’s go to work for the military industrial complex. Truth is relative and subservient to the goal of world domination (or obliteration using weapons Made in the USA, of course).
April 21st, 2008 at 2:07 pmSince selling this immoral and illegal war, the administration has fed us a steady diet of lies. Hubris dose not do justice describing these neocons.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:08 pmShorter Howie:
No-one could have anticipated we’d been played.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:09 pmThe mainstream media appears to agree with these two traitors. NYT article disappeared without a ripple.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:14 pmHey, where is Max’s flag pin? Why does he hate America?
April 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pmI was under the impression that using federal funds for propagandizing the American public was a violation of federal law. I have not noticed any change in pentagon behavior since Robert McNamara and General Westmoreland used similar tactics in the sixties. Always assume that the pentagon lies.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:34 pmcourted them and served them extremely well, in hopes of getting the kind of coverage that would counteract the nastier stuff written about the Defense Department in the media.
Otherwise known as: the truth.
April 21st, 2008 at 2:54 pmHey, why should we care that that the tax dollars we bleed into the the Treasury would be used to mislead and manipulate us? We just need a brick wall and some sturdy posts in a courtyard somewhere for these jackanapes.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:17 pmI think the scandal isn’t that the Pentagon attempted to influence commentary on the war. I think the scandal is that the networks (and the New York Times opinion editor) played along.
They presented people with blatant conflicts of interest without making the conflict of interest clear (for examplt at a bare minimum by saying “General, X who makes his money as a lobbyist trading on his access to the pentagon, will now tell you if he agrees with the Defence departments official line.” each and every time they put general X on the air).
Obviously no network would do such a thing openly. They were in on the scam and planned to get away with it (as they did). This problem won’t be solved on January 20th. It will remain necessary to fight to force the networks to fire those of their managers who betrayed the public trust (that would be all of them).
April 21st, 2008 at 7:54 pmisn’t this called fascism when other countries do it? no big deal, bad nyt, how dare you say something the dear leaders don’t like!
April 21st, 2008 at 9:10 pmsik fux. that’s about all that can be said of it. jefferson’s ghost will surely haunt all their children.
April 21st, 2008 at 10:21 pmFrom what I understand, some of these military experts were affiliated or on the boards of major defense contractors like Raytheon.
Geez, what’s the term called when the mass media are under strict direct control and can be relied upon never to stray from the party line? Or regimes that exercise more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy? Like methods that include the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats?
Gosh, it’s right on the tip of my tongue, ya know how when the leaders of the mass media are often politically compatible with the power elite? Geez why can’t I think of that term? It’s when the result is usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses? Hmmmm. Oh I got it…FASCISM!!!! Woohoo, finally got it. Wow, that took a while.
Welcome to the late great United States, please leave your individual thoughts, ideas of morality, competence, compassion, & constitutional law at the door.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:14 pmNo one would contend that briefings should be provided to the press. No one would argue that having been a retired general, admiral or colonels. No one would argue that such status would probably give you some good internal sources from past relationships. Makes an easy sound bite for television or on the blog. We need to learn how to fight back with sound bites. I would suggest the following:
Consultants sell out objectivity for access to Pentagon briefings. (Use one sound bite of consultant admitting to pressure to toe the line and sony pcg-v505 battery,sony pcga-bp2e battery one sound bite of consultant cut off for disagreeing with the administration view of the war.)
October 15th, 2008 at 8:45 am