Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.
According to Media Matters, the so-called “military analysts” exposed in the recent New York Times article disclosing the Pentagon’s propaganda program were quoted in the media “more than 4,500 times” since Jan. 1, 2002:
A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow’s article — many identified as having ties to the defense industry — collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.
View Media Matters’s full spreadsheet of analysts’ appearances here.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
23 Responses to “Media quoted ‘military analysts’ over 4,500 times since 2002.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
That’s a shitload o’ catapultin!
May 13th, 2008 at 11:11 amWebster’s needs to update the word “analyst” to include “cheerleader”, “propogandist”, “sycophant”, etc.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:14 amLiberal Media, indeed!
May 13th, 2008 at 11:18 amAnyone who still believes the myth of the “liberal media” must be brain dead.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:19 amIt would be illuminating to compare the various “analyses” and claims of those quoted to contemporary events.
As noted by many attentive people on many occasions (but under-reported in the MSM) the most obvious example of politically-driven propogandistic “analysis” has involved “the Surge” where its ’success’ has been touted by both reductions and increases in violence.
It would also be interesting to correlate this campaign to specific public opinion poll questions, which would show a) the effectiveness (or otherwise) of the campaign, and thus the relelevance (or otherwise) of these pundits fabricated “analyses”.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:25 amGlad to see our tax dollars hard at work for such a good cause!
May 13th, 2008 at 11:28 amCan anyone tell me why my #2 above says “your comment is awaiting moderation”?
Have I been a bad boy or does this mean someone has ratted me out for being the sick, twisted mofo I am sometimes?
Just curious, I’m still a newbie here, so hopefully the regulars will bear with me and any infractions I may be guilty of.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:34 amloki, you musta used one of the ‘forbidden phrases’ or words, or thoughts.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:50 amKinda pisses me off once in a while. Oh, and btw, once under moderation, forget about it ever coming up for air.
lokidog, when you are “awaiting moderation”, the rest of us can’t see your post. Look for any “forbidden” words in your text, even if they are embedded in another word.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:51 amRUCerious, isn’t it amazing that you can post “pisses” but cannot mention the organ that does the pissing, even if done in a non-insulting manner?
May 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am#7 and #8:
Thanks much - nothing in there that’s offensive, profane, etc. - just suggesting Websters Dictionary may want to consider new definitions for the word “analyst” - can’t even see words that might be considered forbidden, whether embedded or not.
Weird. Oh well.
Thanks again! And BTW, I enjoy reading both your posts and all the others that appear to be regulars here. Highly entertaining, educational…it gives me hope to see so many like minded people sick of and angered at what’s happened (and continues to) to our country. There are times over the past eight years I’ve felt so hopeless - TP and people like ya’ll are what keeps me going.
Keep the faith and keep up the fight!
May 13th, 2008 at 12:01 pm#7 and #8.
Thanks much - my longer response (#10) was also sent into the moderators laboratory. Neither post was obscene, offensive or contained anything controversial.
Strange. Hope this one passes muster.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:07 pm4,500 times in 6 years equals more than TWICE DAILY…for 6 yrs.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:16 pmPLC, yeah, but as we say in programmimg, there are always work-arounds! For instance, using it as an adjective or adverb seems to work just penily!
May 13th, 2008 at 12:18 pmAnd was that 4,500 truths or lies or outright distortions?
My guess would be lies and outright distortions.
4,500 more reasons to impeach chimpy and his crime family.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:41 pmIt is the depth and reach of this criminal conspiracy that should scare us all. This is just one aspect of a criminal conspiracy to use the domestic media as a propaganda arm of a fascist, one party state. The military propaganda was just one part of a vast media control operation that included providing stations with “news” tapes from the government featuring “announcers” who were really government employees, paying pundits to push government positions, creating political commissars to review and edit the work of nonpartisan career civil servants and scientists to distort public documents. It is time to make this administration pay for their crimes.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:57 pmFootnote - while the Pentagon was embedding “experts” in the U.S. media, they were deliberately targeting journalists in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm#12-Lokidog
My comment, for some unknown reason, is also awaiting moderation. Like yours, my comment was neither obscene nor profane. Perhaps the moderators are objecting because I have pointed out that Keith Olbermann has rarely had any anti-war activists on his program. Perhaps they did not like the fact that I said that none of the networks have had Noam Chomsky on their programs. One expects this type of censoring on a neoconservative or a quasi-fascist web site, not on one which purports to be liberal.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:42 pmhussein toasterhead Says:
Footnote - while the Pentagon was embedding “experts” in the U.S. media, they were deliberately targeting journalists in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:00 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
Thanks for linking it. Today, the Audiencia Nacional (Supreme Court) has dismissed bringing the USA military men implied, because “there isn’t enough evidence to continue with the probing”, whatever this means. It is considered “an act of war”. Really, really sad.
http://www.elperiodico.com/ default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=508949&idseccio_PK=1008
May 13th, 2008 at 1:43 pmmy comment #5 was “awaiting moderation”. Absolutely nothing extraordinary about it. It published.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:38 pmThese things happen.
Errol (#18):
I mean C’MON - you mentioned Noam Chomsky!
Of course that’s obscene…..LOL
Surprised Cheney hasn’t showed up at your doorstep yet.
Looks like all is well now.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:02 pmRecently I was on what appears to be an inactive website of West Point graduates against the war. Quotes from famous military leaders from our history who went to the Point. One in particular, from General Sherman, was profound. Too bad Sherman isn’t around now and could say this as an expert:
“I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.”
May 13th, 2008 at 4:45 pmThis is terrible! What a waste of money…
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never use experts
they’re only good for the truth
as seen through their bias
.
Help Halt Terrorism Now!
USpace
:)
May 14th, 2008 at 1:04 am.