|
Talking Heads Are Puppets Below the Neck |
|
|
|
Written by the Editorial Board
|
|
Monday, 05 May 2008 |
In a recent exposé worthy of its reputation, the New York Times revealed what many have suspected but few have voiced. Recently, it reported there has been a coordinated effort by the Pentagon to manipulate American perception and opinion of the Bush Administration’s wartime performance, through the use of former military officials as television, radio, print and Internet commentators. To give a sense of the extent of doublespeak going on, these military retirees were called “message force multipliers.”
To give a sense of the extent of doublespeak going on, these military retirees were called “message force multipliers.”The Pentagon has waged psychological warfare operations against the American people by offering these former officers access to high-ranking government officials and privileged information in exchange for their favorable public evaluation of the administration’s conduct, the Times reported. In other words, the Defense Department has used against us our admiration and respect for men with distinguished records of serving our country to spoon-feed news consumers misinformation and outright deceit. Where we would expect some measure objectivity, they have given us Pentagon-engineered talking points to manufacture good news where there is, in truth, very little.
Of course, the government has a certain amount of leeway when it comes to informing the public. It is also known that retired military officers have a predisposition to support current wartime policies, and that their duty to honor the armed forces does not end with their active service.
What is not well known, however, is that the various generals-turned-pundits benefited from Pentagon access not merely by a sated sense of duty, but also by their value to private government defense contractors who employ them as senior executives, board members, and consultants, according to the Times report. The government gives access to retirees so long as they report (in their public appearances as experts) only administration-sanctioned talking points; the retirees oblige so they can use their access to bid on lucrative government contracts, and the contractors pay the retirees, often exorbitantly.
This perfect storm has another name in journalism: conflict of interest. It is understandable that the media was lured by the promise of inside information or at least constant information that powers the twenty-four hour news cycle. But this should be a wakeup call. Consider the lengths to which government officials will go to misinform their employers, the American people.
What should we expect from the news organizations who were duped into duplicity? Without question, they should follow CNN’s lead and fire these analysts. But what about the seven years of tainted stories, analyses and opinions?
Without saying, networks should follow CNN’s lead and fire these analysts.There’s an established protocol. Whenever a news organization mistakenly reports something misleading or inaccurate or from a faulty source, editors issue a retraction, correction, clarification or editor's note.
Here, editors should examine their reliance on former military officials, and, if necessary, correct the record. This correction cannot be buried on page D-12 or in the 11 p.m. newscast, of course. Corrections should run instead during prime time and on America's front pages, maybe even ours.
[NYTimes]
Executive Editor Dwayne Robinson abstains from all staff editorials.
 |
