Times Let 'Pentagon Pipeline' Story Die On Its Front Page

On April 20, the New York Times featured a blockbuster story on "message force multipliers" - the Pentagon's use of "retired" military experts, kept on the government payroll to peddle good news and propaganda about the Iraq war effort. It was a splashy and significant story, the sort that has major impact on the national conversation and gets editors thinking about the possible accolades to come.

One has to wonder, however, if those most closely associated with the journalistic efforts that spawned the piece are still in a triumphant mood. Since its publication, there's been plenty of cause for unease and discontent over the way the Times has treated the story. For all intents and purposes, the matter has largely died on the front page. The aftermath of the story, for the Times, has been one of scant follow-up, lost scoops, and poor comparison when set alongside similar journalistic efforts.

The story was up against some impediments from the get-go, of course. Having implicated just about every single broadcast network in the dissemination of propaganda, the chance that television news would put their megaphone behind the issue was pretty slim. Come Sunday, there was scant attention paid to the matter. One of the few that did was CNN's Howard Kurtz, who discussed the matter with Ken Allard and Lawrence Di Rita on Reliable Sources, and, at times, pressed on critical points, following up on his own piece in the Washington Post. But on Sunday, even Kurtz hardly treated the story as a blockbuster. To get to the Pentagon story, viewers first had to wade through segments on what constituted a double-digit win, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama's waffle, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the concept of "elitism," Maureen Dowd's use of the word "whackadoodle," and William Safire's recently expanded Political Dictionary.

So, it was up to the Times to advance the story - for the sake of both the public interest and their own. How well did the Times do? Not very well, as it turns out.

The original piece in the Times was accompanied by a great multimedia feature that focused on how the White House tamped down criticism of Donald Rumsfeld through the use of these "message force multipliers." They also excerpted several documents and featured an online Q&A with readers the next day.

Since then, however, the effort to advance the story has been minimal. There has been a single editorial comment, inexplicably published on Saturday, six days after the story broke. On the same day, David Barstow followed up by reporting on the Pentagon's decision to suspend "its briefings for retired military officers who often appear as military analysts on television and radio programs."

Buried in Barstow's follow-up, however, was an admission: the Grey Lady had been scooped on the story by Stars and Stripes a day earlier. Additionally, the New York Times seems completely unaware that two days after they published their story, Fox News aired quotes from one of the individuals named in their original article, retired Major General Robert H. Scales. It is impossible to know every single possible avenue for follow-up, but surely we can agree that when one of the named networks brazenly deploys one of the named "message force multipliers" in its coverage, it's worth a mention.

As a means of comparison, one need only revisit the way the Washington Post pressed and pressed on their coverage of the conditions at the Walter Reed medical center. As of this writing, the Post still maintains a one-stop repository on the matter, filled with lengthy follow-up pieces, a plethora of multimedia, and an archive full of related documentation. There's very little indication that the Times has any plans to follow with that sort of completeness or rigor.

This all comes at a critical moment for the New York Times. In the aftermath of its decision to run a thinly sourced "expose" on Senator John McCain's dealings with lobbyist Vicki Iseman, critics wondered if anyone would take the paper's next big investigative scoop seriously. Now you have to wonder if even the Times does.

Comments

[MAJLewtonCGSCstudent]

Wanted to add one more thought. Personally, one of my frustrations while deployed was that my unit and my fellow engineers were doing great things but it was never covered. The info never got out. We were fortunate to get several missions with local reconstruction projects such as schools, townhalls, farmland reclamation, soccer fields, and at higher levels, power plant and water treatment repair/construction. Helping the local population was my most satisfying memory but all we ever saw on TV was the body count or bombings. There is so much more going on in Iraq than is portrayed in the media that it still infuriates me. I completely believe in freedom of the press but if you're going to cover it than cover it. Not just bits and pieces that will snag the headlines. The press needs to look at the overall strategy and put everything into context. Report on Political, Education, Infrastructure, Economics and Military Ops, not jut Military Ops

If all you show is the casualty rate and explosions then that is all the public sees. This makes it look as if no progress is being made when in fact several milestones have been achieved. This greatly influences public opinion so media really needs to cover OIF thoroughly and not in pieces to allow the public to come to their own conclusions.

The views I expressed here are mine alone and not of the Army.

MAJ M.E. Lewton
Student, CGSC, CAC
Fort Leavenworth, KS

[MAJLewtonCGSCstudent]

The Military has to do a better job of keeping the public informed of our organization, how we operate and what we're doing. (I've been serving for 12 years)

Information Operations (IO) is used in the article in a negative tone. IO is not a dirty word. Yes it can be used for deception but often it is positive. Leaflets or a loudspeaker system informing the public in an Iraqi town of how to interact with US troops and get emergency service is one example.

I believe the Pentagon was trying to give the experts as much information as possible so that they could perform accurate analysis. The more information they have the better. This is what the Pentagon claims it was doing. However, some of the experts in these privileged info briefs say they were forced to say exactly what the Pentagon told them to. If that is what really happened then I think the Pentagon needs to relook at how they interact with the media and how they keep the public informed of our operations. Also, to the retired experts... say no. Look at the info, if you agree with the military conclusions fine, if not, then don't use their conclusions and speak your own. If you lose access then so be it. You're retired and do not have to follow Pentagon orders.

The views I expressed here are mine alone and not of the Army.

MAJ M.E. Lewton
Student, CGSC, CAC
Fort Leavenworth, KS

[Novista]

Not only but also ...

When this story first broke, and admittedly, I have not read all the 'primary source material', I immediately remembered a story c. 2004. Yes, another Pentagon masterpiece, in which they developed a TV production facility to shovel out videotape propaganda to small regional stations, always keen to get some 'content' (and as one formerly in the biz, I know this!)

Only problem was, the 'interviewer' and the 'guests' were actors working off a script.

I'm surprised no one else seems to have connected the dots!

[deke33]

It is not only the Times that is at fault. The fault of all the media to ask pertinent questions from all the excuses this administration gave to attack a paper tiger nation, Iraq, The meek acceptance of just the words "we have solid evidence and iirefutable proof of Iraq's wmds, without asking for such evidence, The mission accomplished acceptance speech, the failure of the media to press the administration as this short, sweet war unravelled, just leads me to believe that the day of the maverick reporter is short lived. Now, instead of being praised for breaking new ground, they are fired, sent off to cover social events and the day of the Pulitzer Prize reporter gone.

[pmorlan]

Sad, but true. I don't know what's going on at the Times but for my money the Washington Post has been doing a much better job. I used to check the Times before I checked the WaPo and now it's just the reverse. Whoever is running the show over there is ruining the paper.

[Relay]

Jason,
I have some "Bad News" and I have some "Good News." ¦¦Just joking about the good news¦¦..
I must respond to some of your points. Why did this story die?
Why hasn"t a journalist run each one of the mouth- pieces to the ground and exposed in detail the role of propaganda they have been spinning?
I for one would like to know how much of my tax dollar has been spent promoting these media mouth- pieces?
Is this criminal or immoral to the families of our servicemen?
Why doesn"t this warrant legal action by all citizen?
What"s the mainstream media doing airing this sort of propaganda knowing it is not true?
What was in it for them?
Was it an oversight on the purchase of multiple media outlets in a local area that goes against FCC rules?
Or are they allowed legislative membership to committees in congress that write the laws in their favor?
Where is the integrity of the journalists; are their stories of corruption and wrongdoing thrown in the can or discarded in the editors cut?
There was a time when people relied on the media outlets for the "Truth", but not anymore; they have been bought off¦¦. They haven't got the balls to report or print the "Truth"............. There must be more money in fairy tales.
PS: Good story