The Military Analyst Scandal Dies -- Even on NPR?

Two weeks ago, the New York Times revealed that the "military analysts" parading through network and cable newscasts for the past six years have been largely willing members of a Pentagon psy-ops program, used as "message force multipliers" to carry good-news messaging about the war to viewers. Today, the Politico runs a story about the deafening response from those networks, usually so eager to hop onto and run with a major New York Times scoop.

But even the Politico story misses an area of eerie silence. It cites Tom Rosenstiel, of the Project for Excellence in Journalism:

Rosenstiel's organization tracked the mainstream media for a week after the Times story and found that out of approximately 1,300 news stories, only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop -- both airing on PBS's NewsHour.

The silence Politico doesn't mention comes from NPR, not cited in Rosenstiel's survey as having followed up the NYT story, despite the fact that one of the analysts quoted in the story as begging for another Pentagon-sponsored trip to Iraq and citing the good work he'd done for them after past trips, was doing his analysis for both Fox News -- and NPR.

By the way, the payoff for the analysts to cooperate with the Pentagon program, according to the original NYT story, was not just increased insider access, the fool's gold of Beltway media corruption. The analysts also had day jobs working for military contractors, and their cooperation with the media program certainly didn't hurt their companies' chances of gaining contracts.

Those connections, of course, went unrevealed to viewers, and listeners. As did the connections of the host and all panelists on a recent public radio discussion of psychoactive drugs to the manufacturers of such medications. This Slate story covers that little scandal.

We may, sadly, be beyond the time when such hidden motives for the "experts" paraded before us have the power to surprise when ignored by the corporate media. Have we also moved beyond the time when public radio isn't held (or doesn't hold itself) to a higher standard?

UPDATE: Tyndall's survey covered only television news. NPR's media correspondent did indeed file a story on the military analyst scandal.

UPDATE #2: Glenn Greenwald at Salon has read through the 8000 pages of transcripts the Pentagon released as a result of the NYT's Freedom of Information Act lawsuit (the basis for the original Times story). He has two reports on what he's read, here and here

UPDATE #3: According to Regret the Error (a wonderful website), NPR"s ombudsman now says the network has a contractual relationship with the talk show in the Slate article, "The Infinite Mind", to run the broadcast on Sirius "public radio" channels.

Comments

[wompa]

All Things Considered had a story about this issue by David Folkenflik on 5/1.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90111757

Also, if you check the link at the bottom of the page, the NPR ombudsman has commented specifically on the "analyst" that NPR had used:
http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/2008/04/npr_new_york_times_and_sourcin_1.html

This is hardly ignoring the story. Maybe you should do a quick search on npr.org before you accuse them of ignoring an issue.

[antispin]

From Folkenflik's NPR site: Geraldo Rivera of the Fox News Channel once described David Folkenflik as "a really weak-kneed, backstabbing, sweaty-palmed reporter."

So maybe he's good. But for every story like this that NPR does there are 20 stories about "how cool this war machinery is." Poor Zwerdling was shunted off to Antarctica, for Pete's sake.

[Rowena]

Unfortunately, all it has taken to make me realize that NPR has become "corporate media" is listening to their coverage of the presidential race. Juan Williams? Cokie Roberts? What a joke they have become.

[VitriolAndAngst]

They commented on the Ohio "debacle" as a controversy over elections. 3 people sent to prison for Election Fraud, and CoinGate and there are numerous reports of throwing out votes, caging, and voting machines failing. We could also point to scores of people waiting in line to vote and somehow, not bothering to choose a president in the 2004 election -- who does that, really?

No, but NPR bent over to be "fair" and called the whole thing "controversial." I wonder about the next bank robbery -- maybe that will be a funding quibble perhaps?

They are worse than Fox in my opinion, because their bias is less obvious and more subversive. They erode support for Unions, fair elections, and protecting jobs and the economy from profit-taking multinationals by pretending to put up the issue and losing the debate.

How many people from the Wall Street Journal do we need on "Liberal" marketplace stories?

[LittleBrother]

As numerous commenters have observed, NPR has long since become an extension of the corporate media, albeit with a beige face.

In my view, the last bastion of objective professional news reporting is Continental Public Radio.

I maintain that Amerika badly needs CPR!

[maninthemiddle]

Your use of the phrase "corporate media" is, tragically, a much more accurate reflection of today's reality than the overused and misleading "mainstream media."

[VitriolAndAngst]

The New Terms for the 21st Century;
Right vs. Left is now Up vs. Down.
Liberal Elite is now "just" Elite -- thanks so much.
A Washington event with politicians and reporters is called a Country Club Gaggle
Lobbyists are now called Sponsors.
Main Stream Media is now CorpMedia
Government is now CorpGov
The Project for a New American Century is BushCo
NPR is now "New Propaganda for Rockefeller"
Banker is now Bankster
Activist is now Troublemaker
Uncorrupted Judge is now an Activist
CIA, Secret Service, and the like are now correctly known as Economic Hitmen
Carilse, Haliburton, and KBR are still not known as "infiltrators" but they will be.

[elbzee]

Thank you VAA! I Needed that! It's all very clear now!

[therealredstateblues]

Fourth Reich?

[CarolynC967]

I have been repeatedly disappointed in NPR's coverage of the Bush administration -- its lies, its corruption, its wars. John Yoo, a man who should encounter universal revulsion and disdain for enabling torture in our name, is routinely an honored guest. In the spirit of NPR congeniality, I presume, his statements supporting unlimited executive power are never directly challenged by the NPR moderators, although occasionally a listener will state the obvious -- Yoo's positions directly contradict the Constitution and our cherished national values. But Yoo always gets the last word, and the chance to spew his authoritarian clap-trap, before being thanked profusely for doing NPR the honor of contributing to their radio shows.
I have stopped contributing to NPR and tell the solicitors who call that I no longer view NPR as an honest broker, as an impartial source. Their repeated shilling for Bush's war, neglecting to tell the truth about its so-called "progress," silence in the face of massive human rights abuses and assault on our civil liberties, has totally discredited it as a news source in my opinion.

[nnoely]

I agree totally - and would add that it is sad the "voice" of NPR was silenced because consrvatives succeeded not only in slashig federal funding for NPR, but also in spreading their propaganda that funding public radio, like funding for the arts in general, amounts to supporting radical leftists who "Piss on Christ". As you said, the end of a truly independent news outlet has arrived.

[JBS]

NPR was never independent.

[TRex86]

NPR's worst sin is its insipid coverage of the news. The conversation programs occasionally have interesting material, but they carefully steer away from anyone outside a narrow, centrist world view. Far better to have the argumentative edge of unabashedly right or leftwing programs than the watered down, safe jargon they propound. Can anyone make sense of their interchangeable use of words like militants, insurgents, extremists in their coverage of Iraq? Note how they describe Palestinians as "gunmen" and Israelis as soldiers or defense forces. Despite their callow service of corporate Amerika, mostly they're just lazy.

[57basque]

Hey Frank Zappa saw the slime oozing out of the TV set long ago was the tool of the government and industry too. For it was destined to rule and regulate US.

[CaseyBabes]

As a (once) long time resident of Washington DC I find it incredible anyone would think of NPR as being a credible, balanced (sorry, shoulda wrote even handed) news source. In reality, it is merely another venue for the personal political views of hosts/commentators, packaged with the usual ominous background theater sets and music. NPR is involved in entertainment, so if it is good (news) it is bad.

[bobo209]

The US has degenerated into a sorry state of affairs when its future course depends on the political calculus of a feckless General, a failed counter-insurgency ‘expert’ and ambitious politician pandering to billionaire political contributors working for a foreign colonial power..

General Petraeus: Zionism’s Military Poodle
From Surge to Purge to Dirge


Senator Joseph Lieberman: “Is it fair to say that the Iranian-backed special groups are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqi soldiers and civilians?” General Petraeus: “It certainly is…That is correct.”
General Petraeus testimony to the US Senate, April 8-9, 2008.

You know the rest of the storyyy gooooooooodd dy

[alvdh1]

Recently, Diane Reem hosted a panel of journalists which included David Gregory on her program which aires on some NPR affiliates. David Gregory was asked to respond to a caller who expressed concern about cable news vetting of military analysts. David Gregory responded, to paraphrase, said he felt it was essentially a non-issue. Gregory is a psychophant of MSNBC which has enormous military contracts. I firmly believe, at least at MSNBC, that there is a top down order to dismiss this as a non-news item. Journalists are taught ethics in journalism school, but corporate profits trump ethics and therein lies the problem.

To Diane's credit, she did mildly assail Gregory's position. I have been sending direct emails to MSNBC through Media Matters website to complain about there coverage of the presidential race. They do a decent job of pointing out the lies and inconsistancies of MSM. As an avid news junkie, I have to continue to read between the lines to see the truth. Unfortunately, many American's do not have this ability.

[SamThornton]

Reading between the lines is a skill that will develop over time, just as it did for Russians under the former Soviet Union. The corporate media is our private enterprise version of official "news" like the State Organs of Pravda and Izvestia were then. The current equivalent of the Russian underground Samizdat of that era are the independent blogs and websites like this one.

Also in the mix are the overseas news organizations in Europe and Asia that, interestingly enough, are far less fearful of offending government elites. Ironically, today even Pravda and Izvestia often provide more reliable information than any American news outlet.

[Fleisch]

I heard this same panel, and I was absolutely livid while listening to it. Rehm was the only one who took the caller's concerns seriously, and tried in a mild way to take the panel to task; all the panelists (Gregory was the worst) either pretended not to understand the implications of the question, or they really were that stupid. Everyone simply replied that it was legitimate to have military experts covering military issues, and that news organizations provided information from briefings all the time. They completely dismissed or ignored the notion that there is a difference between official briefings and people giving briefings masquerading as independent opinion, while hiding the fact that they are receiving marching orders and spouting talking points from the Pentagon.

The only conclusion that can be drawn from this willful blindness is that the broadcast media do not believe there is or should be any distinction between news and propaganda.

Whatever happened to "in the interests of full disclosure..."?

"In the interests of full disclosure, we should note that we will not report any news or commentary that could offend our owners or sponsors, or tend to affect our ratings or stock price, or lead to pressure for legislation that could increase corporate taxes or regulation, or decrease profit margins ."

[TRex86]

NPR has been a joke for some time. They are leaders in timid, tepid reporting. Their editorial spin is reflected in their vacuous style manual. For instance, in a recent interview with Isabelle Allende the interviewer mentioned that her uncle Salvador had "died under suspicious circumstances." No shit. He was deposed and murdered by a military coup headed by Augosto Pinochet. If NPR dodges this kind of non-controversy (was Kissinger vetting their copy?) imagine what they do with current events. They are masters of the world of pseudo-controversy: "Some say the world is flat; others disagree." A pox on their useless house.

[Imabachi]

NPR and the majority of MSM has been captured by the Right, as per plan by the corporates. The same holds true for the legislatures, the courts and of course the chief executives of the states and the nation. This conscious, intended, planned and conspiratorial corporate effort to "capture" all public institutions has been going on for the past 30 years. They even have "think tanks" (the Heritage Foundation, et. al.) that are corporate funded that furnish them with their political arguments, their wedge issues, and their always disastrous economic proposals (for the middle class and the poor). And no, don't look for any "truth" from corporate owned, corporate dominated MSM. I find it perplexing, and disturbingly dangerous for the nation and our democracy to have the Fourth Estate in such a state, and that such a state of affairs is slowly and surely brewing a disaster of the first magnitude. No one who has learned their history lessons can mistake what the future holds. Think of it: Peak Oil and Climate Change/Global Warning and our leaders are giving us the ol' Clem Kadiddlehopper (a dunce-like character developed by comedian Red Skelton) routine, "duh,d-duh, d-duh, d-duh" The Chinese have an appropriate saying for all this but I'm darned if I can think of it at the moment.

[steamboat]

yes, the Pinochet dictatorship did have Allende killed. But upwards of 60,000 were killed (mainly by firing squad) by the Castro dictatorship and folks like you never criticize that.

[Marlyn]

Folks like steamboat are fine with killing a million innocent Iraqis.

[TRex86]

"Folks like you never criticize that."
On what basis, pray tell, sir do you make that statement?
You don't know me.
The use of such a broad generalization is the sign of a lazy--if not empty--mind.
How dare you. Go back to Dittoland.

[Nonamnesiac]

The failure of the Democratically controlled Congress to bring impeachment charges against Bush and Cheney for their already proven acts of high crimes and misdemeanors is the reason none of these stories dominate the corporate owned media for very long (unless it's coverage like Reverend Wright).

The media did their job and covered the paid, lying coverage of Iraq by retired military officers. So long as the Democrats collaborate in these high crimes and misdemeanors by not bringing the Articles of Impeachment and removing criminals Bush and Cheney, the media can do no more.

If you want to blame people, blame those who have the authority to hold Bush and Cheney accountable and have collaborated in those high crimes and misdemeanors instead -- Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Congress.

[Mike O.]

"...proven acts of high crimes and misdemeanors..."

These things are "proven" only in your fevered mind.

For the last time:
There have been no impeachable offenses committed by this administration, otherwise the proceedings would have already begun. Get over it.

[CenterOfMass]

"...otherwise the proceedings would have already begun."

A weak strawman, to put it kindly. Broken logic, to put it strongly.

"There have been no impeachable offenses..."

Incorrect. Anything is impeachable, as long as Congress has the stones to perform the impeachment. But impeachment is not the same as *finding the impeached party guilty*. It's a two-step process, as you so conveniently forget. There can't even be a real trial, with a real investigation, and a real finding of guilt or innocence, until the impeachment is performed.

[Nonamnesiac]

Congress has the option of permitting proven high crimes and misdemeanors to be committed by not moving impeachment. It has regularly collaborated in Bush's and Cheney's proven high crimes and misdemeanors and refused to move impeachment.

[SamThornton]

Media silence over this story probably stems from the fact that most in the corporate media thought the suborning of "analysts" was common knowledge. Surprise! They're wrong again.

Even if they didn't make this assumption, unless they were completely dead from the neck up, they had to know about the arrangements their military starlets made with the Administration and the corrupting influence it has.

But here's the rub. The corporate media in this country is no longer in the news business and hasn't been for some time. Their claim that they are is a lie even more shameful than their spiking the Analyst Scandal.

[Sundialsvc4]

What exactly is Herr Goebbels doing wrong here, in your opinion?

He has this country, though angry while being fleeced, nevertheless effectively self-portrayed as being utterly powerless against it. What appears in the public's eye (yes, even here on HuffPo) is designed to divert that angry from the potent force that it could be, into some or another kind of "sink." A very classic crowd-psychology move.

For instance: in the face of gasoline-prices that have more than tripled, we do not hear -anything- about the parked big-rigs; the food shortages; the collapsing home finances. Instead we are shown the yachts of the uber-riche. Over and over and over. Mixed with tabloid "scandals."

Drenched over all of it is "we run this place and we can do as we damn well please," as evidenced by headlines like "176 days to go." Even the need-for-change itself is reduced to a fool's "choice" between three "candidates" that represent neither change nor candidacy.

As I said, the propaganda-ministry of any -previous- totalitarian regime would understand these tactics very well indeed.

[elbzee]

You are so right sundial! The propaganda-ministry of any -previous- totalitarian regime would understand, applaud, and pat us on the back for so thoroughly saturating life with a scripted message. What a marvelous accomplishment!

[elbzee]

I think recent events have opened our eyes to the fact that, when we turn on the TV, we must be mindful that 99.9% of what we see is manipulation. (Nope, make that 100 %.) We are the marionette consumers. Via the media what we think, believe, desire, need, like, or hate can be controlled through that little box. A tool with vast potential was recognized by people with big ideas long ago. These events aren't new. This sort of thing has gone on for as long as television has been commercially viable. Remember the conspiracy about the moon landing taking place on a sound stage? Who's to say they're whacko? Sadly, who's to say anything we are fed on TV is true? Is this the beginning of the Skeptical American? Are we going to be known as the "Show Me" country? Will television sets come with huge grains of salt? At this point seems we need to scrap the whole damned industry and start from scratch (AS NON PROFIT!)

[Marlyn]

"Remember the conspiracy about the moon landing taking place on a sound stage?"

YES I do. It started as a joke because there WAS a sounds stage made to look like the moon with actors portraying the astronauts. I supposed it was meant to give viewers an idea of what it would look like. But some people thought it was presented as the real thing. I thought they were kidding.

[Marlyn]

"we need to scrap the whole damned industry and start from scratch (AS NON PROFIT!)"

I heartily agree. At least we should have one radio or TV station that expresses a liberal view point.

[tyrodin]

The most dangerous peril this country faces is the corporate media giants. Bush being elected twice would not have happened, the Iraq invasion wouldn't have happened, Hillary's anti-black movement would not have happened. Bill Clinton lifted FCC regulations so they could form larger conglomerates. Bush appointed Michael Powell (Colin's son) and he had a field day destroying any vestiges of honesty. We as a nation have to get together and get a handle on this. Look at this campaign season. Does he wear a flag pin? His reverend said a naughty word. He helped a hippy from the 1960's feed poor people. His wife said she was disappointed in the direction our counrty has taken over the past seven years. He doesn't agree with us to totally anihilate Iran instead of actually speaking with them. We need to put a halt on this control.