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

[CSE]

Would you really expect media to acknowledge they were compliant with or duped by "military experts" in follow-up stories?

On the supposed global warming conundrum being sold:

STATS survey of experts reveals changing scientific opinion on global warming, extent of pressure to play up or down threat.

A few paragraphs down, these experts are further qualified as, "...member­s of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science."

Experts in our time would better be defined as "those affiliated with".

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html

[raker]

NPR is like cable news, but with its whiny, supercilious voices it seems smart and serious. Nobody sees two valid sides to EVERY story like NPR. It's been enraptured with the invasion of Iraq from the beginning. They even outdo NBC on stories about what it feels like to be a reporter facing mortal danger on a balcony in Iraq, but they way they deliver it it kinda sounds like news. Real stories about the situation in Iraq? Not so much. Embedded, co-opted, on the payroll, it's all the same.

The news isn't really news, so why should we expect the analysis to be any different? My house is a no-cable-news zone. I highly recommend it. For one thing, I've never been duped by a lying retired general.

[blueshift]

NPR? National Republican Radio? Did you hear them flog some big pharma product, camouflaged as a medical 'science' report on Marfan's syndrome, for 15 minutes on Thursday? At one time, they could be compared with the BBC....but today, they are clearly moving in the opposite direction, toward CNN and Faux News.

[darthmaul]

Blueshift, I heard that report, and my guess is that the drug they touted for the disease is a common blood pressure medicine, and not a big money maker for the drug company's That being said, It seems like my public radio station, one of the largest in the nation in San Francisco Bay Area which shall remain nameless is constantly grubbing for money. As one pledge drive ends another one starts up.Their also scared to carry Harry's show. They aired it about once, and then it was never to be heard again. Their competitor KALW has just about the same programmin­g+BBC+Harr­y and they get by on 1/10th the budget.

Instead of calling the Pentagon "expert" program psy-ops , I'd call pay-ops.

[MikePatronSaintofTruth]

Harry, no disrespect meant, but NPR became National Propaganda for Republicans about 6 years ago. Instead of killing NPR, Carl Rove realized it could be co-opted..­. and that when all the changes took place in NPR management­... management was tossed out and replaced by rabid GOP ideologues. Since then NPR has become nothing more than a platform for administration officials to spout this propaganda--to sell administration policies-- without so much as a hard question from NPR interviewers.
Hadn't you noticed how over the last 5 years or so how NPR has devolved into doing fluff pieces 24/7? They had been loathe to do anything critical of the administration for fear that Rove would destroy. Now that the management is all GOP stalwarts, the station has ZERO value. I used to listen regularly, and even donated to the fund-raising campaigns until about 5 years ago... now when they have a fund-raising event, I happily call in and tell them that I am refusing to donate because they have been transformed into a political propaganda machine for the Bush administration.
They're despicable. I cannot listen to that station for even a minute without gagging.

[cornflower]

You nailed it in one. Every newscast begins with a story about W. The guy has the lowest approval ratings ever but NPR listeners are flogged with a story every hour at the top of the news. NPR is finished. If the lead story isn't about W, it's about Hillary. Listen and note. They have never done a story about Barach Obama, ever.

[Sundialsvc4]

You are entirely correct that, reprehensible though he is, Karl Rove is a genius.

[solid]

No, Rove is not a genius, but he is effective. His formula is readily apparent, especially to someone with a criminal mind, but it works wonders for many of the goobers here in the US of A:

1. Lie about your opponent early and often.
2. Perform criminal acts that are hard to trace that further weaken your opponent.
3. Project your own weaknesses onto your opponent.
4. Attack the strengths of your opponent and twist them into weaknesses.
5. Lather, rinse, repeat ad nauseum in the corporate media.

[newshawk14]

I,m saddened that the pentagon manipulation has not caught on. To the best of my knowledge
it is a crime for a federal agency to use funds for government propaganda. If someone knows
more, I would appreciate being enlightened.

[fred123]

While it would be a crime for the Pentagon to fund a project from an unauthorized source, anyone the slightest bit familiar with DOD funding knows that they do have a significant, and legally authorized budget for Public Affairs/Public Relations, to include release some information for "public education". So, unless somebody in DOD accounting has done something really stupid, and drawn funding for this project from a prohibited source, its highly unlikely that any law or regulation has been broken.

I think the reason that this "scandal" hasn't taken off is that the MSM and most of the viewing public long ago figured out that the analysts were presenting the Pentagon's case, and didn't have a problem with that situation. In my circle, the standard reactions to the NY Times story were "Well, duh! What took them so long to get a clue?" and "Yeah, so what?"

As for any outrage at some preceived violation of "journalistic ethics", I think most of the general public long ago concluded that journalists of all types (corporate media and NPR alike) don't really have any, so outrage would be wasted

[newshawk14]

Thanks for your reply fred123, and I am indeed more enlightened. I do, however,
think congress needs to be a little more careful in authorizing these "educational
programs."

[nyboomer]

NPR & PBS both have a small but vital audience. Their decision to drop the story saddens me immesasurably. I always hoped they would be bulwark against the MSM coomercial enetrprises avoiding stepping on the profits.

There is no longer an obligation to America's public to explain anything but rather a new obligation to the major stockholders to insure a comfortable, steady uninterruptable cash flow stream for the already privilieged and over privileged.

[newshawk14]

nyboomer I think your post is dead on. If you've followed the argument over a number of
years, NPR and PBS funding, has been under constant attack by the republicans, I hope
the election 08, will solve that problem, and the organizations will feel freer to speak out.

[neiltheblaze]

None of the networks are covering this scandal because they're complicit. They'd have to fess up to their direct involvement in the shilling of this war to the American public. The war, and the justification for the inadequate troop levels too.

The traditional and cable networks want this story to go the hell away. It's the blogosphere that has to keep it alive - and the New York Times, I guess.

Although the NYT recently published another Page One article from Judy Miller's partner in crime, Michael Gordon - who did another spectacular job of stenography for the Administration about how Hezbollah are allegedly training Iraqis, in Iran, to become better insurgents - quoting "Administration sources" and lavishing anonymity on them. Why? So they can get their propaganda out without having to face questions, of course. There isn't a single objective *fact* in this article - it's all conjecture, yet written in a style that suggests "inside information". All that to say: The New York Times isn't a whole lot better. They should have fired that lying sack of shit with they canned Miller.

The Media in this country were involved in this Pentagon psy-ops scandal. They were the amplifier - and they knew exactly what they were doing. Don't make the mistake of thinking the wool was pulled over their unsuspecting eyes - nonsense!

[lisakaz2]

Corporatist media has ceased to concern itself with the public interest -- only the cheaply rendered appearance of it matters. Hence it is entirely docile to be provided cheap access and prepackaged opinions by Bu$hco. Reporting? What's that? We only rarely see it and only it sells as infotainment.

[egal]

Objectivity--or at least due diligence on illegal political fiascoes--seems to have become the domain of the Internet alone. Which is a wide target with many failings and recycled but unfounded memes along with the best unsung revelations. So, here (online in general, I mean), one has to wade through everything out there to find what matters.

And maybe what should matter has lost its impact on us in general; perhaps we're so inured to the criminal behavior of our leadership and our MSM that only on the Internet can we find those appropriately furious--and hopefully not entirely effetely so. Or maybe the real issues will come back up with a change of the guard, and the MSM effectively transition from being what it is today to being this, the domain of most of the audience.

[Uselessboy]

NPR protects advocates of mideast war and empire?

Breaking --not.

[springsm]

I have consistently been disappointed with NPR. And when Cokie Roberts is the political analyst I nearly vomit. She fairly bubbles when she expounds about the republicans. I don't expect alot out of them anymore..b­ut still NPR is better than any of the other media. Why don't we shout in the streets?. For 7 years we have been preached to about homeland security, spying on the people, fear, fear, fear...and we are. We are afraid to speak up. Sad rendition of the United States of America. Perhaps this can be the legacy of our esteemed "commander guy". "I managed to bring my people to their knees and now they act like good little children".

[seewhy]

"Have we also moved beyond the time when public radio isn't held (or doesn't hold itself) to a higher standard?"
yep. four years ago already. from about the time they clobbered bob edwards.

[LeoMarvin]

Don't, like, the guys who stock the coffee filters in the le show dome know anyone at NPR you could ask?

[HearNoWeasel]

NPR has many interesting stories and runs shows like Democracy Now (at 5AM where I'm at) and BBC news reports (at night). Unfortunately during the times when most people tune in (during the morning commute, for example), NPR famously turns into "National Pentagon Radio". For example, they had Gen. Petraeus on Morning Edition when he was in DC, giving him nothing but soft-ball questions. It was a true no-news interview.

I withheld my donations this year, because I finally got so disgusted with NPR when their coverage of the FISA bill drama amounted to nothing more than Bush's talking points. Same with the Colombia NAFTA deal. When they keep running as "news" simply what the President says - which has become the norm during Morning Edition - I'm wasting my time listening to them.

DemocracyNow.com and similar broadcasts are where I turn for news now, although I still enjoy NPR's foreign coverage. They're better when it comes to reporting non-US events and no other station covers these.

[ErnestineBass]

Hate to tell you this Harry, but NPR did do a piece on the paid Pentagon shills. They even offered a mea culpa for their use of a retired Pentagon shill. I listened to it sometime last week (I believe).

[MikePatronSaintofTruth]

"They even offered a mea culpa for their use of a retired Pentagon shill." Sounds like you're not quite up on how the MSM (yes, including the pathetic NPR) is propagandizing Americans even while telling Americans that they are propagandizing them. This is the newest method of media manipulation of the gullible American body-politic.

First, they manipulate you by using paid military shills to convince you that the Pentagon is doing right in Iraq..... then, at the same time that they are apologizing for using shills (now that the scandal has been revealed) in their broadcasts­/publicati­ons, they are employing new shills who they present as unbiased "experts" to try to convince you that bombing Iran is the right thing to do.

I think people are becoming increasingly aware of who is driving this agenda.