House Votes to Ban Pentagon Propaganda: Networks Still Silent

You probably didn't hear about the House voting to ban Pentagon propaganda last Thursday -- since the television networks have once again conveniently failed to cover the story.

But in a surprise move, a 2009 defense policy bill passed with an amendment, sponsored by Rep. Paul Hodes (D-N.H.), that outlaws the Defense Department from engaging in "a concerted effort to propagandize" the American people. The measure would also force an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) into efforts to plant positive news stories about the war in U.S. media.

An April 20 front-page New York Times article first reported how the Pentagon cultivated and coached more than 75 former military officers who became regulars on Fox News, CNN, the broadcast networks, and even NPR. One week later, the Pentagon announced that it would suspend the "briefing" program pending an internal review, which is continuing. On May 13, watchdog Media Matters documented that analysts in the Pentagon's program appeared or were quoted in major outlets more than 4,500 times.

If the Senate also passes the propaganda ban, it will send a strong message to the Pentagon and other government agencies that the Congress will not allow the continued manipulation of public opinion.

But let's not forget that this is just the most recent major government propaganda revelation in recent years. In March 2005, the New York Times revealed that several federal agencies were producing fake "video news releases" that local television stations aired as if they were bona fide news reports.

Two months before that, several "payola pundits" were discovered to be receiving lucrative government PR contracts to opine in favor of Bush administration policies -- without disclosing their financial arrangement. Armstrong Williams was the poster-child, with his $240,000 contract from the Department of Education to promote the president's "No Child Left Behind Act."

It is crucial to understand that with or without the Pentagon's program, there will always be well-credentialed analysts pushing to get on the air who are eager to toe the administration's line for fame, ideology or money. And the right is historically much better at training them and getting them in front of cameras.

But at the end of the day, it is the television newsroom producers and "bookers" - and the executives who hire them -- who decide who gets on TV and who doesn't. And the vast majority of them consistently turn to government officials, major politicians and party insiders. They seldom turn to dissenting voices, critical public interest advocates and fierce critics of government policy.

On May 5, MSNBC's Chris Matthews revealed that "all my bosses [were] ... basically pro-war during the war. ... and I was up against that." Again, a major revelation ignored by most of the press that explains the culture that subsumed every major network newsroom.

On Friday, the GAO said it had already begun looking into the program and would provide a legal opinion. On the same day, the inspector general's office at the Defense Department also announced that it would investigate the Pentagon program.

The House spending bill will be taken up by the Senate after next week's recess, and legislators will have to insert a similar amendment. The White House has threatened to veto the entire bill, citing concerns with several provisions.

Congress should hold high-profile hearings to get to the bottom of the Pentagon program and force the issue into the news. If the networks won't cover it, at least C-SPAN will.

Two things are certain. First, consolidated, corporate media is failing to provide critical journalism, and is aiding and abetting government propaganda. Second, this is not the last time this media blight will rear its ugly head, and as long as it does, the American public will continue to be led by the nose to support disastrous wars, policies and politicians.

Comments

[vfx]

Last night Scott was asked by Keith about this.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24883051/page/4/

OLBERMANN: What did you know, or did you know anything, about the story that “The New York Times” reported last month, that the Pentagon had essentially these quid pro quo deals with retired generals who, while presenting themselves on many of the networks as disinterested observers, in fact were still involved in companies that still had dealings with the Pentagon. It was a very dicey situation journalistically.
Did you know about it? Did you know you had a staff of generals working for you in some respect?
MCCLELLAN: That I didn't know about. That was pretty much left for the Pentagon to run their way.

Is this the first mention of this in the MSM?

[lobear00]

The Congress needs to haul these corporate "Jackels in and tear down their businesses, fine these "Jackels 1 Billion Dollars for their disgraceful display of propaganda against the American people, and give "Fines of 1 Million Dollars to the panzey's delivering the messages on behalf of their employer's. This Corporate media entity cannot be "Trusted, and has violated the trust given by the United States Constitution.

[returnofthejedi]

Thats the gospel.

[AnotherTry]

Speaking of propaganda and censorship:

http://www.youtube.com/user/msbuch72

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuzdYgwWjnA

[Sciguy]

But - having real reporters and camera operators reporting actual news costs money, and spending money reduces profits. It's ever so much cheaper to take whatever propaganda, including both political and consumer product propaganda, and slap it on the news. Sooner or later, that Pentagon propaganda will become video news releases, and we'll still end up seeing it instead of real news, but packaged a bit differently.

[Scarabus]

Couple of thoughts. The offhand comment by Matthews provides context: as others have noted, any talk of left or right bias in the media is meaningless if it doesn't distinguish between the "bosses" and the "workers." Doesn't matter which party affiliation or contributions one finds among the reporters. What does matter is affiliation and contributions of the corporate owners/managers.

For the broadcast media to ignore their craven, partisan culpability is scandalous. But entirely predictable. Not even Keith Olbermann will talk about it unless forced to the wall. Yes, we should talk about it. But, no, we should not expect honest reporting by the guilty about their own guilt.

I don't know how relations between print and broadcast entities work (except that one must expect exactly the same irresponsible, fact-free, openly biased nonsense from Murdoch's Fox and his innumerable print journals); but I'm pretty sure that if we hear about this from the big guys, it will be from the print side rather that the broadcasters.

[Chillinout]

With any luck we will be able to watch bush and co. along with all the supposed "military analysts do the perp walk soon.

[Conservativeslayer]

This is a joke. What the Pentagon did was already illegal, so passing anotther law will change nothing. What we need is to have people held accountable. It's time someone goes to jail over this illegal propaganda operation. Until that happens, nothing is going to change.

[elbzee]

Sadly, this seems to be how our elected officials conduct business. A lot of harrumphing, a superfluous law passed to give the illusion of representation and earning one's pay to pacify the masses. But, the absolute reality? Neither accountability nor ACTION.

[thismachinekillsfascists]

Check out "Militainment Inc." to see exactly how the mainstream media acted as the propaganda arm of the White House as they presented the invasion of Iraq as a movie, not as news, and how that turned America into essentially a country run by the Pentagon.

http://www.greylodge.org/gpc/?p=836

[research]

The revolution will not be televised.

[newshawk14]

At one time we realized the danger of the media being concentrated in too few hands, but ever since
Reagan, the brakes have been off. Until we began to break up these corporate conglomerates, our
news will be suspect. I'd began with the Rupert Murdoch empire.

[elbzee]

I've been saying the same damned thing. Used to be conglomerates were a bad thing. Something not to be allowed. Shit, we're close to one publishing, one airline, one broadcasting, one utility, and one banking corporation. Remember the myth of capitalism and competition? Wanna imagine life when all of our "necessities" are controlled like a cartel? Kinda how OPEC works? I say bring back anti-trust laws.

[Stirner]

"corporate media is failing to provide critical journalism". Hell, it isn't even a simple matter of being "critical" but of the empty talking heads being told to what to say and not to say. As for "not to say", here's a question: What Presidential Candidate did NOT vote for the war, did NOT vote to fund the war, and wants our troops home right now? Don't know his name? Of course you don't. The owners of the corporate media, such as Rupert Murdock and his neocon pals, have worked very hard to keep this Candidate's name unknown. For them, their Sheepies need only know that they must vote for Hillbilly, Obama the tax-man, or the war-hungry McCain. Th-th-that's all folks!

[stevi]

Why would anyone even watch or listen to the MSM knowing that they do not communicate the news? I'm sure that network policy dictates what news can be reported, and what stories will be inflated and made into a story and what stories will be reworded to either create confusion or just plain lies. Mostly they (the talking heads) speculate on motive and rarely tell an entire story, so we have no idea what is really going on. This is a "sound bite" nation by now and I am not waiting for truth to suddenly find its place on the evening news, or as we call it in my house "The Evening Speculation". When I want real information I go to the web, and of course BBC America. BBC does not seem to have an ax to grind and they also fill me in on what is going on the rest of the world. This country loves to think it's the only game in town.. HA! There is a whole world out there with stuff going on, some of it quite amazing. Why don't we seem to be interested in what goes on in the rest of the world? I believe what goes on in one place could have an effect elsewhere. But apparently ignorance is bliss and I guess disturbing America's bliss is out of the question.

[thecanadian]

You are so right! The web is where you will find the real news of the world. We in Canada have
the CTV and CBC networks. I believe CNN & Fox News could never be considered even nearing a News Network. This political campaign clearly shown that. The WORLD is watching and they continue to pander and tell falsehoods. I guess that word should be "mis-speak" the truth.

That is the problem with the wild west - no holes barred - best ratings equals more money and
No requirements to any requirement laws. Too many people both in Canada and the U.S.
are "conditioned" to believe what they heard on TV must be the truth. This should be switched to
forcing all Media to prove their statements. We have CBC TV in Canada who are required to back up their statements so that has been a solid venue for Canadians. We can challlenge them at any time and get a response. A note here. Most people in our group do not believe CNN anymore at all. Most just go the the "net to get their U.S. news now.

This is a major issue that we should be a lot more concerned about.!

[thismachinekillsfascists]

Also the difference in Canada and other countries is the fact that the mainstream media is owned by the government, ie. public. Example, the BBC is 100% publicly owned which is why you find REAL news in the UK.

[Sciguy]

Of COURSE whatever is on TV is the truth! That's why so many ads - regular ads and political ads - have a TV *** in the ad! *** If just watching the ad doesn't convince you that the ad is 100% true, then by gosh and by golly, that little TV in the ad will convince you that at least the ad is watching an ad - which must be true.

[SouthFloridaDem]

Of course the networks are ignoring this. To cover it would mean to admit their complicity and their failures as journalistic operations. I never expected any of them to cover it, frankly. They, like Bush and Hillary Clinton, can't ever, ever admit they were wrong.

[bacaja]

People generally presume that the "news" is a factual presentation of facts and
events and can be used to form opinions and judgements by the public. Now of
course the opinions and judgements are formed by the media itself.

[NoMoFearNoMoHate]

Many news organizations have made it clear that they are merely interested in FAIR AND BALANCED 'news' and not the facts.

Caveat Emptor

[drblack]

I should have added that a new law prohibiting media companies from being in ANY other business needs to be passed.
If you own a media company that is all you can own.
The media ownership laws need to be completely overhauled. Clinton's terrible 1996 communications act has to be repealed and the Fairness Doctrine re instituted. Also no tax exempt religion can own any TV. The political pandering by the religious right was outrageous on the religious broadcasting networks in 2004 and was illegal. The Bush administration turned a bli8nd eye.
I could go on for awhile about all the possible changes to laws concerning media.

[RS]

Right on, drblack. Here's a brief list on who owns what in the corporate controlled mainstream media:

CBS CORPORATION - is headed by perennial Bush ally Sumner Redstone, who is also CEO of Viacom. Viacom owns Paramount Pictures, BET, Comedy Central, CMT, TNN, Spike TV, The Movie Channel, MTV, VH1, and Nickelodeon. CBS Corporation is one of the two owners of the CW network (the other is Time Warner).


NBC, CNBC, and MSNBC - are all owned by perennial war profiteer General Electric. They also own the following cable channels: Bravo, Oxygen, SciFi, and USA network. They also own Universal Studios.


FOX - is owned by News Corporation. Its chairman is Rupert Murdoch (aka Herr Goebbels). Here is a brief listing of what Murdoch owns:

All media outlets that start with "Fox"
FX Channel
Blue Sky Studios
National Geographic Channel
TV Guide
20th Century Fox studios
HarperCollins Books (the publisher of Ralph Nader's book "The Good Fight")
Regan Books
William Morrow and Co.
DirecTV
STAR
MyNetwork TV
Speed Channel
New York Post
MySpace.com
The Weekly Standard
Wall St. Journal


ABC - is owned by Disney. They also own ESPN, Miramax Films, Touchstone Pictures, and they own 50% of Lifetime Entertainment Services.


CNN - is owned by Time Warner, the BIGGEST of the "Big Five" media conglomerates. They also own Fortune magazine, Court TV, MovieTickets.com, New Line Cinema, TBS, AOL, HBO, and Time magazine (duh!).