This blog supplements Chapter 7 of America in Peril
31 May 2008
We have become dependent on the media for information on what takes place in the world. The morning paper and the “10 o’clock news” provide daily updates on domestic and foreign affairs. But when news reporting becomes skewed, or biased, or outright misrepresented it becomes a serious detriment to informed democratic processes. When that detriment is promoted by our own government it is not only criminal, but treasonous. That is why Congress since 1951 has attached to every appropriations bill a statement saying, “No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by Congress.” That statement forbids misrepresenting news as independently obtained when it is secretly prepared or financed by a government agency. In Chapter 7 of America in Peril I discussed pre-packaged news stories and embedded media pundits as criminal violations of that statute. On 20 April 2008 The New York Times revealed more — how the Pentagon provides military news analysts to deceive the people. As the faces and names of these analysts become familiar, they are accepted by viewers as providing professionally researched opinions. In reality they are part of “an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.” (Barstow)
PR experts noted in 2002 that news analysts receive more air time than regular media reporters. Culturing retired military officers to analyze the news was devised by The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq to prepare the public for regime change in Baghdad. Established with White House blessings in 2002, this Committee deplored public perception of the Vietnam war being a military defeat. The war was lost, it declared, “not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped.” The Committee outlined a new approach to psychological operations that makes extensive use of the media to “strengthen our national will to victory” in Iraq. (Barstow)
Viewers get used to these former military officers and feel comfortable with their interpretations of events. They accept those interpretations as their own. In the months before invading Iraq the administration was propagating the notion that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and had connections with Al Qaida. The Pentagon focused its PR efforts on military analysts who would bolster the administration’s story. White House officials liked the idea and oversaw the selection of candidates. Donald Rumsfeld, defense secretary at the time, had the final sign-off on these “reliable friends who could be counted on ‘to carry our water’ on the television and cable networks.” (Galloway)
These selected analysts – “surrogates,” as they are called — receive special information separate from the regular press offices. They are briefed by elite teams from the White House, the State and Justice Departments, and the Pentagon. Some are given access to secret intelligence. These briefings provided “talking points” which are taken to the airways as “message force multipliers” of the administration’s position. The analysts who attend these briefings cannot quote briefing specialists or even identify the briefings. They must transform all material into their own words so it sounds like an independent judgment.
In his new memoir, What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception, former White House press secretary Scott McClellan confirmed the mass deception leading to the Iraq war. He said “some of the administration’s most senior officials regularly lied to the public” and “managed the debate leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq in a way that ‘almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option.’” (Gerstenzang and Schmitt) McClellan pointed out that “the Iraq war was sold to the American people with a sophisticated ‘public propaganda campaign’ led by President Bush and aimed at ‘manipulating sources of public opinion.’” (Shear) Although the White House commiserated over how Scott had been so loyal and this was so shocking, it made no official comment on the accusations themselves.
During the summer of 2003 the Iraqi insurgency gained momentum. News stories coming from Baghdad told of widespread mayhem. This was not what the Bush administration wanted the public to hear. The Pentagon sent out an order to “re-energize surrogates and message force multipliers.” In September 2003 four embedded Pentagon analysts were given a government-sponsored tour of Iraq which was hyped as observing “the real situation on the ground in Iraq” — a situation described years later by more objective observers as deteriorating. The analysts were shown carefully selected locations and were briefed on how the insurgents themselves were “degraded, isolated, and on the run,” and “would be ‘down to a few numbers’ within months.” (Barstow) This excursion proved so successful for the administration that more trips followed to Baghdad, Afghanistan, and the US Central Command headquarters at Tampa, Florida. Embedded military analysts have been used to mollify any bad news, from military deaths in Iraq to the April 2006 “Generals Revolt” against Rumsfeld. Now, most certainly, they are prepped to mitigate Scott McClellan’s memoir and interviews.
Military analysts were also mobilized when Amnesty International depicted Guantanamo as “the gulag of modern times.” (Barstow) Evidence of abuse and torture made public during the summer of 2005 snapped the administration’s “perception management” teams to action. They flew a group of retired officers to Cuba where they received a meticulously orchestrated tour of the prison. That June 24th junket was the first of six to America’s offshore “gulag” to counter domestic and international perception of Guantanamo as the epitome of White House obsessions with torture.
Over the years, there have been some 75 military officers selected as expert news analysts. Most were/are affiliated with some 150 major and smaller military contractors as lobbyists or consultants, executives or board members. Of course these contractors have a vested interest in the war. Clandestine briefings, access to privileged material, and Middle East junkets all provide information and opportunities that enhance the analysts’ work for big business. Many of these “surrogates” are even seeking Pentagon contracts. Some say they do notify the network and recluse themselves when conflicts of interests crop up, but of course the public understands none of these machinations between government and industry and public communication. Analysts won’t express doubts or criticize the war, and they won’t reveal the workings of this conspiracy. Doing so would immediately lead to exclusion from valuable information. It could also lead to cancellation of contracts they have already negotiated. Rumsfeld said in a 2005 memo: “This trusted core group will be more than willing to work closely with us because we are their bread and butter.” (Galloway)
Pentagon-cultured military analysts appear on all the major broadcast and cable networks. Some appear on radio talk shows or have articles published in newspapers, magazines, and websites. Receiving compensation from media networks while at the same time being indoctrinated by the administration and accepting taxpayer-paid trips raises questions regarding ethics and the authenticity of their analyses. Even more serious, the secret nature of this program smacks of covert propaganda against the American public by its own government, an activity that is criminalized by US statutes.
According to Stars & Stripes, “The Defense Department has temporarily stopped feeding information to retired military officers pending review of the issue, said Robert Hastings, principle deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.” (Schogol, emphasis added)
Bob Aldridge
References.
Barstow, David; “Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” The New York Times, 20 April 2008.
Galloway, Joseph L.; “Famed War Reporter Calls Pentagon/Media ‘Propaganda’ Program Illegal,” Editor & Publisher, 15 May 2008.
Gerstenzang, James and Richard B. Schmitt; “Political World Abuz over Scott McClellan’s Tell-All Book,” Los Angeles Times, 29 May 2008.
Schogol, Jeff; “Pentagon Halts Feeding of Information to Retired Officers While Issue is Reviewed,” Stars &Stripes, 27 April 2008.
Shear, Michael D.; “Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq,” Washington Post, 28 May 2008.
This entry was posted
on Saturday, May 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pm and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.