Liberal Media Myth Takes A Major Hit

[molson_golden2002]

The country is a victim of "Mindwar." We were "Psyopted" into this thing.

 

 

Wow, this is a big story. I know everyone is tired of how rotten and corrupted everything is in our society but this is a great story on how the media acted as the bull horn for Bush and his warmongers. All the men chosen to be "military experts" on the networks were vetted by Rumsfeld, had deep financial and ideological interests in the war and took their talking points right from the Pentagon. So now the military is taking a direct roll in controlling propaganda in the United States No wonder it gets such a huge slice of the budget.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washingt...&ei=5087%0A

 

“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”

 

The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.

 

In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”

 

At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.

 

“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”

[molson_golden2002]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/04..._RUMSFELD.html#

 

Here's a video to go with the story. The Wolf Blitzer scene is so funny

[finknottle]

The country is a victim of "Mindwar." We were "Psyopted" into this thing.

 

I don't understand the outrage. Do you believe that only the Pentagon woo's the news analysts, and coaches the friendliest on what to say? You do realize that other parts of the government do it too, as well as other governments, and that is nothing compared to what industry does. If you want an exercise in futility, try determining what consulting contracts an average op-ed writer (left or right) has. And let's not forget the political candidates - they woo the analysts and reporters with special trips and briefings, providing target talking points and attacks.

[DC Tom]

I don't understand the outrage. Do you believe that only the Pentagon woo's the news analysts, and coaches the friendliest on what to say? You do realize that other parts of the government do it too, as well as other governments, and that is nothing compared to what industry does. If you want an exercise in futility, try determining what consulting contracts an average op-ed writer (left or right) has. And let's not forget the political candidates - they woo the analysts and reporters with special trips and briefings, providing target talking points and attacks.

 

Because it's bad when "the other guy" does it. It's okay when "my guy" does it.

 

Isn't this a failure of reporting, anyway? Maybe if the media didn't accept everything spoon-fed to them at face value and parrot it back, and actually got off their asses and did some reporting, the Times wouldn't be bitching about how they were scammed by people spoon-feeding them stories.

 

 

Like I said yesterday, too...it's a legacy of Vietnam. The DoD and the media both realize now that media coverage can influence wars, and each will manipulate the coverage to their own ends.

[Chilly]

Because it's bad when "the other guy" does it. It's okay when "my guy" does it.

 

Isn't this a failure of reporting, anyway? Maybe if the media didn't accept everything spoon-fed to them at face value and parrot it back, and actually got off their asses and did some reporting, the Times wouldn't be bitching about how they were scammed by people spoon-feeding them stories.

 

 

Like I said yesterday, too...it's a legacy of Vietnam. The DoD and the media both realize now that media coverage can influence wars, and each will manipulate the coverage to their own ends.

 

Its also largely an attack by the Times on their competitors as well. Notice that it specifically mentions tv and radio, not newspaper. Good way to promote your business.

[Alaska Darin]

The country is a victim of "Mindwar." We were "Psyopted" into this thing.

Duh. Now apply the same principles to the big dollar programs you love so much.

[MattyT]

Its also largely an attack by the Times on their competitors as well. Notice that it specifically mentions tv and radio, not newspaper. Good way to promote your business.

Except for the part where they claimed that "at least nine of these analysts have written op-ed articles for The Times." But, for the most part, you're right.

 

Honestly, after I read this piece my reaction was that I would have been shocked if it worked any other way. I mean, how independent should we expect a retired general to be? This is someone who's career consisted of being a political figure for his branch of service, and now we're expecting them to be an unbiased liaison between the gov't and the public?

[KD in CA]

Except for the part where they claimed that "at least nine of these analysts have written op-ed articles for The Times." But, for the most part, you're right.

 

Honestly, after I read this piece my reaction was that I would have been shocked if it worked any other way. I mean, how independent should we expect a retired general to be? This is someone who's career consisted of being a political figure for his branch of service, and now we're expecting them to be an unbiased liaison between the gov't and the public?

 

 

Bingo. That's the essence of this idiotic article; that there is some presumption of objectivity from 'political experts'. Nobody presumes that; but the Mainstream Media for Morons tries to create hysteria based entirely on that false presumption. And what a shock that molton would be among those so easily duped.

 

And never mind the laughable irony of the NY Times whining about someone else's lack of objectivity. Good grief!

[molson_golden2002]

1) Because it's bad when "the other guy" does it. It's okay when "my guy" does it.

 

2) Isn't this a failure of reporting, anyway? Maybe if the media didn't accept everything spoon-fed to them at face value and parrot it back, and actually got off their asses and did some reporting, the Times wouldn't be bitching about how they were scammed by people spoon-feeding them stories.

 

 

3) Like I said yesterday, too...it's a legacy of Vietnam. The DoD and the media both realize now that media coverage can influence wars, and each will manipulate the coverage to their own ends.

 

 

I wish I had more time right now to answer all these post, but I will later.

1) Who is "my guy?"

 

2) No. They do reporting and investigating and all that, but these military clowns are held up as Iron Clad authories on the subject and really they are just puppets spewing Bush's lines for him.

 

 

3) Now Tom don't blow you stack and get all mad at me, but I will agree and disagree with you. Yes, there is a legacy about Vietnam. There is this story that's been much told that the media lost Nam. Ok, so if you are the military you try and control the media. Bang, they do a better job this time and the result?? It's still a war and people still don't like it. I think this helps very much prove the point that blaming the media for Nam is just an excuse.

The media isn't as far reaching and important as people think. I say this as a general statement, not an ironclad one. In the shortterm the media can stir up a certain passions, but it can't do everything forever. You can fool some of the people...

 

Just food for thought, I wonder how come the war in Afganistan for the Soviets got so unpopular in Russia if the media was completely controlled?

[Chilly]

Except for the part where they claimed that "at least nine of these analysts have written op-ed articles for The Times." But, for the most part, you're right.

 

Honestly, after I read this piece my reaction was that I would have been shocked if it worked any other way. I mean, how independent should we expect a retired general to be? This is someone who's career consisted of being a political figure for his branch of service, and now we're expecting them to be an unbiased liaison between the gov't and the public?

 

That was pretty much my reaction too: "People actually think that they aren't biased?"

[molson_golden2002]

Bingo. That's the essence of this idiotic article; that there is some presumption of objectivity from 'political experts'. Nobody presumes that; but the Mainstream Media for Morons tries to create hysteria based entirely on that false presumption. And what a shock that molton would be among those so easily duped.And never mind the laughable irony of the NY Times whining about someone else's lack of objectivity. Good grief!

Duped? I don't watch these idiots. This only gives proof to what I've realized for years now, since the war began, since Colin Powell was explaining how drone aircraft were going to kill me with bioweapons.

[molson_golden2002]

That was pretty much my reaction too: "People actually think that they aren't biased?"

I completely understood they were biased, but this article fills in the cracks of exactly how much under the thumb of the admistration they were. They would have lost their jobs at the TV networks if they didn't tow Bush's line. And then the corporate angle comes in, are they just promoting the war to help their companies bottom line?

[KD in CA]

I wish I had more time right now to answer all these post,

And than he proceeds to do exactly that.

 

Why do you feel the need to respond to every post when all you did (as usual) was to provide a link about something you don't know anything about?

 

Duped? I don't watch these idiots. This only gives proof to what I've realized for years now, since the war began, since Colin Powell was explaining how drone aircraft were going to kill me with bioweapons.

Like I said...something you don't know anything about. Just swallow whatever the NYT feeds you without listening to any of the individuals they are talking about and at least attempting to formulate your own opinion.

 

I completely understood they were biased, but this article fills in the cracks of exactly how much under the thumb of the admistration they were. They would have lost their jobs at the TV networks if they didn't tow Bush's line. And then the corporate angle comes in, are they just promoting the war to help their companies bottom line?

Who fills in the cracks where the rest of your brains are supposed to go?

[DC Tom]

3) Now Tom don't blow you stack and get all mad at me, but I will agree and disagree with you. Yes, there is a legacy about Vietnam. There is this story that's been much told that the media lost Nam. Ok, so if you are the military you try and control the media. Bang, they do a better job this time and the result?? It's still a war and people still don't like it. I think this helps very much prove the point that blaming the media for Nam is just an excuse.

The media isn't as far reaching and important as people think. I say this as a general statement, not an ironclad one. In the shortterm the media can stir up a certain passions, but it can't do everything forever. You can fool some of the people...

 

God, you're a !@#$ing moron. I didn't say "win". I said "influence".

[Taro T]

Because it's bad when "the other guy" does it. It's okay when "my guy" does it.

 

Isn't this a failure of reporting, anyway? Maybe if the media didn't accept everything spoon-fed to them at face value and parrot it back, and actually got off their asses and did some reporting, the Times wouldn't be bitching about how they were scammed by people spoon-feeding them stories.

 

 

Like I said yesterday, too...it's a legacy of Vietnam. The DoD and the media both realize now that media coverage can influence wars, and each will manipulate the coverage to their own ends.

Reminds me of being at an Environmental Conference when the Title V Air Permitting Regs came out in the early 90's. I was eating lunch at a table with some mid-level EPA guys and a chick that worked for one of the Environmental Industry Newspapers. She was explaining to them how much harder her job was now that she didn't do political reporting for the Cleveland Plain Dealer because she couldn't just call the Mayor up and have him answer all her questions for a story anymore.

[molson_golden2002]

So, Reporters/Journalist Bad

 

That's what you guys got out of this?

 

BTW,

 

Number of cowardly, lazy journalists killed in Iraq: 210

 

Number of brave--and now very wealthy--United States Generals killed: 0

 

 

The cost of right wing deniablity: priceless

[molson_golden2002]

And than he proceeds to do exactly that.

 

Why do you feel the need to respond to every post when all you did (as usual) was to provide a link about something you don't know anything about?

 

 

Like I said...something you don't know anything about. Just swallow whatever the NYT feeds you without listening to any of the individuals they are talking about and at least attempting to formulate your own opinion.

 

 

Who fills in the cracks where the rest of your brains are supposed to go?

What didn't you specifically like about the story of our corrupted military? This was really interesting:

 

Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.

 

Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.

 

“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”

 

Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.

 

Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.

 

“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”

[Alaska Darin]

What didn't you specifically like about the story of our corrupted military? This was really interesting:

Probably the same things you ignore about our big, corrupted government that you love so much. Let's pretend that the military is somehow different than the rest of it.

 

Hypocrite.

[KD in CA]

What didn't you specifically like about the story of our corrupted military? This was really interesting:

 

For someone who incessantly replies to every single post in a thread, your inability or refusal to actually retain anything that you've read is astounding. Any junior psychologist could point out that you are not someone who has the ability to discuss or debate anything because you just blather on endlessly without possessing the ability to listen to anyone else.

[GG]

For someone who incessantly replies to every single post in a thread, your inability or refusal to actually retain anything that you've read is astounding. Any junior psychologist could point out that you are not someone who has the ability to discuss or debate anything because you just blather on endlessly without possessing the ability to listen to anyone else.

 

I like turtles.