Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

House Votes to Ban Pentagon Propaganda: Networks Still Silent

By Josh Silver, Huffington Post. Posted May 26, 2008.


You probably didn't hear about the House voting to ban Pentagon propaganda -- since the networks have failed to cover the story.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

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.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: pentagon, propaganda, pundits

Josh Silver is the Executive Director of Free Press, a national, nonpartisan organization that he co-founded with Robert McChesney and John Nichols in 2002 to engage citizens in media policy debates and create a more democratic and diverse media system.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
All the News
Posted by: reinaldok on May 27, 2008 4:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe The Times and all the other MSMs will now show on their front pages. ALL THE NEWS THAT'S NOT FIT TO PRINT
We all expect great changes come next November.
Will there be true reform? Will the rats get off the ship? I sincerely doubt it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: All the News Posted by: surfreality
» RE: All the News Posted by: TJAlex
» RE: All the News Posted by: martius
» This is "News" to me.... Posted by: Fencerider
» Tee hee Posted by: lefty010
KenTerry
Posted by: KenTerry on May 27, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an important study that should have been reported by mainstream media. But let's not forget that The New York Times broke the Pentagon propaganda story. The real problem is that the major newspapers that do most of our investigative reporting are under economic threat from the Internet and other factors beyond their control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My Dream:
Posted by: steven w on May 27, 2008 8:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That a compilation of ex-media and wealthy people come together to create one or more new television outlets un affected by the corporations and defense contractors. A broadcasting that welcome advertisement under the condition that they could be criticized. A broadcast that has actual research and follow-up on reporting.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's a sandwich issue
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 27, 2008 10:00 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem I see with the MSM, besides the fact that they seem to be just sort of making shit up, is they no longer ask questions that have any depth. Like many of us, they like their bellies full and their work easy.

The democrats recently got a bit upset when Bush stated the following in Israel: "Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.” Obama was irritated that a sitting President would use this wholly inappropriate environment to make a political statement.

As the republicans protested Obama’s protests, I’m wondering why no one in the media asked the obvious question: “If you weren’t referring to Senator Obama, then who specifically are you referring to as we know of no one in the U.S. even in a position of minimal leadership who wants to sit down with bin Laden have tea and sing kum-ba-yah?”

The media has gone from ever-watchful antagonists, to being embedded with people who they are protected by to being in bed with their masters. There’s limited skepticism left and what little there is resides in areas of the blogosphere like Alternet or Huffington or some of the other even more remote sites. Like many of us, they like their bellies full and their work easy.

I am not amazed by the low popularity of Bush; I’m amazed it is so high. It is kept at this level by the lapdog mainstream media who refuse to report news or ask tough (or for that matter easy, but insightful) questions. And, when a resolution on Iran very much similar to the resolution allowing Bush to invade Iraq passes the House and Senate with the MSM again being the pompom squad to the rhythm of the drumbeat to war, the future looks bleak indeed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

liam99
Posted by: liam99 on May 27, 2008 12:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although i'm very glad to see this disgrace revealed, i never believed these so-called military "experts" anyway. Maybe some did , but i thought their bias was obvious. Anyone who sides with bush is immediately suspect in my mind. Still, for the less discerning it is important for them to know the truth. Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Stay tuned
Posted by: nomomorons on May 27, 2008 2:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My hunch is that we'll get a good analysis of this from Olbermann. He seems to be the only newsman still doing any research. The rest of them are magpies, totally enchanted with the sounds of their own voices and views.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

wow... first i heard of this!
Posted by: Bearzerker on May 27, 2008 3:01 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... MSM is so failing us, we need to get the government out of main stream news reporting...

this should be front page news and discussed throughout the media, but this is the first i've heard of it...

need more competition not less in order to get these stories out... less glamor in news broadcasting and more substance... less infotainment news coverage and more issues based news content

something is so wrong with corporate controlled mass media... these corporatocracies have so failed the meanings of responsible broadcasting... they are a shareholder driven machine, not people... and survive on cash flow...

so how about a simple boycott
I still boycott fox... do you?...
tell your friends to stop supporting fox!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mr. Howard R. Bailey
Posted by: hower2b on May 27, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Josh:
Just printed your article and had my wife read it. She was amazed because she is reading David Baldacii's new novel "The Whole Truth" which involves the working of the "Perception Management" organizations in trying to create a war between China and Russia so that weapons manufacturers can reap the financial benefits. She is still amazed because this is the second time this week an article involving "perception management" has come to her attention.

If you haven't read "The Whole Truth" I would recommend it. You might find some ways to help your readers understand the intent and impact of "propaganda" and why the complicit media isn't interested in reporting on it.

Thanks for your article.

Shalom . . . Howard

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

msnbc
Posted by: RSOlive on May 29, 2008 1:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
MSNBC reported it briefly online at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24516562/ but I don't believe you will find it in a search of NBC.com as of 5/29/08. I'm pretty sure I recall Olbermann mentioning it as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]