Here's my latest attempt to get some answers about CNN's role in General-gate. I have written Rick Davis, CNN's VP of Standards and Practices. Hopefully, I'll get a response this time.
May 2, 2008
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear Mr. Davis:
Like millions of Americans, I watch CNN regularly. After reading the NY Times’ article of April 20, 2008, "Behind Analysts: Pentagon’s Hidden Hand", I have come to the realization that I can no longer trust, "The Most Trusted Name in News" to give me the straight story about our nation’s foreign policy. I began to lose faith in the objectivity of your network in the lead up to the Iraq war when CNN continually spouted the Bush Administration’s line on Weapons of Mass Destruction and Saddam’s unsubstantiated ties to Al Qaeda. Worse yet, CNN intentionally marginalized anti-war voices. When Scott Ritter appeared on the network (the last inspector to leave Iraq in 1998 before the start of Operation Desert Fox) and correctly assessed Saddam’s WMD capabilities as essentially nil; Paula Zahn told the nation he’d "drunk Saddam Hussein’s Kool-Aid." As we now know, had Scott Ritter been taken seriously by CNN and others, we might not be in the mess we’re in today. After no weapons were found and no links with Osama were discovered - Wolf Blitzer was asked by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show why CNN had not questioned our leaders more vigorously before the start of the war. Wolf blamed it on "group think"– a stunning admission for someone who considers himself to be a responsible journalist. In retrospect, I’m sure CNN is not proud of its pre-war and early post-war coverage of the Iraq conflict. Yet neither an apology nor an admission of wrongdoing has been forthcoming.
Now there’s this – a story which re-enforces exactly what those of us who opposed this war suspected all along: CNN allowed the Pentagon and Bush administration talking points to be spouted on its airwaves in the form of so-called military analysts – Generals masquerading as independent pundits critiquing the Iraq war methods, tactics, and strategies. One can only conclude that either CNN (and the entire TV news media as a whole) was lazy, sloppy, slip-shot, and generally incompetent; literally comatose while propagandizing generals parroted Pentagon talking points - or – the equivalent of a television station from the former Soviet Union; a mouthpiece for the government. CNN helped crystallize public opinion around this war, manufacturing consent for the Bush Administration.
Deeper still, there’s always the possibility that CNN was also serving its corporate masters - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, the myriad of oil companies, auto manufactures, etc. who keep the station afloat with billions in advertising dollars and who benefited mightily from the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
While you may not agree with my point of view, certainly it’s the job of the VP of Standards and Practices to comply with the laws that regulate television broadcast. You may be familiar with the Smith Mundt act which was expanded in 1972 under the Foreign Relations Act. Initially, this law was created to prohibit the domestic broadcast of government run media outlets such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe beaming propaganda to counties behind the Iron Curtain. Essentially, this set of laws protects the American people from being propagandized by their government. I am not a lawyer, but it certainly seems to me that CNN has violated this law in the use of the Pentagon’s "message force multipliers."
My suggestion is that CNN undertake an investigation into the matter of the retired generals not unlike the one that resulted from the "Tailwind" controversy. With or without a "tailwind" style investigation, CNN would serve itself well to respond to the issues outlined below:
1. What knowledge if any did CNN have of the pentagon’s propaganda program? When did CNN become aware that such a program existed?
2. Was CNN working in congress with the pentagon to stifle dissent and promote the war in Iraq?
3. Did CNN either willfully or knowingly violate the Smith/Mundt act in allowing these generals to propagandize the American public?
4. In terms of disclosure – CNN regular makes millions in advertising dollars from Lockheed Martin and Boeing. Both of these companies have enormous contracts with the pentagon. Both have made incredible profits from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Should CNN disclose this business relationship to viewers on air? If CNN believes in transparency it should consider running a disclosure statement in the crawl beneath any story relating to the so-called "war on terror." The larger and more important question: Did CNN alter or homogenize its Iraq war coverage as not to upset or alienate corporate sponsors such as Lockheed?
Here are some more specific issues CNN certainly needs to answer in the short term:
a) CNN claimed to have terminated James "Spider" Marks contract in July of 2007 when they learned of his conflict of interest regarding his employment with McNeil Technologies. I have located a CNN article in which Spider Marks is quoted and referred to as a "CNN Military Analyst" from August 13th, 2007. CNN must clarify when exactly when they severed ties with General Marks. How is it possible that General Marks, with such clear conflicts of interest, could be in the employ of CNN for such a long period before CNN noticed and action was taken?
b) CNN replaced Marks with Retired General David L. Grange. Grange appeared frequently on CNN’s "This Week at War" program until it was replaced by "This Week in Politics" earlier this year. Grange is a co-founder of a company called ViaGlobal – a security company which seeks contracts from the Pentagon. Although General Grange was not named as one of "the 75", CNN should investigate ViaGlobal’s security contracts and ties to the pentagon.
c) General Donald Shepperd, a current CNN Military Analyst (who’s name is mentioned extensively in the Times article) runs a consulting firm called The Shepperd Group – which consults with military contractors. Shepperd was one of the more pliant of the generals and frequently spewed Pentagon talking points on CNN’s airwaves. General Shepperd was quoted in a CNN story as recently as March 27th so one can only assume that he is still on contract with the network. Why is General Shepperd still employed by CNN when the NY Times made it clear that he intentionally misled the American public?
There are several other issues that could also be included in this investigation – please feel free to give me a call to discuss.
As you know I have been in contact with Ms. X who is trying to get some answers about these issues for me. So far, Ms. X while being very responsive and polite has not been able to answer any of my questions concerning CNN’s relationship with The Pentagon and their "Message Force Multipliers". I have been to CNN Headquarters at the Time/Warner building repeatedly and attempted to schedule meetings with producers or members of the PR department but so far have been unsuccessful. I am still open to a meeting or speaking with you or a member of CNN’s staff – I eagerly await a response to my numerous inquiries.
Finally, several members of congress have written letters or made statements concerning this issue. Both Chairmen of the Armed Services Committee, Rep. Ike Skelton on the house side and Senator Carl Levin have spoken out against this program. Senator Levin has written a letter to Secretary of Defense Gates about the Times article demanding answers. You can also add former Democratic Presidential Candidate Senator John Kerry to the list as he has written to the General Accounting Office of the United States Congress asking them to initiate an investigation into the matter. Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro has written to the five heads of the major networks including CNN addressing several of the issues I have outlined in this email. Taking all of the above into account, it would behoove CNN to face the allegations of wrongdoing brought to light by the Times investigation rather than continue to stonewall. If CNN is to continue to identify itself as the "Most Trusted Name in News", CNN must take steps to reassure its viewers that it’s indeed independent - - "keeping them honest" - - instead of just another mouthpiece for the most unpopular administration in American history.
Sincerely,
Mahler3