Daily Kos

Tag: David Barstow

Was the movie "Transformers" Part of the Pentagon's "Psychological Warfare" Program?

Sun May 18, 2008 at 06:01:20 PM PDT

Last night I watched "Transformers" with my six year old son. This is a silly adventure flick about robots that turn into trucks and cars - based on the successful line of Hasbro toys.

Who leads the team of daring soldiers and the boy to fight the machines, you ask? The secretary of defense (played by Guliani flack John Voight).

Let me ask you something: in 10,000 stupid movies like this, how many have had the secretary of defense (referred to as 'SecDef' through the film) as the hero?

I believe this movie MAY represent evidence that the Pentagon's "psychological warfare" operation to influence media discussion of the Iraq war is more extensive, and more dangerous, than we know.

The story broke, of course, in a piece by David Barstow in the NY Times 4/20/08: "Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand"

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Poll

Does the movie "Transformers" represent another Pentagon "psychological warfare" scheme to plug the Long War?

24%26 votes
38%41 votes
13%14 votes
1%2 votes
1%2 votes
19%21 votes

| 106 votes | Vote | Results

White House knew of the Pentagon domestic propaganda program

Wed May 14, 2008 at 05:10:14 PM PDT

Pentagon documents released by the Defense Department and posted at its website show that White House officials, including Karl Rove, were aware of the domestic propaganda program under which the DoD coached retired military "analysts" to parrot administration views in television and radio appearances on all the major networks. The Smith-Mundt Act prohibits the federal government from appropriating funds to influence public opinion in the United States. On April 30th George Bush's spokeswoman Dana Perino falsely stated that the WH was unaware of the propaganda program.

The April 20th NYT story on the Pentagon's domestic propaganda by David Barstow has been ignored by nearly all the networks, evidently because they don't care to explain why they gave voice to and employed government propagandists. On April 30th Dana Perino finally was asked whether the WH knew about and approved the Pentagon program. Perino tried to duck the question, but blogger Eric Brewer pressed for an answer: "Did the White House know about the operation?" Perino's response: "I just said: no."

That's false as Glenn Greenwald shows by citing two of the emails the Pentagon was forced to release relating to its program. Both emails were sent by Pentagon official Dallas Lawrence in 2006.

The first email (6137) (PDF) refers to a draft proposal to fly several of the "analysts"/propagandists to Iraq and Afghanistan for dog and pony shows (a proposal that was to be sent to Asst. Sec. of Defense for Public Affairs Dorrance Smith). In the May 23, 2006 email, Lawrence asked that Afghanistan be excluded from the final proposal so that, if that leg of the trip falls through, "we (you) wont find yourself having to explain why it didn't happen after he [i.e. Smith] briefed it to karl at the weekly meeting". That appears to be a reference to weekly briefings given to Karl Rove in which Rove was apprised of the Pentagon's plans under the propaganda program.

The second email (6548) (PDF), from March 16 2006, refers to a conference call for "our retired military analysts" that was intended "to get them on message heading into the weekend on Iraqi troop strength, advances, etc." One anonymous DoD official, who said that he/she would instead be attending a speech by National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, received this followup email from Lawrence:

Sounds great. I'd love to see if we oculd [sic] get them in with potus as well (I think that was submitted to karl and company from dorrance smith last week).

That clearly is a reference to Karl Rove. Notice that Lawrence not only believes that Dorrance Smith was coordinating the domestic propaganda program with the White House through Rove, but he appears to think there is nothing implausible or unusual about it.

Congress ought to consider whether the White House's complicity in criminal activity has been exposed with these documents.

It's not as if this were a domestic propaganda program on a trivial scale or directed toward insignificant issues. By means of the Nexis database, Media Matters has shown that since Jan. 1, 2002 the "analysts"/propagandists named in Barstow's article...

...collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.

They sold the invasion and occupation of Iraq to the American public like so much soap. No amount of silence from the news networks, no lies from the Bush administration, can wash away that stain.

+++

See also the diary by atrexler.

The Propaganda of Silence

Fri May 09, 2008 at 11:27:24 AM PDT

Twenty days ago, David Barstow broke his story in The New York Times about the Pentagon’s use of network and cable military analysts to reinforce its talking points and present a favorable picture of happenings in Iraq. Ever since, the print and television media have delved into the scandal, prying out new details in interviews and document searches, and discussing the implications for democracy when the Department of Defense shapes the debate with the help of triple-dipping former employees who present themselves as objective observers of U.S. policy.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight. In some parallel dimension.

In our dimension, what we’ve got isn’t a flurry of follow-up reports but rather one of the key elements of propaganda: killing a story by ignoring it.

The media typically employ their pervasive power to reinforce the dominant ideology through repeated exposure to every element of their biased agenda. But silence should not be underrated. It provides a marvelous tool of control when accompanied by the never-ending distractions and distortions of infotainment.

No surprise whatsoever that the network and cable stations who hired these ex-military analysts without disclosing to audiences their conflicts of interest or other biases have been – let us be generous – reluctant to acknowledge their role in passing along exaggerations and outright lies to Americans in the run-up to the war and its bloody, treasury-sucking aftermath. They have a big stake in silence.

On the other hand, it might be thought that editorialists of major print outlets which didn't pay for the free-lance "expertise" of the Pentagon’s domestic propaganda brigade would be eager to write something excoriating. Or that print reporters would be digging into the documents on the subject that the Pentagon has dumped at this Web site. Alas, such modest aggressiveness is also confined to that other dimension.

Just how silent the media have been has been examined by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (TV News Blackout on Pentagon Pundits) and the Pew Project for Excellence in Journalism (Media Passes on Times Pentagon Piece). In the first week after Barstow’s story appeared, Pew found two stories about it in other media, both of them on PBS. Since then, there have been a handful of others.

Only in wwwLand and among a few in Congress has the story been given any significant attention. Senator John Kerry urged a "thorough investigation" by the Government Accountability Office, as he noted here at Daily Kos in Investigate the Pentagon Pundit Program. Senator Russ Feingold also wrote the GAO. Michigan Senator Carl Levin has written to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro wrote to news executives at the broadcast and cable networks asking them to explain what criteria they use for hiring military analysts. Only ABC and CNN responded. She and 40 other congresspersons have asked the Pentagon’s Inspector General to conduct a probe. She joined with Michigan Rep. John Dingell and others requesting the Federal Communications Commission look into the matter:

"While we deem the DoD’s policy unethical and perhaps illegal, we also question whether the analysts and the networks are potentially equally culpable pursuant to the sponsorship identification requirements in the Communications Act of 1934 and the rules of the Federal Communications Commission," the letter stated.

"When seemingly objective television commentators are in fact highly motivated to promote the agenda of a government agency, a gross violation of the public trust occurs," it continued. "The American people should never be subject to a covert propaganda campaign but rather should be clearly notified of who is sponsoring what they are watching."

About all this too, megamedia silence.

It’s not as if there hasn’t been anything fresh to report. Media Matters, which has followed the story since it broke, actually spent some time perusing those documents the Pentagon posted. For those who claim there was nothing nefarious about the domestic propaganda program, that it was merely a program of courtesy briefings to ensure that the military analysts were up to speed on what was really happening with regards to Iraq, Media Matters found this audio-taped exchange of ass-kissing and subversion from an April 18, 2006, Pentagon meeting with several analysts, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and General Peter Pace, who was then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:

UNIDENTIFIED 1: I'm an old intel guy, and I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. And that is "psyops." Now, most people, when they hear that, they think, "Oh my God --

RUMSFELD: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- "they're trying to brainwash [inaudible]."

RUMSFELD: "What are you, some kind of nut? You don't believe in the Constitution?"

UNIDENTIFIED 2: Well, he is.
[laughter]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: Some have characterized [inaudible]. But I would also disagree with you, sir, respectfully. You are absolutely brilliant in front of the camera. And anybody --

RUMSFELD: It's by acting. Because I don't spend any time --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: It doesn't matter. The point is that you are. And I think most of us would agree with that. And --

RUMSFELD: But I -- but -- but --

UNIDENTIFIED 1: -- to take the offensive is -- because many of us go on every day. We don't agree with everything the administration does, maybe with some of your decisions and -- but we get beat up on television sometimes when we go on and we are debating, and then we take the -- and we're all thick-skinned, or we wouldn't continue to do this.

RUMSFELD: Mm-hmm.

UNIDENTIFIED 1: But we would love -- I would personally love -- and I think I speak for most of the gentlemen here at the table -- for you to take the offensive, to just go out there and just crush these people so that when we go on, we're -- forgive me -- we're parroting, but it's what has to be said. It's what we believe in, or we would not be saying it.
[crosstalk]

UNIDENTIFIED 1: And we'd love to be following our leader, as indeed you are. You are the leader. You are our guy.

The Pentagon wouldn’t say who those unidentifieds were, but it gave Media Matters a list of confirmed participants at the meeting. Among them were Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, military analyst for Fox News who recently suggested using terrorism against Iran.

On Wednesday at its Web site, Media Matters asked the media: "Have you hosted on air the person who told Rumsfeld at the  meeting with military analysts: 'You are the leader. You are our guy'?

In that other dimension, they might have gotten an answer. But in that dimension, they wouldn't have had to ask the question.

+ + +

Glenn Greenwald has written an excellent piece based on the documents on the Pentagon Web site.

Pentagon's Propaganda Documents Go Online

Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:29:09 AM PDT

Nine Days of Silence from the Willing Accomplices

Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:43:29 AM PDT

One of many questions that Chris Wallace failed to ask Barack Obama during his 45-minute interview on Foxaganda Sunday was what the Senator thought about David Barstow’s devastating exposé in The New York Times the previous weekend.

No surprise. What would be the percentage in replacing one of the plethora of Jeremiah Wright questions with an inquiry about the megamedia’s hiring of retired military officers who sexed up the case for the U.S. invasion of Iraq and then exaggerated, distorted and lied about what was happening when the war and subsequent occupation got underway? Would that help the bottom line? Nah. Hence, none of Wallace’s pals at Foxaganda are talking about this. Indeed, mum’s been the word on Barstow’s bombshell throughout the megamedia. The talking point – or perhaps the memo from on high – seems to be: Don’t talk.

Don’t tell viewers that retired generals and colonels and majors engaged in a war-drumming, flag-waving perversion of patriotism. Or that those in the Pentagon who ordered special briefings for these analysts as part of a domestic propaganda campaign ought to get their mail deliveries slipped between the bars at Leavenworth for the next few years. Avoid the subject and maybe it will go away like so many other stories which have been disappeared as if they were dissidents in some backwater military dictatorship.

No news coverage, no commentary, no questions for any candidates. No abject apologies to viewers from station CEOs who paid double-dippers and triple-dippers to give an official patina to fabrications that have caused the killing and maiming of tens of thousands of Americans and other coalition soldiers. Plus millions of Iraqis. Business as usual. Even two days after the Pentagon suspended the briefings last Friday, Foxaganda was still employing retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney without disclosure.

You want to know more about the story, you go to Barstow’s follow-ups, to those of Glenn Greenwald at Salon, to the folks at Media Matters, and to excellent work of Ari Melber at The Nation. As a matter of fact, if you’d like to see Senator Obama’s answer to that question Wallace should have asked, you can find it (and Senator Clinton’s answer, too) at Melber’s blog here.

We’ve arrived at this situation because of three sets of cowards.

First among these are the military analysts themselves, supposedly men of courage who donned the uniform of the United States and swore an oath to uphold its Constitution. As Barstow wrote:

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

Tell the truth on the teevee and say poof! to that lucrative retainer, that seat on the board of some major player in the military-industrial complex, that ability to get the Pentagon to assign a favorable contract to the guys who are filling your bank account. What would retirement be like with a lowered cash flow? Yikes! Can't have that. So, instead of calling government policy into question, instead of acting like an officer and a gentleman, sell the country out and keep the moolah flowing. Spit on the men and women sent to fight. Spit on the Constitution. Spit on the truth. Once, they painted a yellow stripe down the back of cowardly soldiers.

Not merely cowards. As Daily Kos Contributing Editor BarbinMD wrote when this story was new:  "These men willingly deceived the American public to protect their access to power and more importantly, their profits. Perhaps traitor doesn't even begin to describe them." Indeed.

The second set of cowards are all those well-coifed news-readers and commentators and interviewers at CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN and Foxaganda who’ve not seen fit to discuss The New York Times story except to briefly note that the Pentagon has stopped giving the briefings.

We know why Bill O’Reilly hasn’t stepped up with a mea culpa. On April 14, less than a week before Barstow’s piece appeared, according to Media Matters:

During the April 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Bill O'Reilly declared: "I can't base my opinion" about the Iraq war "on anything" other than "what my military analysts, people paid by Fox News, say to me." O'Reilly added that he could trust only Fox military analysts because "[t]he newspapers ... all have an agenda" and "only give you a snapshot of the war." Later in the broadcast, O'Reilly reiterated his position, saying, "I have to base my analysis on what our Fox News military analysts, who I think are the best and always [have] been the best, are saying." Further, O'Reilly described as "ridiculous" a caller's efforts to base his view of the war by "reading the Internet and the newspapers and forming a definitive opinion [based] upon what they say."

No retraction since. No mention at all. Silence from him and his colleagues throughout the industry – how appropriate that word. They didn’t vet the analysts or check out their possible agendas the way any good journalist would do. They ignored sources that might have called into question the claims of Lt. General Disinformation. Couldn’t find the wherewithal to let viewers know that Major Mendacious worked for a military contractor with a stake in the occupation of Iraq. Just broadcast his lies and cut his checks.

Of course, pointing out the cowardice of the megamedia’s on-camera crowd is thoroughly redundant. As Greenwald wrote Monday after a little praise for the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz – one of the few print journalists of note to say anything about Barstow’s revelations:

Kurtz's specific criticism of the media's behavior regarding this story highlights a broader and even more important point. In general, the establishment media almost completely excludes critiques of their own behavior, and discussions of the role the media plays in bolstering deceitful narratives is missing almost entirely from media-controlled discourse.

One of the most significant political stories of this decade, if not this generation -- the media's full-scale complicity with the Government in the run-up to the Iraq war -- has never been meaningfully discussed or examined on any establishment television network, including cable shows. While piecemeal quibbles of media coverage can be heard (of the type Kurtz typically spouts, or the Limbaugh-driven complaint about the "liberal media"), no fundamental critique of the role the media plays, the influence of its corporate ownership, its incestuous relationship with and dependence on government power -- among the most influential factors driving our political life -- are ever heard.

And we’re not likely to because of the third group of cowards. The guys who actually own and run the channels who paid the military shills to present the Cheney-Bush administration’s Iraq case for the past six years. Indeed, as Media Matters noted, they refused to appear on PBS last Thursday when the public channel took its look into the role of the military analysts.

In the old days in Japan, so the story goes, bosses who engaged in illegal, destructive or merely shameful behavior made a deep bow to those they had offended and headed off to a private room for a date with the blade of a tanto.

Even for those who’ve betrayed their fellow citizens and helped deliver thousands to their deaths for profit, seppuku’s admittedly a bit harsh. But if the craven news chiefs and channel owners were the least bit honest and upstanding, they’d be setting aside 15 or 20 minutes of broadcast time to apologize to the American people for acting as propagandists, for their malicious, intentional, long-running disinformation campaign. And they’d end with an on-the-air resignation and a vow never again to head up a media operation.

But then, if they were honest and upstanding, they wouldn’t be who they are. And we wouldn’t be where we are, mired in Iraq with no end in sight.

A hundred years of scrubbing will not remove the blood from their hands.

WaPo's Arkin Clueless on General-Gate

Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 07:26:33 AM PDT

One day my father came home from playing tennis and my mother was lying on the floor crying. She had just heard Helen Caldicott describe the effects of a nuclear strike on a major American city. From that point on my parents dedicated themselves to ridding the the planet of nuclear weapons. My mother joined WILPF (Women's International League for Peace and Freedom). My father, frustrated by the fragmentation of the many disarmament groups (SANE, The Freeze, etc) created an umbrella group which united the various forces. At the time, William Arkin had written influential articles about the arms race and a few books including, "Nuclear Battlefields: Global Links in the Arms Race". My father invited Mr. Arkin to speak to his disarmament group and surprisingly he willingly agreed. A few weeks later, Arkin sat at my parents dinning room table speaking to members of my father's fledgling anti-nuke group.  


::

Advertise on the Liberal Blog Advertising Network.

Hate ads? Subscribe.






Support Bloggers' Rights!
Support Bloggers' Rights!


On Mothertalkers:

Guilty MT Diversion: Celebrity Endorsements for President

Summer Reading

Does school squash a child's spirit?

Weekend Open Thread

Teen Smoking Rates Plateau

On Street Prophets:

Sunday Brunch with Coffee all day long/Open Thread

Coffee Hour in the Country

Simple Answers To Simple Questions

Independence Day

TGIF Happy 4th of July Hour! With Coffee/Open Thread