The investigations were spurred by a 2008 Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times story that strongly implied the practice of giving briefings to retired military analysts (RMAs) violated Pentagon rules against propaganda. The story also suggested the ex-officers, some of whom worked as defense contractors, received financial favors from the Pentagon because of their roles.
[…]
In the end, no agency found wrongdoing.
Pulitzer, Nobel Peace Prize, Sports Day Participation Ribbon…Barack Obama only has one of these…and that’s a crime…
That’s the Times, never let the truth get in the way of an agenda-enhancing good story.
Was that the Pulitzer Prize for fiction, or the other Pulitzer Prize for fiction?
Kinda reminds one of the clatter surrounding McKay’s use of a S&A “training flight” to get to an unexpected appointment. You’d think this never happens the way the opposition is squawking. The airtime for the aircrew and helicopter will simply be deducted from the regular training airtime allotment for the time period. In short, the emergency trip for McKay will cost the taxpayer effectively nada. There are slow times in the S&A job and aircrews simply can not sit around and play cards. They have to hone their skills.
gunney,I was impressed when Tom Flanagan told Evan Solomon yesterday the uproar re Min.McKay was a ‘bullshit’ story! Live and unedited on the cbc!!
gunney 99
Greg Weston has been beating the drumms over the government Challengers and Citations…turns out the aircraft are underutilized to the point that the flight crews are flying empty just to stay current…
gunney99 at December 3, 2011 1:15 AM
Well, I’m not going to run cover for McKay…he’s a dickhead for using that helicopter.
This morning’s example of CBC over-reach involved a breathless report, based on a Freedom of Information Act request, about the government’s proposed Office of Religious Freedom. The aim of the story was to suggest that purpose of the initiative was solely to appeal to and influence religious and immigrant groups (such as Coptic Christians in the GTA). Having done so, the “evidence” produced in support of the charge was a series of mock questions and answers prepared by staffers for use when the Minister or others were ambushed by the charge.
The preparation of such mock questions/answers is common practice in the offices of most MPs, and certainly in those of ministers and opposition critics. It is, however, consistent with CBC logic that preparing a response to predictable political attacks by the media constitutes proof of guilt.
Can we finally re-name that thing the “Pulitzer Prize for Journ-o-lism”?
Agree with Urbahn: The Times should return the prize; Levin should foot the bill; Rumsfeld and the RMAs should get public apologies. Oh, and pigs should fly.
How about the “Putz-ner Prize”?
So when is the New York Times and congressional Democrats who organized no less than 4 federal investigations going to provide ‘free dry cleaning’ for the soldiers dress uniforms that they have managed to soil with all the mud they sling?
I gather the words honour, truth, and duty don’t figure into their lexicon…
Cheers
Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North”
They never gave back the Pulitzer for Walter Duranty’s lies about Russia, Stalin, and the Ukraine. And millions died there. And Duranty covered it up for Stalin.
What makes you think the NYT would suddenly have morals about besmirching reputations of (obviously Fascist Eurocentric White male) retired officers compared to lying about genocide?
rd, you beat me to it, good for you.
I can certainly think of more legitimate things to dump on Rumsfeld re: propaganda and the press. Stick a pencil in my eye, but I would be curious to know how 80% of the American people were led to believe that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for 9/11. This other issue pales in comparison.
I think it was a big mistake for the Bush administration to try to “micro-manage” the CIA during the 9/11 crisis because that’s why they ended up with all sorts of stupid intelligence — politically engineered. Not that busting Saddam was not a good thing — he had already proven to be one dangerous dude to Mid-East security. But connecting him to 9/11 was obviously propaganda and the main reason why the Republicans took such a beating in the elections. The U.S. public reacted by electing an even worse political engineer on the Left: Our globally beloved Oba-messiah.
@rd ‘Duranty covered it up for Stalin.’
Walter Duranty was the most notable journalist to promote Stalinism, but was not the only one.
“Foreign journalists working in Stalin’s Russia operated according to the strict dictates of the government—interviews were scripted, travel was restricted, and reports were censored. All the while, the secret police eavesdropped on their conversations, read their mail, noted their associations, and followed their every move. Any journalist who was deemed to be subversive faced, at the very least, harassment and immediate deportation. Consequently, many newsmen, preferring a comfortable existence to disgrace and unemployment, sacrificed journalistic integrity in favor of an amicable agreement with the regime. According to these rules, journalists would post to their Western editors news items that cast the U.S.S.R. in a favorable light. In return, the Soviet government would allow them to remain in the country to live a comfortable existence, supplying their guests with such creature comforts as caviar, vodka, and mistresses.”
http://www.fixed-point.org/index.php/fixarticles/428-famineoftruth
They had to suppress the truth in order to report it.
I have tears in my eyes. Canada has all growd up.
Its better than the Olympics.
Rizwan, thank you for expanding on rd’s comment.
The Pulitzer has about as much credibility in some ways over the years as the Nobel that Al Gore received.
Robert Service in his book “Comrades” mentions a number of urinolists that took Stalin’s Ruble.
A good friend of mine was interviewed for a local drive emphasizing a subject about which he would be considered an expert. His comments and ideas were basically in line with the media’s agenda but when he watched himself on TV he was shocked. What was broadcast was his picture and words saying things he never said nor intended to say! If that’s the way the media treats ‘friendlies’ what does it do to distort the words of their enemies?