[T]he New York Times itself did not report the Pentagon’s vindication until Christmas Day, when most people are occupied with family and fun, and buried it on page A20 under the headline “Pentagon Finds No Fault In Ties to TV Analysts.”
[T]he New York Times itself did not report the Pentagon’s vindication until Christmas Day, when most people are occupied with family and fun, and buried it on page A20 under the headline “Pentagon Finds No Fault In Ties to TV Analysts.”
Yeah well what if they did?
Seems it was OK for the other side to influence the pinko media during the Viet Nam Era….making the media de facto enemy agents—doing a psy-op.
I recall Grenada….we kept the media out for 3 days….except for a hand-full of Soldier Of Fortune “correspondents embeded with the marine assault teams. The SOF guys were highly trained veterans, who went in over the beach with us.
When the media was let in, they rushed about desperately seeking somebody—anybody to denounce out intervention….to be frustrated by the locals acting like the liberated.
No apologies…during Gulf I, we kept a tight leash on the media. CNN was elated that they had a TV crew in Baghdad….we were elated to have real time imaging of the target zone. When CNN realized this…..they were not amused….
Never-the-less we considered Gulf I a PR success despite the media’s complaints about being manipulated.
If WW2 media had behaved like the Viet Nam Era media….they would have been cutting pulp wood in the Canadian taiga for the duration.
During wartime our media is supposed to be part of OUR effort…not the enemies.
What changed was that post WW2 media had more allegiance to the Kremlin than New York.
Seems like a braggadocious thirteen year old could win a Pulitzer…
So the Pentagon investigated its own propaganda arm and found everything okay? Hm…less than convincing.
NYT makes a correction on X-Mass day…Hmm..kinda telling….
The pentagon did NOT investigate its own propaganda arm. The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General is independently appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. A comparable position in Canada would be the Auditor General. In this case, an open and independent investigation determined that the story published in 2008 by the New York Times was a fabrication. There was no substance to it. It was a lie. They released the news of their duplicitous story on Christmas day on page A20. The Times should give its Pulitzer back and issue an apology. So should Libertarians are Smarter. OK, Libertarians are Smarter can keep his Pulitzer.
….thirteen year old girlz…
Nuu Yaak Tymes ..CBC print edition.
The NYT buried the story because it throws into grave doubt the radical narrative propagated by this newspaper. Liberalism dies wherever the truth lives, and the NYT publisher knows it.
Btw, Kate: Love the Pulitzer lying next to the dead dino.
Isn’t it high time we started calling it “The Walter Duranty Prize in Journalism”?
And they wonder why their stock price continues toward zero…
Good catch Kate.
sasquatch’s last line “What changed was that post WW2 media had more allegiance to the Kremlin than New York.” hones in on the crux of the matter and nick calls the Pulitzer for what it really is.
Time to rename the Pulitzer Prize to the Bullshitzer Prize.
nick at December 28, 2011 8:24 AM
Hey nick,
you should send your suggestion to the newsbusters.
From historical point of view they may seriously consider it. This would kill at least 2 flies with one swat.
All Pulitzer are property of cadres, workers, and peasants.
Same as truth.
Lev @ 10:30:
Cheers!
For those who think Wall Street is a free market GOP shop,
Think again:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286704/repo-men-kevin-d-williamson
A few findings from the report that were conveniently left unmentioned by the Washington Times, NewsBusters, and SDA:
– The inquiry confirmed that Pentagon public affairs cultivated a network of retired military analysts (RMAs) to serve as informal cheerleaders of the war, and provided them with talking points before their network appearances.
– Some RMAs even actively requested talking points on specific topics or issues, and asked whether Public Affairs wanted anything talked up or downplayed.
– These talking points were described by at least one RMA as not merely factual tidbits, but “a political agenda expressed in some way in bullet points given for a political purpose to someone who is going to make a speech, or go on television, or radio, or write something.”
– The inquiry also confirmed that the Pentagon hired a company to track and report back on what the RMAs were saying on news media programs, and that least four RMAs were kicked out of the program after they went off the talking points and made comments critical of the war and/or Pentagon operations.
The inquiry focused narrowly on whether the Pentagon public affairs office conducted the RMA outreach activities “in compliance with policy and regulation.” Yet the NY Times article never accused the Pentagon of violating internal policy, but rather questioned the ethics of the Pentagon cultivating a network of what were essentially private citizens (albeit prominent and credible ones) to serve as unofficial public spokespeople on an issue of top national interest and security, providing them with talking points for use when appearing as pundits on the news media, and instructing them not to mention that they were connected in any way with the Pentagon.
Curious how your otherwise healthy skepticism of government gets tossed right out the window whenever it’s convenient to do so.
Oh, and as for NewsBusters’ accusation that “[T]he New York Times itself did not report the Pentagon’s vindication until Christmas Day”, maybe it had something do with the fact that the Pentagon held back on publicly releasing the report until its Christmas Eve news dump, making the Dec 25 NY Times follow-up article actually quite timely.
It seems the conservative Washington Times were merely given access to a draft version back in September, and based their article on that version. Gee, I wonder why NewsBusters and SDA didn’t bother mentioning that either.