Dart to the television news industry, for a shameful nonresponse to serious questions about their vetting of analysts hired to comment on the invasion of Iraq and other military matters.
On April 20, The New York Times published David Barstow’s eye-opening investigation into a Defense Department program designed to influence the influencers. In 2002-2003, as the Bush administration made its case against Iraq, the Pentagon rounded up more than seventy-five retired military officials who were already on retainer with various broadcast media outlets to provide military commentary and analysis. Internally, Pentagon staff officials referred to the analysts as “surrogates” and “message-force multipliers,” and provided them with briefings, talking points, and gratis tours of Iraq and Guantánamo. The analysts got special access to senior officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
That access seems key: Barstow reported that a majority of analysts participating in the program had ties to defense contractors, who could presumably benefit from rubbing shoulders up top. One general admitted to Barstow that, desperate to preserve his Pentagon perks, he had trimmed his public criticism. Others said they worried the Pentagon would show them the door if they strayed too far from the administration line; indeed, Barstow describes one case where an analyst was booted from the group after being too harsh on air.
The piece was built on the back of a laudable two-year, Freedom of Information Act battle. The Times and its counsel dragged out thousands of pages of Pentagon transcripts, e-mails, and memos describing the program, but only after months of delays and circular excuses. As public editor Clark Hoyt wrote in a column describing the struggle, full cooperation came only after the paper persisted and a judge threatened to bring Pentagon officials into his court to explain “why they shouldn’t be...
Complete access to this article will soon be available for purchase. Subscribers will be able to access this article, and the rest of CJR’s magazine archive, for free. Select articles from the last 6 months will remain free for all visitors to CJR.org.





All this says is that journalism's code of ethics has failed the public's trust and essentially broken the social contract. Therefore, regulation is needed to control unethical practices of nondisclosures of conflicts of interest and failure to fact check and to cite sources appropriately.
Posted by Annie on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 10:08 AM
Is it true that a corporation's reason for existence is to create profit for its shareholders? I am certainly not a corporate lawyer.
Can anyone imagine how it would help profit-margins for one of a small number of "news" outlets to announce "Hey, we had our heads up our collectives ***es and fed you all a line of bullhockey, who knows, might happen again (and again)" [see: Iraqi WMD, un-announced Pentagon spokespeople doing "analysis," et cetera].
It's bad for the bottom line, and any producer worth a dime knows it.
By the way, it sure looks like Georgia launched a massive, deadly invasion of South Ossetia. Russia may have bombed some apartment buildings in Gori, but most of the 2,000 dead might well be Ossetian civilians, and most of them, some say, killed by Georgians.
The Russians believe, for reasons good or ill, that Georgians are engaged in "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" of Ossetians, and they beleive America was considering entering on the side of "fascist" Saakashvili and his murderous bunch.
Posted by Josh SN on Tue 12 Aug 2008 at 07:30 PM