The Times' Loose Cannon
TIMES FIRES A BIG GUN, HITS WRONG TARGET
By Chris Daly
As the world knows, the Times launched a massive assault Sunday on the Pentagon in the form of a 7,625-word front-page “expose” of the cozy relationship between the Pentagon and an inter-service corps of “analysts” who feed the news media. The paper did some valuable reporting (and should be applauded for bringing suit to pry loose some of the documents the report was based on).
But the piece, by David Barstow, failed to score a direct hit. In my judgment, it was aimed at the wrong target. The newspaper came off sounding disingenuous and (needlessly) antagonistic to the military.
Certainly, it can come as no surprise that the Pentagon seeks to shape the battlefield in the media world just as it does in the real world. I more or less figured that’s what they were up to.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived* as authoritative and utterly independent.
[* emphasis added]
And, though it is chilling to hear it actually stated, I suppose it is no surprise that the top brass seek to target the hearts and minds of the American people.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway [operations head for the Joint Chiefs] said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys[referring to the analysts] can help us not let that happen.”
As for the “analysts,” they were guilty only of pursuing their own interests. Some of them are trying to drum up business for the defense contractors they work for. Some may be bored with retirement and may want to feel important by going on TV. Most of them probably believe that it was a good idea to invade Iraq, or at least not to get defeated there.
So, the Times’ sense of shock, disappointment, and outrage over these disclosures was misplaced. The real target should have been the media, which got off rather lightly. The question should have been: In all this mess, which institution is not living up to its own standards?
The answer, of course, is the media, which employ these “analysts.” They are the ones who are guilty of shoddy practices. Where is the transparency? Why don’t they vet these guys? Why don’t they disclose the massive conflicts of interest? Why don’t they bestir themselves to find – or hire – truly independent analysts?
The television network that relies most heavily on the analysts is, not surprisingly, Fox News, which seems to operate on the principle that the proper role for the media is to cheer for Republican administrations. The others – CNN and the broadcast networks along with, to a less extent, the print media, including the Times itself – should be ashamed of themselves. And they should not have been allowed to get off with the mealy-mouthed non-denial denials they all issued.
[p.s. This seems like a good time to re-visit “Wag the Dog” (1997, Barry Levinson) and see how much of this was foretold in that brilliant satire.]
By Chris Daly
As the world knows, the Times launched a massive assault Sunday on the Pentagon in the form of a 7,625-word front-page “expose” of the cozy relationship between the Pentagon and an inter-service corps of “analysts” who feed the news media. The paper did some valuable reporting (and should be applauded for bringing suit to pry loose some of the documents the report was based on).
But the piece, by David Barstow, failed to score a direct hit. In my judgment, it was aimed at the wrong target. The newspaper came off sounding disingenuous and (needlessly) antagonistic to the military.
Certainly, it can come as no surprise that the Pentagon seeks to shape the battlefield in the media world just as it does in the real world. I more or less figured that’s what they were up to.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived* as authoritative and utterly independent.
[* emphasis added]
And, though it is chilling to hear it actually stated, I suppose it is no surprise that the top brass seek to target the hearts and minds of the American people.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway [operations head for the Joint Chiefs] said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys[referring to the analysts] can help us not let that happen.”
As for the “analysts,” they were guilty only of pursuing their own interests. Some of them are trying to drum up business for the defense contractors they work for. Some may be bored with retirement and may want to feel important by going on TV. Most of them probably believe that it was a good idea to invade Iraq, or at least not to get defeated there.
So, the Times’ sense of shock, disappointment, and outrage over these disclosures was misplaced. The real target should have been the media, which got off rather lightly. The question should have been: In all this mess, which institution is not living up to its own standards?
The answer, of course, is the media, which employ these “analysts.” They are the ones who are guilty of shoddy practices. Where is the transparency? Why don’t they vet these guys? Why don’t they disclose the massive conflicts of interest? Why don’t they bestir themselves to find – or hire – truly independent analysts?
The television network that relies most heavily on the analysts is, not surprisingly, Fox News, which seems to operate on the principle that the proper role for the media is to cheer for Republican administrations. The others – CNN and the broadcast networks along with, to a less extent, the print media, including the Times itself – should be ashamed of themselves. And they should not have been allowed to get off with the mealy-mouthed non-denial denials they all issued.
[p.s. This seems like a good time to re-visit “Wag the Dog” (1997, Barry Levinson) and see how much of this was foretold in that brilliant satire.]
Labels: journalism, military analysts, New York Times, Pentagon
posted by Chris Daly at 10:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home