I finally had a chance to read the full NY Times article from the other day on the Pentagon's public relations offensive.
It got me thinking, who comes out looking the ugliest? Is it:
a) The Bush Administration officials who deliberately traded access for favorable spin, and were more concerned with shaping public opinion than owning up to the truth of their failed war strategy?
b) The analysts themselves, decorated retired officers who put their vanity and business interests ahead of the public's right to know the truth--not to mention the lives of their active duty colleagues?
c) The networks and other media outlets who allowed anyone with a few stars and bars to spout propaganda without investigating possible conflicts of interest or questioning the source of the "inside information" being revealed.
I vote c.
This adminstration has certainly gone way overboard in its willingness to treat the truth as a mere inconvenience and resort to questionable tactics. But in general, public officials act in a political world, and we can expect any president and administration to do their utmost to build public support for their policies. As a former advocate myself (albiet for campaign finance reform, not war) I can even kind of admire DoD public relations chief Torie Clark for her astuteness in recognizing that military analysts were the most effective vehicles for her boss' message.
Many of the analysts probably believed most of what they were spouting (call it ideological blinders, an inability to see a naked emperor...). There's no excuse for those who recognized the disconnect and were willing to trade their integrity for the bright lights of TV and the dull glow of lucrative contracts for their favor-seeking clients. But, they're just a set of flawed individuals.
The biggest concern to me is the breakdown of a system of free press that is supposed to inform the public through independent reporting. In not conducting the most basic conflict-of-interest checks, the networks fundamentally abdicated their responsibilities to the public.
Perhaps we should remind them more regularly that they rent our public airwaves from the public for the whopping price of $0 in exchange for the directive to operate in the public interest. Take action by signing Progressive Future's Petition for an Open Media.
After reading the New York Times article I was not surprised by the fact that media analysts had relied on questionable sources and failed in conflict-of-interest tests. I was not suprised by their lack, intentional or not, of commitment to reporting factual events to the public either. My faith in the media's ability to practice professional journalism is almost non-existant. News media is for profit and entertainment, not necessarily to effectually inform the citizenry. If anything, it is in the best business interest of News Media to perpetually decieve us.
What I found most surprising, however, was the level of co-operation between news media analysts and big military businesses. The "military analsyts," who journalists have heavily depended on as "legitimate" sources, clearly represent interests of the defense industry. Military analysts' reports on the war reflect their company's pursuit of greater profits won through contracts in Iraq. The war has been excedingly profitable for the defense industry. In order to keep the war profitable these companies must keep the public underinformed to the point at which citizens do not see a reason to speak out in opposition to the war. Wide spread public opposition will result in troop withdrawls and deescalation, which regarldess of the rate, will be a financial loss.
