BREAKING and nasty re: Iraq war , NYT retired general TV analysts under Rumsfeld's thumb

[yourguide]

So goes the drumbeat of war:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?pagewanted=1&hp

*snip*

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

*snip*

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

*snip*

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

*snip*

At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.

*snip*

Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Quelle surprise.

[yourguide]

2. Assuming front page, it's an 11 web page story

[gateley]

3. What does "11 web story" mean? Thanks. nt

[yourguide]

4. Usually on the web the NYT stories have 1-3 web pages

to click through...this one is 11 pages.

[gateley]

9. Thanks! nt

[Cassandra]

8. It is on the front page of the Sunday paper.

I'm going to read online but I just saw the paper being put together and that story is on the front page , above the fold.

[yourguide]

10. tx.

[SpiralHawk]

5. Republicon homelanders hate the truth

Because they truth are they are a corrupt cabal of totalitarian freaks.

[grasswire]

6. and how many times did NYT act as stenographer for Pentagon?

Remember Judith Miller.

I applaud this investigation. But I will not forget Judith Miller.

[yourguide]

7. yup...this is just an extension of that...

[Usrename]

11. How much of this is in response to anger over the ABC debate.

The media will now bash itself hard for a day or two, and then pretend like they are on top of reporting on all the propaganda.

I think they plan for this kind of bullshit. They will not try to honestly address the issues raised by shoddy ABC debate. At least not now, when it might have a positive effect. Instead, we will be reading about ABC's current intentional attempt to hijack the Democratic primaries in some expose six years from now, when another major media propaganda failure occurs.

It's as if there is an established pattern of behavior, one where they unabashedly expose conduct that happened years ago, as if for a distraction, and to make people think that they are actively working to try and expose the same kind of stuff that is going on today. To make people think they are cleaning up their act. And the timing of it is just weird. The propaganda from a few years ago is intentionally exposed in an effort to provide cover for the new crap they are spewing today.

This reminds me a lot of the revelations that everyone in the media knew all along that Scotty McClellan was lying when he said Rove and Libby were not involved in the outing of Valerie Plame. Even though nobody here ever bought the lie, the media let the lie stand for two years, until after Bush was reselected and an indictment was made. We're being played again.

A lot has been learned over the last few years. For a well-written expose of todays current flavor of propaganda, see this post by grantcart:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5575573

[blm]

12. No wonder networks barely reported when Kerry called for Rumsfeld to lose his job 3 times

in 2003 and 2004. Dean and Clark also joined Kerry in this when they were candidates - and none of the networks would take their attacks seriously - even after Abu Ghraib.

Come to think of it - our best known Dem leaders wouldn't back them up, either, even after Kerry was the Dem nominee.