COLUMN: Accusations of news manipulation deserve to be carefully considered
by Paul Bowers | The Daily Gamecock (University of South Carolina)
Issue date: 4/23/08 Section: Opinion
(U-WIRE) — The top news item in Sunday's New York Times could prove to be the defining story of our time. According to a lengthy investigative report by David Barstow, military analysts at every major television news network have been providing glowing reports of the Iraq war—with less than honest intentions.
In case you haven't had the chance yet to read the article, here's the gist: The networks, desperate for inside views on military actions, have hired retired military officers to provide commentary on air. The Pentagon, picking up on an opportunity to give the war a positive spin, has allegedly hand-picked at least 75 of these key commentators to meet with the higher-ups and essentially act as government puppets.
Here's how: According to the NYT, the group of analysts is "heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts." Supposedly, their aired opinions directly impact whether the Pentagon supports their business prospects, and neither they nor the networks are straightforward about this connection.
Also, these analysts are often paid by the networks according to the number of appearances they make, meaning that fresh inside scoops become valuable commodities. Analysts have testified that they were denied access to Pentagon officials as a result of airing unfavorable opinions.
In an imbroglio of this scale, it's best to digest the facts in their entirety. Read the article (all of it). Peruse the accompanying documents. The evidence is not quite damning, but it raises unsettling questions about the state of our nation's democratic values.
Nobody was expecting these retired generals to bash the U.S. military-they have, after all, devoted much of their lives to its service. And nobody can fault the Pentagon for trying to keep itself in high esteem.
But if information is being willfully manipulated, and if our government is exploiting business interests to sway media portrayal, there are serious First Amendment issues at stake.
In case you haven't had the chance yet to read the article, here's the gist: The networks, desperate for inside views on military actions, have hired retired military officers to provide commentary on air. The Pentagon, picking up on an opportunity to give the war a positive spin, has allegedly hand-picked at least 75 of these key commentators to meet with the higher-ups and essentially act as government puppets.
Here's how: According to the NYT, the group of analysts is "heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts." Supposedly, their aired opinions directly impact whether the Pentagon supports their business prospects, and neither they nor the networks are straightforward about this connection.
Also, these analysts are often paid by the networks according to the number of appearances they make, meaning that fresh inside scoops become valuable commodities. Analysts have testified that they were denied access to Pentagon officials as a result of airing unfavorable opinions.
In an imbroglio of this scale, it's best to digest the facts in their entirety. Read the article (all of it). Peruse the accompanying documents. The evidence is not quite damning, but it raises unsettling questions about the state of our nation's democratic values.
Nobody was expecting these retired generals to bash the U.S. military-they have, after all, devoted much of their lives to its service. And nobody can fault the Pentagon for trying to keep itself in high esteem.
But if information is being willfully manipulated, and if our government is exploiting business interests to sway media portrayal, there are serious First Amendment issues at stake.
Be the first to comment on this story