ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
We certainly live an interesting time of our lives .
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 ó an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
Adolph Hitler controlled the German media too. Seems to be some similarities here. Dont you agree?
Not really, the administration doesn't decide what the networks air. They provided info and access to the former military commanders hoping that if they could show these "analysts" what they were doing they'd get some favorable press. That's pretty different from the administration telling the network what to say. The network is free to say what they want, and have whoever they want on their shows. Its more a commentary on lazy reporting on the so called "news" and "news networks" than anything.
This is another example of the NYT making a big deal over something that to me at least doesn't look like anything out of the ordinary. Yes the administration is propagandizing their efforts, but like it or not that happens and has happened throughout our history to help Presidents sell their policies. Look at these two quotes from the times, buried far down in the story but extremely damaging to the idea that the Pentagon pressed these guys to say only what they wanted:
"The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts."
"Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. ďIt is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,Ē said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. ďIt is my life.Ē
Let's ask this, what exactly is your expectation for the kind of analysis you would get from people that spent their lives in the Pentagon?
The lesson I think is to always be skeptical of the motivations of the people that are giving you information. A Pentagon lifer is much more likely to spin information from the Pentagon in a positive way. Some other examples: How about someone getting funding to study man made climate change's opinion of global warming? What about a real estate expert that makes commissions on sales telling you the market is at the bottom right now and its a great time to buy? A virologist talking about the danger of SARS? Someone from the administration talking about how effective policies are that they helped create? Someone who makes money writing conspiracy books talking about the next huge government coverup? A former advisor with an axe to grind telling you how bad the politician they advised is (Dick Morris is a great example of this, his "analysis" consists mainly of telling us how bad the Clintons suck). On and on and on we see how much public opinion is affected by people that as it turns out are NOT impartial and proper journalists but are biased people looking for an advantage in their own personal situations.
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. ďPlease let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,Ē he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. ďYouíll lose all access,Ē Dr. McCausland said.
None of this is much of a surprise, this adm has been trying to control just about everything, look at Rummy.. he did not like the intel of the CIA so he was authorized to start his own intelligence agency within the pentagon.. what amazes me is that instead of holding the CIA accountable, if they were making mistakes.. just start their own agency that they can control and manipulate.
ďWe like to say that dependability is more important than ability,Ē Bill Belichickism....