A 7,600-word disappearing act
April 23, 2008
The New York Times ran a story on a highly questionable Pentagon program in which retired military leaders tried to manipulate public opinion in favor of the Iraq war. A story like that should have legs. So what happened to it?
By Barry Sussman
bsussman@niemanwatchdog.org
The New York Times reported on April 20th that several dozen retired military leaders with ties to groups competing for hundreds of billions in government contracts have for years taken part in a Pentagon campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. Included were a number of retired generals and other high-ranking officers who are regular contributors on op-ed pages and TV.
The story has implications of illegal government propaganda and, possibly, improper financial gains. The Times reporter, David Barstow, stopped short of making those charges -- but they are at least as logical as more benign interpretations.
For the mainstream news organizations that took part, this effort is yet another cause of embarrassment. Some of the same outlets that failed to ask hard questions in the run-up to the war, it turns out, proceeded to carry water for the White House and Pentagon in the years since.
(Continued here.)
The New York Times ran a story on a highly questionable Pentagon program in which retired military leaders tried to manipulate public opinion in favor of the Iraq war. A story like that should have legs. So what happened to it?
By Barry Sussman
bsussman@niemanwatchdog.org
The New York Times reported on April 20th that several dozen retired military leaders with ties to groups competing for hundreds of billions in government contracts have for years taken part in a Pentagon campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war. Included were a number of retired generals and other high-ranking officers who are regular contributors on op-ed pages and TV.
The story has implications of illegal government propaganda and, possibly, improper financial gains. The Times reporter, David Barstow, stopped short of making those charges -- but they are at least as logical as more benign interpretations.
For the mainstream news organizations that took part, this effort is yet another cause of embarrassment. Some of the same outlets that failed to ask hard questions in the run-up to the war, it turns out, proceeded to carry water for the White House and Pentagon in the years since.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home