I am a great believer in the freedom of the press - freedom from Government of the day.

A newspaper can try to influence you, but if you read a newspaper for year, decades you can make a rational judgment of what you are reading. Take the NYT - it ran some articles about veterans that I felt where plain wrong an biased, but others were clear and precise apraisals of the news, that stood critical analysis.

A newspaper that abuses its good reputation, won't have one for a long time.

The news fed to Judith Miller and printed in good faith by the NYT - quoted by Cheney as proof that 'even the NYT ...' are one of the most appalling cases of media manipulation it Times of War.

SkullBiscuit - perfect analysis.

Have you been reading the front pages of the NYT the last seven years? Do the stories they cover, do they IN ANY WAY appear like the Whitehouse had "control" of the NYT editorial decisions?!?! That doesn't even make any sense!

Criticisms of the Whitehouse, controlled and manipulated by the Whitehouse?!? Huh. Criticism of Conservatives, NeoCons, Karl Rove, the Plame case... does that really sound like Bush Administration talking points to you? Or even the Pentagon's talking points?

How about detailed articles about the Patriot Act, Extraordinary Rendition, TIA, financial spyiing, telecoms surveillance... are you really asking me to believe the Pentagon wanted those stories made public, considering much of that is considered national security level programs?

Look, just because a few reporters felt that someone really wanted them to put a slant on a story, does not mean that they "control" those reporters. Nor does it mean the world is comming to an end: the whole world was subjected to mass propaganda campaigns in the '30's and '40's, and we've managed to come out ok.

But have you really considered who DOES control and manipulate the NYT? Well, the NYT editorial staff... that's who. And thus maybe they CONTROL YOU.




Here's my problem: the NYT is the ones that deliver the message, after they picked and chose the stories, the relevant bits in the stories, after going through editorial staff... that tells me the Pentagon and Whitehouse didn't have any effect on the end product delivered to the public... but the NYT staff sure did.

Remember the news reports coming out of the Ukraine a few years ago, during the opening of what soon became known as "The Orange Revolution"? what happened? They were ordered to deliver the govt. message, and did so... BUT... the sign language person informed the population to ignore the talk and pay attention to his message about what's really going on. Now, that tells me the real power to influence is not even a dictatorial leader, but the newsroom's people. So if you feel you lost your faith, you might want to re-examine whether it's the govt. you lost faith in, or "The Grey Lady".

I'm not concerned about the NYT lasting more than 8 years, frankly I couldn't care less if they thrive or go into receivership. However, they have a far greater responsibility not because of longevity, but because of frequency and volume: they deliver a massive amount of STORIES every day, globally. Their STORIES are picked up by hundreds of newspapers (or more?) around the world. That gives them a MASSIVE power to influence opinions.


PS: note how the industry refers to news reports as "stories"... I can't help but wonder about that!

Freedom of the Press is only one important component in getting the real information. Objectivity... something horribly lacking in today's mainstream news outlets IMO, is at least as important.

And yet, Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel does not apparently agree:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2...g-iwo-jima-phot




You and I have the time and patience to read the newspaper every day year in year out, but most people just look at the headlines on the front page... AND THAT'S IT.

I just spend several months in class, and let me tell you, the lack of even cursory knowledge of current events was stunning. But truly shocking was the lack of accuracy of even that cursory knowledge, as reported by mainstream news! Truly speaking, 90% of the general population does not have the SLIGHTEST clue about what's going on in the world. You and I, and the majority of SHQ membership would fit in that last informed 10%, even if we draw different conclusions from the same data/reports, at least we aren't routinely making drastic mistakes about the basic story...




Might that explain why the NYT is loosing it's value, at an accelerating rate?

I mean, other than just the internet, 'cause it sure seems few people other than myself actually read bloggs?

Military analysists are like shrinks at a trial, you can find one that supports your agenda no matter what the facts really are.

The NYT article is basically a long anti Bush crap fest which is typical for them.

There's never any mention of this in the media here. It's either "Bush is a liar" or "Bush is a hero". There's no comparison between the type of executive power granted to FDR during WWII, nor any mention about dissent during WWII. No context to our "reporting" and "informing", none. How about some background, media? Nah, that's boring. Bring on the "yelling heads" and the "reality" TV-style news stories. We get the media and the democracy we deserve, really.

First let me say that everyone has an agenda. I am not, and have not endorsed the NYT editorial point of view. Personally I rely on several news sources across the political spectrum in order to help inform me regarding issues. The NYT is liberally leaning IMO, but personally I have found their reporting quality, depth and breadth to be good.



The issue as I see it is not whether you are pro war or anti-war, but that perceived "independent military analysts" had clear conflicts of interest to this independence as I noted above.



They are getting paid a stipend by the network to appear on TV --- yes no big deal. BUT the real money lies in the inside information they provide their defense firm clients and that is predicated upon telling the Pentagon's story while pretending to be "independent military analysts". Clear conflict of interest.



If I appeared in uniform (when I was) before a reporter I would be given a story to stick to by the unit PAO (Public Affairs Office) I deviated from that story at risk to my career. When you see someone talking to the press in uniform you know they are representing the military which in turn is subordinate to the executive branch of government.

HOWEVER, as per my previous posts, when out of uniform and a private citizen, AND in keeping with the NON PARTISAN nature of military service, military analysts have enjoyed a perceived neutrality (Look at the General's revolt cited in that same article where a bunch of retired military officers have been outspoken critics of the administration's Iraq policies) THEREFORE these guys cloaked themselves in the perceived neutrality which the public accords ex-military officers, in order to be talking heads for the administration AND get money for their contractors and themselves (through insider information others who would not or could not play the game could not get), in addition to their network appearance fee.

Two clear conflicts of interest as I noted earlier, and as a retired military officer myself, I resent the damage they will have done to our perceived neutrality regarding military affairs commentary among the public. There is nothing wrong (it is a right!) with retired military officers making public political stands. It is another thing entirely for them to do it while in uniform --- punishable under the UCMJ as it would be a clear violation of their subordination to the administration in power and more importantly --- the Constitution. You take an oath to uphold the Constitution and obey the orders (lawful) of the officers (including civilians) appointed over you.

But if they are going to make public statements endorsing a particular course of action where they stand to profit we would expect them to disclose their financial interests --- just like we expect economic analysts/brokers of financial information to do --- otherwise known as full disclosure.

These guys did wrong --- period.

SB

I hope the government is being deceptive. Many of the people in this thread are former military and I am not sure I would trust some of them with information sensitive to the survival of this country.

I must have missed something, which I am perfectly capable of doing. I didn't understand the story to be that active duty personnel were being "used" to push an agenda, but rather retired military and related type personnel. Who are perfectly able to say whatever they want.

Are you saying the media doesn't have an agenda? They clearly do. They always say they're unbiased, but they're not. My point about the negative versus positive reporting was based on this, and I do think it's a valid argument. Let's say it's 75% negative versus 25% positive. I think the negative number is more than that, but be that as it may. What does that tell us? That the media is in the Pentagon's pocket? Hardly. Maybe the Pentagon felt like fighting back in this informational war. I don't know, just wondering. Maybe it's just the media's natural inclination to build on the negative and ignore the positive. Negative news sells. Doesn't matter where. But in war, it's a little different. We glam on to every single negative news story and expound upon it and it has a detrimental effect for the war effort. The other side watches all this stuff closely and they use it to their best benefit. Remember the stories about our troops murdering civilians? Most was a bunch of crap, a few were true and we prosecuted those people.

When does the other side do this? When do they self analyze and worry about their actions? How they may be perceived? No, they don't. They pound on, relentless without this self imposed OMG what are doing and worrying.

They chop off heads, blow innocents up with bombs, terrorize routinely. Where's the objectivity about this? I'm not trying to sound jingoistic, but really. Let's have some balance. When's the last time we heard a good analytical report about Al Queda's terror? Nothing. It's like, well, poor SOB's, guess it's all they've got to fight their war against the bad USA and Brits.

I exaggerate, but not much.