Team Infidel
Forum Spin Doctor
Washington Times
May 11, 2008
Pg. B4
By John Guardiano
Mainstream media ignorance of military affairs skews reporting on a myriad of topics ranging from basic training to women in combat, from weapons procurement to the Iraq war.
To help bridge this gaping knowledge gap, the Pentagon wisely decided, in the early years of the Bush administration, to give information briefings to retired military officers who serve as broadcast news analysts.
Because of their professional backgrounds, these analysts understand and are sympathetic to the military. This distinguishes them from most members of the mainstream media and some members of Congress, who never met a Marine gunnery sergeant or Army non-commissioned officer, let alone walked point in a combat zone.
But now, in a craven act of bureaucratic cowardice, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, Robert Hastings, has announced he is suspending these briefings pending an internal review. The reason: an April 20 New York Times article, which depicts the briefings as part of a covert Bush administration campaign to propagandize the public into supporting the Iraq war.
“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on the air.”
So charges the New York Times and its liberal allies in Congress. But why is it wrong to share information with military analysts? What makes this “exploitation”? Why is it legitimate for Pentagon officials to brief antagonistic liberal reporters, but illegitimate for them to brief friendly conservative analysts?
Make no mistake: The New York Times and other mainstream media lie and distort the news on a daily basis. They commit both sins of omission and sins of commission. They often see the trees, but miss the forest — and they conveniently miss those trees that might elucidate the forest. Moreover, they amplify, without any sense of proportion or fairness, bad news, while downplaying good news that might contradict their preconceived storylines.
I saw this as a Marine in Iraq in 2003, where my team’s good work and accomplishments were ignored, and no reporter could ever be found. (Though a Wall Street Journal op-ed that I wrote in August 2003 did result in National Public Radio sending a reporter to meet with me and other Marines in Al Hillah, Iraq. The resulting report was informative, fair and balanced.)
Unfortunately, the mainstream media’s lies and distortions continue to this day. Just try getting a mainstream media embed in some of the more remote parts of Iraq outside of the Green Zone. Or try getting an honest and historically informed assessment of the military situation on the ground in any of Iraq’s 17 provinces outside of Baghdad. That’s well nigh mission impossible.
Thus, the Pentagon’s efforts to share information more broadly with analysts, bloggers and other “new media” are not only understandable, but imperative: Because what is crucially needed is not less, but more communication — not fewer, but more media voices — to cut through the fog of mainstream media misinformation, subpar reporting and distortions. Yet, in an brazen act of professional effrontery and journalistic jujitsu, the New York Times has, with the Pentagon’s connivance, squelched dissident media voices. Now broadcast news analysts who might contradict the New York Times’ left-wing world-view will not have access to Pentagon information briefings.
New York Times reporters, though, will continue to stalk the halls of the Pentagon and attend media-only briefings.
As George Orwell presciently wrote, “Everyone’s equal, but some are more equal than others.”
What about the financial interest of some analysts who work for corporations that either have or that solicit Pentagon contracts? Does this not create a financial conflict of interest, because the analysts are opining on matters from which they might profit?
No, because the Pentagon is a huge bureaucracy (23,000 personnel), with many offices and organizations, which have different responsibilities and different chains of command. “The Pentagon” is no more a monolith than is “the Congress” or “the federal government.”
If you work for “the Congress” do you agree with conservative Sen. John McCain or liberal Sen. Barack Obama? It all depends, of course; there is a vast diversity of opinion within “the Congress.” So, too, within “the Pentagon.”
Moreover, the analysts are opining on larger-scale matters of defense policy, military strategy and tactics. The contracts for which their companies are competing, by contrast, typically concern niche-market services and products — a food, training, or satellite contract, for instance. These are two separate and distinct areas — policy and services — which really have no bearing on each other.
Nonetheless, certain analysts apparently told the New York Times they censored themselves because they feared “the Pentagon.” Shame on them. They have dishonored themselves and the profession of arms and have disqualified themselves from the public dialogue.
But the analysts I know and respect — Gens. Robert Scales and Barry McCaffrey, among others — have done no such thing. They are highly accomplished military professionals and patriots, and no one’s puppet. (A man who’s been shot at in combat, and who has seen his men wounded and killed is unlikely to be anyone’s lackey.)
America needs more knowledgeable and more informed military analysts; and we need to hear from them more often. They possess insights, borne from unique and exacting experiences, which will forever escape most mainstream journalists.
John R. Guardiano is a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Marine Corps.
May 11, 2008
Pg. B4
By John Guardiano
Mainstream media ignorance of military affairs skews reporting on a myriad of topics ranging from basic training to women in combat, from weapons procurement to the Iraq war.
To help bridge this gaping knowledge gap, the Pentagon wisely decided, in the early years of the Bush administration, to give information briefings to retired military officers who serve as broadcast news analysts.
Because of their professional backgrounds, these analysts understand and are sympathetic to the military. This distinguishes them from most members of the mainstream media and some members of Congress, who never met a Marine gunnery sergeant or Army non-commissioned officer, let alone walked point in a combat zone.
But now, in a craven act of bureaucratic cowardice, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, Robert Hastings, has announced he is suspending these briefings pending an internal review. The reason: an April 20 New York Times article, which depicts the briefings as part of a covert Bush administration campaign to propagandize the public into supporting the Iraq war.
“The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on the air.”
So charges the New York Times and its liberal allies in Congress. But why is it wrong to share information with military analysts? What makes this “exploitation”? Why is it legitimate for Pentagon officials to brief antagonistic liberal reporters, but illegitimate for them to brief friendly conservative analysts?
Make no mistake: The New York Times and other mainstream media lie and distort the news on a daily basis. They commit both sins of omission and sins of commission. They often see the trees, but miss the forest — and they conveniently miss those trees that might elucidate the forest. Moreover, they amplify, without any sense of proportion or fairness, bad news, while downplaying good news that might contradict their preconceived storylines.
I saw this as a Marine in Iraq in 2003, where my team’s good work and accomplishments were ignored, and no reporter could ever be found. (Though a Wall Street Journal op-ed that I wrote in August 2003 did result in National Public Radio sending a reporter to meet with me and other Marines in Al Hillah, Iraq. The resulting report was informative, fair and balanced.)
Unfortunately, the mainstream media’s lies and distortions continue to this day. Just try getting a mainstream media embed in some of the more remote parts of Iraq outside of the Green Zone. Or try getting an honest and historically informed assessment of the military situation on the ground in any of Iraq’s 17 provinces outside of Baghdad. That’s well nigh mission impossible.
Thus, the Pentagon’s efforts to share information more broadly with analysts, bloggers and other “new media” are not only understandable, but imperative: Because what is crucially needed is not less, but more communication — not fewer, but more media voices — to cut through the fog of mainstream media misinformation, subpar reporting and distortions. Yet, in an brazen act of professional effrontery and journalistic jujitsu, the New York Times has, with the Pentagon’s connivance, squelched dissident media voices. Now broadcast news analysts who might contradict the New York Times’ left-wing world-view will not have access to Pentagon information briefings.
New York Times reporters, though, will continue to stalk the halls of the Pentagon and attend media-only briefings.
As George Orwell presciently wrote, “Everyone’s equal, but some are more equal than others.”
What about the financial interest of some analysts who work for corporations that either have or that solicit Pentagon contracts? Does this not create a financial conflict of interest, because the analysts are opining on matters from which they might profit?
No, because the Pentagon is a huge bureaucracy (23,000 personnel), with many offices and organizations, which have different responsibilities and different chains of command. “The Pentagon” is no more a monolith than is “the Congress” or “the federal government.”
If you work for “the Congress” do you agree with conservative Sen. John McCain or liberal Sen. Barack Obama? It all depends, of course; there is a vast diversity of opinion within “the Congress.” So, too, within “the Pentagon.”
Moreover, the analysts are opining on larger-scale matters of defense policy, military strategy and tactics. The contracts for which their companies are competing, by contrast, typically concern niche-market services and products — a food, training, or satellite contract, for instance. These are two separate and distinct areas — policy and services — which really have no bearing on each other.
Nonetheless, certain analysts apparently told the New York Times they censored themselves because they feared “the Pentagon.” Shame on them. They have dishonored themselves and the profession of arms and have disqualified themselves from the public dialogue.
But the analysts I know and respect — Gens. Robert Scales and Barry McCaffrey, among others — have done no such thing. They are highly accomplished military professionals and patriots, and no one’s puppet. (A man who’s been shot at in combat, and who has seen his men wounded and killed is unlikely to be anyone’s lackey.)
America needs more knowledgeable and more informed military analysts; and we need to hear from them more often. They possess insights, borne from unique and exacting experiences, which will forever escape most mainstream journalists.
John R. Guardiano is a Marine Corps veteran of the Iraq war. The views expressed here are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Marine Corps.