The Daily Gamecock

Issue date: 4/21/08 Section: Viewpoints

Paul Bowers, First-year print journalism student

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.

This is not like the blatant, heavy-handed propaganda practices of North Korea. This is not a Soviet-style control scheme. If Mr. Barstow's allegations are proved true, then our government is guilty of a much subtler deceit.

Public relations should be handled through public relations specialists, not through talking heads presented as unbiased expert sources. It is inherent in our Constitutional foundation that the U.S. government should be open and responsive to its citizenry. Instead, it would appear that our leaders are carefully distorting the facts we receive about their actions.

The existence of an intricate warmongering-profiteering complex sounds admittedly like the stuff of a left-winger's conspiracy theory. But regardless of political affiliations or opinions on the justification of the Iraq war, this developing story should be followed with openness and sobriety.

In the upcoming days, there will no doubt be a flurry of media responses and press conferences. Pay careful attention to what Pentagon spokespeople have to say, and weigh their statements against the evidence stacked in opposition.

And, as always, beware of bias - from Fox News to The Times itself.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools