Major NY Times Story Gutted By Boston Globe: ‘Military Analysts’ Get Wealthy Keeping The War Going

The New York Times broke a major story today on page one, written by David Barstow, detailing how so-called military analysts on the cable and network news programs are in fact Pentagon puppets with financial connections to the defense industry.

A sample, from the top of the story, which is lengthy and very detailed:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

It’s worth reading, because you’ve been suckered by these people time and again.

Of further interest is the Boston Globe’s coverage. The Globe story is buried on page A10. It totals 392 words. It contains no names, no details of note.

The Times story runs to thousands of words over eleven Internet pages. It contains names, connections, events, dates, all the factual matter that makes a solid news story.

Perhaps the Globe editors and publishers think their readers will run out and buy the New York Times (owner of the Globe) to read the story? Or maybe they’d rather New Englanders remained unaware of this further deception and nest of lies promulgated by the Bush administration. They gutted the story and demeaned it to make sure it would receive little interest in the Globe’s coverage area.

It’s not as if this were some minor bit of war news that didn’t bear on the lives of everyone in the United States. The subjects of the story are ex-military officers, of high rank, engaging for pay in promulgating government propaganda that benefits defense contractors with whom they have financial interests. They are on the news every day talking about the war, about the Administration’s sanitized version of the war. And their connections to the defense industry are never revealed, by them or by the news organizations that use them.

These ex-officers are selling out American soldiers in order to line their own pockets. Indeed, they’re selling out their country by promoting a war of lies and crimes against humanity.

Whatever their service may have been, they have earned the title now of whores, war profiteers, and traitors.

And the Boston Globe doesn’t think that’s worth talking about.


9 Responses

  1. I thought newspapers were supposed to report news. This “revelation” is a pretty well-known fact to everyone.
    Sorry, I mean everyone except you, apparently.


  2. Hardly a well-known fact to ‘everyone’. While some percentage of the populace might suspect that these officers were disposed to favor the war, I doubt very much that ‘everyone’ or even a majority of ‘everyone’ knew of the extensive defense contractor connections or that the officers were such willing pawns of Pentagon propaganda efforts. The news presents them as independent analysts, and their experience gives them authoritative cover. Most Americans are disposed to believe them. The extent of the deception and the depth of the financial connections are news. And that the Times finally produced a major story on the matter is news. As is the Globe burying the story.

    Being snotty is fine, if you like, but at least get your facts and your logic straight.


  3. Grumpy’s right. I work in blue collar establishments, and you wouldn’t believe how many of them buy everything they see on TV.

    Most of them actually believed the spin that Sadam Hussein bombed the World Trade Center. (really.)

    Homer Simpson makes them look well read.

    The latest media storm about “Bittergate” was enough to drive it home to anyone who had lived in this country for awhile. But this is the first time I’ve seen the facts come out in print.

    (Or NOT seen it, as the case may be…)


  4. Well, just as kip did, in my cynical smugness — or smug-cynicism — I thought the Times story was sort of self-evident, even though its details had never been spelled out.

    The problem we have in this country is that people who couldn’t make the mental leap to put two and two together and realize that these guys are paid shills are the very same people who are least likely to read a long story about this in The New York Times.


  5. Ex –

    It’s not so much that the TV news pays them as analysts as it is that they have financial interests in defense contractors (or rather, war contractors). Shill the war and make a bundle. And that both news and analysts do their best to keep their connections to the industry from public view.


  6. Well I had two reactions to the story when I first noticed it:
    1. Wow, I can’t believe I’m seeing actual journalism
    2. Why did it take so long for this story to appear?

    I suspected these asshats from the beginning as not being truthful, but my cynicism is young and less refined so I didn’t go so far as to assume they were being paid by contractors or Bush to talk bullshit. sigh. Well perhaps one day my cynicism will age to develop a proper bouquet of smugness so that I can foresee these things more clearly.


  7. PC –

    There’s probably a free online course you can take to get your cynicism up to speed. Probably get a certificate suitable for framing, too. Really, you don’t want to get left behind and eating my dust.


  8. Ric:
    If you really want a certificate, Philly can probably whip one up for you.


  9. _______________________________________
    It’s worth reading, because you’ve been suckered by these people time and again.

    Of course, the same thing could be said of the New York Times. It seems more and more the only people outside NY who read the NYT these days are people looking to grind the same axe, regardless of the facts.

    You know, the NYT may be right this time — even a blind squirrel finds the occasional nut. But I think maybe the fact that NYT has stooped so low, so often, that even other newspaper editors are running gun-shy of the usual slavish practice of the industry’s follow-the-leader news judgment. The Washington Post certainly seems to be breaking away and taking a different approach.

    Pinch Sulzberger has taken an national institution and turned into the journalistic equivalent of a chop shop.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: