Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    


to Reason


blog roll

    ..., 2008-04-11 02:49:09 | Main | shamelessly defending himself......, 2008-05-01 17:17:16


    the media's response to the latest reveal of the Pentagon's PR program notes - the only new news seems to be the access to the script - with "retired" Generals is really something, just take Rick Sanchez whining towards the end of this, like he's the poor betrayed mook:

    Couple things. Asking "who is your current employer?" and thinking for a second whether there's a conflict of interest between military analysis and an employed defense contractor (ret) isn't what we call a "failure to vet", it's a failure to glance at a resume. These "retired" generals were employed by the firms that would wage the war, how did the interview process work?

    CNN Human Resources: Welcome to CNN. It looks like you're applying for the independent military analyst contract we've recently made available. Why don't we sit down and discuss your relevant experience. Tell me about your last position in a military role?

    GENERALLY RETIRED: Here's my name, rank, some parentheses, and my letter of recommendation from the Pentagon's public relations department.

    CNN HR: Hired!

    Nevermind that the networks would announce on air that these guys were at Pentagon "briefings", granting them the inner-sanctum authority of having sat in on a PR bull session with military spokesmen. Had they thought one second about what kind of information they were getting they could have done the legal thing and simply asked the Pentagon to provide an official spokesman.

    For that matter, if you hire a military analyst for military analysis you've aleady introduced an implicit conflict of interest favoring armed conflict: dur, if there's no war Mr. Retired doesn't keep his illustrious media gig. Let's get our roles straight: CNN isn't a welfare program, it's a for-profit propaganda organ.

    There's an old fable I like to reflect on when one of these proliferate and century old Federal propaganda programs briefly enter public discussion before disappearing back into the octopus' maw: the story goes that there is "an important and explicit bargain between the press and the Pentagon in a time of war. We don't do anything to endanger the troops or operations. They don't lie to us." With a century of federal programs compromising whatever integrity working newspeople and public intellectuals have to begin with, that bargain would be more accurately described as an important and explicit fire sale. The state and the truth have inherent and irreconcilable conflicts of interest: there's nothing like having that fact explicitly demonstrated over and over again to renew our sense of wonder and shock at a completely ordinary, everyday event.

:: posted by buermann @ 2008-04-24 14:48:29 CST | link

    go ahead, express that vague notion

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
other curmudgeonry

- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001

the good book
and other cultural

The Autobiography
Mother Jones

Contact Info: