ShaunN
04-22-2008, 03:13 PM
Dear Friends,
Hello! Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. Here is a NYT article that is worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208898256-dN/oajsWGxgg70nDFHVWqg
The article talks about how the military analysts used by media outlets in the US (today and in the run-up to the Iraq War) almost all had active military contacts with the Pentagon and defence contractors. In other words, most of the people used by American newspapers and cable news to comment on and interpret the war in Iraq are, essentially, propogandists for the Pentagon. The NYT article makes the point that media outlets present these people as independent analysts even as they pretend not to know - or really don't bother to know or find out - the connections and conflicts of interest at work.
One of the reasons that I think it's important to get this out is because the story is being completely ignored by the mainstream media right now. The media have made a collective decision, apparently, to bury this story because it criticizes the media's egregious lack of standards and integrity and, presumably, because media outlets don't want to have to answer for their complicity in being propoganda instruments.
Anyway, I don't mean to rant on this, but its another demonstration of the way in which "freedom of the press" means very little in the US. At least with government-controlled media outlets in other parts of the world, it is obvious when the government is pulling the strings. In the US (and other parts of the Western world) we've bought into the fallacy of a free press while the real press is self-censoring, promoting the party line, and acting as an instrument of the state - and doing all of this quite voluntarily.
Sincerely,
Shaun
Hello! Just thought I'd bring this to everyone's attention. Here is a NYT article that is worth reading:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1208898256-dN/oajsWGxgg70nDFHVWqg
The article talks about how the military analysts used by media outlets in the US (today and in the run-up to the Iraq War) almost all had active military contacts with the Pentagon and defence contractors. In other words, most of the people used by American newspapers and cable news to comment on and interpret the war in Iraq are, essentially, propogandists for the Pentagon. The NYT article makes the point that media outlets present these people as independent analysts even as they pretend not to know - or really don't bother to know or find out - the connections and conflicts of interest at work.
One of the reasons that I think it's important to get this out is because the story is being completely ignored by the mainstream media right now. The media have made a collective decision, apparently, to bury this story because it criticizes the media's egregious lack of standards and integrity and, presumably, because media outlets don't want to have to answer for their complicity in being propoganda instruments.
Anyway, I don't mean to rant on this, but its another demonstration of the way in which "freedom of the press" means very little in the US. At least with government-controlled media outlets in other parts of the world, it is obvious when the government is pulling the strings. In the US (and other parts of the Western world) we've bought into the fallacy of a free press while the real press is self-censoring, promoting the party line, and acting as an instrument of the state - and doing all of this quite voluntarily.
Sincerely,
Shaun