The NYT’s Method and the Commentariat

The New York Times’ latest 7000+ word investigation is that “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” which follows the by-now familiar NYT’s method of presenting its slant: A question is raised, and answered without statistics but selective citations that bolster the NYT’s theme.

In this case, however, as I will take up below, a bigger question remains to be answered that is suggested by this NYT’s article: How much of what the US public is fed by the media comes from those profiting from a point of view? Which views’ commentariat is the New York Times interested in, and why?

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….

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

The article follows the familiar NYT’s model for such reports. A generalization is made, then subtheme by subtheme a supporting anecdote or selected quote is presented, followed with a by-then delegitified demurral from someone else. What is lacking is hard numbers of those taking one view or its contrary, or of the actual effects asserted.

Still, in this article, some normative numbers are presented that indicate the majority of those interviewed or investigated disagree with the NYT’s thrust, that military analysts on TV are mere shills for the Pentagon or, even worse, blackmailed by the prospect of Pentagon contracts to present false views to the public.

The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.

It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”

Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.

It’s not until near the end of the long article that we find, without quantification relative to those commenting otherwise:

In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.

Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”

The media has shucked former news bureaus around the world and the journalists with decades of experience and expertise. The media is particularly weak in having journalists with any military experience or expertise. TV turned to those with such experience and expertise, found naturally among former senior officers. Some have ties to companies that contract with the Pentagon. The TV networks do not appear to have inquired deeply what those relationships are, nor demanded that views presented are independent of such relationships.

Unanswered is where else the networks would have gotten any expertise to present to their viewers? Would non-military former officials have been better analysts? The record of CIA and State, for example, prognostications or performance is not reassuring, not to mention the policy axes to grind found there or among its alumni. Yet, their views were presented, often countering the more positive strategic views of the military analysts. So, it’s not as if the American public was just fed the Pentagon’s side. Further, still, outside of the military, the daily eyes at the front are the military’s, and the military would naturally trust most fellow military alumni to understand what is happening, especially during a war that the major media has so misreported and negatively reported.

At the end of this hitpiece we find, with no comment how mainstream media reporting has declined since the progress of the “surge”:

For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts.

Here we turn to the larger question, raised at the top: How much of what the US public is fed by the media comes from those profiting from a point of view?

On the whole sway of domestic and foreign policy issues, TV talking heads come from the thousands of for-profit lobbyists and non-profit foundations and think-tanks. They’re all feeding at the public trough, and many are closely allied with particular government agencies. Many have unique experience and expertise. Their obvious partisanship or ideological stance could, also, be questioned and made more transparent by their hosts, and the New York Times could write many 7000+ word articles about them, one-by one by industry and policy. The same sort of networks of relationships, of briefings, of potential for self-aggrandizement or profit could be described, as was done here to -- in my opinion, slime -- military analysts. We shouldn’t hold our breath waiting, however, as most are profiting from views the New York Times likes.

MAX BOOT says “As I read and read and read this seemingly endless report, I kept trying to figure out what the news was here.” Eureka! Boot gets it:

How dare the Pentagon try to break the media monopoly traditionally held by full-time journalists of reliably “progressive” views! The gall of those guys to try to shape public opinion through the words of retired officers who might have a different perspective! Who might even be, as the article darkly warns, “in sync with the administration’s neo-conservative brain trust.”

The implicit purpose of the Times’s article is obvious: to elevate this perfectly normal practice into a scandal in the hopes of quashing it. Thus leaving the Times and its fellow MSM organs–conveniently enough–as the dominant shapers of public opinion.