No Conflict Of Interest Here

Image credit: The New York Times.

The New York Times has published a huge article today concerning the largely successful efforts of the Pentagon to influence public opinion by influencing the retired officers and other military analysts we see trotted out as independent experts by the news:

Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what [Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Torie] Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.

The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.

Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

By way of personal disclosure, I should point out that I'm employed in the defense industry. I should also add that I've encountered at least one of the individuals mentioned in this article, and that I neither like nor respect that individual. I say that only to explain that I could legitimately be accused of having a prejudice here. Sadly, such disclosure has been lacking in the people you see on the TV screen who are considered experts:

Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

In all the time I've seen these folks on TV, I cannot recall a single time that it was pointed out that these folks either worked for defense contractors, consulted for them, or were lobbyists on their behalf. The conflict of interest in such relationships should be obvious. Needless to say, these guys don't see that themselves:

CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, [retired Army General James] Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.

General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.

“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.

In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.

CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.

General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

There's a term for opinions like Gen. Marks' in the defense industry. We call it "bullshit". He should be familiar with this executive order, which by Joint Ethics Directive DoD 5500.07(PDF) and its predecessors, applies to all government employees, including the military:

"Part I Principles of Ethical Conduct

"Section 101. Principles of Ethical Conduct. To ensure that
every citizen can have complete confidence in the integrity of the
Federal Government, each Federal employee shall respect and adhere to
the fundamental principles of ethical service as implemented in
regulations promulgated under sections 201 and 301 of this order:

"(a) Public service is a public trust. requiring employees to
place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws, and ethical principles
above private gain.

"(b) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict
with the conscientious performance of duty."

Executive Order 12674 of April 12, 1989 (as modified by E.O. 12731)

[emphasis mine]

Every government employee is made aware of these obligations, and nearly everyone who works for a defense contractor is made aware of them, as well. There's a reason they are there. These people aren't public employees any longer, but they should all be aware of why these rules exist.

To their credit, a couple of the subjects of this article have at least had regrets:

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.

As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

I know how you feel, Ken. So does just about everyone who's in Iraq right now, not to mention a couple of million people who've escaped.

The potential conflict of interest in being someone who is both supporting a war and representing companies who are profiting from it is obvious, it would seem, to anyone except the people who are alleged to be experts, and the news channels that hire them:

Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

In short, "We're journalists for cryin' out loud. You can't expect us to ask people questions!"

That's the other thing that's wrong about this - the news, including Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and others have neither investigated, nor disclosed the relationships that these analysts have with the defense industry. When they were caught at it, CNN's response was basically "Oops. Sorry." I have to laugh whenever a journalist at one of these places accuses blogs of being biased and unprofessional. At least we have the excuse of not being professionals.

The scope of the Pentagon's effort is breathtaking. An assistant SecDef was apparently occupied with this task for much of her tenure. They set up a separate office expressly for this purpose:

The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

Much of what has gone on may still be hidden, but what the NYT was able to unearth indicates an extensive effort:

Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.

These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.

Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”

Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

If someone ever totals up the cost of this operation, I'm sure it will run into the tens of millions of dollars. Perhaps I should say the "direct" costs, since the actual cost in bad policy decisions is incalculable.

This article underscores the pitiful level of professionalism in American broadcast journalism, and the extent to which this Administration has gone to spin the news in the interest of its dubious policies. It also shows how pervasive the defense industry is in shaping the opinions that affect it. These relationships have brought us into a war that has been ruinous for Iraq and may end up being the same for us.

We can't afford this any longer.

UPDATE: Patrick Lang, who sometimes appears on PBS as a military analyst, has this to say:

Yes, and those who did not "play ball" were systematically excluded from access by the Pentagon. The MSM picked up those cues (presumably transmitted by the Administration) and stopped talking to many of the best people.

I was invited to one briefing at the Pentagon. At the meeting, many of those mentioned in this article were present. The purpose of the meeting was to give Rumsfeld the chance to explain the Abu Ghraib mess.

I asked some awkward questions and was not invited again.

They did not Drink the Koolaid?

Lang's been one of the honest ones, and well worth listening to even if you end up disagreeing with him. It's sad that such voices were quickly left out of the discussion.

UPDATE 2: Over at Firedoglake, bmaz makes an interesting point:

Since 1951, Congress has enacted an annual, government wide prohibition on the use of appropriated funds for purposes of "publicity or propaganda." For instance, in 2005, the prohibition stated:

No part of any appropriation contained in this or any other Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States not heretofore authorized by the Congress. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, div. G, title II, 624, 118 Stat. 2809, 3278 (Dec. 8, 2004). (The language of the prohibition has remained virtually unchanged since 1951.)

All of these ginned up propaganda programs started hitting the public consciousness in 2005, causing a public outcry and Congressional calls for an investigation, which was undertaken by the Government Accountability Office. The GAO issued a formal report in February 2005 indicating that the Bush Administration efforts to shape the news via the prepackaged video news releases were inappropriate.

The Pentagon’s Media Analyst Domestic Psy-Ops Program: Is It Legal?

"Interesting" might seem like an understatement, until you realize that this Administration has broken far more serious laws, and Congress has no interest in enforcing them.