Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14500

yaaaawwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnn...........


really Madison, another conspiracy?

Is that the same New York Times that employed Jason Blair? And that Judy Miller lady? And is it the same NYT that is losing readership?

If the documents have been discovered and released how is it a cover up?

ummm,what?

And no attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. Not bad, not bad at all. Oh wait, 9/11 didn't happen, or if it did, Bush did it. lol.

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

what a partnership nyt and pentagon

<<<<------they are watching

and if there is a link to them does not that mean they are available to anyone with the link

insert head scratching emoticon here

..... will need to make tinfoil hat before reading.....

yah. not one attack since 9/11
whats that worth to you madman?

I suppose if you choose to live in delusion you wouldnt wish to read it. Its not against the law to be uninformed about things but it sorta makes me wonder why they have to create propoganda for support for the war. I suppose if it was something close to a nobel effort it would have the natural support of the american people not a manipulated minority who buys every lie they are selling

The September 11th attack took years of planning, if you believe in Homeland Security then you live under a false sense of security..(what ever level/color that may be today)

havent seen an attack since then...... whats that tell you? i shouldent have to state the obvious but then im dealing w/ liberal commies.....
Its good policy to take the fight overseas.... although being a builder myself... hmmmmm mabe your right. lol. they blew up three buildings and a field and we are still mowing lawn in two countries years later? THERES A DETERRANT.

Why is it that you can be arrested for conspiracy, but when its the government conspiring, somehow that makes the people who question it crazy?

This story should have been bigger news, but it wasn't because that would mean the News/Propaganda disseminators would have to show just how dirty they are.

Operation Mockingbird... interesting stuff to say the least.

On April 20, the New York Times published a blockbuster exposé revealing a secret Pentagon program that used retired military analysts to “generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance.” Though the analysts often had “ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies” they assessed on air, their potential conflicts of interest were “hardly ever disclosed to the viewers.”
Four days after the Times’ expose hit newsstands, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) wrote letters to the heads of ABC News, CBS News, CNN News, Fox News Channel, and NBC News asking for “specifics about each outlet’s policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War.” Here’s part of what she wrote to ABC News head David Westin:

When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed.

Politico reports today that only Westin and CNN’s Jim Walton have responded to DeLauro’s questions. In his response, Westin asserted that ABC News had “acted responsibly”:

From what I know of our reporting involving our military analysts, I am satisfied that ABC News has acted responsibly and has served its audience well.
Both Westin and Walton’s responses lacked any genuine self-examination. But the fact that they were even willing to reply is more than the other networks did, proving that the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz was right when he said “the networks are ducking this one, big time.” In the week after the story broke, the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that “out of approximately 1,300 news stories, only two touched on the Pentagon analysts scoop — both airing on PBS’s ‘NewsHour.’”

DeLauro, along with 40 other lawmakers, are calling on the Pentagon’s Inspector General to investigate the program

--------------------------------------------------

If people within the Government are in fact conspiring to do something potentially immoral, evil or just plain wrong, what would you have me call it?
A taxpayer funded oopsy?

"The era of manufacturing consent has given way to the era of manufacturing news.
Soon media newsrooms will drop the pretense, and start hiring theater directors instead of journalists."
~~~ Arundhati Roy ~~~