Why Pentagon talking heads piece in New York Times had no legs

It was the kind of juicy investigative piece that journalists like to call a "holy [expletive]" story. But the public reaction has seemed more along the lines of, "Yeah ...so?"

Sunday's New York Times led with a 7,600-word story by reporter David Barstow that revealed how the Pentagon wrangled a posse of retired senior military commanders-turned-TV talking heads "in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage" of Bush administration war policy.

Well-sourced and carefully constructed, dealing with a topic of pressing national interest, the story looked destined to dominate the national conversation, the same way viewer outrage over ABC's Democratic debate did last week.

Instead the Pentagon story made minimal ripples. Why would that be?

Few stories can thrive these days without TV exposure, and there the Times' scoop was handicapped from the start.

The Sunday-morning talk shows ignored the piece. No surprise that, perhaps, as the story suggested that news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC had broadcast the analysts' talking points about the Iraq war and other military matters without asking too many questions about the provenance of their information.

Oddly, though, the Pentagon caper likewise seemed a nonstarter on the blogosphere, which is famed for blowing up minor PR brush fires into massive conflagrations. The left-leaning Huffington Post, for instance, offered a link to the New York Times piece but mostly let slide the opportunity to pound away at another perceived Bush lapse.

By Monday morning, the Pentagon TV story was still mostly missing from network radar screens. NBC's Brian Williams, who's been known to take a rooting interest in media-industry shopkeeping, didn't even mention it on his "Daily Nightly" blog. "The talk of the staff meetings today was the Pope's surprising visit (a huge media tour de force, by most reviews here in New York and elsewhere), and tomorrow's vote in Pennsylvania," Williams wrote.

That pointed up a second problem with the Times story: Bad timing. Whatever the exigencies of newspaper deadlines, it was hard to showcase a major investigation on a weekend dominated by a hotly contested primary and the pope's visit to America. Beset by breaking news, the networks had relatively limited shelf space for an enterprise story they obviously weren't thrilled about to begin with.

But the biggest hurdle for the story's impact may have been one journalists have trouble seeing. Many Americans confronted with stories of media manipulation by government officials aren't, at this point, shocked and awed. Instead they've come to expect it. Increasingly, they consider the media simply a mouthpiece for whoever has the most power. You don't have to tell John Q. Public that the fix is in; he takes it for granted.

If that sounds cynical, consider what Americans have learned about PR techniques coming out of the Pentagon and the White House, which have sought to erase the distinction between journalism and the government. The Defense Department sponsored an "embed" program that matched war correspondents with military units. Former escort Jeff Gannon attended White House press conferences under the auspices of a newsgathering organization that was nothing more than a front for a political advocacy group. Columnist Armstrong Williams was paid to write pro-administration propaganda.

So, many Americans, confronted with evidence that TV's talking heads are taking orders not just from government officials but also military-contractor clients, can be excused for not being all that surprised. That is the price we pay for having a government that's not afraid to use sophisticated -- and often brazenly misleading -- PR tactics.

By Monday night, the Pentagon story had already slipped to No. 4 on the Times website's "most popular" index. The top story? "Cat Lovers Appreciate Soul Mate in Vatican."

-- Scott Collins

Comments

[Stu Wilde]

I think you are correct in a couple of points in your article. Running with this story on the Sunday before the PA primary was poor timing. Agreed. Major networks who were implicated in the story -- obviously -- did not give it much traction on-air. Agreed.

However, the American people's (and Congress) ears should have perked up when the NY Times described how these retired military officers were given classified information and briefings. That is simply outrageous! The Bush Administration, by all accounts, has classified information at an unpredented pace -- refusing in some instances to share information with Democrats while giving access to Republicans.

"Information is Power" -- this idiom pretty much sums up the past 7 years of life in the U.S. The Bush Administration is spying on us, classifying documents like crazy and silencing critics; and even when the NY Times presents a substantive report on how the mainstream media is aiding the Administration in duping the public, it is met with a yawn.

[Jayhawker]

Let's not call the administration's tactics PR. Let's call it what it really is: propaganda.

[Jason Preston]

I realize that I'm a completely non-representative sample of the typical American. I read the New York Times in paper format on Sundays (living nowhere near New York), and I sprawled the whole thing out and read all 7,600 words.

As to why the story has no legs, I think you've hit the main point on the head: nobody was particularly surprised to learn about it. "The media" (a phrase I hate) in the mind of most Americans has lost a lot of its credibility as an authoritative and untainted source for news.

The obvious and unexplored question here, however, is this: what can newspapers and american media outlets do to regain public trust?

Because frankly, pentagon campaigns like this should outrage us as citizens.

Does "the media" need to run more self-critical stories and campaigns?

Should "the media" bother with objectivity anymore, or should all reporters state their views publicly?

Assuming that the story flopped because everyone thought "yeah, that's the usual," we need to figure out IF it is ACTUALLY "the usual," and if so, then we damn well better do something about it.

[Tom Grubisich]

I think Scott Collins made some very good points why the NYTiimes/David Barstow story about military analysts flacking for the Pentagon on Iraq didn't gain traction on the media-go-round. True, there was no immediate, damaging impact. But what might be the longer-term effect? Most of the named analysts will have to carry around some kind of millstone. Will it be possible for them to "flick" it off their shoulder and go about their busy -- retailing Pentagon opinions to their network/cable audiences? Skeptics would say, If no one hears the sparrow(s) fall in the forest, did they, for all practical purposes, fall? We'll see.

[Tom Traubert]

I disagree with your hypothesis completely. The piece received an extraordinary amount of attention online. The Times was forced to close their comment thread, which is moderated, at three pm sunday, with more than 1200 comments and there are at least hundreds of comments that have yet to appear on the website. It was discussed on literally hundreds of blogs, and is still being discussed on the major blogs.

It is obvious that the broadcast and cable networks killed the story. The fact of the propaganda itself was no surprise to people, but the outright complicity of the television stations is the major, major news. Is it so surprising that they didn't want to further expose themselves as willing dupes of the Pentagon during that critical period?

I can't understand why you, a print reporter, would cover up and excuse their appalling negligence, at best, or probably more accurately, complicity. You can go back to some statements from Eason Jordan, for example, to substantiate my statements.

I'm personally disgusted at the circling of the wagons by journalists on this issue. I don't think it is going away. Covering for them goes to YOUR credibility as well as the television "journalist." Let's get a conversation going about how the networks allowed this to happen.

[Pam Rosenzweig]

I read the piece in its entirety, appalled at this "psy-ops" campaign. So many pieces of our system failed. It wasn't simply that the government passed on propaganda and manipulated the media. But these ex-generals were essentially war profiteers, willing to lie and campaign for a war in which thousands died needlessly. And all the national TV networks handed them the platform.

I, for one, am grateful that The New York Times invested the time and resources to connect the dots and bring to light one of ugliest secrets of this administration.

But if the rest of the media, Congress, and the American public just let this story die--and don't hold the guilty accountable-- that will be truly criminal.

[mmartin]

The only accurate point made here is that the story had no legs because no one in the media covered it. You can't say Americans didn't care about a story that they didn't hear! And how this person knows what "most Americans" think is, of course, no mystery -- he doesn't. It's all nonsense -- this is what HE thinks. This guy has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.

[L Kim]

I read the nytimes article waiting for there to be some sort of conflagration afterwards. I skipped online to this paper, npr, cnn for some sign of front page traction. Zero. I'm a new voter and yes I did want some response. Maybe the true sign of cynicism is not in the lack of instant reader outrage, but in expecting that the barometer of desire for change lies in sort of instant viral response from the public. Please. This is not a failure of the public but of the big media to air out it's dirty laundry.

[Reader]

Did the AP pick up the NYTimes story and distribute it to its clients? Did the LATimes run the the story?

[wrothgare]

In typical Times Fashion, Collins drones on and on in a fit of self-satisfied conjecture while completely missing the real point at hand: The story had no legs for the obvious reason that it was devoid of any real substance.

I kept reading Barstow's interminable piece with the expectation that a genuine revelation was inevitable, only to come away angered that I'd bothered at all. Given the ridiculous bias that has marked the majority of war coverage over the last three years -- and the Times has been among the worst offenders in this regard -- why wouldn't the White House approach former officers in an effort to promote a more balanced view of circumstances in the theater of operations? Government officials routinely provide background briefings to journalists and columnists in hopes of influencing coverage. Why is this different?

Clearly Barstow, his editors, and assorted apologists -- including Collins it would seem -- think the article is the stuff of a media bombshell. It isn't, at least for those of us who aren't disposed to finding a Bush scandal around every corner.

[IdaMena1]

As a former journalist, I'm appalled that the current generation feels so impotent. Don't you guys know how to write anything but passive verbs?

Also, you're burying the lede (and I also blame David Barstow for this as well).

The problem is CORRUPTION. The military analysts aren't merely on the JUNKET CIRCUIT for the DoD and propagandizing, they are literally RAINMAKERS for an entire cross section of government contractors.

By supporting the war and mouthing the Bush/Cheney talking points, the (retired) generals first get access to the civilian side of the Pentagon, and the ability to shape the public discussion. After going on the air at FOX, CNN, et al, the general got a nice "atta boy" from Rumsfeld.

Here's where it gets insidious. The generals also sit on boards of corporations seeking government contracts for a wide range of products and services which are not weapons. I'm talking about food, phones, fuel, fun, etc. The procuring agencies are not DoD, they're GSA, FBI, FEMA, etc. The board asks the general for a contact to assist on the contract. The general in turn is looked upon favorably by the political arm of the Bush/Cheney administration, and lo and behold the company gets a very nice contract.

What happens if the general decides to fess upon FOX or CNN? Do you honestly think the corporation is going to get the next contract for FEMA water or trailers? Will the GSA buy their phones or diesel fuel? Will the corporation keep the general on retainer or on the board, or provide nice stock options?

This is insidious corruption. Not only is this kind of corruption being used for weapons procurement, it's in every nook and cranny of our $3.1 TRILLION budget.

And the "journalists" in Washington are either unable to see it, unwilling to disclose it, or unable to get their editors to get it in print or on the air.

That story has a set of legs that will bring down the government. But we don't have a congressman like harry Truman (during WWI), or William Proxmire (Cold War) to blow the horn.

Somebody out there tell me why I'm wrong.

[Tom Traubert]

IdaMena1,

All I can say is that I'm sorry that you are a FORMER journalist. Your present-day colleagues apparently are too cowed, too comfortable, too unskilled, or too unethical to pursue this story. Professional scribes from Los Angeles to DC and NY are circling the wagons to protect and deflect this story.I like your slant, but I'm also fond of the facet of broadcast media culpability as well. There something in it for every real journalist to pursue. Will they do it? Stay tuned online, where it is still the subject of major conversations.

[Insecurity]

Readers (and reporters) are missing the key to the story. Follow the money. This should be a story about CORRUPTION being directly LINKED WITH PROPAGANDA. Not the other way around.

The generals aren't doing this solely so they can get their mugs on TV, nor so they can get junkets or even get to play general again with all the perks and fawning from military underlings.

The generals are rainmakers in corporate America. If they refuse to play the game, they not only are cut off TV, they are cut out of the gravy train of remunerative corporate boards, stock options, highly paid consulting fees, etc. Worse, look at David Barstow's story and you'll see that the generals aren't merely getting paid for advising on weapons systems, these same corporations are now bidding (or no bidding as it appears) on contracts for the entire $3.1 TRILLION annual federal largess.

Under the Bush/Cheney model of selling the government to the GOP as a wholly owned subsidiary (Brownie, you're doing a heckuva job), these generals' kind words in support of the wars are getting the generals' corporate patrons to the head of the line for food, phone, fuel, etc. Three letter agencies not associated with DoD are now getting their directions to look kindly on the generals' friends. FEMA, HUD, GSA all have deals going.

I dare an editor or reporter to tell me I'm wrong on this. Take the top 20 generals on that list, check their board relationships, and tell me there isn't an incentive to keep their mouths shut and their kudos for the war continuing.

[Harkadahl]

The story made few waves because most Americans are ignorant of what a democracy actually is, its flaws, its strengths, its necessary components. They think "freedom" and "democracy" is something that the President defines from on high. Also, despite its notion of itself, America is an authoritarian state. It emphasizes nationalism, patriotism, militarism, unquestioning loyalty to a creed or party, a sense of supremacy over the world, a right to use the appalling violence of war for political ends. In this climate how would the people recognise insincerity or corruption? It would pass them by as normal.

[Jim Spice]

Maybe the story will catch on since Jon Stewart covered it (http://tinyurl.com/6ysgvu).

[roger]

I disagree with many points in this article. How does the author know that Americans don't care about this story? No MSM outlet (or hardly any) covered this story (except for the Times, itself). Most Americans still rely on TV and newspapers from the MSM to get their news (the internet is growing in significance but not equal to the traditional media yet). So the fact that most Americans probably didn't hear this story might have something to do with most Americans not responding to this story, don't ya think?

given the state of the MSM (including this article), reading the comments section often is the best place to get facts (and opinion worth noticing).

pps. Scott Colins, do you really think that the original article suffers from "Bad Timing"? I think this article was very carefully timed. Placed in a perfect spot to hide in plain sight. Sunday paper, before the primary, long and detailed rather than shorter catchier snippets... How can anyone still think that this administration and it's media enablers don't carefully plan how to spin everything? it's the one thing that they do well, it seems.

ps. Many on the internet have followed this story: e.g. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/ (many additional links in the last couple blogs on Greenwald's site)

[Brian]

Those of us against the war from the beginning had to bend over and take it when the administration rammed it down our throats, using concepts like patriotism and democracy to quiet those who criticized. Bill Maher was fired from ABC for his views, you may recall. We only had the media to inform us, with exceptions like the NY Times and PBS's Frontline among a few others, and we heard how they were being threatened with access if they didn't toe the line. So we knew we were being manipulated and being fed propaganda. I was incensed by the disclosures of the article and sent it to like-minded friends. I've been disappointed by the lack of follow-up from at least those who regularly criticize the Administration and its tactics. And I for one hope that those who have profited from distorting the "progress" of this war and profited from it, as well as those primarily Republican pols, including Sen. McCain, and their MSM mouthpieces be exposed and lose their credibility if not their jobs. And lastly, don't let any further support take hold for supposedly necessary preemptive actions, such as a strike on Iran, which might try to convince us as Americans be drawn in deeper to this morass without total disclosure