SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
Need to create a login? Want to change your email address or password? Forgot your password?
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The New York Times has a terrific piece today called “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand, which focused on how a Defense Department program worked with retired military officials and prepped them to serve as “military analysts.” The Pentagon program “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…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.’
I wrote a number of stories last year on the Pentagon’s “surrogates” program, which offered “briefings and support for handpicked civilian defense and national security analysts, pundits, bloggers, and others who, with a few token exceptions, reliably support the administration.” I cited an internal 2006 memorandum from the Defense Department, which said, “Because the stakes are so high, and the war on terror so urgent, we need to move fast on all fronts.” Furthermore, the memo said, the Pentagon would be “working closely with the new Strategic Communication Integration Group (SCIG) to synchronize our efforts with the military and with policy.” The program described by the Times today was clearly past of this broader effort.
After I wrote about the program, the Pentagon broadened the group participating in the “blogger roundtables” it organized and allowed for more ideological and political diversity. A number of the bloggers taking part criticized me and defended the roundtables as merely opportunities for them to meet and be briefed by senior military officials. Also, as the critics, noted, some of the bloggers taking part went on to write pieces critical of policy.
But as I noted at the time, the lion’s share of the coverage generated by the blogger calls was favorable to administration policy. “The list of bloggers who regularly participate in the conference calls is overwhelmingly conservative and friendly to the goals of the Bush Administration,” I wrote. “While they’re not public, I’m told that the lists of military analysts, pundits, and others working with the Pentagon are even more uniformly hawkish. [Note: This is precisely what the Times has now uncovered.]
And that’s the problem I have with the whole Pentagon P.R. project. The government is picking certain people as ‘surrogates’ to the exclusion of many others and feeding them news. These bloggers purport to broadly represent military and national security opinion, but there are plenty of military officials and conservatives who disagree with the administration’s policies in Iraq and elsewhere. With rare exceptions, those people are not invited to the Pentagon’s briefings.
More from Ken Silverstein:
Commentary — November 17, 2015, 6:41 pm
The Clintons’ so-called charitable enterprise has served as a vehicle to launder money and to enrich family friends.
Damages sought, in a defamation suit, by a Chicago landlord from a tenant who complained about mold via Twitter:
The British House of Lords voted to limit the right of parents to spank their children.
The Mall of America hired its first black Santa, a real estate company valued Mr. and Mrs. Claus’s North Pole home at $656,957, and it was reported that the price of the gifts from “Twelve Days of Christmas” went up by more than $200 in 2016, to $34,363.49.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."