your are nothing but on the payroll of CIA. PERIOD.

they don't come any WORSE than you.

Out of pure idle curiosity. Jack (if that is your real name), what on earth is it about this article that you think connects the author with the CIA? Or do you just throw that accusation at anyone u don't agree with?

He's a CIA wannabe, Lumpy...

Jack, why would the CIA pay me to write articles which are so totally outside of anything they're even vaguely interested in?

And what's so terrible about telling the truth, anyway? Does it upset your little world of conspiratorial delusion where the Pentagon and the dreaded MSM are out to control your mind with beams from their satellites?

Dave

Dave, your New York Times link somehow fell into code stew in the Rich Text Editor and was showing up as a raw URL, so I took the liberty of stopping by and fixing it. Seems to be duly clickable now.

Did the retired military persons reveal to the listening/viewing public that they were on retainers from the administration, in the spirit of 'full disclosure' so that viewers could weigh that for themselves?

A lot of truth in the article. The left believes that only one side of anything should be heard, There's.

And Rove/Cheney/Limbaugh/O'Reilly are noted advocates of free, open, objective, unadultered, and honest exchange of worthwhile ideas.

Did the retired military persons reveal to the listening/viewing public that they were on retainers from the administration, in the spirit of 'full disclosure' so that viewers could weigh that for themselves?

I doubt it, but then the cable news networks don't ask that of ANY of their guests. I'm all for full disclosure, but that's the responsibility of the media, and if they don't ask for it from anyone else, we can't expect them to ask it from their military pundits.

Dave

Dave, a modest proposal:

Cigarette packages contain mandatory warnings about the hazards of smoking; a bottle of aspirin from our medicine cabinet has the following warning: DO NOT USE if you are allergic to aspirin. it is difficult to find any product which lacks comparable warnings. Indeed, I just bought a new lawnmower, the instructions accompanying which warn against all sorts of stuff I, or any other normal person, would obviously do absent such warnings -- Do not put hands or feet near or under rotating parts. Keep all parts of your body away from muffler and spinning line. A hot muffler can cause serious burns. Through an inexcusable oversight, there is no warning about putting a lighted cigarette in the gasoline tank. Perhaps such a warning should be included on cigarette packages.

Now for my proposal: the FCC should require that all radio, cable and television programs be preceded by the following caveat:

WARNING This program may include expressions of views, possibly by a person or persons compensated by agents of a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy and/or by supporters thereof, including but not by way of limitation the United States Government and/or its agents. Views may also be expressed by paid agents of other subversive organizations. Some comments offensive to some viewers may be made. The expression of such views is known by the State of California to cause cancer, heart attacks, leprosy, sociopathic behavior and political incorrectness. In the event of the expression of such views and/or comments, you are advised to switch to another channel immediately.

This caveat should be repeated following each commercial break, while the audience remains fully attentive.

There. That should solve the problem. Shouldn't it?

Dan

Sounds good, Dan. Plus it would provide a needed element of satire, rather like the disclaimer at the start of South Park.

Truthfully, that disclaimer OUGHT to be running constantly in the heads of the viewers already. The possibility that it doesn't needs to be addressed in some more fundamental way, like by improving our educational system.

Dave

Dave,

Ah, yes. However, simple solutions are far easier to implement and the costs are borne directly by the private sector. My "solution" would be easy, and wouldn't increase the Federal budget more than the few hundred thousand dollars required for the FCC to decide even such a simple matter. It would almost certainly be totally ineffective, but then so are most far more expensive solutions implemented by our beloved Government.

Improved education would be great. Should you devise an effective way to make it happen, even if it costs lots of money, please let me know and I will nominate you for President, God or whatever you think appropriate. I will even consider ordaining you as a bishop in my Temple.

Dan

If I see John McLaughlin on TV I pretty much know his inclinations from previous appearances. Same for Bill O'reilly, Bill Moyers, Krauthammer, Kristol, etc. But if we find ourselves suddenly in a war and the retired military guys suddenly jump up I have no idea of their proclivities. They are strangers to me. If I assume that the TV program has chosen them and paid them then I might think one thing, but if they are paid by the Current Administration I might think something quite different, in particular, that they owe some allegiance to administration views.

The difference is that I know nothing about them. I might make an assumption that they are motivated by their personal views, or perhaps the views of the network. In that I would be misled.

It's sneaky. The administration has plenty of opportunity to present their views. They have no legitimate reason to use stealth spokesmen. That is designed to deceive.

Bliffle, the talking heads they bring on could just as easily be in the pay of George Soros or the red Chinese or any other group and you wouldn't know it either. Your hostility to the administration is coloring your objectivity on this issue. What legitimate reason to ANY groups have to use stealth spokesmen.

For that matter, are these really stealth spokesmen? When I see someone credited as General Billy Bob Sixgun, USMC Ret., I assume that he's going to be pro-military, pro-war and likely pro-Bush. I don't need to know he's Pentagon approved to assume that he is pro-war. It's just common sense.

How is this any different from them being on the payroll of the Heritage Foundation or Code Pink? I just don't see the difference.

Dave

"Let's take a break from our talk show to do an audit on our special guest ... hey, can you explain this 50 bucks you earned last year from BlogAds? It was ... what, an ad for Ann Coulter? Please leave the stage immediately. No, I said get the fu--

***TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES***

There ARE big differences:

1-the administration has almost unlimited taxpayer funds with which to propagandize the public.

2-I, like any prudent person, would like to know if someone is in the pay of Soros, too.

3-a retired military guy oughta be free to give his own, his personal opinion, rather than be a paid mouthpiece for anyone.

4-it's illegal to use government funds to propagandize the public. That's why those political video segments are under legal attack when they celebrate RNC accomplishments rather than department accomplishments.

5-the same rules apply to ANY administration.

Once again, any administration has ample opportunity to express their views, they can call press conferences at will and they have spokesmen interviewed and on TV all the time. Thus, when they retain spokesmen to appear without disclosure it can only be with the intent to deceive.

1-the administration has almost unlimited taxpayer funds with which to propagandize the public.

The budgets allocated for these sorts of promotions are pretty limited, probably far less than some PACs have to spend.

2-I, like any prudent person, would like to know if someone is in the pay of Soros, too.

I just assume that all the socialist stooges are. And it turns out that I'm right more often than not.

3-a retired military guy oughta be free to give his own, his personal opinion, rather than be a paid mouthpiece for anyone.

He can choose not to take money from the Pentagon. He can choose not to appear publicly at all. Your mistaken assumption here is in thinking that these guys are selling their opinion, when there's no reason to think they wouldn't believe the same thing with or without a pittance from the Pentagon.

4-it's illegal to use government funds to propagandize the public. That's why those political video segments are under legal attack when they celebrate RNC accomplishments rather than department accomplishments.

The video press releases they went after were promoting specific programs of government agencies, not anything from the RNC. Which may explain why the issue died the death of ultimate oblivion so quickly. To call these issues 'propaganda' is really stretching the definition of the term.

Once again, any administration has ample opportunity to express their views, they can call press conferences at will and they have spokesmen interviewed and on TV all the time. Thus, when they retain spokesmen to appear without disclosure it can only be with the intent to deceive.

But these are not spokesmen for the administration. They are private citizens with special expertise kept on retainer by the military as a service to the public and the media. Can you prove any different?

Dave

It's illegal to use government money to propagandize the US public.

Would you be so sanguine under a barrage of the kind of Hillary-talk we've been treated to lately? Paid for out of taxpayer funds?

Did you hear the one about the Republican and the Democrat that actually agreed? Well, that's what we have here, I (a democrat) agree with the author (a republican). There is no conspiracy afoot in regards to press releases and their video counterparts -- or generals and their comments on war.

It is my job as a journalist and editor to check facts, verify claims, and otherwise poke holes in all the inflated spin. There's nothing wrong with anyone, including the government, inviting me to take a look at whatever they have going on at the time. In fact, it's fairly brave to do so, because when I take a look at something -- I'm going to take a really good look. The scrunity can be quite unnerving, I'm sure.

Guess what -- you are further protected from spin and propaganda by the fact that my esteemed colleagues (both of the Democrat and Republican persuasions and a few Independents to boot) are going to independently scruntinize the same press/video release or "subject expert." As you've probably noticed --our opinions and conclusions tend to widely differ (hardly conducive to a conspiracy). So, if you read or listen to several reports from different sources, you'll have the truth of the matter in the end.

"It's illegal to use government money to propagandize the US public.

Would you be so sanguine under a barrage of the kind of Hillary-talk we've been treated to lately? Paid for out of taxpayer funds?"

Um, Blittle, no, it isn't, as long as you title it "Information". Cynical? no, truth-Every government agency has an office centred on public relations, and their main job is to propogandize for that agency-this can be in subtle ways (a website promoting a new programme) or overt ways (Press Conferences and Press Releases, posters urging us to "think Green", "Ride the Bus/Train/Subway", "Carpool", Radio advertising, etc. etc.) The Pentagon reimbursing retired officers to speak on its behalf is not only "Normal", it's "Mundane", and the ONLY restriction is that said offices are required to NOT overtly lie.

That is, they can not SAY anything they know to be un-true. This leaves a lot of room for ANY agency (including the Pentagon) to deliberately leave out relevant facts to create whatever spin it desires-just as the Office of the President, Secretary of Transportation, Interior Department, or IRS is allowed to do.

Further, the Pentagon can GO further-thanks to the National Security Act of 1956, relevant facts can be Classified as National Security issues-much as relevant facts were classified, for instance, in the Waco, Ruby Ridge, and Oklahoma City incidents.

So, barring a Judicial override (or Congressional override) of the National Security Act and Patriot Act, (two laws that provide just the sort of legal coverage you have stated is not present) the Government CAN propogandize-in fact, we don't have to go as recent as 1956 to find examples of it being legal-much of the "New Deal" involved Propoganda, as did efforts during the First World War, Spanish-American conflict, Civil War, Indian Wars (and yes, they were WARS), and periods in-between. By demonstrated practice and legal precedent, the Government may propogandize quite as much as it so chooses within its own guidelines.

which is why Pam Baker's statement is so important- if you only rely on a single source, you are open to having your opinions shaped by that source, and it IS the job of every citizen to examine what they are told closely for inconsistencies-and it is the job of ETHICAL Journalists to poke holes in things told them by Officialdom-why? because the rest of us don't really have that kind of time, or access, or resources.

Even with the Internet, Blogosphere, and all the information sources they represent. 'cause, you see, the job of JUDGING that information falls back on you and me and every other individual citizen. Shirking it is why you GET government agencies that lie-by-omission or whitewash with the intent of getting away with it. Anyone that lived through the Clinton or Nixon years should already be aware of this if they're even half-awake.

Is it a "conspiracy?"

No. it is not.

This is small-time, and it's not that big a slant.

It's also LEGAL.

bliffle - both H.R. 373 and S.266 died in committee in '05...but appropriation bills generally do include a prohibition against using funds for 'propaganda purposes' within the US for what that's worth

I repeat (since noone seems to have paid attention), the administration has every opportunity to openly present their opinions and state their case in the press and on TV. When they hire spokesmen to appear on TV or in the press without attribution or disclosure the intention can only be to deceive.

And that goes for any Clinton administration, past or future, as well as any Obama administration.

The purpose of a stealth spokesman is deception. Such a spokesman, when he says things such as "it is my opinion that the administration is correct" is lying because it is NOT his opinion, it is what he is being paid to say.

Two things. You didn't mention one of the key points of the NYTimes story, which was these generals stand to profit from the war which does not make them neutral. Like a tree falling in a forest, VPR/VNRs are not unethical on their own, but when they are run *without* disclaimers, then that is unethical. And yes, it is the responsibility of the news program to disclose who produced it. The viewer, you argue, should know there is a bias-- I agree-- but the ideological environment of our system tells us repeatedly, particularly in school, that the news is objective. It would be nice if the average viewer were automatically media literate. I fault the educations system, not the media, but at the same time it is the ethical responsibility of any journalist to accurately disclose the motives/interests of any sources, whether from the left or right.

Blittle:

Who's fooled? seriously, now. When I see a rank, and the guy is Retired, I automatically know he's got an agenda, or he wouldn't be on the teevee. This applies to both sides (Left and Right). A Former General up and talks about how great the war's going, or a former General up and talks about what a mistake the whole thing is, I know going in that he's in it to profit-either he's getting a stipend, or he's hawking a book/looking-to-run-for-office/being paid by the other side.

I suspect my cynicism is not unusual-anyone that's ever worn the uniform for more than three months, or spent any time in a VFW hall listening to PX Rangers lie about their exploits knows this game.

When the guy gets up in front of a camera, he's selling something. Remember, Ollie North was a decorated COMBAT marine before he turned into a political stooge, and Mark Clark used to be a real soldier before he turned into a shill for the American Left...and who can forget John "Papercut/Christmas in Cambodia" Kerry and his abuse of position at Winter Soldier? Officers who aren't constrained by Ethics abound, especially once they take the uniform off and there's no compulsion to keep them honourable, and Staffer Generals tend to be among the worst offenders, limited often by only their political alignment and nausea threshold-and after eating shit from Congresscritters, protesters, and other, higher ranking officers for years on end, that threshold can be surprisingly (or unsurprisingly) quite robust.

Once you get past the technical analysis, they're ALL shills with an agenda. Even the ones whos agenda matches your own.

"Who's fooled?" Actually, many people are fooled. The people who have breathlessly reported to me that they saw a retired general on TV (they don't remember the name) who said that Petraeus is Messiah divided into two groups: (1) those who were just looking for a chance to cheer Petraeus, and (2) those who believe that generals are military experts and their decisions must be respected. Nobody thought they were currently being paid by the Bush Administration, other than any military pension they might be receiving.