Military analysts in NYT exposé appeared or quoted 4,500 times on broadcast, cable, NPR

[DeepModem Mom]

Source: Media Matters for America

On April 20, The New York Times published an article by investigative reporter David Barstow that detailed the connection between numerous media military analysts and the Pentagon and defense industries. Barstow reported that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts, many of whom have clients or work for companies with an interest in obtaining Pentagon contracts, "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks." A Media Matters review found that since January 1, 2002, the analysts named in Barstow's article -- many identified as having ties to the defense industry -- collectively appeared or were quoted as experts more than 4,500 times on ABC, ABC News Now, CBS, CBS Radio Network, NBC, CNN, CNN Headline News, Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, and NPR in segments covering the Iraq war both before and after the invasion, as well as numerous other national security or government policy issues.

A spreadsheet listing each of the analysts' appearances documented by Media Matters is available here. (NOTE: Link available in article text.)

The following chart lists 20 analysts included in Barstow's article, the network or networks on which each analyst appeared, and the number of appearances made by each analyst since January 1, 2002, as tabulated by Media Matters:

(NOTE: Chart available in article text.)...

Read more: http://mediamatters.org/items/200805130001?f=h_top#

[Barrett808]

1. big rec

[bbgrunt]

2. gee, have we been brainwashed? damn straight.

[superconnected]

3. Yea!! I got to be the 5th rec!

[ChairmanAgnostic]

4. let's shoot for 50, or 500

that is how important this is.

[Betsy Ross]

5. Great to see the NYT provide the names and numbers.

K&R.

[truthisfreedom]

6. Here's the chart:

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Thank you, truthisfreedom! nt

[Igel]

11. Yeah, but the numbers are meaningless without the text.

"Media Matters counted as appearances both instances in which an analyst appeared as a guest on a show -- either live during the show, or in a pre-taped interview aired during the show -- and instances in which a report included a clip of an analyst's commentary. The study was limited to appearances made after January 1, 2002.

"Re-airings of news programs in their entirety were excluded from the study. However, instances in which the same report, interview, or quote was aired on different shows or more than once during the course of the same program were counted as separate appearances in this study. If an analyst appeared several separate times during the same show, Media Matters counted each one as a distinct appearance."

In other words, if Person A is in a show at 3 points, and they play back part of his commentary for somebody else to take a shot at, he's had four "appearances". Not how I'd count it, but it certainly increases the count--and that's a large part of the reason for doing the count. (Meanwhile, I'd be tempted to count re-airings, but maybe I'd reconsider if I were actually doing the count.)

[mortfrom]

8. NPR?

Has anyone else noticed their rightward drift? Two words: Cokie Roberts.

And, whenever they give a legal opinion, it's always from someone at Pepperdine, yes that Pepperdine, where Scaife bought Kenny Starr a chair. NPR never intros with anything like, "Now from the sex-obsessed right wing bizarro-land of what some would call a university..."

But then, Scaife, Starr and Pepperdine only made the Clintons into pariahs, so I suppose it's alright. At least they haven't attempted to tar Obama. Yet.

[freefall]

9. It's way more than just Cokie Roberts. I stopped contributing a couple

of years ago and have now reached the point where I am turning the radio off quite often rather than listen to the pap they put out. Not only are they often biased but they fill the air waves with a lot of unimportant junk now-a-days. I'm guessing it is their way of keeping the masses entertained so they won't want to revolt.

Peace,

freefall

edited for spelling

[DeepModem Mom]

10. A definite change. Welcome to DU, mortfrom!

[Zorra]

18. Yes. NPR will soon stand for "National Propaganda Radio" if this trend

continues.

[myrna minx]

12. K&R n/t

[judasdisney]

13. "NYT exposé" is an oxymoron

Wonder how many facts they withheld to avoid embarassing certain benefactors. Wonder how many of their staff are still on the roster of Operation Mockingbird. Wonder how many of their anti-Hugo Chavez hit-pieces originated at DOD or CIA. Wonder how they can ever be taken seriously as a credible source of news, ever again.

[EFerrari]

14. NYTs led the way in anti-Chavez hit pieces in the run up to the referendum.

Most notably, they propagated the idea that the voting would not be monitored, and then ran an OpEd by RUMSFELD about what a terrible dictator Chavez was on election day. They're about as subtle as a jackhammer.

[judasdisney]

15. Worse than that

Besides the thrice-weekly reversal-of-facts from Simon Romero, Juan Forero & Larry Rohter about Chavez, the NYT editorial page voiced support for the April 2002 three-day coup d'etat, overthrowing the democratically elected president of Venezuela.

Only when Chavez was restored to power and the NYT had egg on its face did they half-apologize, meanwhile immediately returning to thrice-weekly hit-pieces.

Worse than that, Alvaro Uribe, the Neocon President of neighboring Colombia, is linked to Right Wing DEATH SQUADS and MASS GRAVES but enjoys the fawning support of the NYT. IMAGINE if Chavez had DEATH SQUADS and MASS GRAVES.

And here on DU, we have identifiable regular posters who routinely post in support of Right Wing Latin American politics on the DU Latin America threads, often in support of Alvaro Uribe, and apparently this is not a problem warranting deletion action. I thought Neocons weren't allowed to post here.

[EFerrari]

16. Right on both counts.

DU has a strange relationship to Latin America insofar as many times, people hold the opinions propagated by our right wing media and in a reflexive way they would never uncritically believe a "news item" that is about the United States. And of course, right wing shills come here to plant disinformation in various ways. Again, in the run up to the referendum, people were registering here for that express purpose.

[Judi Lynn]

17. Don't forget to include the always lovely opposition writer for the N.Y.Times, Francisco Toro!

NY Times Reporter Quits Over Conflict of Interest
Venezuela Misdeeds Adding Up on 43rd Street


By Al Giordano
Special to The Narco News Bulletin
January 14, 2003

The New York Times’ Venezuela problem continued to snowball yesterday as its Caracas correspondent Francisco Toro resigned.

Toro acknowledged, in a letter to Times editor Patrick J. Lyons, “conflicts of interest concerns” regarding his participation in protest marches and his “lifestyle bound up with opposition activism.”

Toro’s obsessive anti-Chavez position in Venezuela was publicly known after last April’s coup when he began sending emails to Narco News and other journalists who he placed on his own mailing list attacking Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez. That the Times hired him in the first place was a violation of the Times’ own claims to objective and disinterested reporting. But regarding Venezuela, it was not the first.

Toro’s resignation – the text of his letter sent to the Times management last night appears below – is the latest in a long series of missteps and misdeeds by the New York Times and its reporters regarding the New York newspaper’s one-sided and inaccurate Venezuela coverage....

http://www.narconews.com/Issue27/article584.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Financial Times Reporter "Can't Possibly Be Neutral"

6/6/03

In January, New York Times Venezuela correspondent Francisco Toro resigned his post after acknowledging that he "can't possibly be neutral" about the political situation in that country (Narco News Bulletin, 1/14/03). Now the same reporter is covering Venezuela for another prestigious paper, the Financial Times, contributing reports on May 29 and June 3.

The Financial Times is a London-based, business-oriented daily; most of its circulation is outside of Britain, with a quarter of its sales in the United States.

Toro is a fierce partisan in Venezuela's heated political environment, a participant in anti-government protests who posts name-calling attacks on President Hugo Chavez on his website. He describes himself as a "Venezuelan journalist opposed to Hugo Chavez" (Mother Jones, 3/1/03), and has written frankly about what he perceives as his own inability to impartially report the news from Venezuela.

While all journalists have political opinions, Toro described himself as unable to put aside his strong feelings about Chavez and cover the Venezuelan controversy without prejudice. After a Times editor indicated that his anti-government weblog was unacceptable, Toro responded: "I've decided I can't continue reporting for the New York Times.... I realize it would take much more than just pulling down my blog to address your conflict-of-interests concerns. Too much of my lifestyle is bound up with opposition activism at the moment, from participating in several NGOs, to organizing events and attending protest marches. But even if I gave all of that up, I don't think I could muster the level of emotional detachment from the story that the New York Times demands.... My country's democracy is in peril now, and I can’t possibly be neutral about that."

More:
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1624

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Worthwhile comments:

June 20, 2007

The New York Times vs. Hugo Chavez
The Record of the Newspaper of Record
By STEPHEN LENDMAN

Dictionaries define "yellow journalism" variously as irresponsible and sensationalist reporting that distorts, exaggerates or misstates the truth. It's misinformation or agitprop disinformation masquerading as fact to boost circulation and readership or serve a larger purpose like lying for state and corporate interests. The dominant US media excel in it, producing a daily diet of fiction portrayed as real news and information in their role as our national thought-control police gatekeepers. In the lead among the print and electronic corporate-controlled media is the New York Times publishing "All The News That's Fit To Print" by its standards. Others wanting real journalism won't find it on their pages allowing only the fake kind. It's because this paper's primary mission is to be the lead instrument of state propaganda making it the closest thing we have in the country to an official ministry of information and propaganda.

Singlehandedly, the Times destroys "The Myth of the Liberal Media" that's also the title of Edward Herman's 1999 book on "the illiberal media," the market system, and what passes for democracy in America Michael Parenti calls "Democracy For the Few," in his book with that title out earlier this year in its 8th edition.

In his book, Herman writes about the "propaganda model" he and Noam Chomsky introduced and developed 11 years earlier in their landmark book titled "Manufacturing Consent." They explained how the dominant media use this technique to program the public mind to go along with whatever agenda best serves wealth and power interests. So imperial wars of aggression are portrayed as liberating ones, humanitarian intervention, and spreading democracy to nations without any. Never mind they're really for new markets, resources like oil, and cheap exploitable labor paid for with public tax dollars diverted from essential social needs.

In "The Myth of the Liberal Media," Herman explains the "propaganda model" focuses on "the inequality of wealth and power" and how those with most of it can "filter out the news to print, marginalize dissent (and assure) government and dominant private interests" control the message and get it to the public. It's done through a set of "filters" removing what's to be suppressed and "leaving only the cleansed (acceptable) residue fit to print" or broadcast electronically. Parenti's "Democracy For the Few" is democracy-US style the rest of us are stuck with.

http://www.counterpunch.org/lendman06202007.html