Pentagon Absolves Self for Covert Pundit Program

"It is a whitewash," said Representative Paul Hodes. "It appears to be the parting gift of the Pentagon to the [former] president [Bush]," he added, referring to an internal investigation (pdf) into the Pentagon's pundit program. From 2002 to 2008, the Pentagon cultivated retired military officers who serve as media commentators, to be "message force multipliers" on such controversial issues as Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. Although participants were told "not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon," and internal documents make clear that the program attempted to mold U.S. public opinion -- two hallmarks of illegal government propaganda -- the report from the Defense Department's inspector general said "there was an 'insufficient basis' to conclude that the program had violated laws." Several key Pentagon figures -- including Victoria Clarke and Lawrence DiRita, along with network news executives -- declined to be interviewed for the report. The report also found that the pundits didn't use their high-level Pentagon access to unfairly benefit their military contractor clients. However, it lists Barry McCaffrey -- among other pundits "with easily documented connections" to military companies -- as supposedly having no contractor ties. Democratic members of Congress "expressed concerns about the scope, methodology and accuracy of the report," noted the New York Times, which first reported on the Pentagon pundit program.

Comments

Much of what we hear on MSM that isn't actually NEWs is nothing more than opinion and therefore propaganda in my opinion. . . .

Why should it be such a big deal for the government to want their side known - by sharing on the MSM too......

As long as the MSM gives us ALL sides of an issue - that seems fair enough to me......

I just noticed that the New York Times wrote this article. That speaks for itself since they definitely have their own Liberal agenda. Now I understand their objections to the Bush administration trying to get their own message out and why the NYT referrs to that as propaganda. . . . .

I choose to pay no attention to their opinion. . . . I'm surprised that they are still in business -

That the IG report from DOD is totally inaccessible and cannot be downloaded? Why doesn't' anyone provide a mirror?

I'm not sure which link you're trying, but I just double-checked and this one works:

http://www.dodig.osd.mil/Inspections/IE/Reports/ExaminationofAllegationsInvolvingDoDOfficeofPublicAffairsOutreachProgram.pdf

In case you have trouble with a URL that long, here's a tiny version:
http://tinyurl.com/bykq8m

Is Army using its officers as the new pundits? See blog debate at
http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/BLOG/blogs/dlro/archive/2009/03/18/information-engagment-or-propaganda-by-another-name.aspx