thedrifter
06-04-08, 07:33 AM
Democrats look to ban DoD propaganda
By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Jun 3, 2008 8:27:04 EDT
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats want to ban Defense Department propaganda on the Iraq war, but they are likely to find that enforcement is easier said than done.
An existing legal prohibition, for example, did not deter a Pentagon program aimed at influencing retired military officers frequently interviewed in the media. It also did not prevent a culture within the Bush administration that former White House spokesman Scott McClellan claims favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war to the public.
And what is propaganda anyway? Nearly every press briefing involves a military or civilian official trying to influence the interpretation of events.
“At the end of the day, a lot of what the Defense Department is doing is trying to raise support for the military,” said Ken Bacon, chief Pentagon spokesman during the Clinton administration.
Last month, the House of Representatives passed legislation to prohibit the military from engaging in “any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”
The bill reinforces a propaganda restriction already on the books, included in the Pentagon’s more than half-trillion-dollar annual budget bill and long embraced as Pentagon policy. The law exempts any program specifically authorized by Congress, such as military recruiting, but is supposed to shut the door on spin.
Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of the book “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion,” said he thinks any law attempting to prohibit the military from promoting itself would be difficult to enforce. He said interpretations of what constitutes propaganda can vary, and U.S. efforts to influence a foreign enemy, which is allowed under the law, often seep into American airwaves anyway.
“What we really need is a norm that respects the role of the military” as independent from the executive branch, said Pratkanis, a social psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz. “It’s more the responsibility of a president to sell his policies and not hide behind the military.”
On April 20, The New York Times uncovered a six-year Pentagon program that cultivated several dozen military analysts to generate favorable news coverage on the war. These retired military generals were fed talking points, taken on trips to Guantanamo Bay prison and Iraq, given access to classified intelligence and briefed personally by senior defense officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to e-mails, transcripts and other records provided to the Times and eventually released by the Defense Department.
That the officers maintained extensive ties to the Pentagon after retirement was not surprising, as is custom among the military’s senior ranks. The program seemed to reward unfairly these new media personalities and the defense companies that employed them as lobbyists with plum access to the department so long as the retired officers spoke in favor of the war.
Also alarming was that the Pentagon may have given the retirees false or overly optimistic information about progress in Iraq, even as violence was increasing. The program was particularly noteworthy because it relied heavily on active-duty military officials to provide positive information.
In most cases, the retired analysts were more than eager to hear good news on the war. In one April 2006 conference call, as sectarian violence was on the rise, an unidentified military analyst asked then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace what the officers could say on television that would convince Americans that the war was not going badly.
“What can we say to the American public to say ... there are some things you can see that will make you feel better about what our military is doing and any progress we have made?” the analyst asked.
The Defense Department has shut down the program pending an internal review. Both the Defense Department inspector general’s office and the Government Accountability Office are investigating whether the effort violated any rules, including if it gave some contractors a competitive advantage by employing the retired officers as lobbyists.
Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., who co-sponsored the House bill with Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, said the recent House legislation should not affect the Pentagon’s day-to-day operations, including factual updates on the war given to the media.
Rather, the legislation makes clear that Congress will not tolerate behind-the-scenes efforts by the Bush administration to manipulate public opinion, he said.
“I hope it inspires the Pentagon to tell the truth,” Hodes said.
Not everyone on Capitol Hill agrees the military overstepped its bounds. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a tireless advocate of Bush’s policies in Iraq, says the military was fairly trying to promote what it saw as the facts on the ground.
“The idea that we call the people who disagree with us propagandists” and those who agree “great seers and statesmen and philosophers doesn’t make any sense,” said Hunter, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
The House included the propaganda ban in its 2009 defense authorization bill. The Senate plans to debate its version of the defense bill this summer.
Ellie
By Anne Flaherty - The Associated Press
Posted : Tuesday Jun 3, 2008 8:27:04 EDT
WASHINGTON — Congressional Democrats want to ban Defense Department propaganda on the Iraq war, but they are likely to find that enforcement is easier said than done.
An existing legal prohibition, for example, did not deter a Pentagon program aimed at influencing retired military officers frequently interviewed in the media. It also did not prevent a culture within the Bush administration that former White House spokesman Scott McClellan claims favored propaganda over honesty in selling the war to the public.
And what is propaganda anyway? Nearly every press briefing involves a military or civilian official trying to influence the interpretation of events.
“At the end of the day, a lot of what the Defense Department is doing is trying to raise support for the military,” said Ken Bacon, chief Pentagon spokesman during the Clinton administration.
Last month, the House of Representatives passed legislation to prohibit the military from engaging in “any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.”
The bill reinforces a propaganda restriction already on the books, included in the Pentagon’s more than half-trillion-dollar annual budget bill and long embraced as Pentagon policy. The law exempts any program specifically authorized by Congress, such as military recruiting, but is supposed to shut the door on spin.
Anthony Pratkanis, co-author of the book “Age of Propaganda: The Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion,” said he thinks any law attempting to prohibit the military from promoting itself would be difficult to enforce. He said interpretations of what constitutes propaganda can vary, and U.S. efforts to influence a foreign enemy, which is allowed under the law, often seep into American airwaves anyway.
“What we really need is a norm that respects the role of the military” as independent from the executive branch, said Pratkanis, a social psychology professor at the University of California at Santa Cruz. “It’s more the responsibility of a president to sell his policies and not hide behind the military.”
On April 20, The New York Times uncovered a six-year Pentagon program that cultivated several dozen military analysts to generate favorable news coverage on the war. These retired military generals were fed talking points, taken on trips to Guantanamo Bay prison and Iraq, given access to classified intelligence and briefed personally by senior defense officials, including then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, according to e-mails, transcripts and other records provided to the Times and eventually released by the Defense Department.
That the officers maintained extensive ties to the Pentagon after retirement was not surprising, as is custom among the military’s senior ranks. The program seemed to reward unfairly these new media personalities and the defense companies that employed them as lobbyists with plum access to the department so long as the retired officers spoke in favor of the war.
Also alarming was that the Pentagon may have given the retirees false or overly optimistic information about progress in Iraq, even as violence was increasing. The program was particularly noteworthy because it relied heavily on active-duty military officials to provide positive information.
In most cases, the retired analysts were more than eager to hear good news on the war. In one April 2006 conference call, as sectarian violence was on the rise, an unidentified military analyst asked then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Peter Pace what the officers could say on television that would convince Americans that the war was not going badly.
“What can we say to the American public to say ... there are some things you can see that will make you feel better about what our military is doing and any progress we have made?” the analyst asked.
The Defense Department has shut down the program pending an internal review. Both the Defense Department inspector general’s office and the Government Accountability Office are investigating whether the effort violated any rules, including if it gave some contractors a competitive advantage by employing the retired officers as lobbyists.
Rep. Paul Hodes, D-N.H., who co-sponsored the House bill with Reps. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., and Peter DeFazio, D-Oregon, said the recent House legislation should not affect the Pentagon’s day-to-day operations, including factual updates on the war given to the media.
Rather, the legislation makes clear that Congress will not tolerate behind-the-scenes efforts by the Bush administration to manipulate public opinion, he said.
“I hope it inspires the Pentagon to tell the truth,” Hodes said.
Not everyone on Capitol Hill agrees the military overstepped its bounds. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., a tireless advocate of Bush’s policies in Iraq, says the military was fairly trying to promote what it saw as the facts on the ground.
“The idea that we call the people who disagree with us propagandists” and those who agree “great seers and statesmen and philosophers doesn’t make any sense,” said Hunter, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.
The House included the propaganda ban in its 2009 defense authorization bill. The Senate plans to debate its version of the defense bill this summer.
Ellie