TPM Muckraker

« previous | MUCK HOME | next »

DOD Pundit Report Finds No Wrongdoing

The DOD's just-released report on its TV pundit hiring program finds that the department did not violate prohibitions on using public finds for propaganda by ceding the networks with retired military analysts (RMAs).

Here's the key passage:

The Comptroller General has interpreted the publicity and propaganda riders to prohibit three types of activities--self-aggrandizement or puffery, partisanship, and covert communications. Applying these standards, we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that RMA outreach activities were improper. Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that OASD(PA) conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favorably on DoD programs.

With regard to RMAs who had ties to military contractors, extensive searches found no instance where such RMAs used information or contacts obtained as a result of the OASD(PA) outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company.

But it also admits at the end that the report wasn't informed by much information from the networks themselves:

We requested interviews with the official responsible for the news divisions at five networks: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and NBC. All declined our request for an interview. ABC, CNN, and FOX provided formal written responses to our inquiry. NBC forwarded copies of their responses to Congresswoman DeLauro and the New York Times. CBS provided "off the record" remarks.

Given that the networks appear to be just as culpable as DOD here, if not more so, that seems like a serious flaw.


9 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Is anybody really surprised? This is the biggest story that got zero coverage because the MSM was used by the Government and the MSM didn't want to make themselves look ridiculous and incompetent(at best - complicit at worst) by making noise.

user-pic

Hey, I read through the report quickly and saw a paragraph where someone at the Pentagon e-mails to suggest organizing get a bunch of "reliably friendly" analysts "we can count on to carry our water for us," and then feed them info so they become the go-to guys for the networks.

Is this a new e-mail, or was it cited in the original NYT story? If it's a new e-mail, I'd say it's pretty damn incriminating in spite of the Pentagon's denials that it was acted on.

user-pic

To be a little more professional about this and get the quotes exactly, it's page 16, and it quotes an e-mail from the Director of DoD Press operations, "urging her superiors to cultivate a core group of 'reliably friendly' RMAs 'that we can count on to carry our water.' The e-mail went on to recommend that this group of RMAs be placed on a 'hot list' for receipt of breaking information so that they become 'key go-to guys for the networks.'"

Now that definitely makes my kettle boil, so why isn't it news? The report claims that it wasn't acted on, but it also basically admits that McCaffrey had already been kicked out for making critical remarks.

In short, I don't see this as a very effectively exculpatory report.

user-pic

Cut the Pentagon budget by 50%. Lay off 50% of the Generals and Colonels running around that sewer of waste, corruption and conflict of interest.

user-pic

The Comptroller General has interpreted the publicity and propaganda riders to prohibit three types of activities--self-aggrandizement or puffery, partisanship, and covert communications.

In other words, we have given the regulations a highly narrow interpretation that does not prohibit propagandizing. Under this interpretation, the organized propaganda program did not violate any regulations!

Shorter version: If you interpret the rules so as to allow the questioned conduct, the questioned conduct is allowed.

user-pic

CN says:

Shorter version: If you interpret the rules so as to allow the questioned conduct, the questioned conduct is allowed.

This is how the Bush/Cheney gang operated for 8 years.

user-pic

Hey, dear night shift at TPM -- I read through the original NYT article and I'm not seeing that passage on p. 16 about rounding up "reliably friendly" analysts "we can count on to carry our water."

It seems to me like that may one of the newsworthy nuggets buried in this 4pm Friday dump.

user-pic

"...using public finds for propaganda by ceding the networks with retired military analysts..."

You mean "seeding" of course. Darn spell-checker.

user-pic

CN has it. They interpreted the regulations forbidding propaganda as forbidding a few other activities but not actually forbidding, y'know, propaganda. So the rest follows.

The DoD's comptroller general (or is that an executive widep osition that's being referred to?) should be doing time for honest services fraud.

(You do rather have to like the idea that the anti-propaganda rules would forbid an analyst from, say, transmitting a coded message by waggling their eyebrows in Morse.)

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe
Tip Line

Josh
Marshall

Bio

Zachary
Roth

Bio

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address