The New York Times was shocked, shocked I tell you to learn of "a Pentagon information apparatus that has used [U.S. military] analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance."
You don't say.
This practice has been well documented and as the Shock Doctrine (2007) by Naomi Klein illustrates, very well perfected and co-ordinated with other covert CIA operations. Whether the propaganda effort is called "Operation Mass Appeal", "Operation Mockingbird", or "Operation Yep! The American People Are Just That Gullible!", it feels quite disingenuous for the Times to "break" such "news" when it has fallen prey to such CIA ovations before.
In Barstow's "daring" expose, he reveals that,
"Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse - an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst said, "It was them saying, 'We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you.' "
It seems a bit incredible that with 30 years investigative journalism experience, that during the rise of Fox news and the resulting faux news stations Fox inspired, Barstow hadn't suspected that the fox was guarding the hen house of the fourth estate.
Considering that Arthur Hays Sulzberger (the father of current publisher, Arthur O. Sulzberger) signed secrecy agreements with the CIA is of no concern to any of the 350 journalists who work at the NYT, because journalists can't very well investigate their employers and be published--not to mention be employed, now can they?
I'm sure the CIA hasn't figured out how to place writers at the New York Times (again), the Washington Post (again) or in your hometown newspaper...of course not. After all, they lack the resources.
Remember when on the floor of Congress Donald Rumsfeld admitted the Defense Department could not account for 25% of funds-or 2.3 trillion dollars and declared war on not on foreign terrorists, but on defense spending waste? In fact, he said, "The adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," He said money wasted by the military posed a serious threat. "In fact," he said, "it could be said it's a matter of life and death."
That was Monday, September 10, 2001. (Hmmm. What peculiar timing for such statements.)
For the New York Times to suggest that the Pentagon propaganda machine is "news" acts as if it is impervious to the same influence. To illustrate the influence of the CIA in The New York Times, know that there are lies of omission and commission, and they both lead to the same place. The New York Times has censored the story that the FBI lacks evidence to list the attacks of September 11th as one of "Usama bin Laden's" crimes. This can easily be found on the FBI's 10 most wanted page, yet the New York Times hasn't noticed? If the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to try bin Laden for that crime, as it has said, and we are a country that believes in innocence until proven guilty in a court of law, then is the New York Times taking the Bush Administration's word that bin Laden is guilty? Isn't that a textbook example of propaganda? If the New York Times was not infiltrated by the CIA, wouldn't one of the Time's 350 reporters have found that tiny little gap in the official 9/11 story, pursued the lead and reported their findings sometime over the 6-year campaign to "find Osama bin Laden-dead or alive" and to fight the resulting "war on terror"? Or do the CIA operatives within the Times feel such a story would somehow not be supportive of CIA, Department of Defense and Pentagon objectives?
In his own words, Barstow states, "the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated" and goes on to admit that "at least nine [such military analysts] have written op-ed articles for the Times."
The propaganda machine of the CIA and Pentagon has been in force since Project Mockingbird, begun in the late 1940's. At this rate, we should see an article claiming that the New York Times is shocked, shocked I tell you to learn that Osama bin Laden is not wanted for the crimes of September 11th ...let's see... some time in the early 2070's. I wonder if the "war on terror" will still be accomplishing its mission then?
This and a hundred other media blackout stories (Google Project Censored) is proof that Project Mockingbird is quite alive and well at most if not all the outlets of the fourth estate...and the New York Times is no exception.
