This USA Today headline (6/16/10) seemed like the kind of thing one might stop to read:
Top Officer Sees Military Caution as Backfiring
The lead:
Commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have been reluctant to launch more secret operations because of an excess of caution about violating military rules and international law, a top Army officer says.
While one might not associate the military with an “excess of caution,” the main source in the article is mainly concerned about the underutilization of “deception operations,” tricks that can be used tofool the enemy.Since this is all about, well,lying, “military officials declined to detail specific deception operations.”
But then USA Today added:
The military is barred from launching operations that could be picked up by U.S. media. That is a particularly difficult line to walk in an age of the Internet and continuous news–a lie aimed at the enemy could inadvertently wind up portrayed as truth on American television or in newspapers.
Now, wait right there…. There’s a chance there could byLIES printedinour media? Portrayed as the truth??
This completely hypothetical threat sounds serious.
But Peter, if the corpress actually factchecked gummint pronouncements, wouldn’t that display an unacceptable bias?
I mean, they don’t verify advertising claims, do they?
I am hearing that the story of how Obama turned down “offers of help” from “several” other countries – now making the rounds of the Fox News and Wannabe Foxes – is also not true. Any info on this one?
There are several nations represented in the Gulf of Mexico and have been for several weeks. Think Progress and DemocracyNow have kept up on this story pretty well.
quick edit : “Now, wait right there…. There’s a chance there could be lies GENERATED BY THE PENTAGON reported in our media? Portrayed as the truth??”
flashback to 08: A successful two-year lawsuit has forced the Pentagon to disclose 8,000 pages of documents. The contents reveal an extensive Pentagon disinformation campaign using military analysts as media pundits to generate favorable news coverage of the phony “war on terror.”
The analysts include over 75 retired military officers who have served as lobbyists, senior executives, board members and consultants for more than 150 military contractors receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in war contracts.
The analysts received talking points directly from Bush administration officials, including former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley.