Propaganda or Plain Ol’ PR?

The folks at the Pentagon Press office are being raked over the hibachi again for alleged propaganda mongering, and the guy with the bulls-eye on his back is a nondescript career civil servant named Bryan Whitman.

The charge is that the Pentagon, back during the dark Rumsfeld days, conspired to dupe the American people, by wooing hapless retired military officers to knowingly spread lies and disinformation about the war in Iraq in return for coveted access.

It’s a premise that won a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporter David Barstow last year, and has resurfaced on rawstory​.com, which seems dismayed to learn that the President has not fired every civil servant who ever worked for Rumsfeld.

You can read both the original New York Times story, and the Raw Story version online.

Senior official in Bush domestic propaganda program remains Obama’s Pentagon spokesman — rawstory​.com, Sept 2009

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand — New York Times, April, 2007

Both portray the program as a sinister and cynical effort to provide briefings to military analysts in a ham-fisted attempt to turn them into pitchmen for the Pentagon’s official line that the war was being won.

It all sounds pretty sordid, the way it’s laid out.  But like a prosecutor’s opening argument, the evidence is all presented in the most damning light, and not much credence is given to any opposing perspective.

There is, however, another less sinister view.  Namely, that the Pentagon’s press office was just doing its job in trying to get its side of the story out.  That the veteran military commanders who were given briefings used their judgment and experience to decide how much of the Pentagon’s spin to swallow, and that the private briefings, far from being some covert propaganda program, were in fact not all that much different from the backgrounders with senior officials routinely provided top journalists who are also seen as in a position to influence public opinion.  (And who some also feel were patsies for the Pentagon, but that’s another story.)

That is what GAO pointed out when it found last July that the Pentagon’s public affairs activities did not violate the federal  publicity or propaganda prohibition,  “Federal agencies have a responsibility to inform the public about their activities and programs, explain their policies, and disseminate information in defense of those policies or an administration’s point of view.”

[Department of Defense—Retired Military Officers as Media Analysts]

But to subscribe to the more benign view that this was good old-fashioned public relations, not pernicious propaganda, one would have to give some of the people involved the benefit of the doubt, and these days no one is predisposed in that direction.

I know Bryan Whitman, a former Special Forces soldier, who as a civilian has been an apolitical advocate for whomever is serving as defense secretary.  Over the years I found him to be cautious, and credible in his dealings with the press.  The office he oversees is the part of the public relations arm of the Pentagon, and so it cannot be considered an unbiased source of unvarnished information.  Any reporter knows that, as does any retired military officer worth his stars.

I also know some of the military analysts in question.  The best ones don’t rely on their out-of-date experience, or private Pentagon briefings.  I would cite as a an example retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, who worked for CNN when I was Senior Pentagon Correspondent.  Gen. Shepperd went to briefings, and even took some trips when they were offered to hear and see firsthand what the commanders were saying.  But he also worked his sources like any good reporter, looking for context, and reality checks.  And when he shared his views on the air, they were HIS views, the result of his own fact-finding and critical thinking.

Now not all the military analysts covered themselves in glory, to be sure. From the transcripts of the meetings, we can see some did seem a little too eager to salute smartly and rally support for the Pentagon position.  And some of those may have simply honesty agreed with the Pentagon’s view at the time.  But retired military officers who moonlight as TV analysts have an occupational hazard similar to Pentagon news reporters: whenever they attempt to put things in context and suggest theer may be more that one possible interpretation of the events, they leave themselves vulnerable to charge they are drinking the Kool-Aid.

Retired Army Col. Ken Allard, author of the book “Warheads: Cable News And the Fog of War” about military analysts calls the original New York Times story ” badly distorted, incomplete and intellectually dishonest.”
In an email to me he wrote:

“I keep coming back to the SO WHAT? test, which is basic to this story and utterly dismissed by Barstow while serving the greater good of the NYT/Democratic/Pulitzer agenda. While we military analysts were given access to PNT officials, so too were many other reporters and other policy-relevant strap-hangers. …But there was never any harm to the public interest and arguably some positive benefits. Bottom Line: No one controlled what we said on-air — not even our own studios and certainly not Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon! And that was the principal thesis of WARHEADS. Look it up! ”

The easy way to avoid that is to be unfailingly critical, in other words, unfailing unfair.  The best way to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest is full disclosure.  If generals want to inoculate themselves against allegations they are doing the Pentagon’s dirty work, they should make sure to disclose what, if any, special access they received.  The pubic already sees former military officers as “generally” pro-military and pro-war.

So was this propaganda, or just plain old PR?  Here’s what the GAO concluded:

“Clearly, DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the RMOs [Retired Military Officers]. However, … based on the record before us in this case, we conclude that DOD’s public affairs outreach program to RMOs did not violate the prohibition. We found no evidence that DOD attempted to conceal from the public its outreach to RMOs or its role in providing RMOs with information, materials, access to department officials, travel, and luncheons. Moreover, we found no evidence that DOD contracted with or paid RMOs for positive commentary or analysis. Consequently, DOD’s public affairs activities involving RMOs, in our opinion, did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.”

Tags: Bryan Whitman, New York Times, Pentagon, Propaganda