.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Born at the Crest of the Empire

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Details on the Pentagon's media monitoring.

The story of the Pentagon putting out a $20 million contract for monitoring media has been out for awhile, but this WaPo story has some good detail about exactly what that means.

The Pentagon is going to contract out to someone to log and grade all media stories in foreign and US press including
broadcast and cable television outlets, the Pentagon channel, two wire services and three major U.S. newspapers: The Washington Post, New York Times and Los Angeles Times. .....

The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the "dissemination of key themes and messages" along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative.

The media outlets would be monitored for how they present coalition or anti-Iraqi force operations. That part of the proposal could reflect Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's often-stated concern that the media does not cover positive aspects of Iraq.

Please note that "Donald Rumsfeld's concern" about fair coverage has been mainly focused on the US press. In other words, Don Rumsfeld is going to spend my tax money to log and grade all those stories in the American press that he doesn't think reflect well on him.

Tell me that's going to be used morally.

8 Comments:

  • So much for that pesky old "freedom of the press" thing.

    By Blogger zen, at 7:55 AM  

  • I honestly would have no problem with them monitoring foreign press, but but counting and grading stories in the NYTimes comes awfully close to developing an illegal US propaganda program.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 9:15 AM  

  • Nixon did the same thing. The papers that were negative to him were put on his "enemies" list. Then the IRS and FBI (Hoover) would make life just a little tougher for the people on Nixons "enemy" list.

    Today is Impeach Bush day. I am not participating, which upsets my liberal friends. I have called for Bush's impeachment for almost a year now, which is about 2 years later than some.

    My GUESS, that a decision has already been made that if the public protests enough (and espicially conservatives), Rumsfeld will be replaced.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 12:51 PM  

  • I agree, Rumsfeld is the ballast that will (probably soon) be thrown overboard.

    And, I don't think there'll be an impeachment because it won't serve anyone's purposes.

    [cynicism alert.]

    At this point, the Dems have far more to gain going into 2008 with a Bush punching bag. I don't think they see an impeachment as in their interests. From a political standpoint I see that angle.

    [back to normal]

    Although from a moral standpoint, I would definitely stand for impeachment if the charges were brought around prewar intel. Launching this war with the "massaged" intel is one of the greatest crimes I can imagine.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 1:17 PM  

  • DO you have any info on "phase two" of the investigation into how intel was used by senior policymakers?

    By Blogger zen, at 2:23 PM  

  • As far as I know, nobody does. Pat Roberts has sealed the thing off. There was the Senate shutdown where an agreement has been reached, but Roberts hasn't lived up to it. He's managed a go slow on the thing. Spending time on interim/progress reports without actually doing it.

    And I wouldn't hold my breath for it to arrive before the election.

    That's my understanding of the state of play. It could well be wrong. That's not something I have actively pursued, it's something that I've followed when it's come up.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:05 PM  

  • I haven't followed it closely, because with Pat Roberts' history, I don't expect it to reveal anything.

    If the Senate flipped, I would look for it very closely.

    Mike

    By Blogger mikevotes, at 3:06 PM  

  • By Blogger Unknown, at 4:56 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home