- Seven Deadly Stupidities
- Posts
- Talking Heads: Former Military Officials As Television Analysts, Paid by the Pentagon
Talking Heads: Former Military Officials As Television Analysts, Paid by the Pentagon
When will the insanity stop?
TRUSTING THE MEDIA. Daniel Boorstin had a killer concept in his book The Image: We have evolved from a society that admired people for their accomplishments (eg, explorers and scientists) to one that admires people simply because they are well-known (eg, a celebrity). He coined the term “well-knownness.” For the most part, celebrities are known for their well-knownness, not for achievements or contributions to society.
Trusting the Media is one of the Seven Deadly Stupidities.
Major General Paul Vallely
Paul Vallely was a graduate of West Point and served in the army for more than thirty years. He was a Ranger and a decorated soldier who served in Vietnam. He retired a few ticks from the top as a Major General and the Deputy Commander of the Pacific, certainly a Boorstin hero, if there ever was one. He was also a “force multiplier.”
According to the Department of Defense, a force multiplier is:
A capability that when added to and employed by a combat force significantly increases the combat potential of that force and thus enhances the probability of mission accomplishment.
How can one solider, even one as accomplished as Vallely, be considered a force multiplier? In this case, Vallely did not have expensive equipment or specially trained troops. The Pentagon referred to Vallely as a force multiplier because of his vocal cords.
Vallely, like many other former senior military officers, was often on television and other media to provide expert commentary to the audiences. After all, these analysts had long and distinguished military careers and many times would make a visit to war-torn hot spot to add authenticity to his comments.
In “Message Machine: Behind TV’s Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand,” an exhaustive piece on the subject in The New York Times written by David Barstow in 2008, we learn that unbeknownst to viewers, and many times to the media networks, these analysts were being briefed and paid by the Pentagon. Further, many analysts had direct ties to military contractors that were bidding for billions of dollars in Pentagon business, especially during wartime.
Barstow describes the access the analysts were granted as part of the program and how such access is valuable if the analyst is also working for a contractor trying to do business with the Pentagon. Regular briefings, talking points, and emergency demands for op-ed articles when there was criticism of the Pentagon were all in a day’s work for the seventy-five former military commanders who were now paid talking heads for the Pentagon.
One of the phrases often associated with winning a military conflict is the need to “win the hearts and minds” of the country’s population. For example, if our military can convince the population of a communist country that life will be better for them under a U.S.-supported non-communist government, perhaps they will lay down their arms or not resist the objectives of the U.S.
Central to winning this part of a battle are Psychological Operations or PSYOPs. In a PSYOP, the military executes a series of actions to influence the population. Actions include the dissemination of information pamphlets, media appearances, social media influencing, and humanitarian evacuations of non-combatants.
PsyOps Shield
All of this is done to sway public opinion in favor of U.S. military objectives. It’s not much different than a branding and promotional campaign for a new type of soft drink or disposal diaper. It’s all about messaging to the audience to move them in a direction. And in this case, the PSYOP was being performed not on the population of a war-torn country, but on the U.S. television audience to help the Pentagon build support for its actions. Tellingly, Vallely was a PSYOPs expert.
As a viewer of the military analysts, we are really stuck with understanding how to trust anybody for decision-making about wartime topics. Imagine the following:
Bossman: Hey, did you see General Zod on CNN last night? They don’t come much more accomplished and well-spoken than him.
CubicleGuy: You watch that stuff?
Bossman: These guys were there, in the battles, and fighting for our country. They know what they’re talking about.
CubicleGuy: Yeah, I get it, but Zod retired from the military like fifteen years ago. His last war was Vietnam in the 1960s. What does he know about present-day Iraq and Afghanistan? Did he ever fly a drone?
Once again, CubicleGuy asks the right questions to set the proper context for what to believe in the media.
Barstow further describes the depth and breadth of the analyst program:
The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana (circulation 20,000). Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts.
And then there is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld talking about the war in Iraq.
From Barstow’s article:
On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.
This all leaves us in a place of deep skepticism. How can we believe anything we hear or see in the media? When Boorstin-certified heroes like Vallely go to the dark side and become celebrities, there is little hope that the current media-industrial complex can help us with gaining traction for an understanding of the world.
Reply