Shooter cracks me up. Three immutable truths in 242's mind:

1) it is impossible for America to have anything less than pure motives, and

2) anyone seeking to hold America to its founding Constitutional principals (and the rule of law) is a fool or a traitor, and

3) those who align themselves with the idea that 95% of all American military adventurism around the globe since WWII has been unnecessary, economy damaging (domestically/occupied sovereigns), and lacks a moral/existential justification, makes us naive librul unMerikan moonbats--because we don't share the clear-eyed "serious" opinion that war (or our police actions or global terrarist thwarting activities) is inevitable, good, and the highest endeavor our great nation can engage in because everyone knows the little "brown" peeps of the world needs them some old timey American civilizin' cuzin we is the most superior peoples on God's great green and blue earth (though it is getting significantly more arid and brown).

Shooter please name the tangible benefits "we the people" have reaped from the umpteen trillions spent on funding and using our standing military across foreign lands in the last 50 years? Start with Grenada, Nicaragua, Iraq, Viet Nam, Korea, Afghanistan or any other scrappy little country thousands of miles away that we've decided to splatter against the wall to show our cultural and economic dominance? Where's my peace dividend by the way? Does it come in the mail after my stimulus check?

Hey it's Saturday morning--aren't you late for a tee time somewhere? That must explain your willful obtuseness--weekend foursomes with other ninnys like you all engaged in cigar chomping false bravado while cheating on your scorecards. Do you have the endurance to carry your own bag or do you require a golfcart? You should organize a cross cultural (conservative v liberal) golf tournament. This is one liberal who would enjoy drinking your milkshake over a weekends worth of rounds. A little low stakes Nassau or Stableford format for a couple of C notes per round--you pick the format and the winner donates the winnings to the charity of his choice or in your case the corporate/military propoganda agent of choice.

Remember what happened to MSNBC's rising star reporter Ashleigh Banfield when in April 2003 she publicly objected to the fawning press coverage of the war. Where is she now?

One of the main reasons that a disinformation campaign such as this one can work so efficiently is that there are relatively fewer owners in the establishment media (from 50+ in 1948 to what, 6 now?). It's so consolidated that there aren't the same competitive forces that would give a large new business an incentive to bite the hand that feeds it (government). With the exception of McClatchy, who I think have had the most integrity of a major news outlet since 2000, the big 5 media conglomerates have been quite comfortable gutting their news offices and journalism standards.

And so people tune out more and more (except for the rationally challenged who make for a very easily exploitable market, e.g. Fox News, and who then shift the center further towards the authoritarian, anti-intellectual, "what did you expect the Pentagon to do?" point of view). But that doesn't mean that people care less, even if they are more cynical. They find alternative ways to inform themselves or they focus on issues closer at hand that they can understand without being propagandized by the establishment media.

Kick-ass reporting GG. And excellent comments from LWM (thanks for that story and link). All you Americans, make sure you message force multiply and send this piece to your representatives and shitty local newspapers.

-Sounds like a new form of warfare!-

paddy_boy

You nailed it, IMO.

Glenn

Correct me if I am wrong, but disinformation ops or propaganda campaigns are a form of warfare, as much as aerial bombing. Is that assumption at all accurate?

I view this activity as literally warfare waged against a domestic target much like the domestic spying program(s).

It's most unfortunate that the US is no longer a nation of laws, certainly not for the members of that exclusive club.

For any other RWA eedjits who might be inclined to regurgitate the "what did you expect from military analysts" talking point, HERE

http://www.prwatch.org/node/7261

is where the link in Glenn's post leads.

It's a brief and simple explanation of the fact that, even if certain asshats don't have any problem w/ being propogandized, it is in fact, patently ILLEGAL.

But, for some, obviously, IOKIYAR (Administration).

Glenn,

There are so many good things to say about this post (and yesterday's, and your entire series on the military analysts story) that I barely know where to start. A random offering:

* This story is in some ways a sideline to the entire list of atrocities that have been perpetrated as this group have hijacked one after another of our institutions (public and private) for their own variously defined gains. But it's illustrative of the whole in some glaring ways. Thanks for focusing your attention and powers on it.

* I'm excited to see the way you've done it, i.e. focusing on the actual mechanisms employed by the perps and their enablers, demonstrating the impact, and emphasizing the chain of accountability.

IMHO, one part of what has made 'our' criticisms ineffectual is that 'we' often paint with too broad a brush and rely on high-level narratives and tropes which, although reasonably accurate, leave too much to the imagination and offer too many opportunities for refutation by counter-example. Specificity, precision ... this is what happened in this instance, who-what-when-where-why-how (especially how), using the actual words of the actual participants is much stronger. Wish we had more of this ... dare we call it 'investigative journalism'?

* I've mentioned in the past the work we did overseas for the past several years nurturing independent media in the 'developing world'. I wish we had had an example this clear, and this good, to teach with. If we do any more of that work (exhaustion and dillusionment argue against it), I'll certainly use this and your FISA enterprise as examples.

* You did this in a matter of days with the Pentagon's FOIA-coerced data dump. By contrast, media outlets will make budgetary decisions on investigative reporting (almost always an enterprise piece) based on assumptions about its extended cost and development time. Obviously, it took Barstow a while to put it together, to get the FOIA through, to develop his timeline and his sources ... but look at all the 'secondary' content you've developed from that ... and how much more impact you've had from that. Should be an eye-opener.

I could go on and on ... but I'll stop here out of consideration for length.

Thanks again