A microcosm of the propaganda model

An opinion piece on Salon.com bemoans an instance of the general phenomenon which Noam Chomsky puts forward as “the propaganda model of media”:

Here are Tufts University Political Science Professor Dan Drezner and Stanford Philosophy Professor Joshua Cohen demonstrating how good-hearted, profoundly reasonable, oh-so-intellectually sophisticated Americans diligently struggle with – torture themselves over – what they have convinced themselves is the vexing question of whether our leaders should be considered “war criminals” by virtue of —— having committed unambiguous war crimes.

[Original article had embedded video here.]

[...] As always, it's important to emphasize that examining Drezner's comments here is worthwhile only as an illustrative endeavor – not because his mindset is rare or unique to him, but precisely because it isn't. In fact, so appropriately and revealingly, this pro-war, torture-mitigating, “hell-bent-on-getting-out” academic is about to become, beginning early next year, a blogger for Foreign Policy, the establishment journal of America's Foreign Policy Community.

That's a perfect microcosm of the last eight years: Support the Iraq War. Spout patently false claims to justify it. Rationalize and mitigate American Torture by insisting it's a complicated question and was authorized with good and noble motives. Have your credibility, visibility and establishment credentials enhanced.

Salon did another piece, “CNN, the Pentagon's "military analyst program" and Gitmo”, on a Pentagon program created in order to give select journalists media access (in this case, a guided tour of the Guantanamo Bay prison) in exchange for positive coverage of the Iraq war.

The article, based on documents released by the Pentagon following a court order, quotes Pentagon emails about the "military analysts" and spells out the workings of the propaganda model in concrete detail. Although Chomsky goes out of his way to explain how the propaganda model does not posit any government conspiracy controlling the media, this case makes it clear exactly how conscious and deliberate these effects are.

In a "trip report" he filed with his Pentagon handlers, CNN's Gen. Shepperd explicitly acknowledged both the blatantly propagandistic purpose of the trip, as well as the extremely limited and controlled scope of information to which he had access in a single-day trip (7434). Shepperd stated:

"Did we drink the 'Government Kool-Aid?' -- of course, and that was the purpose of the trip." In his Pentagon report, Shepperd added the obvious: that "a one day visit does not an expert make," that "the government was obviously going to put its best foot forward to get out its message," and that "former military visitors are more likely to agree with government views than a more appropriately skeptical press."

Shepperd's statement as to the purpose of the GITMO trip -- to have the pro-government analysts "drink the government Kool-Aid" -- was unquestionably accurate, as multiple Pentagon documents reflect. As but one example, a planning email from Pentagon official Dallas Lawrence, dated June 21, 2005, highlighted the importance of scheduling the Gitmo trip to ensure that The American Spectator's Jed Babbin could participate, noting (7486):

He is hosting a number of radio shows this summer. I would have to think he would have every member of Congress on to talk about their trip together -- a definite plus for us looking to expand the echo chamber.

Shepperd, despite being employed by CNN as an "analyst," clearly had as his first priority ensuring the success of the Pentagon's messaging mission. Upon returning from the Gitmo trip, Shepperd, on June 25, sent an email to Pentagon officials praising the Gitmo tour and telling them: "let me know if I can help you." He signed the email: "Don Shepperd (CNN military analyst)" (7470):

Demonstrating how controlled by the Pentagon were these "analysts," Shepperd's email to "help" was forwarded to top Rumsfeld aide Larry Di Rita, who replied (7470): "OK, but let's get him briefed on Khatani so he doesn't go too far on that one" -- referring to the so-called 20th hijacker Mohammed al-Khatani, whose Guantanamo interrogation had been particularly brutal, as he "was stripped naked, isolated, given intravenous fluids and forced to urinate on himself, and exercised to exhaustion during interrogations that lasted 18 to 20 hours a day for 48 of 54 days."

"Helping" the Pentagon is exactly what Shepperd, pretending to be an "independent analyst" on CNN, then proceeded to do. In numerous appearances on CNN talking about Gitmo, no mention was ever made of Khatani or other specific, documented abuses. To the contrary, Shepperd's "analysis" -- broadcast all over CNN -- was exactly what it would have been had Rumsfeld himself written the script.

[...]

All television and print appearances of what the Pentagon called "our analysts" were meticulously tracked. Shepperd's live CNN call was particularly celebrated at the Pentagon, in an email entitled "Transcript of Don Shepperd's Remarks on CNN a little while ago" 7471): [...]

The Pentagon's analysts faithfully reported back to their handlers with pride about their success in getting booked on shows and being able to spout their talking points. From an email sent by one of the Gitmo trip participants, Gordon Cucullu, to top Pentagon aides (7444):

I did a Fox & Friends hit at 0620 this morning. Good emphasis on 1) no torture, 2) detainees abuse guards, and 3) continuing source of vital intel".

The article goes on to quote Shepperd in his media appearances, showing how (in spite of his comments above; e.g., "a one day visit does not an expert make") he cited the fact that he had visited the prison as the basis of authoritative claims that inmates were not being tortured, etc. Shepperd's self-awareness as evidenced in that "trip report" show that this is not merely a case of selecting journalists for their opinions but rather of selecting journalists for their willingness to "go along with the program". Shepperd gets access because he makes it clear that he is a self-conscious "member of the team" -- someone who has so genuinely taken on the Pentagon's "mission" as his own that he can speak as he does with no inner conflict about his role as part of the "echo chamber".