Washington, D.C. – In an effort to press for changes, following The New York Times investigative report uncovering the Pentagon’s use of military analysts to “shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks,” Congresswoman Rosa L. DeLauro (Conn.-3) wrote to the heads of ABC News, CBS News, CNN News, Fox News Channel and NBC News to get specifics about each outlet’s policies surrounding the hiring and vetting of military analysts reporting on the Iraq War.
“When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed,” DeLauro writes in the letter. “Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.”
Below is the text of the five letters.
April 24, 2008
Steve Capus
President
NBC News
General Electric Company
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Dear Mr. Capus:
I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.
According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Kenneth Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. If this was indeed the case, I would urge you to explain why and provide the justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the credibility of your news organization is at stake.
As I understand, your network offered the Times the following statement for the story: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.” Yet, it was revealed that two prominent NBC analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created in 2002 with support from the White House to help make the case for war in Iraq, and both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors. These facts call into question the effectiveness of your vetting process, which fails to require that commentators appearing on your network provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with federal government officials or disclose their outside business interests.
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April 24, 2008
David Westin
President
ABC News
The Walt Disney Company
77 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023
Dear Mr. Westin:
I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.
According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. A spokesman for your network, Jeffrey W. Schneider, told the Times that ABC’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, but were expected to keep the network informed of any potential outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said. If true, this can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April 24, 2008
Sean J. McManus
President
CBS News and Sports
524 West 57th Street
New York, NY 10019
Dear Mr. McManus:
I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.
According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am left wondering whether that is in fact the case at CBS, and if so why?
Your network declined to comment neither on what knowledge it had of military analysts’ business affiliations nor what steps, if any, it took to guard against potential conflicts. Yet, the article did reveal that soon after signing with CBS, retired Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, led by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen. The company’s website tells prospective clients, “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers.” This revelation can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.
I look forward to your reply.
April 24, 2008
Roger Ailes
Chairman and Chief Executive
Fox News Channel
News Corporation
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.
According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am left wondering whether that is in fact the case at Fox News, and if so why?
A spokeswoman for Fox News told the Times that executives “refused to participate” in the story. Yet, the article revealed that many Fox News analysts appeared to have significant business conflicts of interest. For example, General Thomas G. McInerney sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions; retired Marine Colonel William V. Cowan was the chief executive of a the military firm, the wvc3 Group, a company that sought contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq; retired Navy Captain Charles T. Nash is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market; retired Marine Colonel John C. Garrett is a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq; and retired Army Lieutenant Timur J. Eads is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies. These revelations can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April 24, 2008
Jim Walton
President
CNN News Group
Time Warner Inc.
One CNN Center
Atlanta, GA 30303
Dear Mr. Walton:
I write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in an April 20, 2008 article in The New York Times that pertain to your network’s use of military analysts who provided expert commentary on the war in Iraq, conditions at Guantánamo Bay and other activities associated with the Global War on Terror. Specifically, I am seeking answers regarding your network’s policies on conflict of interest and transparency as they relate to individuals who both appear on news programs and represent military contractors, and the impact that may have on their objective analysis of current events.
According to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. As this is allegedly the case with your network, I would urge to explain why and provide the justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the credibility of your news organization is at stake.
As I understand, CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. Yet, it was revealed in the article that for nearly three years CNN was unaware that retired Army General James Marks, a main military analyst for the network, was pursuing military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies Reportedly, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies, but he was not required to describe what his job entailed. As a result, he remained a CNN commentator even as he was bidding on a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq, a contract a McNeil spin-off ultimately won. These facts make evident that your vetting process is not fully effective and clearly fails to fully include commentators’ appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with federal government officials or to disclose their outside business interests.
When the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.
I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
