Suspending Expert Opinions
National Public Radio has found something new to complain about – networks use experts and the experts get information from other experts.
David Folkenflik of NPR has a problem with the Pentagon briefing a group of retired American military officers, many of who appear on television. He approvingly quoted Andrew Heyward, a former President of CBS News:
National Public Radio has found something new to complain about – networks use experts and the experts get information from other experts.
David Folkenflik of NPR has a problem with the Pentagon briefing a group of retired American military officers, many of who appear on television. He approvingly quoted Andrew Heyward, a former President of CBS News:
(It is a) deliberate attempt to deceive the public… Analysts whose real allegiance was to the Pentagon and who apparently were given at least special access for that allegiance were presented as analysts whose allegiance was to the networks and, therefore, the public… They all had sources inside the military – and often were able to get access to information that supplemented the information that our own correspondents were gathering. Based on their experience, they also could provide perspective on different aspects of the war as it unfolded – including policy.
“Allegiance to the Pentagon”? The retired Flag and General Officers we know have an allegiance to national security. And how does “allegiance to the networks” become synonymous with “allegiance to the public”? Media allegiance to the truth would involve giving the public accurate – and yes, inside – information. Yes, retired officers have “experience” (which most members of the media don’t because they didn’t want it) and, yes, which provides “perspective” of a different sort. Perhaps Heyward and Folkenflik prefer military analysis done by people with no experience and/or a negative perspective on military matters; it certainly wouldn’t be a first for NPR or CBS.
Folkenflik admits that not all of those briefed were “cheerleaders,” but insists that there is something “disconcerting” about military people talking to military people and then explaining what they’ve learned to the public. A small-town newspaper jumped in to call it a “staggering breach of public trust by Pentagon leaders, who were seeking to achieve ‘information dominance’ through a program that sabotaged traditional journalism.”
Call us crazy, but we LIKE information dominance by the good guys and yes, we believe that the American military – active and retired – constitute the good guys.
As readers can imagine, we don’t expect to influence Folkenflik or Heyward or the paper. We are unhappy, however, because the Pentagon has announced it is “suspending” the briefing program and having it “reviewed.” A BIG MISTAKE, in our view.
The American people have to know what the government is thinking and doing in this war – our war – so we can understand, applaud, or criticize. We hear al Jazeera all the time, not to mention NPR, CBS and The New York Times. Why not the expert military view from expert military people for balance? We were big fans of embedded reporters, too, but they’re gone – maybe they got too much of that “experience” and “perspective” that Heyward and Folkenflik find “disconcerting.”
What’s disconcerting is the media attitude toward the active and retired military, and their apparent belief that we, the public, can’t be trusted to weigh expert opinions along with everything else they throw at us.