Article
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand
Barstow reports that from 2002 the Pentagon's public affairs office recruited more than 75 retired officers who worked as television and radio analysts, briefed them privately, flew them to Iraq and Guantanamo, and gave them talking points. It reports that most analysts had ties to defense contractors, that those ties were rarely disclosed to viewers or networks, and that the Pentagon monitored their coverage through a contractor. The article rests on about 8,000 pages of e-mail, transcripts and records the Times obtained by suing the Defense Department, plus interviews with analysts and Pentagon staff. It names individuals in each account and quotes the Pentagon's spokesman in reply.
Who made it
- Barstow is a reporter at The New York Times, which published the article on page A1 on 20 April 2008.
- The Times obtained the underlying records through a Freedom of Information Act request dated 28 April 2006 and a suit against the Department of Defense in the Southern District of New York (No. 07 Civ. 7481).
- Barstow received the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting (Pulitzer Prizes, 2009 listing).
- The article states that at least nine of the analysts in the program had written opinion articles for The Times.
Its claims checked against the record
10 claims checked:3 supported · 6 partly supported · 0 contradicted · 1 not in the record
A verdict rests on the documents named in its row.
| The work says | Verdict | What the record shows |
|---|---|---|
| The Pentagon ran an information apparatus that used retired officers appearing as television and radio military analysts to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance. | Supported by the record | GAO states: "Clearly, DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration's war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the RMOs." The IG (2011) describes the same activity as outreach to share DOD information and found 147 organized events with 74 analysts between 31 October 2002 and 15 February 2008 (pp. 2, 9). |
| Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly call the analysts "message force multipliers" or "surrogates" who deliver administration "themes and messages" to the public "in the form of their own opinions." | Partly supported | GAO n.19 confirms that OASD-PA staff called the analysts "surrogates" in e-mails and that an ASD-PA memorandum of 3 October 2006 lists a "surrogate community." The IG quotes a former Deputy ASD(PA) describing a "force multiplier approach to communication" (p. 12). The exact composite phrase "message force multipliers" and the "in the form of their own opinions" wording sit in released pages that are scanned images; they were not matched against the release PDFs here. |
| The Pentagon supplied the analysts with talking points, and many analysts repeated them on air; the Pentagon said they received only factual information. | Supported by the record | GAO: "DOD did provide talking points and other information to RMOs." The IG found talking points were given out in several venues and prepared for a larger audience, and quotes one analyst who called the program "a white-level psyop" and another who described the materials as bullet points "for a political purpose"; one official told the IG talking points could include DOD policy opinion while others called them fact-based. The IG did not test whether analysts repeated them on air; it found 48 Omnitec PARA reports on analyst commentary (p. 23). |
| Most of the analysts held ties to military contractors as lobbyists, executives, board members or consultants, together more than 150 contractors. | Partly supported | The IG identified 43 of 74 analysts with a defense-contractor affiliation while they took part in the outreach, which is a majority. The IG reports no count of contractors, so the "more than 150" figure is not in the record held. The IG also found that of 40 DOD personnel interviewed on the point, only two knew of analysts with contractor ties (p. 32). |
| Some analysts used the access as a marketing and networking window into defense business, though the released documents show no quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. | Partly supported | The IG asked 35 of the 43 affiliated analysts; 34 said they did not use the information for new business, one answer was ambiguous. It found one analyst used a DOD trip to try to speak to a government official on non-outreach matters (p. 32). It did not interview contractors or contracting officials, except analysts who owned the companies, and the Deputy IG withdrew the January 2009 report because its method "would not reasonably yield evidence" on financial advantage (GAO n.3). Record not produced. Contractor bid, contract and contracting-officer records, and any analyst-by-analyst review of awards, which the IG states it did not collect (DODIG-2012-025, p. 32) and which the January 2009 IG review was withdrawn for not producing (GAO B-316443, n.3). |
| The Pentagon punished sustained criticism by cutting analysts off: critics lost access, and one analyst was "precipitously fired from the analysts group." | Partly supported | The IG found "a preponderance of evidence indicates that one RMA stopped receiving invitations because he was a critic" (p. 2); the report identifies him as Barry McCaffrey (p. 16). It did not find that for Wesley Clark or Daniel Christman, and for William Cowan, the analyst the Times quotes, it concluded he did not stop receiving invitations because of his August 2005 criticism or a request from the Chairman, and that the reason is unclear (pp. 18-20). Record not produced. Invitation lists and any written decision to remove an analyst: the IG found no criteria for inclusion or removal, no list of participants, and could not construct invitation lists from the documents (DODIG-2012-025, pp. 8-9, 13-14); the officials named in McCaffrey's removal did not recall a decision (p. 16). |
| The analysts' business ties were hardly ever disclosed to viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks. | Not in the record | GAO states it did not examine whether the analysts disclosed commercial ties to viewers or networks (p. 2) and notes that the FCC Enforcement Bureau was reviewing possible Communications Act violations. The IG's 21 November 2011 report says the FCC had not completed its investigation. No FCC finding was found. Record not produced. The FCC's findings on disclosure by the broadcasters and analysts, reported as incomplete as of 21 November 2011 (DODIG-2012-025, p. 7; GAO B-316443, n.4). |
| The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail, transcripts and records, and "most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon's campaign have never been disclosed." | Supported by the record | GAO n.7 cites New York Times Co. v. DOD, No. 07 Civ. 7481 (RJS) (S.D.N.Y.), and describes about 12,000 pages and audio and image files released "in response to a suit" and "under court order." DoD letters show the request dated 28 April 2006, interim releases from 19 October 2006, and Bates-stamped e-mail pages running to 8144 by 30 April 2008. The page count therefore differs by source: 8,000 (article), 8,144 Bates-stamped plus earlier unstamped releases (DoD letters), about 12,000 (GAO). |
| Pentagon briefings with selected analysts continue almost weekly as of April 2008 and the effort began with the buildup to the Iraq war and "continues to this day." | Partly supported | The IG dates the analyst outreach from October 2002 to 15 February 2008 and states that the Principal Deputy ASD(PA) suspended it after the April 2008 article because "the seriousness of the allegations warranted a review" (p. 7). The IG's last recorded event is 15 February 2008, which differs from the article's description of a conference call with General Petraeus about two weeks before publication; the IG says its event data was not always clear (p. 9). |
| The Pentagon paid a contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to monitor the analysts' appearances. | Partly supported | GAO obtained from the DOD Comptroller that DOD paid Omnitec $1,837,989 between November 2004 and October 2007 under contracts for media analysis in general. The IG records that the contract's contracting-officer representative estimated analyst-related analysis at about one percent of the contract total but "did not have the actual data" (p. 23). GAO's Comptroller source could not compute the total cost of the outreach program. Record not produced. Omnitec invoices or task-level cost data for analyst-related reports, which the IG states the contracting-officer representative did not have (DODIG-2012-025, p. 23), and a total program cost, which the DOD Comptroller told GAO it could not calculate (GAO B-316443, p. 6). |
What the record shows that it leaves out
- The Pentagon's own record contains no plan for the program: a former Principal Deputy ASD(PA) read about 7,000 pages of the FOIA release and told the IG he never found a document stating the plan, objectives or resources, and the IG found one unsigned, undated draft memorandum listing 'TV Pundits' among 12 key outreach audiences (DODIG-2012-025, p. 11).
- GAO found no evidence DOD contracted with or paid analysts for commentary, and found materials given to analysts were clearly identified as DOD products and that the public appeared aware of the program, citing a New York Times article of 16 April 2006 (GAO B-316443, Analysis, p. 9).
- The IG found 74 analysts and 147 events, with 11 trips (5 to Iraq, 6 to Guantanamo), 136 meetings and calls, about one-third of events attended by other outreach groups or general media, and 21 of the 74 with no media affiliation (DODIG-2012-025, pp. 2-3, 9, 15).
- The IG found two communications with White House personnel in its documents (a 2006 e-mail naming eight analysts and a 12 July 2005 transmittal of a media-analysis report to the National Security Advisor) and concluded the office did not coordinate the outreach with the White House; the article says the White House requested lists and suggested names, from interviews (DODIG-2012-025, pp. 21-22).
- The IG recorded that analysts with security clearances received classified briefings and observed classified operations on the first two Guantanamo trips, and that a Deputy ASD(PA) stopped the practice on or about 29 September 2005 (DODIG-2012-025, p. 3).
- The DOD Standards of Conduct Office stated on 9 May 2008 that analyst contractor ties do not implicate federal ethics statutes or DOD regulations for government employees (quoted at DODIG-2012-025, p. 31).
- The Pentagon terminated the outreach after the article: the Principal Deputy ASD(PA) suspended it, and the Deputy IG later wrote that DOD had terminated it and that the responsible senior officials no longer worked at DOD (DODIG-2012-025, p. 7; GAO B-316443, n.3).
Documented efforts and withheld records
Each item is a documented act, with its source: an act against the work, its author or its sources, or the withholding of records on its subject. The list states what was done and does not state why.
- 28 April 2006 to 30 April 2008. DOD's FOIA office took the Times request of 28 April 2006 for records on the Pentagon's interactions with TV and radio military analysts through a series of interim releases, the first on 19 October 2006 (687 pages), before the suit and the last on 30 April 2008, ten days after publication. DoD Office of Freedom of Information, release letters, request 06-F-1532 (reading-room index archived 10 May 2008)
- August-September 2007. The Times sued DOD in S.D.N.Y. (No. 07 Civ. 7481, RJS) over the request; GAO records that documents were released under court order. The filing date is given as 23 August 2007 by GAO's docket citation and as 12 September 2007 by Columbia Journalism Review. GAO B-316443 n.7; Columbia Journalism Review, 'How I Got the Story: David McCraw'
- 18 September 2007. DOD's Initial Denial Authority for the Office of the ASD(Public Affairs), the Deputy ASD(Public Affairs) for Internal Communications/Public Liaison who ran the analyst outreach, withheld parts of 34 pages under the deliberative-process exemption, 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(5). DoD seventh interim release letter, 06-F-1532; role of Deputy ASD(PA) per DODIG-2012-025 pp. 15-16
- Appeal 19 September 2007; granted 25 February 2008. DOD withheld the transcript of the 18 April 2006 Rumsfeld-Pace briefing to analysts, then released it in its entirety on appeal. DoD OSD appeal letter 06-A-1532-A5
- 31 March to 30 April 2008. DOD redacted the releases under exemptions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3), (b)(5) and (b)(6), including 331 CENTCOM pages redacted as classified under Executive Order 12958 section 1.4(a), (b), (d) and (g); three Joint Staff pages were referred to the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Joint Staff e-mails on a classified server remained under review as of 31 March 2008. DoD release letters 31 Mar, 1 Apr and 17 Apr 2008, 06-F-1532
- 5 May 2009. DOD Inspector General withdrew its 14 January 2009 report finding no competitive advantage for contractor-affiliated analysts, with a memorandum from the Deputy IG for Policy and Oversight, and declined further work because the program had ended and the officials had left; the report and work papers are not in the public record. GAO B-316443 n.3 and n.7
- 30 May 2008 request; opinion 21 July 2009. DOD did not provide GAO its legal views and gave no formal written response to GAO's request for information; the Office of General Counsel referred GAO to OASD-PA and the Comptroller. GAO B-316443, pp. 3-4
- April 2008. The Principal Deputy ASD(PA) suspended the analyst outreach program after the article. DODIG-2012-025, p. 7
Published responses
- Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman (in the article): Said analysts were given only factual information and that the effort was 'an earnest attempt to inform the American people.' Secretary Rumsfeld declined to comment through a spokesman.
- Principal Deputy ASD(Public Affairs): Suspended the analyst outreach after the article, telling the IG he did so because the allegations warranted a review (April 2008).
- Senator Feingold; 41 House members led by Rep. DeLauro: Feingold asked GAO for a legal opinion on 1 May 2008; 41 members asked the DOD IG on 2 May 2008 to examine competitive advantage for contractors.
- Congress: Public Law 110-417 section 1056 (14 October 2008) directed GAO and the DOD IG to report on the program.
- DOD Standards of Conduct Office: Stated on 9 May 2008 that contractor ties of analysts do not implicate the federal ethics statutes or DOD regulations that apply to government employees.
- DOD Inspector General (first report): Issued report IE-2009-004 on 14 January 2009 finding no competitive advantage for contractor-affiliated analysts; the Deputy IG withdrew it on 5 May 2009 as not to be relied on, citing method.
- GAO: Opinion B-316443 (21 July 2009): DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion through the analysts but did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition; recommended DOD consider whether it needs policies for such outreach.
- DOD Inspector General (second report): DODIG-2012-025 (21 November 2011): outreach complied with policy; one analyst stopped receiving invitations because he was a critic; 43 analysts with contractor affiliations, none found to have gained financially among 35 asked; recommended a written plan for such groups. The Principal Deputy ASD(PA) concurred; the IG found the proposed actions only partly responsive.
- Pulitzer Prizes: The 2009 Pulitzer Prize for Investigative Reporting went to David Barstow of The New York Times (announced 20 April 2009).
Where it connects
- Managing the Narrative: The Pentagon's analyst program as a documented press-management operation, with the GAO opinion and the DOD IG reports on it.
- The Revolving Door: 43 of 74 analysts held defense-contractor affiliations while receiving Pentagon briefings and trips (DODIG-2012-025, Appendix C).
- What Was Said in Private: Private briefings to analysts on Iraq and Guantanamo against what was said publicly, including the 18 April 2006 Rumsfeld-Pace transcript released on appeal.