http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=64401

Contrary to the insistence of Pentagon officials this week that they are not rating the work of reporters covering U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Stars and Stripes has obtained documents that prove that reporters’ coverage is being graded as “positive,” “neutral” or “negative.” Moreover, the documents — recent confidential profiles of the work of individual reporters prepared by a Pentagon contractor — indicate that the ratings are intended to help Pentagon image-makers manipulate the types of stories that reporters produce while they are embedded with U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

One reporter on the staff of one of America’s pre-eminent newspapers is rated in a Pentagon report as “neutral to positive” in his coverage of the U.S. military. Any negative stories he writes “could possibly be neutralized” by feeding him mitigating quotes from military officials.

Another reporter, from a TV station, provides coverage from a “subjective angle,” according to his Pentagon profile. Steering him toward covering “the positive work of a successful operation” could “result in favorable coverage.”

The new revelations of the Pentagon’s attempts to shape war coverage come as senior Defense Department officials are acknowledging increasing concern over recent opinion polls showing declining popular American support for the Afghan war.

“The purpose of this memo is to provide an assessment of [a reporter from a major U.S. newspaper] … in order to gauge the expected sentiment of his work while on an embed mission in Afghanistan,” reads the preamble to one of the reporter profiles prepared for the Pentagon by The Rendon Group, a controversial Washington-based public relations firm.

Stars and Stripes reported on Monday that the Pentagon was screening reporters embedding with U.S. forces to determine whether their past coverage had portrayed the military in a positive light. The story included denials by U.S. military officials that they were using the reporters’ profiles to determine whether to approve embed requests.

In the wake of that story, officials of both the Defense Department and Rendon went further, denying that the rating system exists.

Wait til the CIC hears about this

Interesting, and certainly to be condemned - good find Arbo. The Rendon Group seem to be able to work well with any administration, and seemingly will do anything for a buck:

...The Rendon Group, which gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...&article=64348

Of course, this kind of tactic is nothing new - it was used to great effect by the Bush administration with "embedded" reporters. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Journalists gained access so long as they wrote positive copy - write too many critical articles and unebedded you be.

SSDD.

Originally Posted by Sprydle

Interesting, and certainly to be condemned

Why, exactly?

Don't answer for something that isn't happening, or something that might happen as a result. Why, specifically, is this program "certainly to be condemned"?

Originally Posted by sarge

Why, exactly?

Don't answer for something that isn't happening, or something that might happen as a result. Why, specifically, is this program "certainly to be condemned"?

Is picking reporters that only report the good aspects of the war a good thing? I do't think so. Bush's Pentagon did it and now Obama's. It doesn't serve the people or the military. I wouldn't want it the other way around would you?

Does a reporter get a positive or negative rating when he draws a picture of the soldiers locations in the sand?

Originally Posted by Tarpon Shawn

Does a reporter get a positive or negative rating when he draws a picture of the soldiers locations in the sand?

He gets a boot!

Files prove Pentagon is profiling reporters

Ofcourse they do! I would've been extremely surprised if they didn't.

Originally Posted by sarge

Why, exactly?

Don't answer for something that isn't happening, or something that might happen as a result. Why, specifically, is this program "certainly to be condemned"?

Any attempt, succesful or not at manipulating the press is to be condemned in my opinion.

Here we have an example where apparently, the Obama administration, like the previous administration (and probably all administrations prior) are vetting the press in order to only allow those with a record of writing positive copy access.

An independant press have a vital function to play in a democracy - attempting to subvert that independance and manipulate the press is to be condemned.

Originally Posted by Sprydle

Any attempt, succesful or not at manipulating the press is to be condemned in my opinion.

Here we have an example where apparently, the Obama administration, like the previous administration (and probably all administrations prior) are vetting the press in order to only allow those with a record of writing positive copy access.

An independant press have a vital function to play in a democracy - attempting to subvert that independance and manipulate the press is to be condemned.

Good job Sprydle.

Originally Posted by Sprydle

Any attempt, succesful or not at manipulating the press is to be condemned in my opinion.

Here we have an example where apparently, the Obama administration, like the previous administration (and probably all administrations prior) are vetting the press in order to only allow those with a record of writing positive copy access.

An independant press have a vital function to play in a democracy - attempting to subvert that independance and manipulate the press is to be condemned.

1. The reporters aren't independent in any meaningful sense. They all have a built-in bias to try to increase their readership, please their boss, or pay the bills.
2. You are correct. Bias in reporting has been going on since the Spanish American War, at the least. But not all bias was government forced.
3. If the Press is embedded with the troops, they co-operate with the Military. It's the price they pay for access to the bleeding edge of the war.... er.... conflict.
4. If the Press wants to cross the Miltary, they can alsways go independently, but of course that entails risk.

Deadliest month yet in Afghanistan. Anyone hear about that yet?

Originally Posted by bildo baggins

Deadliest month yet in Afghanistan. Anyone hear about that yet?

Nope... Our Cheering sections reporting how many died ever day seems to have gone mute....The True Enemies of the USA.

Originally Posted by bildo baggins

Deadliest month yet in Afghanistan. Anyone hear about that yet?

sorry I only follow main stream media.... huh? wha? when........... where... we are still in Iraq? I thought that PBO&co. pulled all the troops, he said so in his campaign... and then well I don't hear about the war anymore, so I assumed PBO&Co. pulled our troops. ummmmm


are you serious, we are still there ? ACK !!!!!!! I'll be fillwywe rm$&#^#*@%


WoW !!!!



(disclaimer: the above post was made in fictitious sarcasm)

I long for the days when Bush was president. It wasn't as bad as everyone acts. They were good days. I always supported him. He was the best president our nation ever had. The money spent during his administration was wisely distributed. We never had an attack on our soil with him as president (except for 911, of course). He will be regarded as one of the best presidents in our history, and certainly in the third millinium.