Public Relations Firm Hired to Research Journalists before they are allowed to embed

[Reason]

Firm Hired to Vet Embedded Reporters for Coverage of US Military

The Pentagon has hired a controversial public relations firm to vet reporters for their previous coverage of the US military before allowing them to embed with US troops. The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes reports the military has hired the Rendon Group to screen whether the reporters’ prior work has “portrayed the US military in a positive light.” The Rendon Group helped form the Iraqi National Congress, the Iraqi exile group that provided much of the false intelligence to help justify the US invasion of Iraq. Rendon has been screening reporters under a contract dating back to 2005.


http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/25/headlines#12

[Reason]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009...war-reporters/

[Reason]

Journalists' recent work examined before embeds



By Charlie Reed, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Monday, August 24, 2009
U.S. Marine Corps photos by Staff Sgt. William Greeson
Seth Moulton, a journalist with the Dan Rather Reports television show embedded with the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, photographs an Afghan boy in the Nawa District bazaar in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 19.

Lucian Read, a journalist with the Dan Rather Reports television show, shoots video of U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Gus Biggio, a civil affairs officer with 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, in the Nawa District bazaar in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 19.

Television reporters Lucian Read, right, and Seth Moulton, with Dan Rather Reports, interview U.S. Marine Corps Capt. Gus Biggio, a civil affairs officer (CAG) with 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, about cleanup plans for a bazaar in Helmand province, Afghanistan, July 19.


As more journalists seek permission to accompany U.S. forces engaged in escalating military operations in Afghanistan, many of them could be screened by a controversial Washington-based public relations firm contracted by the Pentagon to determine whether their past coverage has portrayed the U.S. military in a positive light.
U.S. public affairs officials in Afghanistan acknowledged to Stars and Stripes that any reporter seeking to embed with U.S. forces is subject to a background profile by 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.
Rendon examines individual reporters’ recent work and determines whether the coverage was “positive,” “negative” or “neutral” compared to mission objectives, according to Rendon officials. It conducts similar analysis of general reporting trends about the war for the military and has been contracted for such work since 2005, according to the company.
“We have not denied access to anyone because of what may or may not come out of their biography,” said Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, a public affairs officer with U.S. Forces Afghanistan in Kabul. “It’s so we know with whom we’re working.”
U.S. Army officials in Iraq engaged in a similar vetting practice two months ago, when they barred a Stars and Stripes reporter from embedding with a unit of the 1st Cavalry Division because the reporter “refused to highlight” good news that military commanders wanted to emphasize.
Professional groups representing journalists are decrying the Pentagon’s screening of reporters.
“That’s the government doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country,” said Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
“The whole concept of doing profiles on reporters who are going to embed with the military is alarming,” said Ron Martz, president of the Military Reporters and Editors association.
“It speaks to this whole issue of trying to shape the message and that’s not something the military should be involved with,” he said.
Mathias said the Rendon reports are generated only after a reporter has been assigned to cover a unit and are done on an ad hoc basis, typically for lesser-known journalists and those new to covering the war in Afghanistan.
The reports are useful for familiarizing commanders with topics the journalists could address and for facilitating coverage specific to a journalist’s interests, she said.
Mathias also contended that the Pentagon has begun shifting away from the positive-negative-neutral scale and is now evaluating news coverage more for its accuracy.
“If it’s accurate, that’s a successful news story, whether good or bad,” she said.
The recent merger of U.S. and NATO public affairs outfits in Kabul has resulted in a one-stop shop for media information and embed requests. It also gives more public affairs officers access to the background reports and other services provided by The Rendon Group.
The backgrounders are part of a wide scope of work Rendon does for the Defense Department under its current $1.5 million “news analysis and media assessment” contract, according to military and company officials.
The work includes statistical analysis of reporting trends inside and outside of the country and coverage of specific topics such as counternarcotics operations. It also analyzes how effectively the military is communicating its message.
“This allows them to measure the strategic effect of U.S. and allied activities as reflected in the local and international media,” according to an e-mailed statement from Rendon.
As of Friday, there were 60 media outlets — excluding Afghan media — on the ground with U.S. and NATO forces, a significant increase compared to just a few months ago, said Mathias

[acptulsa]

You may have all the free speech you wish, provided you use it to praise Big Brother.

[Reason]

You may have all the free speech you wish, provided you use it to praise Big Brother.

[angelatc]

http://www.npr.org/templates/player/...14&m=112374200

[InterestedParticipant]

Firm Hired to Vet Embedded Reporters for Coverage of US Military

Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow are such shills.

This is an excellent example of how Containment Vectors are used to contain and redirect truth. So, the real story can be found in the words of former CIA Director William Colby, who said: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

So, why publish a story telling the public that embedded reporters need to be vetted when the reporters were already vetted for their positions by the CIA in the first place? The entire story and the reporting of this story is manufactured to deceive the public.

This is how control opposition works. They release information that is supposedly opposed to the establishment, but in reality they are part of the system of deception, and the public buys it.

[Reason]

Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow are such shills.

This is an excellent example of how Containment Vectors are used to contain and redirect truth. So, the real story can be found in the words of former CIA Director William Colby, who said: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

So, why publish a story telling the public that embedded reporters need to be vetted when the reporters were already vetted for their positions by the CIA in the first place? The entire story and the reporting of this story is manufactured to deceive the public.

This is how control opposition works. They release information that is supposedly opposed to the establishment, but in reality they are part of the system of deception, and the public buys it.

Having the public aware that the reporters that are embedded with the troops have been specifically chosen based on their ideological slant is a good thing regardless imo.

[ScoutsHonor]

Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow are such shills.

This is an excellent example of how Containment Vectors are used to contain and redirect truth. So, the real story can be found in the words of former CIA Director William Colby, who said: “The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”

So, why publish a story telling the public that embedded reporters need to be vetted when the reporters were already vetted for their positions by the CIA in the first place? The entire story and the reporting of this story is manufactured to deceive the public.

Now I'm really getting confused. I don't see how it benefits the MSM to tell us that *they are not to be trusted from here on out.*

IOW, how does this work to their benefit that we no longer believe a word of the "news" coming, say, out of a war zone (and by extension, casts doubt on their veracity altogether.)

Hmmm...Perhaps the invisible benefit to leading us to mistrust our news sources is that we will then have nowhere to turn for *truth*, and would become increasingly confused and isolated....

Things are getting VERY weird.
If you can shed some light on this for me IP, it'd be greatly appreciated.

[InterestedParticipant]

Having the public aware that the reporters that are embedded with the troops have been specifically chosen based on their ideological slant is a good thing regardless imo.

My point is that they control all sides of the information space, and that information is only released when the public starts asking too many questions or starts to understand that something is wrong. But even when the information is released, or the exposure made, by so-called opposition-media, it never reveals the full scope of the deception and always protects the integrity of their system.

So, it is my point that controlled media means control of ALL media, not just the obvious sources, like FOX News and the NYTimes. And this story provides a great example of how alternative media can appear to the public to be working in their interest while in reality they are deceptively controlled themselves.

[FrankRep]

My point is that they control all sides of the information space, and that information is only released when the public starts asking too many questions or starts to understand that something is wrong. But even when the information is released, or the exposure made, by so-called opposition-media, it never reveals the full scope of the deception and always protects the integrity of their system.

So, it is my point that controlled media means control of ALL media, not just the obvious sources, like FOX News and the NYTimes. And this story provides a great example of how alternative media can appear to the public to be working in their interest while in reality they are deceptively controlled themselves.

YouTube - CFR Controls The Media

[InterestedParticipant]

Now I'm really getting confused. I don't see how it benefits the MSM to tell us that *they are not to be trusted from here on out.*

IOW, how does this work to their benefit that we no longer believe a word of the "news" coming, say, out of a war zone (and by extension, casts doubt on their veracity altogether.)

Hmmm...Perhaps the invisible benefit to leading us to mistrust our news sources is that we will then have nowhere to turn for *truth*, and would become increasingly confused and isolated....

Things are getting VERY weird.
If you can shed some light on this for me IP, it'd be greatly appreciated.

First, they only do this if the public is "on" to them. But, if the public understood that every reporter, from Amy Goodman to Alex Jones to Walter Cronkite were on the CIA payroll, I think the public would march into DC and just take over. So, these small releases of deceptive information is more about damage control than anything else. They are protecting their system of total information dominance and therefore, total deception (Baudrillard's Simulacrum).

Second, by using their own controlled "alternative" media to release the expose, they maintain the trust of public in alternative media sources.

Further, by limiting the story's release through DemNow, they ensure that only the Left-wing nutcases hear the story, and that audience already doesn't trust wartime stories, so damage is minimalized.

Finally, the CFR Controls the Media meme is just another great example of a Containment Vector put out by controlled groups. The system is far more vast than that. It's total, with the full complicity of business, media, intelligence, academia, government and foundations. The public is the only variable in the equation that doesn't know what is going on. Watch the studio audience in the movie Network, they are the only ones in that movie that think everything is real. Well, that's the public.

At all costs, the public is never ever to see the entire system in all its glory, that is the biggest points I want to make. They control all sides of these dialectics... opposition media, opposition groups, opposition political forces. They do not engage without taking a systems-design approach. If there are any systems engineers in the audience, they will understand what I am talking about.

[InterestedParticipant]

Here's a great example of the type of thinking that will allow one insight into the realities of the system (i've pull this from another thread):

Is this kinda like The Matrix Reloaded where Neo finds out that what he thought was the free city of Zion is actually just a way to control those who would fight the matrix?

BTW, this thread rocks.

I'm not too sure about you, InterestedParticipant, but your point of view is very interesting and I'm enjoying watching this discussion. I've bookmarked those links you posted.

I think just about everyone who saw the Matrix Trilogy would have thought Zion was an external force fighting the system (ie Matrix). Few, if any, would have seen Zion as part of the system design..... a necessary component within the dialectic so that the inhabitants of that system will believe that it is real.

Keep posting articles and I'll point out the vector manipulation where possible. I'm confident that others will be able to see the subtleties of the deception after some exposure to real world current examples.

[InterestedParticipant]

[ScoutsHonor]

First, they only do this if the public is "on" to them. But, if the public understood that every reporter, from Amy Goodman to Alex Jones to Walter Cronkite were on the CIA payroll, I think the public would march into DC and just take over. So, these small releases of deceptive information is more about damage control than anything else. They are protecting their system of total information dominance and therefore, total deception (Baudrillard's Simulacrum).

Second, by using their own controlled "alternative" media to release the expose, they maintain the trust of public in alternative media sources.

Further, by limiting the story's release through DemNow, they ensure that only the Left-wing nutcases hear the story, and that audience already doesn't trust wartime stories, so damage is minimalized.

Finally, the CFR Controls the Media meme is just another great example of a Containment Vector put out by controlled groups. The system is far more vast than that. It's total, with the full complicity of business, media, intelligence, academia, government and foundations. The public is the only variable in the equation that doesn't know what is going on. Watch the studio audience in the movie Network, they are the only ones in that movie that think everything is real. Well, that's the public.

At all costs, the public is never ever to see the entire system in all its glory, that is the biggest points I want to make. They control all sides of these dialectics... opposition media, opposition groups, opposition political forces. They do not engage without taking a systems-design approach. If there are any systems engineers in the audience, they will understand what I am talking about.

So they have a vast INFORMATION DOMAIN to oversee and control, correct? And their primary concern is to keep this hidden from us...Yes, I can certainly see why!
Well, I would like to think the public would "march on DC," but please observe how much we've been willing to put up with up to this point. The outrageous Trillion-Dollar bailouts, coming practically one after another, while Geithner and Bernanke just smiled and smirked in our faces. Followed by a long list of additional outrages (Cap & Trade-taxing us for breathing!-for one), and ending now with *mandating* a vaccine that they openly acknowledge to be lethal.
We have really been beaten down psychologically very badly if we've gone along with all of this and NOT fought back (I do not consider tea-parties anything but weak gestures.) But the psychological onslaught has been merciless, as you well know.

In any event, I see that they need to maintain for us the *illusion* of truthful reporting...to let us see the truth would just be too unbearably painful.

We need to fight back NOW, though, if we are to have anything left of our self-respect, OR our *lives.*

[InterestedParticipant]

So they have a vast INFORMATION DOMAIN to oversee and control, correct? And their primary concern is to keep this hidden from us...Yes, I can certainly see why!

Well, I would like to think the public would "march on DC," but please observe how much we've been willing to put up with up to this point. The outrageous Trillion-Dollar bailouts, coming practically one after another, while Geithner and Bernanke just smiled and smirked in our faces. Followed by a long list of additional outrages (Cap & Trade-taxing us for breathing!-for one), and ending now with *mandating* a vaccine that they openly acknowledge to be lethal.

We have really been beaten down psychologically very badly if we've gone along with all of this and NOT fought back (I do not consider tea-parties anything but weak gestures.) But the psychological onslaught has been merciless, as you well know.

In any event, I see that they need to maintain for us the *illusion* of truthful reporting...to let us see the truth would just be too unbearably painful.

We need to fight back NOW, though, if we are to have anything left of our self-respect, OR our *lives.*

The Information Domain is their most critical mechanism of control, as it keeps the public from seeing reality and therefore from possessing the desire to change their environment. Their goal is to make the public feel defeated, as this is one of the primary objectives of psy-war. So, when you say that "we have really been beaten down psychologically," you are correctly assessing the crux of the matter.

So, the "need to fight back NOW" is achieved by regaining our own assessment of reality, and disallowing "their" inputs into our evaluation of this reality. When we turn away from their systems of Total Information Dominance, they lose total control, almost overnight.

Have you ever been in a hurricane or other emergency zone that loses electricity for a sustained period, say a couple weeks or more? Well, if you have, you will see the public revert to normality, people will being to go out into the street, talk with each other, help each other, and in general demonstrate their humanity. When their technetronic devices cease to operate, humanity quickly resurfaces and their techniques of control rendered moot.

So, we may not march on DC, but I do think that we would quickly revert to systems of local control, where humanity can maintain far more influence and therefore Liberty may prosper.

[InterestedParticipant]

Bump.

Why is this thread getting so little attention here?

[Reason]

Amy Goodman & DemocracyNow are such shills.

The original story is from "Stars and Stripes"...

About Stars and Stripes


Stars and Stripes is a daily newspaper published for the U.S. military, DoD civilians, contractors, and their families. Unique among the many military publications, Stars and Stripes operates as a First Amendment newspaper, free of control and censorship. We have published continuously in Europe since 1942, and since 1945 in the Pacific. Today, our readers number well over 350,000.

[InterestedParticipant]

The original story is from "Stars and Stripes"...

I'm curious if you think a different story originator impacts the conclusions discussed in this thread? If so, how so?