Saunders Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 For years, Wayne Simmons claimed to be a former C.I.A. operative. Then one ex-spook got suspicious. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/06/magazine/the-plot-to-take-down-a-fox-news-analyst.html?_r=1&referer= Fascinating read... 1 Link to comment
huKSer Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Stop using my profile picture Link to comment
Red Dead Redemption Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Stop using my profile picture That's the same pic? Looks like you've gained some weight. You'd better cut back on LeBeau's apple strudel. Link to comment
knapplc Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 How can he watch the barracks like a hawk when he's as blind as a bat?!?!? Link to comment
zoogs Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Yeah, I read that. What a story! Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 That is a very interesting story. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I found this paragraph particularly interesting. In 2005, Simmons was invited to join a Defense Department effort called the Retired Military Analysts program. Started in 2002 during the Bush administration’s push for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the program recruited retired military officers who had high-profile jobs as cable-news experts to be Defense Department ‘‘message force multipliers.’’ They were given regular briefings from Donald Rumsfeld, then the secretary of defense, as well as access to other high-ranking department officials. There were trips to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. It was all done in an effort to win favorable but independent-seeming news coverage for the administration’s foreign policy. Now, I'm sure the Bush administration is no the first to do this and they won't be the last. I'd be shocked if Obama hasn't done the same on certain issues. But, I found it interesting how formal of an organization the administration put together to be "message force multipliers". Link to comment
Saunders Posted March 11, 2016 Author Share Posted March 11, 2016 I found this paragraph particularly interesting. In 2005, Simmons was invited to join a Defense Department effort called the Retired Military Analysts program. Started in 2002 during the Bush administration’s push for a U.S. invasion of Iraq, the program recruited retired military officers who had high-profile jobs as cable-news experts to be Defense Department ‘‘message force multipliers.’’ They were given regular briefings from Donald Rumsfeld, then the secretary of defense, as well as access to other high-ranking department officials. There were trips to Iraq and Guantánamo Bay. It was all done in an effort to win favorable but independent-seeming news coverage for the administration’s foreign policy. Now, I'm sure the Bush administration is no the first to do this and they won't be the last. I'd be shocked if Obama hasn't done the same on certain issues. But, I found it interesting how formal of an organization the administration put together to be "message force multipliers". aka, propaganda machine... Link to comment
TGHusker Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Makes a guy wonder how transparent and authentic our news really is. This kind of thing probably occurs at the other networks as well. Everyone has a bias and so do large organizations - you know Fox has 'guests' that fit their narrative while trying to give the appearance of 'fair and balance'. As an example it is interesting to watch the various news sites during the election process. You can pick up which candidate is 'in' based on the articles and news stories written. I can tell that the Drudge Report for example is all 'in' wt Trump by the way they treat the other candidate - what stories, what pictures they choose to use, etc. Link to comment
zoogs Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 I actually don't think the message force multiplier stuff is that bad. There's an official defense for it written a few paragraphs later that call into question this characterization: It was all done in an effort to win favorable but independent-seeming news coverage for the administration’s foreign policy. ...but I haven't thought about it much. It just seems like the unscrupulous actor here was this guy and not the Bush administration -- not that I will start defending the Bush administration's treatment of the media. As far as transparency goes I think this was simply a case of a network being hoodwinked by a con man. Of course, Fox would love this guy, wouldn't they? What's interesting is the guy who took him down had some very similar political bents, but was the real thing. Link to comment
Recommended Posts