FOR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE
Contact: Adriana Surfas
Thursday, April 24, 2008
(202)
225-3661
DeLauro
Presses Major News Networks to Disclose Ethics Standards for Military Analysts
Washington,
D.C. – In
an effort to press for changes, following The
“When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests. When
you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business interests,
as well as relationships with high-level officials within the government, the
public trust is betrayed,” DeLauro writes in the letter. “Now that the
full extent of the Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has
been revealed, I strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to
ensure proper vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the
viewers can get the objective analyses they deserve.”
Below
is the text of the five letters.
April
24, 2008
Steve
Capus
President
NBC
News
General
Electric Company
30
Rockefeller Plaza
Dear
Mr. Capus:
I
write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in
an April 20, 2008 article in The
According
to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department
to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or
“surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on
major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media
modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional
fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors
competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global
War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior
civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding
should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive
advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve
as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for
the companies they represent.
Network
officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these
interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions
about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or
possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. “None of that
ever happened,” said Kenneth Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006. In the
article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of
interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their
news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. If
this was indeed the case, I would urge you to explain why and provide the
justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the credibility of
your news organization is at stake.
As
I understand, your network offered the Times
the following statement for the story: “We have clear policies in place to
assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and
that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of
interest.” Yet, it was revealed that two prominent NBC analysts, Barry
R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the
Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created in 2002 with
support from the White House to help make the case for war in Iraq, and both men
also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military
contractors. These facts
call into question the effectiveness of your vetting process, which fails to
require that commentators appearing on your network provide detailed accounts of
the nature of their relationships with federal government officials or disclose
their outside business interests.
When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests.
When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business
interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the
government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the
Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I
strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper
vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the
objective analyses they deserve.
I
look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April
24, 2008
David
Westin
President
ABC
News
The
Walt Disney Company
Dear
Mr. Westin:
I
write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in
an April 20, 2008 article in The
According
to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department
to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or
“surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on
major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media
modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further
reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military
contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by
the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to
the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining
how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear
competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further
pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain
military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network
officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these
interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions
about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or
possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. A spokesman for
your network, Jeffrey W. Schneider, told the Times
that ABC’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical
rules as its full-time journalists, but were expected to keep the network
informed of any potential outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to
them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said. If true, this
can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully effective
and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your network to
provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with leaders in
the federal government or to disclose their outside business interests.
When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests.
When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business
interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the
government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the
Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I
strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper
vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the
objective analyses they deserve.
I
look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April
24, 2008
Sean
J. McManus
President
CBS
News and Sports
Dear
Mr. McManus:
I
write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in
an April 20, 2008 article in The
According
to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department
to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or
“surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on
major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media
modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further
reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military
contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by
the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to
the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining
how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear
competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further
pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain
military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network
officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these
interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions
about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or
possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article,
network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of
interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their
news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am
left wondering whether that is in fact the case at CBS, and if so why?
Your
network declined to comment neither on what knowledge it had of military
analysts’ business affiliations nor what steps, if any, it took to guard
against potential conflicts. Yet, the article did reveal that soon after
signing with CBS, retired Air Force General Joseph W. Ralston was named vice
chairman of the Cohen Group, led by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen.
The company’s website tells prospective clients, “The Cohen Group knows that
getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the
United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date
understanding of the thinking of government decision makers.” This
revelation can only lead me to conclude that your vetting process is not fully
effective and certainly does not include asking commentators appearing on your
network to provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with
leaders in the federal government or to disclose their outside business
interests.
When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests.
When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business
interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the
government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the
Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I
strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper
vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the
objective analyses they deserve.
I
look forward to your reply.
April
24, 2008
Roger
Ailes
Chairman
and Chief Executive
Fox
News Channel
News
Corporation
1211
Avenue of the
Dear
Mr. Ailes:
I
write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in
an April 20, 2008 article in The
According
to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department
to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or
“surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on
major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media
modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the further
reported fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military
contractors competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by
the Global War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to
the senior civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining
how war funding should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear
competitive advantage. These analysts likely felt further
pressure to serve as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain
military contracts for the companies they represent.
Network
officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these
interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions
about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or
possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the article,
network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of
interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their
news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. I am
left wondering whether that is in fact the case at Fox News, and if so why?
A
spokeswoman for Fox News told the Times that
executives “refused to participate” in the story. Yet, the article
revealed that many Fox News analysts appeared to have significant business
conflicts of interest. For example, General Thomas G. McInerney sits on
the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government
Solutions; retired Marine Colonel William V. Cowan was the chief executive of a
the military firm, the wvc3 Group, a company that sought contracts worth tens of
millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq; retired
Navy Captain Charles T. Nash is a consultant who helps small companies break
into the military market; retired Marine Colonel John C. Garrett is a lobbyist
at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq; and
retired Army Lieutenant Timur J. Eads is vice president of government relations
for Blackbird Technologies. These revelations can only lead me to conclude
that your vetting process is not fully effective and certainly does not include
asking commentators appearing on your network to provide detailed accounts of
the nature of their relationships with leaders in the federal government or to
disclose their outside business interests.
When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests.
When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business
interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the
government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the
Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I
strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper
vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the
objective analyses they deserve.
I
look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
April
24, 2008
President
CNN
News Group
Time
Warner Inc.
One
Dear
Mr. Walton:
I
write to ask for your cooperation regarding questions that have been raised in
an April 20, 2008 article in The
According
to the report, a domestic propaganda program was developed within the department
to use former military officers as “message force multipliers” or
“surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and
messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions” on
major television news programs, 24-hour cable news outlets and other media
modes. Compounding the unethical nature of the program is the additional
fact that the involved analysts represented more than 150 military contractors
competing for the hundreds of billions of dollars made available by the Global
War on Terror. These analysts were granted special access to the senior
civilian and military leaders directly involved in determining how war funding
should be spent, giving the companies they represent a clear competitive
advantage. These analysts likely felt further pressure to serve
as the mouthpiece for the administration in order to gain military contracts for
the companies they represent.
Network
officials, according to the article, were only “dimly aware of these
interactions.” In fact, the networks asked the analysts few questions
about any potential outside business interests, the nature of their work or
possibility of that work creating conflicts of interest. In the
article, network officials claimed they were sensitive to potential conflicts of
interest, but did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their
news employees with regard to disclosing outside financial interests. As
this is allegedly the case with your network, I would urge to explain why and
provide the justification regarding the lax policy. It seems to me that the
credibility of your news organization is at stake.
As
I understand, CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all
outside sources of income. Yet, it was revealed in the article that for nearly
three years CNN was unaware that retired Army General James Marks, a main
military analyst for the network, was pursuing
military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil
Technologies Reportedly, General Marks disclosed that he received income
from McNeil Technologies, but he was not required to describe what his job
entailed. As a result, he remained a CNN commentator even as he was
bidding on a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United
States forces in Iraq, a contract a McNeil spin-off ultimately won. These
facts make evident that your vetting process is not fully effective and clearly
fails to fully include commentators’ appearing on your network to
provide detailed accounts of the nature of their relationships with federal
government officials or to disclose their outside business interests.
When
the American people turn on their TV news, they expect coverage of the Iraq War
and military issues to be using analysts without conflicts of interests.
When you put analysts on the air without fully disclosing their business
interests, as well as relationships with high-level officials within the
government, the public trust is betrayed. Now that the full extent of the
Department of Defense’s domestic propaganda program has been revealed, I
strongly encourage you to make the necessary policy changes to ensure proper
vetting of those you wish to put on the air so that the viewers can get the
objective analyses they deserve.
I
look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
###