WASHINGTON — 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.
“They are not doing that [rating reporters], that’s not been a practice for some time — actually since the creation of U.S. Forces–Afghanistan” in October 2008, Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters Monday. “I can tell you that the way in which the Department of Defense evaluates an article is its accuracy. It’s a good article if it’s accurate. It’s a bad article if it’s inaccurate. That’s the only measurement that we use here at the Defense Department.”
In a statement e-mailed to Stars and Stripes, Rear Adm. Greg Smith, director of communications for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, wrote: “To imply journalists embedded with our forces only serve to highlight positive aspects of our mission slights the professional journalists who regularly embed with our forces and report what they experience, both good and bad.”
The Rendon Group declared in a statement that “the information and analysis we generate is developed … not by ranking of reporters.”
But the Rendon profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes prove otherwise. One of the profiles evaluates work published as recently as May, indicating that the rating practice did not in fact cease last October as Whitman stated.
And the explicit suggestions contained in the Rendon profiles detailing how best to manipulate reporters’ coverage during their embeds directly contradict the Pentagon’s stated policies governing the embed process.
“These ground rules recognize the inherent right of the media to cover combat operations and are in no way intended to prevent release of embarrassing, negative or derogatory information,” reads the “News Media Ground Rules” issued by U.S. military officials for embedded reporters in Iraq.
Several professional journalists’ groups as well as media ethicists criticized the Pentagon’s attempts to rate and manipulate reporters. And at least one military official with knowledge of the profiling system has also begun to raise objections.
“It’s troubling that the military is contracting a private PR firm, paid with U.S. taxpayer dollars, to profile individual reporters,” said one servicemember who declined to be identified for fear of official retribution. “It shows utter contempt for the Constitution, which we in the service pledge our lives to defend.”
ARLINGTON, Va. — Under fire following revelations that a military command in Afghanistan is compiling profiles of reporters covering U.S. military operations, Pentagon officials acknowledged Thursday that they were reviewing the practice even as they maintained that they were not making use of “positive,” “negative” and “neutral” grades assigned to reporters’ work by a Pentagon contractor.
“For me, a tool like this serves no purpose and it doesn’t serve me with any value,” Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters as some of the affected war correspondents began demanding to see their secret military profiles.
Whitman told Pentagon reporters that he was inquiring about the issue, but he added that the Pentagon is not launching any formal inquiry to the matter.
“I haven’t seen anything that violates any policies, but again, I’m learning about aspects of this as I question our folks in Afghanistan,” Whitman said. “If I find something that is inconsistent with Defense Department values and policies, you can be sure I will address it.”
Meanwhile, officials with U.S. Forces-Afghanistan acknowledged Thursday that the media profiles do exist, but they maintained that no favorability ratings are compiled.
“USFOR-A has only used this information to in part help assess performance in communicating information effectively to the public,” USFOR-A spokesman Col. Wayne Shanks told Stars and Stripes in an e-mailed statement. “These reports do not ‘rate’ reporters or news outlets themselves, nor do we keep any reports on individual reporters other than personal information, name, passport or ID number, media outlet, etc….”
Shanks also contended that the compiling of the reporters’ profiles was halted in May of this year.
But those claims run counter to the actual media profiles, the existence of which Stars and Stripes revealed earlier this week. The profiles contain ratings and pie charts purporting to depict whether an individual reporter’s work is “positive,” “negative” or “neutral,” as well as advice on how best to place a reporter with a military unit to ensure positive coverage and “neutralize” negative stories.
One Pentagon correspondent who requested and received her profile on Thursday said it included her current work up through July.
Whitman said he was continuing to inquire about the issue with media affairs operations downrange in Afghanistan and said that his team has never requested such profiles of reporters.
Stars and Stripes first reported on Monday about the existence of the reporter profiles, which are being compiled under a $1.5 million Pentagon contract granted to The Rendon Group, a controversial Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm that previously helped the Bush administration makes its case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Whitman has said repeatedly since Monday that the Rendon profiles were never used to determine whether a journalist’s request to embed with U.S. forces would be approved or denied. But it remains unclear whether military commanders in Afghanistan have ever acted on Rendon’s suggestions about how best to steer journalists toward “positive” coverage.
Military officials have also said that the Rendon profiles are only used to measure a reporter’s accuracy. None of the actual profiles reviewed by Stars and Stripes, however, address questions of accuracy.
__________________
“The several states composing the United States of America are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government” - Thomas Jefferson
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him." – Robert Heinlein
Closed-bolt, because I can.
Repetition and Ridicule, the biggest tools of the Liberal.
I would think stuff like this has been going on since after the Vietnam War ended
__________________
"Originally posted by §Galactus§if i had a horse, i would put armor on it. and i would wear armor, and ride around collecting taxes and tributes from the serfs."
"Originally posted by §Galactus§You should sig me again. That way, when everyone looks at your signature, they would be like "Holy **** that dude is so awesome he got sigged twice" It would be espically awesome if you sigged this post. So that people who read your sig will be confused as well as amazed
this doesn't deserve to have a thread... not to mention its not freaking news. Of course the military public affairs rates the stories the media they are looking after is producing. This doesn't happen just in AOR. It happens at every single military base in the world.
The commanders don't want to be blind sided by a negative news story about there base or troops.
guess what? big companies that have there own public affairs do the same damn thing.
__________________
Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live.
this doesn't deserve to have a thread... not to mention its not freaking news. Of course the military public affairs rates the stories the media they are looking after is producing. This doesn't happen just in AOR. It happens at every single military base in the world.
The commanders don't want to be blind sided by a negative news story about there base or troops.
guess what? big companies that have there own public affairs do the same damn thing.
Its not really about them analyzing the stories after the fact, its that they choose who they will imbed with the troops or who they will let interview them because of how often their stories are positive or neutral. Its propaganda machine at work, that's what is relevant, and what is important.
Step 1: Grab head
Step 2: Begin Pulling hard
Step 3: When you hear the popping noise, your head has now escaped your *******.
__________________
Maxpow
"The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."
— Thomas Jefferson
“A turbo: exhaust gasses go into the turbocharger and spin it, witchcraft happens and you go faster.”
— Jeremy Clarkson
1987 Nissan 200SX SE
how about you grab your head and pull it out of your ***.
Would you let a reporter who all they did was write negative stories about the war and about there troops dieing? No you wouldn't because that's stupid public relations.
This wouldn't be a problem if you turned on the news every night and didn't see how many civilians, how many soldiers have been killed. or some other negative ****.
But I didn't see fox news, or CNN in Guyana South America were over 700 Soldiers, Airmen, Marines, and Sailors spent 3 months Building Schools, a medical Clinic, and providing medical care to over 18,000 Guyanese Citizens, and pumping 9 million into there economy. Did you read anything about that? no but I bet if one of troops was killed down hear. It be all over the news. Or what about the US Navy Hospital Ship sailing to dozens of countries providing free health care to 3rd world countries?
Hence why the reporters have no right to be *****ing about it. Who want's someone who's only there to write for there own political agenda? Military isn't going to waste there money and put there troops at risk embedding some reporter who is only going to tell one side of the story.
__________________
Only when we are no longer afraid do we begin to live.
