Military ‘Analysts’ Are Not Journalists, And It Shows

North Star Writers Group ^ | May 2, 2008 | Eric Baerren

[Invisigoth]

There has been some sound and fury over The New York Times investigation of former generals used as analysts for the major cable networks. Sadly, as is so often the case, it misses the mark.

Much of it supposes that the generals were easy dupes of the Pentagon, given manipulated information that was simply issued forth during newscasts as propaganda.

Well, what was anyone to expect? These are former generals, men trained to command large groups of men in battle, not journalists.

There is good reason to point fingers at this small group of people. They were, at one time, entrusted with some of the nation’s most important national security secrets. They were, at one time, given the responsibility, should circumstances dictate, to send men to their deaths. And yet, when the nation needed them the most to question their orders, they instead chose to buy the company line.

According to The Times article, former MSNBC military analyst Kenneth Allard, who taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

[Question Liberal Authority]

Don’t flatter yourself, journalist. A semi-conscious baboon smoking crack could do your job twice as well as most of the people in your “profession”.

[L98Fiero]

What a putz. Why the sneer quotes for “analyst”?

[Cracker Jack]

From the article: Journalists, even those who don’t go to journalism school, are trained to be skeptical of information.

Journalists, even those who don’t go to journalism school, are trained to be skeptical of information unless it is provided by leftists.

There--Fixed it.

[richardtavor]

If you could find ONE positive story about the war in Iraq from the NYT, then they might have a point. I seriously believe the story is that the generals were paid for NEGATIVE reporting.

[CPOSharky]

From the article: Journalists, even those who don’t go to journalism school, are trained to be skeptical of information.

Journalists, even those who don’t go to journalism school, are trained to be skeptical of information unless it is provided by leftists.

Journalists, even those who don’t go to journalism school, are trained to be skeptical of information unless it is provided by leftists or fits my agenda.

Minor addition. ;-)

[Question Liberal Authority]

If a Democrat wins in November, you'll see nothing but incredibly positive stories about Iraq, the Economy and America in general, for at least 4 years.

That's the deal. If you want libs to love the country, you have to put a Democrat in the White House.

[SIDENET]

What ties this all together at its core is the difference in professions. It can’t be said enough: You cannot expect honest, objective, useful analysis out of people who have been trained to do otherwise.

Sounds like he's describing journalists, rather than retired generals to me.

[popdonnelly]

They hire an awful lot of former political hacks as analysts, as well. What can one expect, other than propaganda?

[centurion316]

There was a time when journalists were at least proficient in the use of the English language and could arrange sentences and paragraphs in a logical fashion. Eric Baerren demonstrates that he has much in common with many journalists and editors who cannot perform this simple task.

What evidence can he produce that journalists are truthful and honest and approach their work with a dose of healthy skepticism? I certainly see very little out there today. Journalists appear to be lazy, biased, and profoundly ignorant of the world. They are competent at only one thing: parroting the mindless dogma of the left.

They are the propagandists, not the military analysts.