This image was lost some time after publication.

The New York Times' big front page investigative story on Sunday about the tight connections between ex-military "analysts" on news programs and the Pentagon's PR machine was a solid re-affirmation of most people's suspicions that they, along with much of the media at large, were all play-acting in the inevitable march to war. The piece was hugely comprehensive, but it did lack the input of one man: incompetent superflack Ronn [sic] Torossian, head of the press-friendly agency 5WPR! Luckily, Ronn has chimed in with his advice to all of you who may have been upset by the story of undercover warmongering propaganda: chill. It's all just PR 101.

For me, it's a given that all organizations (including the US military) attempt to "spin" what the public sees and educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It's not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.

Agnostic!


It's not at all a surprise to me that the ex-military personnel in this article have ties to people and companies in the defense industry, and in fact, benefit from it financially. (How else would one retired from the military earn a living?)

I have no idea!

· The New York Times wrote of commentators "losing access" if they spoke negatively. While that sounds sinister, in reality, PR 101 would tell anyone to grant access to individuals more likely to speak positively. (Think Hillary Clinton or Obama is granting a lot of time to Commentary Magazine? Think the New York Yankees are allowing a Boston Globe sports reporter unfettered locker room access?)

Probably, yes!


In reality, reporters and PR people have a give-and-take relationship. It only makes sense that "unfriendly" interests won't be granted access. Why not grant access to someone more likely to say nice things? This is true in any business, and yes, war, government and politics is business.

Okay! How to sum up the argument?

This statement makes sense to me: "The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people," Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said. It was, Mr. Whitman added, "a bit incredible" to think retired military officers could be "wound up" and turned into "puppets of the Defense Department."

Spin, Spin, Spin.