Barstow: Behind the Military Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand

Barstow’s article on military analysts who often appear on new programs was informative in that it illustrated their relationship with the government that we never knew of, but is this information actually shocking, does it really impact how we perceive what they say? I believe people recognize that these military analysts support the governments agenda, regardless of whether it is being spoon-feed to them or not. Neither the news outlet nor the analysts himself attempts to hide his past affiliation with the military, the whole reason he is on TV is because he has some past experience with the military. Viewers would have to be completely ignorant to believe that a person who has devoted his entire life to an institution can be neutral or unbiased when “analyzing” it. Furthermore no one is disputing that these analysts are not full time reporters. They are not bound by the same ethical standards as correspondences or reporters. In many ways these military analysts are very similar to guests that appear on news programs. No one is insisting on guests being impartial, the main purpose of hosting guests is to gain their perspective. Lastly, what impact do these military analysts have? They are not the ones providing the news, or reporting it. True their primary purpose is to place the news in context, but they are not the sole source providing news coverage or its context. Let’s not lose all faith in the American viewer to interpret what is content verses what is context.

While I do not believe that the link between the government and mainstream media via the use of military analysts as mouthpieces is that significant, I do believe that this connection as investigated by Barstow should be recognized and understood. I believe that it is important to understand this new layer in how the White House dominates the discourse. While the content the military analysts provide may be nothing new, recognizing the relationship between government and the media via, military analysts, is important in understanding one way in which the government shapes public perception. It is the hallmark of a democracy to have an independent media, but the greater point of Barstow's piece I believe, is in outlining how the government, specifically the Pentagon uses military analysts to influence the media and public perception. He writes “they were framing how viewers ought to interpret events” (p.4). While I think the governments’ use of military analysts to further their agenda is reprehensible, I hope that viewers distinguish between content and context. If people are able to recognize the difference and understand the biases military analysts have than this problem is minimized.