he hasn't received "any invitations" to appear on "any of the main network and cable programs."

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/200905080015

Democracy Now's EXCLUSIVE interview with NYT's Barstow on Pentagon Pundits Scandal

May 08, 2009 1:06 pm ET by Karl Frisch

Democracy Now's Amy Goodman sat down for a fascinating interview with the New York Times' David Barstow to discuss his Pulitzer Prize wining explosive reports detailing the hidden relationship among numerous media military analysts, the Pentagon, and defense contractors. Specifically, Barstow uncovered last year that "the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform" media military analysts "into a kind of media Trojan horse -- an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks."

He also wrote: "Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration's wartime performance."

Following Barstow's story, Media Matters released an exhaustive report which found that since January 1, 2002, those named in the Barstow's report appeared or were quoted more than 4,500 times by news outlets.

To put a finer point on it, Barstow's exposé came out more than a year ago and Goodman was still able to call her interview an "exclusive." As Barstow notes, he hasn't received "any invitations" to appear on "any of the main network and cable programs."

Be sure to watch this entire interview, it is must see web tv:

[Kali]

1. It's only "exclusive" because the perpetrators and other MSM wouldn't touch it.

Pulitzer prize for the story and crickets from the rest of the chicken shits.

[spanone]

2. k&r

[blm]

3. Corporate media kept Jonathan Landay off the radar on 'cooked intel books on Iraq' story.

They couldn't have the public discussing the dishonest road being taken by a dishonest Bush White House, now, could they?

They kept Kerry's speech attacking swifts and Bush off the radar in 2004. They couldn't have public knowing the Dem nominee challenged the president to debate their military services, especially since they were invested in protecting Bush's crafted image as an honest man and stoic commander-in-chief. Right?

They kept Landay's Downing Street Memos off the radar as they proved the Bush WH intended to CREATE evidence if needed to take the nation to war according to a policy they already had in place. They couldn't have the public knowing to what extent Bush's WH would lie to get the war they wanted, now, could they?