Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine | FAIR

Scott

Verified User
Found this article published a few days ago that I thought was interesting. Quoting a bit of it, constructive feedback welcome...

**
June 30, 2023

Bryce Greene

Wealthy donors have long funded think tanks with official-sounding names that produce research that reflects the interests of those funders (Extra!, 7/13). The weapons industry is a major contributor to these idea factories; a recent report from the Quincy Institute (6/1/23) demonstrates just how much influence war profiteers have on the national discourse.

The Quincy Institute—whose own start-up funding came mainly from George Soros and Charles Koch—looked at 11 months of Ukraine War coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, from March 1, 2022, through January 31, 2023, and counted each time one of 33 leading think tanks was mentioned. Of the 15 think tanks most often mentioned in the coverage, only one—Human Rights Watch—does not take funding from Pentagon contractors. Quincy’s analysis found that the media were seven times more likely to cite think tanks with war industry ties than they were to cite think tanks without war industry ties.

With 157 mentions each, the top two think tanks were the Atlantic Council and the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Both of these think tanks receive millions from the war industry. The Atlantic Council has long been the brain trust of NATO, the military organization whose expansion towards Russia’s borders was a critical factor in Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine. (See FAIR.org, 3/4/22.) Both think tanks receive hundreds of thousands of dollars from Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, companies which have already been awarded billions of dollars in Pentagon contracts as a result of the war in Ukraine.

CSIS was revealed in a New York Times expose (8/7/16) to produce content that reflected the weapons industry priorities of its funders. It also “initiated meetings with Defense Department officials and congressional staff to push for the recommendations” of military funders.

In addition to showing think tanks’ enormous influence, the Quincy report highlights how difficult it is to trace just how much war industry funding these think tanks receive, and exactly whose interests they represent. “Think tanks are not required to disclose their funders,” study author Ben Freeman wrote, and “many think tanks list donors without indicating the amount of donations and others just list donors in ranges (e.g., $250,000 to $499,999).”

While the study was not aimed at establishing a causal connection between weapons industry funding and the think tanks’ positions, it acknowledges that funding typically plays a major role in shaping the institutions. “Funders,” Freeman wrote, “are able to influence think tank work through the mechanisms of censorship, self-censorship, and perspective filtering.” In other words, people with points of view antithetical to the funders likely would not last long in these think tanks.

Causal or not, there is a marked correlation between war industry funding and hawkish positions. “Think tanks with financial ties to the arms industry often support policies that would benefit the arms industry,” the report noted. For example, one Atlantic Council article (2/6/23) advocated against “any compromise with the Kremlin,” while another, titled “Equity for Ukraine” (1/16/23), argued that Ukraine has a “right to destroy critical infrastructure in Russia and plunge Moscow and other cities into darkness.”

Earlier this year, the president of the American Enterprise Institute—fifth on the list, with 101 mentions—was cited numerous times in the Wall Street Journal (e.g., 1/20/23, 1/25/23) arguing that “tanks and armored personnel carriers are essential,” and agreeing to provide them will “let Ukraine know that it can afford to risk and expend more of its current arsenal of tanks in counteroffensive operations because it can count on getting replacements for them.” AEI (6/9/23) has gone so far as to suggest that the US give tactical nuclear weapons to Ukraine, something that could easily escalate to all-out nuclear war.
**

Full article:
Report Shows How Military Industrial Complex Sets Media Narrative on Ukraine | FAIR
 
Every nation uses some tactic to this to obscure the truth from the people

It’s nothing new

I don't know about every nation. To name an example, Costa Rica doesn't have a military, full stop. However, I certainly agree that most nations do have a military, and a military industrial complex as well. I think the article I referenced in the opening post just reveals how influential this military industrial complex is in the U.S.
 
I don't know about every nation. To name an example, Costa Rica doesn't have a military, full stop. However, I certainly agree that most nations do have a military, and a military industrial complex as well. I think the article I referenced in the opening post just reveals how influential this military industrial complex is in the U.S.

I won’t disagree with you on that.

I’m sure there are also many other factors involved also in hiding the truth from the people for either financial or political gains.

I suppose an argument could even be made that sometimes this is necessary. Exposing every blunder the military makes or secret they have might not always be a positive thing.
 
I won’t disagree with you on that.

I’m sure there are also many other factors involved also in hiding the truth from the people for either financial or political gains.

I suppose an argument could even be made that sometimes this is necessary. Exposing every blunder the military makes or secret they have might not always be a positive thing.

Agreed, sometimes it may be necessary, but I strongly suspect that most of the time, keeping blunders hidden only helps those who are making them.
 
It can stop if enough Americans stop voting for candidates that are so pro war. RFK Jr. is a good bet in my view.

RFK is terribly flawed. I am a pacifist, so my personal narrative is not mainstream American. I never have a candidate I can fall behind almost fully. The wealth of nations is wasted on war and armaments.
 
It can stop if enough Americans stop voting for candidates that are so pro war. RFK Jr. is a good bet in my view.

RFK is terribly flawed. I am a pacifist, so my personal narrative is not mainstream American. I never have a candidate I can fall behind almost fully. The wealth of nations is wasted on war and armaments.

I think I might qualify as a pacifist, only I don't mean to say that I don't think that war is ever a good thing. I strongly suspect the last war that the U.S. was rightfully involved in was World War II.

As to RFK Jr., why do you believe that he's terribly flawed?
 
Back
Top