If you haven’t read the blockbuster Times story I linked to earlier, you should go do that now. It’s long, took me several breaks today to finish it, but the detail of the information the Times found removes any doubt that there were clear conflicts of interest for these military analysts.

So, with this story now, we have two threads that I’ve been mulling over (and others have been writing about now). First, I’m just wondering at what point do we start calling this stuff propaganda? By any definition, this is what we’ve been handed. Combined with Armstrong Williams and the other columnists that were paid off by the government to write favorable columns, it’s pretty clear that this is considered standard operating procedure for this administration, regardless of the importance of the issue.

Secondly, I think we’re sitting at a point where online media MUST get stronger and more popular. The conflicts of interest for these analysts isn’t the only one for these companies. GE owns NBC and makes money off of the military spending. Large companies like Disney and Viacom own NBC and depend on favorable legislation and tax breaks in order to run things like DisneyWorld or get language inserted into trade agreements and treaties.

In all of these cases, the news operations are puny compared to the rest of the revenue the other businesses generate. Responsible CEOs have no choice but to prioritize.

Anyway, I don’t really have a point. This story by the NY Times has just added some clarity to the overall picture. There’s no incentive for our current major news organizations to be objective, and in a market-driven news operation, I’m not sure I understand what alternatives can exist.