Many of the "military analysts" who explain wars and weapons programs to the public on CNN, NBC and other TV and radio networks are actually part of an Pentagon-orchestrated PR campaign, The New York Times tells us this weekend:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

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, an examination by The New York Times has found.

As a former journalist, I'm disturbed by the newspaper's findings. (This story is a very nice piece of investigative journalism. Kudos to the Times here.)

As a student of communications, however, I'm not surprised a bit. For two reasons:

• These guys are usually retired generals or other senior officers. I don't think you turn off a lifetime of loyalty to the chain of command just because CNN calls.
• TV is interested in performance appeal as much a substance. It's far more interesting to have a former general in the studio than to simply quote one in a story.

Sadly, I think this whole mess is really about ... wait for it ... money. The Times story notes that some of these "military analysts" after retirement work as lobbyists or for defense contractors -- which makes Pentagon access vital to them. TV pays them just $500 to $1,000 an episode. So where will their loyalties be?

If TV wanted to do this right, they'd hire retired generals and admirals full-time to be military correspondents and then have their undivided attention, with no conflict of interest.

The way they do it now is far cheaper, of course. But as The New York Times shows, it is fraught with challenges.