The Epitome of Treason and Deceit

Separate, these words convey strong images and feelings, together, the words signal a very deep  betrayal, treachery and a breach of allegiance to the United States and its’ protectors.

Life in America certainly has changed. We’re watching our banks crumble, businesses fold and taxes grow while our Government fails to protect our financial and regulatory interests. Since January 20 we’ve experienced the horror of a dwindling congressional backbone, cuts in our mlitary and an inexperienced President who seemingly despises Americans but would rather cozy up to Dictators and threaten prosecution toward those who practice freedom of speech and personal responsibility.

In short we’re in the middle of a mess that requires experience, wisdom, hard work and a return to traditional values.

Now, even the highly coveted Pulitzer Prize has fallen prey fraudulent hands soiling the prestige of its integrity. This is unfortunate news for writers/reporters of substance as this is the highest achievement and recognition those professionals can earn.

Background

On April 20 (one year to the date of the original article’s publication) The New York Times published a press release announcing their receipt of five Pulitzer prizes. One of those, awarded to Times Reporter David Barstow was especially troubling as its’ intention served as a reward for Barstow’s hit piece on Retired Military Analysts (RMAs), dramatically titled “Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.”

Amongst other things, the piece alleged a manipulative effort to generate favorable news coverage of the Administration’s wartime performance as well as accusations that RMA’s (retired military analysts) were ‘using’ their influence and ties to military contractors in order to gain unfair opportunities to enhance their “individual business interests.”

This article so greatly concerned readers that forty one members of Congress filed a formal request for the Department of Defense to conduct a thorough investigation into the ‘relationship’ between the RMA’s and alleged activities and/or advantages. Amongst the specific concerns raised by Congress was the potential use of appropriated funds for the serving of ‘propaganda or publicity purposes not authorized by Congress.’ As such, under Section 1056 of the Duncan Hunter Act for Fiscal year 2009, the prohibitions were iterated and a formal request for a detailed report was scheduled to be released to Congress within 90 days of the enactment.

In order to fully and appropriately address the issues and congressional concerns, more than 12,000 pages of documents were reviewed and in excess of 30 witnesses were interviewed, including; RMA’s, Department of Defense Public Affairs personnel, and others who provided outreach briefings, papers and media representatives.

Out of the documentation received and scrutinized, absolutely no findings were discovered that positively identified a pattern for RMA’s tendency to gain favorable advantage through their position or authority. As such, no further investigation was deemed warranted and the matter was closed.

So it begs the question, what on earth was Barstow thinking when he put the article together?

Why develop a 3 page hit piece on our nation’s bravest individuals unless it was intended to further serve his radical leftist agenda?

Is he incapable of gathering (and interpreting) accurate research or does he just have a beef with authority figures or the military?

Furthermore, why would the Pulitzer committee give the New York Times one prize, let alone five, after the publication of the 85 page report exonerating these inappropriately targeted officials?

Shouldn’t there be accountability… a day of reckoning for this so-called ‘Reporter’ who failed to meet the burden of proof in order to satisfy his story?

Yes, the first amendment protects both free speech and freedom of the press, with that said, it does not protect the press from public scrutiny, scorn, or criticism when it acts in an irresponsible manner.

Furthermore, publishing articles littered with embellishments, exaggerations and lies is not just irresponsible behaviour for a journalist; it is even worse for their publisher. In this case The New York Times. Those who make a habit of practicing “Yellow Journalism” could eventually find themselves knee deep in civil court proceedings when it results in undue harm and damages to the target of the story.

In this case, its slanderous speech. There is no question there was an outright attempt to smear the good names and reputations of the individuals named in the poorly written article. It hardly requires a genius to understand that Mr. Barstow’s intent was to damage the credibility and reputation of the Bush Administration and our military. His publicly discredited attempts to undercut our nation’s bravest  warriors accomplishes little more than turning the Prize, his newspaper and his reputation into a laughing stock.

And we wonder why our newspapers are going out of print?

With shoddy reporting like Barstow’s, it is little wonder why the paper is losing money.

Mr. Barstow is lacking in accountability and professionalism, he should relinquish his ill gained award.

The public and the military should hold him accountable for his actions now and in the future by calling his office, The New York Times, sending emails and boycotting their advertisers.

He needs to recant his untrue statements, apologize publicly to the American people, the military, and their families for his false reports. Not to mention the American tax payer who is footing the bill for the forty-one congressional representatives to investigate his claims in the first place.

As a journalist, accepting an award under false pretences is not right, it violates The  New York Times ethics rules, and it sends the wrong message to Americans everywhere.

It is time for Americans to Stand Up, protest this outrage and hold David Barstow accountable.

Annie Hamilton is a constitutional conservative and traditionalist. She is the Communications Director for Stand Up America USA and is involved in the Exploratory Committee for Steve Rathje, Congressional hopeful from Iowa and is a featured contributor to American Daily Review, The House Conservatives Fund and Town Hall.