Rendon reportedly "examines individual reporters' recent work and determines whether the coverage was "positive," "negative" or "neutral.'"

Some might think that the proper question to ask about a reporter's reports is whether they are accurate or inaccurate. If the reality of some government policy is mostly harmful, or mostly beneficial, then genuine objectivity and a respect for truth are not best displayed by neutrality.

It's not just outfits like Rendon that are to blame for our dumbed-down officially approved world views. More often than not, the major media decide the truth always lies in the middle of the road. So when brains battle with boobs, the media intuit that the most objective position lies in the half-boobocratic middle ground.

Cool! After all -- Rendon is so magically superior to all corps combined in world history - duping intell services (internal and external) worldwide - who else could have such a fully crunk op to confuse and discombobulate world opinion to reveal and revel in the fact that those who worry about America's projection of power are overlooking how Great Satan got here in the position she occupies at this moment in history:

The world's dominant political and military, the only nation that will actually go into the world and strike down evil.

I have discussed this phenomenon in Cluster-Bombing International Law.

2009 is the worst year for US combat deaths in Afghanistan for the entire war, so I'd say things are not going well...

About two years ago, before the torrents were shut down, I was able to download a Canadian documentary on a Canadian unit serving in Afghanistan which may have aired on CBC and Britain's Channel 4. The Canadians are sent to "pacify" a village by offering medical supplies and a diesel water pump, neither of which materialized because of SNAFU. In one filmed scene, a US armored vehicle bursts into the village unannounced...flying the Jolly Roger and taking away several young men, hooded of course. That's right, pirates. The process is not about "vetting" it is about prevention of coverage.

i thought you might find this interesting:

http://pulitzercenter.typepad.com/untold_stories/2009/08/nir-rosen-for-the-pulitzer-centerthis-past-july-i-was-embedded-with-american-soldiers-in-afghanistan-for-a-rolling-stone-mag.html#more

August 28, 2009
Afghanistan: Vetting the Embeds
Nir Rosen, for the Pulitzer Center
This past July I was embedded with American soldiers in Afghanistan for a Rolling Stone Magazine article, with the support of the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting. I was looking at American counterinsurgency and the declining security situation in Afghanistan, but first I had to get the military’s approval to even embed with them.
The Rendon Group, controversial since it conducted propaganda on behalf of the Kuwaiti and American governments to help build American support for a war against Iraq in 1990, is the company to whom the US military delegates the job of vetting reporters seeking to embed.Last week Stars and Stripes reported that the Pentagon is employing Rendon to profile reporters. I was shown a copy of the memorandum the Rendon group prepared about me. It is two and a half pages. A public affairs officer told me it was the most alarming report about a journalist that he had ever seen, and as a result I was grateful that Colonel Bill Hix was open minded enough to approve my embed despite the red flags raised about me.
“The purpose of this updated memo is to provide an assessment of freelance journalist Nir Rosen, and give a profile of his work, both through a summary of content and analysis of style, in order to gauge the expected sentiment of his work while on embed mission in Afghanistan.”

In the background section the memorandum describes some of my past work, experience and skills. It also warned that “in late 2008 Rosen ‘embedded’ with the Taliban in several areas of Afghanistan. A lengthy report on his embedded experience appeared in Rolling Stone and was highly unfavorable to international efforts in Afghanistan.”
In a section called Coverage, the memorandum called my previous Rolling Stone story on the Taliban “controversial,” explaining that “Rosen’s report was highly unfavorable to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. The article portrayed the Taliban as a relatively coherent and effective fighting force that, in reality, controls the majority of the country. Rosen relayed Taliban propaganda and exaggerations as factual information, without significantly noting the questionability of such information. Rosen also stated that the Taliban perform many of the functions of the government, such as providing judicial and security services. Lastly, corruption and defection among the Afghan National Police was also highlighted, including in sentiment directly from Taliban militants. In one interview, Rosen stated that reporters who have embedded with US troops typically produce the same story, and that his Taliban “embed” was an attempt to find an original story. Rosen referred to Taliban commanders and leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan as 'officials,' apparently putting them on equal footing with the Afghan government. The report contained quotations from unnamed Western and UN officials and academics that supported his conclusion that Afghanistan is largely a lost cause. No U.S. officials were quoted to provide commentary on the issues examined in his reporting…In one video, produced by Democracy Now!, Rosen stated his belief that the war is unwinnable and that the U.S. should withdraw…Rosen has stated his opposition to the Iraq war in numerous articles.”
In a section called “Perspective, Style and Tone,” the memorandum warned that “Rosen’s coverage of Afghanistan has been mainly negative in tone, portraying the situation as hopeless and doomed to failure. Rosen’s writing style is typically narrative and highly editorialized, profiling non-officials and his interaction with them. Rosen’s personal opinions appear to frequently shape the tone and perspective of his reporting. In various interviews Rosen has made negative comments about the mission in Afghanistan, referring to Hamid Karzai as a weak and powerless puppet and the Afghan mission as suffering. Rosen’s coverage of Iraq has grown increasingly critical of stability and military strategy, as he has stated that the only U.S. victory in Iraq will be a full withdrawal of troops.”
That last part was definitely wrong, in that I have never stated that any U.S. victory was possible, whether the Americans withdrew or didn’t, because I believe the concept has no meaning in the context of Iraq, and that no American interests were secured by that misbegotten war anyway.
In the final section called “Expectations for Embed” the memorandum warned that “based upon past reporting and the current challenging situation in Afghanistan, Rosen’s reporting is likely to be highly unfavorable to the mission in Afghanistan. Rosen is likely to continue to characterize the Taliban as a well-armed and fairly effective military force that the U.S. is incapable of defeating… Sentiment from Afghan civilians and possibly Taliban sympathizers and insurgents may be reported. Additionally, the difficulties facing individual US soldiers on the front lines may be covered. It is also possible that Rosen may wish to circumvent security and administrative restrictions in order to pursue other story angles.”
This last sentence was a key concern for an American military public affairs officer in Kabul, who told me that they were worried I would leave the embed to go hang out with the Taliban, as if I could just walk off of a base and knock on the Taliban’s door.
It is no surprise that the military has a vetting process to determine which journalists are acceptable or appropriate. After all, the military’s job is to implement a policy and achieve whatever mission they have been assigned. That mission has a propaganda element, or an information operations element, and it is also contingent upon the support of the American public and policy makers. That mission can be undermined by journalists.
My mission is to discover unknown truths despite obstacles put in my way and often in defiance of those in power. Often our two separate missions are in conflict. This is normal and good. There should be a tension between the media and the government. We are not on the same team. But it is troubling that the Department of Defense has to hire a private public relations firm to do the job of the military’s public affairs officers for them.
Subsequent entries will discuss the recent elections in Afghanistan, counterinsurgency, and what I saw in Helmand province.