Pentagon PR spending increases

[geggy]

My favorite part of the article (lol):
The danger of psychological operations reaching a U.S. audience became clear when an American TV anchor asked Gen. David Petraeus about the mood in Iraq. The general held up a glossy photo of the Iraqi national soccer team to show the country united in victory.

Behind the camera, his staff was cringing. It was U.S. psychological operations that had quietly distributed tens of thousands of the soccer posters in July 2007 to encourage Iraqi nationalism.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5goNYO5JYwfyoPwhA3gpfKNEcstkgD965N3V00

[geni]

Not that significant. Used to be that the CIA was effectively the worlds largest media organisation (they spent more on plants and psudo reporters than the total budget of AP). These days they are a bit more careful to avoid dirrectly impacting the US.

[egslim]

These days they are a bit more careful to avoid dirrectly impacting the US.
Except where increases of the defense budget are concerned.

If you're a US taxpayer I hope you enjoyed the "Transformers" movie, because regardless of whether you actually saw it, you contributed a significant part of its production costs through men and materials supplied by the Pentagon. And it was no coïncidence the movie showcased so many instances of F-22's in action.

[WildCat]

Except where increases of the defense budget are concerned.

If you're a US taxpayer I hope you enjoyed the "Transformers" movie, because regardless of whether you actually saw it, you contributed a significant part of its production costs through men and materials supplied by the Pentagon. And it was no coïncidence the movie showcased so many instances of F-22's in action.
But it was worth it because Megan Fox is smoking hot. I wonder if she's a CIA plant?

[Policenaut]

Except where increases of the defense budget are concerned.

If you're a US taxpayer I hope you enjoyed the "Transformers" movie, because regardless of whether you actually saw it, you contributed a significant part of its production costs through men and materials supplied by the Pentagon. And it was no coïncidence the movie showcased so many instances of F-22's in action.

I think that's the case with just about any Hollywood movie that involves real military hardware.

[egslim]

I think that's the case with just about any Hollywood movie that involves real military hardware.
Correct. With the exception of some movies that portray the military in a negative light.

Personally, I find it worrying that the military uses taxpayer money to boost its image among taxpayers in less-than-transparant ways.

[Pardalis]

I thought "Transformers" was more a big ad for GM than anything else.

[dudalb]

Uh, the film companies have to refund the costs when they use military equipment.
ANd I have a feeling a lot of the F-22 stuff in Transformers was CGI anyway.


And it was no coïncidence the movie showcased so many instances of F-22's in action.

A little paranoid,maybe?
The F-22 is rapidly becomng the standard US Air Force Jet. The film is largely set in the US. That is sure sinister that the filmmakers use current US Equpiment.

[dudalb]

Correct. With the exception of some movies that portray the military in a negative light.

Personally, I find it worrying that the military uses taxpayer money to boost its image among taxpayers in less-than-transparant ways.

I think your posting history shows you dislike the military anyway.

[geni]

The F-22 is rapidly becomng the standard US Air Force Jet. The film is largely set in the US. That is sure sinister that the filmmakers use current US Equpiment.

The F-22 is not and never will be the standard airforce jet. For the moment that probably still goes to the F-16 and in future should in theory at least go to the F-35 Lightning II. The pentagon is trying get funding for a few more F-22s but the numbers are still unlikely yo break 200.

[Ziggurat]

The F-22 is not and never will be the standard airforce jet. For the moment that probably still goes to the F-16 and in future should in theory at least go to the F-35 Lightning II. The pentagon is trying get funding for a few more F-22s but the numbers are still unlikely yo break 200.

The air force doesn't really have "a" standard jet. They have always had a variety of jets. The F-22 will likely not become the most numerous jet, but it is supposed to become our primary air superiority fighter (a job previously held by the F-15, which was also not as numerous as the F-16).

[egslim]

Uh, the film companies have to refund the costs when they use military equipment.
Evidence? Because this quote (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/holl-m14.shtml) says otherwise:
Those prepared to reshape their movies in line with Pentagon directives were given substantial financial and technical help
Financial help does not imply a total refund.

ANd I have a feeling a lot of the F-22 stuff in Transformers was CGI anyway.
A little paranoid,maybe?
The F-22 is rapidly becomng the standard US Air Force Jet. The film is largely set in the US. That is sure sinister that the filmmakers use current US Equpiment.

Your ignorance of the subject is showing. As Ziggurat points out, the F-22 is supposed to become the primary air superiority fighter.
So why show the F-22 multiple times performing a ground attack role? That makes no sense at all if you consider USAF doctrine. But it does draw popular attention to the F-22, at a time when the USAF is trying very hard to get Congress to buy more of the jets.

An example from the link I gave to how the Pentagon falsifies history:
Marine sergeant Joe Enders (Nicolas Cage) is assigned to protect a Code Talker, with orders to kill him in the event of his capture by the Japanese. This became a major point of contention with the Pentagon.
Captain Matt Morgan of the Marine film liaison office claimed that the movie’s portrayals were “un-Marine” and demanded changes. He claimed that the orders to Enders “to take your guy out” were a “fiction” and had to be removed. Contrary to Morgan’s claims, however, Marines were given just such orders. This has been verified by surviving Code Talkers and the US Congress.

I think your posting history shows you dislike the military anyway.
Which would be relevant how, except as an ad hominem?

Actually I've had a strong interest in navy and airforce, for a long time. I got put off by the Pentagon when I began to realise how much of the seemingly objective information available about the US military is nothing more than rehashed pr. Then I got put off further when I found out how corrupt and impractical its procurement policy is.

[Ziggurat]

So why show the F-22 multiple times performing a ground attack role?

Because it looks cool. And that's what movies like that are about.