SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Erik Prince, former chairman of the Prince Group, LLC and Blackwater USA, testifies during a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in (Photo: Mark Wilson/Getty Images)
New York Times Slammed for Running 'Advertorial' by Notorious War Profiteer
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?"
Aug 30, 2017
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
The New York Times came under fire on Wednesday for running what critics characterized as "uncontested propaganda" in the form of an op-ed by notorious war profiteer and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.
"When outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda."
--Sarah Jones, The New Republic
As in his other prominent op-eds that ran recently in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today, Prince--the brother of Education Secretary Betsy DeVos--pitched his plan to largely privatize the 16-year war in Afghanistan. Many have denounced this for-profit scheme--which would place the war in the hands of an American "viceroy" and private mercenaries--as tantamount to "colonialism."
On Wednesday, though, commentators began directing their ire at the outlet that "uncritically" provided a platform for Prince's "advertorial."
"Why is the New York Times op-ed page publishing Erik Prince's sales pitch for more mercenaries?" asked The New Republic's Sarah Jones.
The scheme being proposed "would make Prince, who now owns another private military company, Academi, very rich," Jones added. "The conflicts of interest are glaring, and yet this advertisement was given pride of place in the opinion section."
Further, as Slate's Ben Mathis-Lilley observed, Prince's Times bio failed entirely to highlight these conflicts of interest.
While the bio "notes that [Prince is] the chairman of the Frontier Services Group, it doesn't make clear that the Frontier Services Group's business involves selling 'force protection' to clients in countries including Afghanistan."
As many observed following Prince's Wall Street Journal op-ed, it is hardly surprising that a war profiteer sees an opportunity to profit off a war with no end in sight.
The real problem, argues GQ's Jay Willis, "is not that Prince is taking advantage of an opportunity to shill for his latest collection of well-compensated mercenaries. It's that the New York Times is giving Prince space on its opinion pages in order to do so."
Freelance reporter Paul Blest noted that the Times "allow[ed] Erik Prince to grovel for a new contract" in its opinion section "almost ten years to the day" of the 2007 Nisour Square massacre--the killing of 17 Iraqis by Blackwater security guards.
Others similarly criticized the Times on social media:
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.