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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
On January 20th, it begins...
Political revenge. Mass deportations. Project 2025. Unfathomable corruption. Attacks on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Pardons for insurrectionists. An all-out assault on democracy. Republicans in Congress are scrambling to give Trump broad new powers to strip the tax-exempt status of any nonprofit he doesn’t like by declaring it a “terrorist-supporting organization.” Trump has already begun filing lawsuits against news outlets that criticize him. At Common Dreams, we won’t back down, but we must get ready for whatever Trump and his thugs throw at us. Our Year-End campaign is our most important fundraiser of the year. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. By donating today, please help us fight the dangers of a second Trump presidency. |
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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
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?" askedThe 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."
\u201cwhen outlets like the Times uncritically publish pieces like Prince's, it further blurs the line between opinion and straight propaganda\u201d— Sarah Jones (@Sarah Jones) 1504103553
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 Journalop-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, arguesGQ'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:
\u201cHey @nytimes if you'll run this Erik Prince advertorial I got a killer "Why Profs Should Be Worshipped Like Gods" op-ed so please DM me.\u201d— Daniel W. Drezner (@Daniel W. Drezner) 1504104389
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.