(MintPress) – The Rendon Group touts itself as a global public relations company that delivers favorable outcomes for international clients, including the U.S. government. Since 2000, the U.S. government has spent more than $100 million worth of taxpayer funds with the company, primarily designated for painting a positive image for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Their job was to disseminate propaganda, not only to those living in Afghanistan, but also to U.S. citizens.
It’s no secret that public relations companies are hired to portray clients in a positive light — this is to be expected. What is troubling, however, is the length to which the Rendon Group went to achieve that goal.
A recent report in USA Today highlighted the scope of Rendon Group’s control over media coverage in Afghanistan, pointing out that the company had control over the reporters who traveled to the company to report. The company advised the Pentagon to not allow reporters who had a history of highlighting the negative, according to military documents obtained by the media outlet and interviews with those working inside the Pentagon.
That was the reason for their contract dismissal in 2009, and reason for media consumers to be skeptical that the information they’ve been provided over the last near-decade has been sugar coated at the expense of their tax dollars.
Journalist censorship
The story of journalist censorship emerged after Stars and Stripes, a government-oriented publication, which revealed what they discovered when attempting to send reporters to Afghanistan. Before approval was given, the reporter would undergo scrutiny at the hands of the military’s public relations firm: The Rendon Group.
The contract for reporter assessments ran at around $1.5 million. While the government ended that particular contract with Rendon Group, no guilt was ever admitted. Instead, Rear Adm. Gregory Smith, who was the spokesperson in Afghanistan at the time, said the contract was cut because it was becoming a distraction.
Stars and Stripes reported that one of its own was banned from an embedded reporter because the journalist refused to take directives from military commanders, who requested that the reporter highlight good news. The government did not deny reporters were looked into before given permission, but said decisions on who was to enter and who wasn’t were not made based on such reviews.
When the story broke, it infuriated media outlets, who saw it as an affront to honest and pure coverage of the war.
“It taxes the mind of reasonable people to think that this information was being collected for any purpose other than to weed out journalists whose accounts differ from the government’s,” Ronald Collins of the First Amendment Center told USA Today in 2009.
While not military members, many of the reporters traveling overseas were risking their lives, too, in order to relay information to the American public. The censorship and fear tactics used by Rendon compromised that mission.
“That’s the government doing things to put out the message they want to hear and that’s not the way journalism is meant to work in this country,” Amy Mitchell, deputy director for Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism, told Stars and Stripes at the time of the scandal.
While Rendon’s contract was cut, the military by no means severed working ties altogether. That’s where the issue stands. Considering the military observed at one point Rendon was responsible for taking part in irresponsible behavior on behalf of the military, it would be assumed that further relationships would be out of the question. That’s not the case.
Most recently, USA Today reported that the Rendon Group provides support to the Pentagon and U.S. embassies with communications support, according to a Pentagon spokesperson interviewed by the news agency. Specifically addressing U.S. drug policies abroad, the spokesperson indicated the company was responsible for monitoring print, radio, television and web reporting in Pakistan and Colombia in order to ensure that a positive U.S. image was being portrayed.
What is the Rendon Group?
“The Rendon Group employs multi-disciplinary capabilities that influence the information environment, transform relationships, and enable our clients to achieve their desired outcomes,” according to its website.
The founder of the company, John W. Rendon, started out his career in politics. He was the Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee — but took a different angle when he saw a need to fill. By the 1980s, he was working in the propaganda field.
“I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or corporate policy objectives,” John W. Rendon, Jr. said during a speech given at a National Security Conference in 1998. “In fact, I am an information warrior, and a perception manager. This is probably best described in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote, ‘When things turn weird, the weird turn pro.’”
Things started getting “weird” for Rendon and his company in 2001, when it began work with the Pentagon to help shape its strategic communications strategy. It worked alongside the Defense Science Board to do just that.
In 2003, the company became more well known for its role in the public opinion promotion of the Iraq War. The firm was hired by the Pentagon to change public perception of U.S. troops in Iraq. The price tag for such a contract? Roughly $16 million, according to James Bamford, an investigative reporter who released a startling piece in Rolling Stone.
These accusations were denied by Rendon Group, which released a press release following the publication of the Bamford story, claiming it did not take part in portraying false information.
The fact that the government is hiring a public relations firm at all is disturbing to many, considering the sole function is to portray a positive image and, generally, to hide the negative aspects of an operation. It hinders the transformation toward a transparent form of democracy — and in this case, the taxpayers are footing the bill.