NEW YORK As the owner of a public relations agency, I found The New York Times' blockbuster article "Behind Analysts, the Pentagon's Hidden Hand," fascinating. For me, it's a given that all organizations (including the U.S. military) will attempt to "spin" what the public sees; to try to educate and influence spokespeople who appear in the media. It's not deception any more than the political candidates who are trained to respond in a certain way, nonprofit organizations that routinely use one set of statistics instead of another, or CEOs who are media trained on a daily basis by their PR firms.

Reading this article, I'd urge all to leave their politics aside. Whether one does or doesn't agree with the war, once a president decides on that course, the military must use all its PR might to convince the public it is right -- and that means educating and influencing "talking heads."

Some specifics on the Times article:

It's natural that many who appear on TV have a vested financial or personal interest in the industry they are discussing. When one turns on any business station to learn about the economy, is the talking head not someone affected by the stock market? Clearly these individuals can't speak about specific companies any more than someone in the market can discuss a specific stock, but they have a vested interest all the same.

It's not at all a surprise to me that the ex-military personnel in this article have ties to people and companies in the defense industry, and in fact, benefit from it financially. (How else would someone retired from the military earn a living?) So, too, do many people on CNBC regularly make money from the stock market. So, too, do commentators on E! make money from entertainment, and so on and so on. Does one expect that a successful, renowned individual is doing TV and media interviews as a public service? I imagine very few do. Nearly everyone who appears in the media these days has a self-interested purpose.

"Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers." Is it a surprise that retired officers would tend to be pro-military? Is it a surprise that the Pentagon wants the most favorable experts on their side? That the most eloquent, best-looking individuals would be the ones the military wants front and center?

Experts are regularly sought out by the media, so why wouldn't these military experts be the ideal type for the Pentagon? That's, quite simply, the basics of PR.

The New York Times wrote of commentators "losing access" if they spoke negatively. While that sounds sinister, in reality, PR 101 would teach anyone to grant access to individuals more likely to speak positively. (Think Hillary Clinton is granting a lot of time to Commentary magazine? Think the New York Yankees are allowing a Boston Globe sports reporter unfettered locker room access?)

In reality, reporters and PR people have a give-and-take relationship. It only makes sense that "unfriendly" interests won't be granted access. Why not grant access to someone more likely to say nice things? This is true in any business -- and, yes, in war, government, and politics as well.

I've heard the arguments for "complete transparency," but it's not fair to ask the administration to meet 100 percent of these requirements without also demanding the same from our political parties, nonprofit organizations, and profit-driven businesses (all of whom have vested interests) on the same topic.

Many of the groups that would oppose my opinion have considerably lower standards of transparency for their own organizations. In order to meet any agenda, it's important to control the flow of information.

"Spin" is part and parcel of PR (and most definitely crisis-issues PR). The job of a good PR professional, particularly on issues, is to influence and convince people your way is right. That's done in a variety of manners -- including continually training your sources, continually providing talking points, and even (on occasion) blocking access to unfriendly reporters or experts. That's true for all levels of big business and big politics.

This statement makes a ton of sense to me: "'The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,' Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said." It was, Whitman added, "a bit incredible" to think retired military officers could be "wound up" and turned into "puppets of the Defense Department."
Ronn Torossian is the CEO and president of 5W Public Relations, based in New York.