The financial conflicts may be even more revealing than the ideological ones.

Carpenter emphasizes that many of the supposedly independent military analysts had relationships with defense contractors.

Some were lobbyists.

Some were executives.

Some sat on corporate boards.

Others worked as consultants.

Yet these same individuals could appear on television as military experts discussing wars, weapons systems and national-security policy.

That creates an obvious problem.

A commentator who receives money from a defense contractor has a financial interest in the expansion of defense spending and the procurement of military systems.

That does not automatically mean every statement the person makes is false.

It does mean the audience has a right to know about the relationship.

Without that disclosure, viewers can mistake a paid advocate for an independent expert.

Carpenter argues that the same basic problem exists with the new social-media influencer system.

The medium has changed.

The underlying incentive structure has not.

Television once provided the distribution network. Newspapers and cable news provided the audience. Today, social media provides the platform.

But the fundamental strategy remains remarkably familiar: place a persuasive individual in front of the public and allow the audience to assume that person is speaking independently.

The most effective propaganda does not necessarily look like propaganda.

It looks like expertise.

It looks like analysis.

It looks like someone simply telling you what the “experts” know.

That is precisely why transparency matters.

@americanmajority