A blockbuster of a front-page article by The New York Times, published Sunday, is causing a dustup in military and media circles. It recounts a years-long effort by the Pentagon to enlist military analysts on television networks to act as "surrogates" to put forth the Pentagon's line on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The analysts are retired officers, some of whom, The Times said, work for companies that do business with the Pentagon. Hence an insinuation of conflict of interest.

The article said the Pentagon, with participation from former secretary Rumsfeld on down, continuously fed the analysts "talking points" that put the war situation in the most favorable light. The analysts were flown to Guantanamo and Iraq frequently and then went on the air for CNN, Fox and other networks to generally counter more pessimistic reports from journalists, The Times said.

Here's the whole article, as it appeared under several rows of former officers' photos on the page. Then read a Q & A with Times readers and the Times reporter, David Barstow. Of interest is a question whether the Pentagon's efforts crossed the line into the forbidden territory of aiming propaganda domestically. (Barstow's take: It's too fuzzy a line to make out.)

The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz weighs in at length. He puts forth some reporting of his own, including an anticipated defense from the Pentagon spokesperson. Finally, Peter Glaskowsky, a technology analyst, of all people, looks askance at the Times report, calling it "breathlessly hysterical." He wrote a blog entry for cnet.com.

For me, here's the key paragraph in all this, from the Glaskowsky blog:

"Ultimately it has to be up to the reader to critically evaluate every line of every news story. Readers shouldn't assume analyst opinions are unbiased any more than they should assume that the facts in the story are complete or truly representative. But facts and opinions usually do have some basis in realilty, and a critical reader can usually learn something about the truth of the matter in spite of all the biases that went into the story." Or, I add, the TV newscast.

In other words, caveat lector -- reader beware.