Understanding the effects of the Department of Defense’s paid-for displays of patriotism in the NFL and other media

On September 23rd, 2017 President Donald Trump declared war. No, it was not against North Korea who he had been posturing against earlier in the year, nor was it one of those nebulous wars fought against Terror, Drugs, or Obesity. Donald Trump declared war on the National Football League (NFL). While President Trump stands alone amongst his presidential peers when it comes to bashing institutions on Twitter, he is no aberration in the government when it comes to pushing nationalist ideas into the arena of popular culture. It was revealed in 2015 that the Department of Defense (DoD) had been funding NFL teams for displays of nationalism that included field size flags and troops. These facts highlight a disturbing trend of the DoD engaging in dangerous manipulation of the American populace which includes partnerships with Hollywood to fund movies in exchange for favorable imagery of the military and intelligence complexes.

In an effort to continue funding for the Military-Industrial complex, the DoD has waged a campaign to infiltrate and subvert popular culture to foster a populace more sympathetic to defense spending. This has contributed to a divided populace: specifically inciting a Jacksonian tradition in a large segment of the American populace. This has caused those of the tradition to become more nationalistic and the population at large more polarized; willing to vote for politicians who support increased defense spending, and unwilling to debate reductions in military spending.

Whether it was an effort to score cheap political points, or an honest pet-peeve of the President’s is inconsequential. The deeper problem stems from the perceived slight that Former San Francisco 49ers Quarterback Colin Kaepernick was dealing to the country; the assertion that he was disrespecting the flag, and by extension the military. How exactly did pre-game festivities at a football game become synonyms with support for the military? When nationalist rhetoric and displays became tied with movies and these pre-game festivities, the absence of such appeared to be a rebuttal against the default value. Unfortunately, the reason these events are seen through the prism of nationalism is because of this aforementioned effort of the military to encourage higher military spending, leading us into dangerous territory.

Budget Maximization

In the private sector firms are said to be profit-maximizing actors. That is, firms and companies move to maximize the amount of profit they make by increasing revenue streams and minimizing the costs associated with inputs. In the public sector, like governmental bureaucracies including the military, money inflow is dictated by budgetary guidelines implemented by congress rather than direct consumer demand (Niskanen, 1971). To put it simply, bureaucracies, without the ability to externally increase profits like the private sector, attempt to increase their budgets or, at the very least, maintain the same level of funding. This leads them to take steps to appeal to those that are responsible for allocating the budget.

As with most government agencies, the military has a ‘time-limited budget’ which requires bureaucracies to “obligate funds by the end of the fiscal year or return them to the Treasury general fund” (Liebman & Mahoney, 2013). Not only does this cause bureaucracies to lose out on projects in the current year, it can also act to signal lack of need in future bureaucracies and result in reductions of budgetary allocations in the future (Lee & Johnson, 1998). This primary characteristic time-limited budgets describes the preconditions for the motives of the military as a bureaucratic actor seeking to maximize its budget. The military must seek to maintain a high-level of spending relative to its budget or risk cuts from government oversight by those hawkish on rogue spending. The secondary characteristic about maximizing budgets is directly appealing to government oversight for maintaining funding. It is not enough for the military to spend all its money without having legislators in place friendly to the idea of maintaining the status-quo of the budget.

Rebecca Thorpe (2014) speaks of these relationships as an “impenetrable ‘iron triangle’ where the actors in charge of defense spending are poised to rig the system to their advantage,” with the relationships being between the military bureaucracy, political elites, and industrial leaders. A fourth element needs to be considered within this nexus of power, the populace of a nation, who exert pressure on the political elites through their ability to vote. This relationship is key as it allows for the military bureaucracy to exert pressure over political elites beyond simple relationships and awarding defense contracts to the areas those elites represent.

While the military bureaucracy is attempting to maximize its returns through total use of its budget and maintaining friendly links to the legislature; legislators seek to increase their popularity and electability by advocating for policies tied to the wealth of their constituents. This includes advocating for increased defense spending in their districts; but as mentioned before can work in the opposite direction as well. If the populace has strong feelings about the military and high defense spending then the legislator is likely to adopt those views too to placate the populace.

A population that maintains a positive view of the military will naturally advocate for higher military spending. This comes from the belief that a strong military is essential for the protection of the state and protecting American interests abroad. Naturally, a bureaucracy seeking to maximize its budget would see this and appeal directly to individuals. To do this they reach directly into popular culture such as sports and movies and foster American nationalism. Anyone who watches sports in America knows the pomp and circumstance that occurs prior to the start of the game. These broadcasts have become stages for displays of nationalism at all levels. These displays range from subtle, the playing of the National Anthem or presence and honoring of military troops, to extremely overt spectacles like football sized flags and fly-overs by military aircraft. The military uses these acts to reinforce the normative presence of nationalism in everyday life and to link the presence of the military in our most basic forms of entertainment.[1]

Forced Patriotism

Contrary to the beliefs of the president, the introduction of patriotism in sports is not a long-standing tradition; rather it has been a shift that has been occurring over the last decade or so. The main actor that the president has chosen to direct his ire at is the NFL a league that generates $14 billion and rising annually (Kaplan, 2017). Despite this amount of cash intake, teams seem willing and able to accept any cash injection that comes their way. Namely in this case, it is money offered by the DoD in exchange for displays of nationalism prior to the games as well as appearances by current and former military members and promotions featuring the military.

A report[2] released in 2014 by Arizona Senators Jeff Flake and John McCain revealed that the DoD had “paid up to $6.8 million of taxpayer money to pro-sports teams for military tributes” (Barrón-López & Waldron, 2015). This spending had occurred over 4 years and both senators criticized the unnecessary and wasteful spending. Sens. Flake and McCain also discovered that the DoD spent a total of $53 million marketing and advertising contracts with professional sports, $10.4 million on what the senators considered “forced patriotism,” with the $6.8 million figure coming directly from the US taxpayer. This $10.4 million was allocated as follows: $2.8 million in 2012, $3.9 million in 2013, $2.6 million in 2014, and $1 million in 2015. The spending was split between US military spending, as well as states’ National Guard. (Flake & McCain, 2014)

Senators Flake and McCain defined “forced patriotism” as any contract that featured “on-field color guard, enlistment and re-enlistment ceremonies, performances of the national anthem, full-field flag details, ceremonial first pitches and puck drops, and hometown hero and wounded warrior tributes.” (Flake & McCain, 2014)

As an example of this spending, the Buffalo Bills received $650,000 from the New York Army National Guard over Fiscal Years 2012, 2013, and 2014. In exchange for this money the Bills, “participated in full-field flag unfurl”, “sponsored a Salute to Service week,” “conducted a live re-enlistment ceremony” during half time, and featured fly-overs of the stadium. This spending also went towards purchase of tickets for active, reserve, and retired military personnel at games.

The NFL was not the only sports league to be paid for these displays of patriotism. Included in the report were details of DoD contracts with Major League Baseball (MLB), National Basketball Association (NBA), National Hockey League (NHL), and Major League Soccer (MLS)[3] as some of the major receivers of both National Guard and United States military money; minor contracts were awarded to racers in NASCAR as well as a few colleges like Purdue University and the University of Wisconsin.[4]

In response to allegations of improper “pork” spending, both the NFL issued a statement alleging misrepresentation of the relationship between the two institutions. The NFL claimed that the report and subsequent amendment, “paints a completely distorted picture of the relationship between NFL teams and our military. We agree that no one should be paid to honor our troops. Military spending on recruiting efforts should not be confused with programs that support our nation’s active military and veterans. The NFL’s long history of honoring and supporting our troops will continue because it is the right thing to do.” (Goodell, 2015)

Despite claims to the contrary it is hard to declare that there was no “forced patriotism” in favor of recruiting efforts as the NFL claims. In fact, it is hard to make a differentiation between the two. If the effort is directed at recruiting individuals to join the military, is it not going to be premised on selling the idea of patriotism and nationalism? The two issues are intertwined in such a way that you cannot have one without the other. It is immaterial to talk about recruiting efforts without the conditions of patriotism/nationalism being considered. A population with a more positive view of the military will naturally gravitate towards enlisting more people and thus the distinction matters little. Instead the effects of

It is little surprise then that after years of displays of nationalism that audiences began to associate the NFL and other sports teams with the displays. When Kaepernick and other influential athletes began their protest of the disproportionate use of force against African-Americans, it was easy for certain individuals to either confuse or intentionally mislead people into thinking that it was disrespectful to the military. After all, the viewership had become adjusted to pre-game being a dedication to the United States military and its veterans. Despite the intention of Kaepernick to bring light to these injustices, it became a divisive issue that President Trump used to rile up those that could not separate the NFL from the military. The DoD, in an effort to stoke patriotic ideals, had instead created a huge gap in the fandom of the NFL; those that bought into the nationalistic ideas and those that recognized Kaepernick’s true purposes in protesting. In doing so, they had contributed to a higher level of nationalism and division than had occurred before.

DoD Relationship with the Media

While sports are seen as a key theatre in which the Department of Defense wages its war of public perception, film and television are also seen as essential for winning over the support of the populace. The relationship between the DoD and Hollywood is far more complicated than the nature of relationships between the DoD and sports teams. Instead of overt spending on displays of “Forced Patriotism” as described by (McCain and Flake, 2015) the allocation of funds to Hollywood and the media must come through different channels representing complex investments by the DoD that range from on-set advising on military matters, to loaning of military equipment for scene recreation, to full-on direction and redacting of certain elements within movies themselves.

The DoD desires the support of the American people. By offering a mutually beneficial program to film-makers and producers, they are allowed oversight of films and can dictate how the military is portrayed in exchange for usage of military materiel and consulting on films. This costs the military little in nominal costs in any calendar year, but the return on investment is great for the image of the military.

Hollywood is huge. According to the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) annual report published in 2016, world-wide movies are a $38.6 billion industry[5], with the American box-office accounting for 30% of that[6] (MPAA 2016). This same report includes the exact reasoning for why Hollywood is a major target of the DoD: the yearly attendance of movies in theater is over 1.3 billion, compared to the 134 million that attend sports games in the US yearly[7]; a factor of nearly 10. It is easy to see that having 10 times as many sets of eyes on a film would drive parties in those films

Hollywood has always had a complex relationship with the military; at points, they are one and the same.[8] It took very little time post-World War II to begin producing movies that exemplified that American fighting spirit during the war. The reasons for this are two-fold: the war had affected almost all individuals within the United States in some capacity; from the men who served in the war, to the women who won the war on the Homefront. Hollywood knew its audience. Secondly, a new conflict seemed to be rearing its head, this time ideologically with the USSR; a war that was to be fought for public confidence and via proxy wars. The United States funded and “fought a ‘cultural Cold War’ to shape opinion and counter Communism in Europe” (Harper, 2011). This can inform a thinker in the history of the relationship but does not describe the current dynamics between film-makers and the DoD.

Naturally, film makers wish to see their artistic visions replicated in a realistic fashion. The appeal of having a partnership with the Department of Defense cannot be understated; by continuing to have a positive relationship the film maker can have access to military equipment they otherwise would not have access to.

The way the relationship between Hollywood and DoD works is like this: on any big movie that is seeking sponsorship from the DoD a script is submitted to an individual who holds the title of “Entertainment Liaison.” That man is Phil Strub, who has held the position since 1989 (Weisman, 2014). Weisman’s role is simple. Review the script, make sure it portrays the military in a positive light and allocate funds and resources to that movie. If Strub finds that it is not positive enough, he can send the script back for corrections. This process has taken place so many times over the last 25 years that Aljazeera described the relationship as one of “mutual exploitation” (Tarabay, 2014), though really it is the tax payer and the viewer who are simultaneously being exploited by throwing away tax dollars and subtly influencing their opinions.

Not only do films have the ability to accentuate the positives of the US military, they have the ability to create negative images based on who the antagonists of films are. A number of studies, such as those performed by Jack Shaheen or Desmond King have shown that stereotypes have been prevalent throughout the history of American cinema, and that they play a large role in shaping public opinion (Shaheen, 2001) (King, 2003).[9]

The portrayal of outsiders and “anti-Americans” would be troubling if led by Hollywood executives with an ax to grind against certain peoples; it is a step beyond that when the DoD is involved in those efforts. Insisting on oversight of scripts, and then knowingly approving those that create nationalist fervor is problematic in every sense of the word — knowingly creating propaganda that is force fed to the American populace is reprehensible and dangerous to the constitutional ideals of the United States, those being an educated populace that acts as a check on the dangers of an overbearing government. To secretly subvert and knowingly shape the media Americans consume weakens the populace as a check against the government, and allows powerful actors to advocate for wars through that manipulation of the people.

It is not a shock that parts of Hollywood have been hijacked in the name of promoting positive views of the American military. The medium has always been fraught with those seeking to exploit it in the name of propaganda. The Germans exploited film to a rousing success; Triumph of the Will by Leni Riefenstahl being the classic example of state-run film propaganda. Nor were Americans immune to the effects of propaganda; Woodrow Wilson famously screened Birth of a Nation, a film saturated with faux-history, and though disputed as a quotation is said to have famously remarked, “It’s like writing history with lightning. My only regret is that it is all so terribly true” (Benbow, 2010)[10]. As previously mentioned, the United States army used film as propaganda during World War II, censoring that which did not portray the military in a positive light.[11]

The difference between movies during the war and today is the direct amount of control the government has during the time periods. Viewers understood during the war that the American government was doing its best to win the war, and it was understandable that they would control the flow of information; it was a period of intense strife in which victory had to be won. This is not justification for their influence and use of propaganda, but rather an understandable ordeal that occurred. What should concern us today is that the average American does not understand the influence that the DoD has on film. Instead, s/he is under the false belief that the stories told by Hollywood are created independent of the DoD, that they are simply artistic visions of the directors. It blurs the line between art and propaganda, and gives Americans the false impression that they are not be presented an endorsed vision of the Pentagon.

Effect of these Programs on Nationalism

These programs have had dangerous externalities, and have contributed to the growing sentiment of American nationalism. When one actor dominates the narrative, the lines of truth and fiction are blurred beyond recognition. Americans are now watching the decades of opinion-shaping efforts coming to fruition, and it is has dangerously affected our perceptions of nationalism and patriotism.

Trying to understand nationalism is a question that spans political science, international relations, sociology, and psychology. There is no one scientific definition of ‘nationalism’, and it is easy to get bogged down in developing an operationalized definition as the topic is often nebulous and denser than we can delve into from perspective. A great deal of literature has been devoted to simply understanding the concept, let alone addressing it adequately to figure out solutions. Currently, there are two main ideas on the genesis of nationalism in a society.

The traditional definition of nationalism is addressed in much of the relevant literature, and is considered the more naturally intuitive of the two definitions. At the very basic level, nationalism must be defined as a political movement (Breuilly, 1993). While shared cultural values and norms can be the basis of those political thoughts, nationalism is primarily political. This definition alleges the origins to stem from a popular movement of the people who share similar culture, practices, language, or other cultural elements. Therefore, a nationalist movement is a popular uprising by a nation within the state, or to more easily distill it, nationalism is a ‘bottom-up’ movement that elevates a certain group of people to power. This wisdom would lead us to believe that nationalism is more often seen as a natural reactionary movement.

An alternative thesis is presented by Jack Snyder through his seminal work, “From Voting to Violence.” Rather than the conventional thinking that nationalism is a means to elevate a group outside of a democratized system, Snyder believes that nationalism is a political movement intersecting between the desires of the Elite ruling class and the strength of political institutions meant to reign in their power (Snyder, 2000). Elites use transformational nationalism as a method of securing a hold on power in the face of opposition.

Snyder’s theses are dependent upon the conditions in which democratization happens, and how far advanced the institutions in place have developed at the time of democratization. This, ‘exclusionary nationalism’ is far more likely to succeed when journalistic and economic institutions are weak (Snyder, 2000). His theory leaves much room for interpretation in modern nation states that have been democratized for as long as they have, especially a country like the United States that has been democratic for over 230 years.

There is an indication that over the course of the last 70 years, the institutions safeguarding American democracy have been eroding. Trust in the press has fallen to an all-time low, and Americans are continually seeking out partisan sources. 65% of the American populace today believes that the “Mainstream Media” is responsible for publishing fake news stories (Easley, 2017). As posited by Snyder, if trust in journalistic institutions is weak, then partisan elites stand a much better chance of succeeding in pushing nationalism.

What has arisen as a result of the decaying trust in institutions is a purely American breed of nationalism, one that Walter Russell Mead describes as Jacksonian (Mead, 2001). Mead describes this Jacksonian tradition as, “populist school [that] believes the most important goal of the U.S. government in both foreign and domestic policy should be the physical security and economic well-being of the American people” (Mead, 2001). While Mead’s book has a focus on describing the foreign policy objectives of different schools of American thought[12], the most interesting description comes from that of the values of Jacksonians in domestic context. To Mead, Jacksonians value honor above all else, and that fact must be acknowledged by outsiders, both domestic and international (Mead, 2001). Should that honor and respect not be granted by those in the outside group, it stands to reason that at the very least Jacksonians will be perturbed, and with the right push can resort to violence. Jacksonians themselves are often on the forefront of advocating high enough military spending to protect the nation, and when attacks have come against the United States, they have been one of the strongest voices for fighting back.

This is the troubling aspect of elites pushing exclusionary nationalism, a large segment of the population will fall for the dichotomy of the with-us-or-against-us mentality. It would not be a far-fetched claim that Donald Trump was the first elected president to run under the nationalist moniker, a true example of Jacksonian ideals in American history; and it is safe to say that we live in an era where the dominant identity of one of the two major parties in Jacksonian.

Putting Snyder and Mead’s hypotheses together, we can see the potential for a vicious, self-sustaining feedback loop within the Jacksonian tradition. Elites like Donald Trump and the military look to entrench their position through inflammatory rhetoric as a means of achieving an in-group/out-group. Those that follow the tradition can see disrespect and become upset and it further entrenches the mentality.

This is why there has been such an uproar against Colin Kaepernick’s national anthem protest. The national anthem, the troops, and the flag are symbols of respect for the United States as a country. Watching an individual performing an act that could be deemed as disrespectful to the United States is the worst slight that can be made in the Jacksonian tradition. It is not so much that Jacksonians believe nothing is wrong with America, but in their viewpoint, you must take the official avenues to make changes, and causing disrespect, even if in a legitimate protest, is just that, disrespectful.

The broader point though is that there are only displays to disrespect in the first place because the Department of Defense was playing off the Jacksonian traditions of people who watched football and sports in the first place. The Department of Defense, with its intention to maximize a budget, found a way to promote Jacksonian traditions and have those ceremonies at the beginning of games be entrenched in the dominant Jacksonian mindset when regarding sports. Because of their insistence, it became a norm, and when Colin Kaepernick broke that norm, he was a natural source of outrage.

It is a stretch to say the Department of Defense or the military is responsible for the inception of the Jacksonian Tradition, after all there is a reason it is named after Andrew Jackson himself: it is a deeply entrenched vision of America. What the Department of Defense has done, both in sports and media, is exploit it for its own gain. The agitation has helped to create the level of tribalism and polarization we are seeing today in America.

The Founding Fathers never envisioned a standing army. They felt as if the dangers of having an executive with his finger on the trigger was too much to risk the stability of the emerging American state. Of course, this naturally subverted the bureaucratic needs of the military if it did not exist for long enough periods to require a bureaucracy. Today the military is an entrenched bureaucracy in American politics with all the good and bad that comes with it. Like any bureaucracy it seeks to maximize its budget. To help with this it has specifically targeted a segment of the population more open to military spending. By appealing to citizens directly, the can rely on the citizens to exert more pressure on their elected representatives, or choose ones that advocate for higher spending.

This has had the dangerous externality of igniting an increase in exclusionary nationalism. Those in the Jacksonian tradition see themselves as the defenders of American honor, and anyone in the out-group is the problem. This has helped put a screeching halt on any bipartisanism, higher levels of discourse, or cooperation. It is nearly impossible to discuss the military budget without accusations of disrespecting America, or being weak on those opposed to America’s values.

Are there ways to return the country to a normal level of discourse? Absolutely, but it is probably beyond the scope of this essay. Instead, it would be better to focus on a number of attainable goals. The discussion over Colin Kaepernick and his right to protest seems like a cause lost to partisanship, but pressure could be placed on sports organizations to not accept money in exchange for these forced displays of patriotism. This can be done directly by policy makers, or by adopting a boycott model. Senators McCain and Flake had the correct idea to at least expose the spending and allow constituents to decide if these policies were what they wanted to continue funding. The effort to get public money out of sports could potentially be a bipartisan effort, the report was written by fiscal conservative Republicans from Arizona, and Democrats could use Kaepernick’s platform as a means to sell that plan to the public.

For movies and media, there should be a disclaimer in the credits that makes mention of the movie receiving funding and props from the United States government in exchange for favorable exposure. Perhaps citizens would still not care, but they deserve to know when they are being directly influenced by the government. Again, if this is something that more Americans are concerned about, approaching it through elected representatives could also be a good idea. There are benefits to the arts from having access to the props and sets they need, but there needs to be knowledge of it.

The dangerous externalities that have resulted from the constant barrage of nationalistic images in popular media have reached an extreme. The social discourse in recent years has been in serious decline and any effort made to improve it would be a welcome change. Whether intentional or not, the impact the Department of Defense has played on public perception cannot be understated. The rise and prominence of the Jacksonian tradition in the late 2010s will have far-reaching consequences on the domestic and foreign policy of the United States. This is not meant to be seen as an indictment against the tradition itself, but rather a call for renewed discourse between Americans of different traditions and an end to the visceral incitement of the Jacksonian tradition that the Department of Defense has been engaged in.

Notes:

[1] It should be noted that there is a third relationship in play here, that between the military and private firms often denoted as ‘The Military-Industrial Complex’. While the relationship does factor in when looking at military spending and can play a part in the citizens advocacy of continued military spending, I have chosen to leave it out as it is a secondary causality of this situation. The military, after getting its budget, chooses contacts to award to private industry, and the focus of this article is on the budget rather than the partners they choose to work with using that budget.

[2] Appropriately titled, “Tackling Paid Patriotism.”

[3] Erroneously named, “National League Soccer” in the report

[4] Of these leagues, the report noted that 18/32 NFL teams had received funding for “forced patriotism” displays; 10/30 MLB teams; 8/30 NBA teams; 6/30 (now 31) NHL teams; and 8/22 MLS Teams. NASCAR received approximately $1.5 million from DoD.

[5] This does not include the sale of DVDs and online movies, but rather a measure of the yearly intake from consumers at theaters. The numbers are not the focus of this inquiry.

[6] Exact number $11.4 billion

[7] For a better breakdown: NFL: 17.0 million, NHL: 21.6 million, NBA: 22.0 million, MLB: 73.2 million.

[8] Of course, a great example of this is John Huston, the mythic director responsible for such classics as “The Maltese Falcon,” and being nominated for 15 Oscars, winning two. During World War II he served in the signal corps for the Army, producing movies to raise morale of those at home — just a year after releasing the aforementioned “The Maltese Falcon.”

[9] King’s argument especially points to the shaping of public opinion by the media intake of the American populace.

[10] Benbow delves into much more detail about this quotation and the validity of it. He concluded that while we cannot say for certain what the exact quotation was, it is inconsequential as Wilson lent all the validity and endorsement to the film he could, regardless of his exact words.

[11] Again, we can use the great John Huston as an example. His film, The Battle of San Pietro (a battle that occurred in late 1943), was not released until December of 1945, well after the war in Europe had ended. This was due mainly to its realistic portrayal of war, including images of dead American soldiers, and the military deemed it too negative to the war effort.

[12] The others being: the Liberal Internationalism of Wilsonians, the strong centralized government and treaties of Hamiltonians, and the safeguarding of democracy at home and abroad of Jeffersonians.

References:

Print:

Anderson, B. (2006). Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.

Benbow, M. E. (2010). Birth of a Quotation: Woodrow Wilson and “Like Writing History with Lightning”. The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era, 9, 509–533.

Breuilly, J. (2006). Nationalism and the State. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Goodell, R. (2015, November 2). Letter to Sen. McCain and Sen. Flake.

Harper, J. L. (2013). The Cold War. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hechter, M. (2000). Containing Nationalism. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kabaservice, G. (2012) Rule and Ruin. New York: Oxford University Press.

King, D. (2003) Americans in the Dark? — Recent Hollywood Representations of the Nation’s History. Government and Opposition. 38, 163–180.

Lee, R. D., & Johnson, R. W.. (1998). Public Budgeting Systems. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Liebman, J., & Mahoney, N. (2013). Do Expiring Budgets Lead to Wasteful Year-End Spending? Evidence from Federal Procurement. American Economic Review, 107.

Lieven, A. (2005). America Right or Wrong, an Anatomy of American Nationalism. London: Harper Perennial.

Mead, W.R. (2001). Special Providence. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Niskanen, J. R. (1971). Bureaucracy and Representative Government. London: Routledge.

Putnam, D. (1997). The Undeclared War. London, UK: HarperCollins.

Robb, D.L. (2004). Operation Hollywood: How the Pentagon Shapes and Censors the Movies. New York: Prometheus Books.

Shaheen, J.G. (2015). Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. Northampton, Massachusetts: Olive Branch Press.

Snyder, J. (2000) From Voting to Violence: Democratization and Nationalist Conflict. London: W.W. Norton & Company.

Thorpe, R. U. (2014). The American Warfare State: The Domestic Politics of Military Spending. Chicago, Ill.: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Totman, S. (2009). How Hollywood Projects Foreign Policy. NY, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Unger, D. C. (2013). The Emergency State: America’s Pursuit of Absolute Security At All Costs. NY, NY, USA: Penguin Books.

Web:

Barrón-López, L., & Waldron, T. (2016, December 19). Pentagon Paid Up To $6.8 Million Of Taxpayer Money To Pro Sports Teams For Military Tributes. Retrieved from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/defense-military-tributes-professional-sports_us_5639a04ce4b0411d306eda5e

Easley, J. (2017, May 24). Poll: Majority Says Mainstream Media Publishes Fake News. Retrieved from http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/334897-poll-majority-says-mainstream-media-publishes-fake-news

Kaplan, D. (2017, March 6). NFL revenue reaches $14B, fueled by media. Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2017/03/06/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx

McCain, J., & Flake, J. (2015). Tackling Paid Patriotism. Retrieved from https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12de6dcb-d8d8-4a58-8795-562297f948c1/tackling-paid-patriotism-oversight-report.pdf

Motion Picture Association of America. (2017, March). Theatrical Market Statistics, 2016. Retrieved from https://www.mpaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/MPAA-Theatrical-Market-Statistics-2016_Final-1.pdf

Tarabay, J. (2014, July 29). Hollywood and the Pentagon: A Relationship of Mutual Exploitation. Retrieved from http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/29/hollywood-and-thepentagonarelationshipofmutualexploitation.html

Weisman, A. (2014, March 5) One Man in the Department of Defense Controls All of Hollywood’s Access to the Military. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/phil-strub-controls-hollywoods-military-access-2014-3?IR=T.

Youn, S. (2013, December 19) Hollywood’s Military Complex. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2013/12/19/hollywoods-military-complex/.