Nothing to see here folks, move along

The Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General has released their report on the military analyst program

• Examination of Allegations Involving DoD Public Affairs Outreach Program (PDF, 10MB) [This report was withdrawn in May of 2009 by the DoD]
  

Not surprisingly - they found nothing wrong (emphasis added):

We determined that those activities were conducted in accordance with DoD policies and regulations.

[snip]

...we found the evidence insufficient to conclude that [Retired Military Analyst] RMA outreach activities were improper. Further, we found insufficient basis to conclude that [Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs] OASD(PA) conceived of or undertook a disciplined effort to assemble a contingent of influential RMAs who could be depended on to comment favorably on DoD programs.

With regard to RMAs who had ties to military contractors, extensive searches found no instance where such RMAs used information or contacts obtained as a result of the OASD(PA) outreach program to achieve a competitive advantage for their company. Of the 70 RMAs that we examined, we found that 20 (29 percent) had some type of corporate association. We examined publicly available contracting information involving RMA-affiliated companies to identify any pattern of contract award or contract type that might indicate an irregularity. We did not isolate such a pattern and concluded that further investigative work into this matter was not warranted.

I'm eager to hear what David Barstow has to say in response (especially since 17 of the report's 85 pages are Barstow's article).

Late edit:  While the investigation may have been given limited scope, the report's Appendix J - Interviews with News Networks, gives you a sense of the rigor of their investigation:

We requested interviews with the official responsible for the news divisions at five networks: ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, and NBC. All declined our request for an interview. ABC, CNN, and FOX provided formal written responses to our inquiry. NBC forwarded copies of their responses to Congresswoman DeLauro and the New York Times. CBS provided “off the record” remarks.

 Here's the rest of Appendix J, in its entirety:

In general, the written responses stated that the networks relied on the RMAs for their expertise, knowledge and experience in military matters. The networks considered the RMAs as outside consultants, expecting them to be “ultimate insiders,” fully using contacts and access to ongoing events in DoD. Three networks discussed their requirement for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. There were no negative connotations concerning the role of the OASD(PA), and one network representative pointed out that “just because the Pentagon had a public relations effort that suggested military analysts be courted, does not mean that every analyst fell for the effort.”

We interviewed three media professionals that formerly held executive positions with the networks: a former president, an executive producer, and a bureau chief. The interviews provided several unique perspectives.

• The networks retained military experts to augment their correspondents.
• RMA and anchors/network correspondents conducted extensive preparation prior to appearing on-air.
• Different venues (morning shows, Sunday morning news shows, nightly news) provide different opportunities to broadcast a message.
• The networks performed no polling or research on RMA appearances.
• RMAs were not journalists and demonstrated a “home-town bias” towards the military.
• Over time, some RMAs provided opinions on policy, going beyond commenting on military operations.

RMAs represented a unique group. Many were “credentialed” media and paid by networks without having to satisfy journalist requirements. As retired military, they received retired pay from DoD but were perceived by the American public as free to speak their mind. They were provided access to senior DoD officials and were expected to remain apolitical in a situation where politics were part of the terrain.

Late Edit: (May 8, 2009) The report has been withdrawn by the DoD because:

[an] internal review concluded that the report did not meet accepted quality standards for an Inspector General work product.