Clearly this is a propaganda effort to bend the truth into a lie..... right?
I also like how the article never mentioned military supported movies that indicate dishonorable conduct like Invisible War and The General's Daughter.
I think all these very obvious omissions were intentional because the article is wanting to indicate some level of propaganda. Tipping its toe into the pool of conspiracy foolishness.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_(film...
EDIT:
I have rethought this comment (slow day at work). I do not mean to say the article is completely invalid. The fact of the matter is that the military holds trademarks over most of its common insignia, military bases are private property, and its personnel are employees. It has the right to offer or withhold any of its assets as it deems much like private entities.
That said the military has the right to disqualify commentary or stories negatively without qualification. I believe the word for this is disparagement. You can be negative about the military and still receive military support, but it must be qualified.
My personal opinion on the matter is the military does shape how it is perceived by the public through entertainment. It does shape that narrative. This has the potential to hint at, though very lightly, something resembling propaganda but I strongly believe this is not the intent.
If the public wanted the most accurate and realistic portrayal of the military they would receive their view of that world from journalism or documentaries. This isn't want the public generally wants though. They want entertainment and all the suspended disbelief that comes with it. If you believe this is unfair then choose books as your source of fiction on military interests, which don't appear to have any such manipulation.
In full disclosure I am a warrant officer in the US Army.