Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Propaganda In Iraq?

Hmm...

WASHINGTON — As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.


So far I'm not seeing the problem. Is there any indication that these stories are untrue? Are the by-lines being doctored to hide the true identity of the authors?

But then I came to this paragraph in the article:

Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.


So there's the problem. The articles are based on fact, they're just not negative enough for the tastes of liberal mainstream media elites. Because, to the mainstream media, all journalism should be disparaging of the government. Stories highlighting positive events just aren't acceptable.

Comments

Avatar for Hvywgt

Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as “Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism,”


Apparently you have to pay to get good news out.
Hvywgt on December 1, 2005 at 02:13 am
Avatar for Angus McMurphy

I’m not so sure this is such a good idea.  If these articles are truly “presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists” but are written by elements of the military, this right?  What I’m saying is, we get bent out of shape here about journalist writing “news articles” that are thinly disguised opinion pieces.  Shouldn’t the same standard apply?  And if these articles truly are based in fact only (and don’t contain elements of opinion), then why not put the real author’s name in the byline?

Angus McMurphy on December 1, 2005 at 06:12 am
Avatar for MikeAdamson

Maybe if they labelled it as advertising rather than passing it off as news then there wouldn’t be a problem. It’s not a good example to set for fledgling democracies IMO.

MikeAdamson on December 1, 2005 at 06:13 am
Avatar for Doug Purdie

The problem is not that the military is paying to get their views published.  The good news needs to get printed even if we have to pay for it.  The problem is that “...the U.S. military is secretly paying...” to have them published.

(my boldface)

“Secretly” is the key word.

My local paper, the San Jose Mercury, does this frequently in its Sunday Op-Ed section.  Someone with a point of view purchases Ad. space and uses it, instead, to write an Op-Ed piece.  The Merc has sold space for two such editorials by Senators John Edwards and Joe Leiberman in the past two weeks.  The difference is that the Merc does it above the board.  The reader is informed, up-front, that the following advocacy piece has been paid for.

The blogosphere was in quite an uproar when it found out that Daily Kos was secretly publishing paid for editorials in favor of electing Sen. Kerry.  It was wrong for Daily Kos then and its wrong for the U.S. military now.

Doug Purdie on December 1, 2005 at 09:13 am
Avatar for Say Anything - North Dakota’s Most Popular P

[...] Steve Green on the propaganda controversy I posted about yesterday: If a nuke were to go off in New York or Los Angeles or even Des Moines tomorrow, do you doubt that even President Kerry (cough, cough) would hesitate before retaliating in kind? Oh, but that would be retaliation, wouldn’t it? And would it not therefore be a fair response? And what about propaganda? It’s not as if the enemy doesn’t use it – so why should our government be so restrained? Especially when our stuff is pretty damn innocent? [...]

Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.