View Full Version : Anything wrong with this?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051130/pl_afp/usiraqmilitarymedia
The Pentagon said it is looking into a newspaper report that said the US military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to run stories written by US troops to burnish the US image in Iraq.
The Los Angeles Times said the articles were written by US military "information operations" troops, translated into Arabic and placed in Iraqi newspapers with the help of a defense contractor called Lincoln Group.
It said many of the articles were presented as unbiased news accounts trumpeting the work of US and Iraqi troops, denouncing the insurgents, and touting US efforts to rebuild the country.
The report, citing records and interviews, said the US military had paid Iraqi newspapers to publish dozens of the stories since the effort began this year.
I am waiting for more facts on this, but I don't think this is a great time for this story to be coming out.
longrange1947
11-30-2005, 23:42
It is called PsyOPs and there is nothing wrong with it. I guess since the liberals have their own news people and they print only the bad, that it is not the same. Hell Lib newspapers have been paying for biased reporting for years. They even try to act like it is not biased.
I agree 100%. I just don't like the timing.
i don't know who Brian Whitman is, but the fact that he is troubled is amusing...
There is nothing at all wrong except that the press is trying to put an evil spin on it. They certainly don't work for free. I find it a good sign that Iraqi papers publish favorable articles on the U.S.
longrange1947
12-01-2005, 19:44
There is nothing at all wrong except that the press is trying to put an evil spin on it. They certainly don't work for free. I find it a good sign that Iraqi papers publish favorable articles on the U.S.
I find it odd that the Iraqi newspapers have to the ones that do publish favorable articles on US forces while the US papers only report the bad. Then again since the agenda is to make President Bush look bad regardless of the facts then it does make sense in the oddest of ways. :)
VelociMorte
12-02-2005, 08:22
Uh, we've spent truckloads of money on those multi-million dollar Commando Solo birds flying around broadcasting radio and television programs, we've invested buildings-full of money in the world-wide VoA network, and these people are surprised to learn that we spent a few thousand bucks on good old fashioned print media? What boneheads.
I seem to recall hearing that U.S. forces paid Iraqi reporters to write the pieces or take credit for writing the articles.
The later would be Black. Not illegal but it makes us look kinda stupid if discovered.
I seem to recall hearing that U.S. forces paid Iraqi reporters to write the pieces or take credit for writing the articles.
The later would be Black. Not illegal but it makes us look kinda stupid if discovered.
You may have your blacks and greys mixed up.
It only makes us look stupid if we deny it and are found out. This isn't the case, I believe we have essentially said" We did it and so what!!!"
Did you ever consider the possibility that our "loyal" media reporters may have paid more for their information than we did? Do you really believe that all of the testemonies from the likes of Cindy Sheehan and others were done for free? With the exception of politicians I believe most interviewees on TV are paid for their services.
White = Open Source (i.e. we did it)
Grey = No Source (i.e. who knows who did it)
Black = False Source (i.e. we write it but attribute it to someone else)
Like I said.. I had heard that we may have had someone else take credit for the work... but who knows.... Either way it all sounds legit to me.
White = Open Source (i.e. we did it)
Grey = No Source (i.e. who knows who did it)
Black = False Source (i.e. we write it but attribute it to someone else)
Like I said.. I had heard that we may have had someone else take credit for the work... but who knows.... Either way it all sounds legit to me.
No problem with the definitions. I'm not sure of the application. From what I understand these are testimonials written by U.S. servicemen which were presented to the Iraqi media and they were paid to publish and/or air them. This was necessary since our own sorry assed media won't publish this kind of "drivel". There was no concealing of the sources involved.
:D Tracking with you... Good news doesn't make a good story over here...
BMT (RIP)
12-03-2005, 10:04
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/3/104654.shtml
BMT
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/3/104654.shtml
BMT
t said many of the articles were presented as unbiased news accounts trumpeting the work of US and Iraqi troops, denouncing the insurgents, and touting US efforts to rebuild the country.
Hmmm!! Like our own ultra patriotic media donh't do likewise to undermine our efforts. Does the name Dan Rather sound familiar?
longrange1947
12-03-2005, 11:14
Actually, they are pissed because those are the stories they refuse to print as it is "good news". :D
IMHO, there are two issues here. The first involves the independence and objectivity of the press, while the second involves attempts to subvert it.
Even in the United States, a large portion of what you read in newspapers and magazines originates from either news releases or "canned features", i.e. stories written by PR people and then offered to the media. Editors print these with only minimal changes at an alarming rate, and even more journalists use them as primary source material for related stories. You would be surprised by how often the exact language from these releases and features makes it into the news. A study of the Wall Street Journal some years ago concluded that about 90% of the stories originated this way. So, even in our own country (where a free press is highly valued), independence and objectivity are not taken to mean that the journalists behind a story did all of their own research and did not rely on others for significant amounts of synthesis and insight.
These attempts by PR flaks to place stories and cast their clients in a beneficial light are not usually thought of as attempts to subvert or undermine the independence or objectivity of the press. It is recognized that, where people may disagree about the facts or conclusions surrounding a newsworthy item, people have the right to try and influence how a story is told. If this is done with integrity, and no money changes hands and the information conveyed is factual, then it is up to the press to act as a proper filter.
Based on what I have read so far about this case, a couple of things are clear. First, Iraq does not have a functioning free press. It was completely subverted under the rule of Saddam Hussein, and is only now taking its first tentative steps toward maturity. It is doing so in a wartime environment where the stakes are high for how information is disseminated and presented, and all parties involved are trying to influence that process. The strategies being used by our opponents do not have integrity. False information is being provided, threats and payments are being made. It is in this environment that we must try to ensure that our side of the story is told to the Iraqi people.
Our strategy does not revolve around providing false information to the press. What seems to be happening is that we are paying for the placement of canned features. The provision of these canned features is not, in and of itself, objectionable, but the payments which have changed hands are less than ideal. To a certain extent, they serve to subvert the very institutions of freedom which we are trying to build for the Iraqis.
But my question is this: Why is it wrong to subvert the press? Is it because the press is a holy institution deserving of our reverence and deference? No. Or is it because the press plays an essential role in the functioning of a democracy? I think this is the best reason, and would add that while a functioning democracy may very well take form despite the developmental challenges of an immature press, a free press will never be able to survive without a functioning democracy. If we must introduce or perpetuate some relatively minor objectionable practices along the way to this goal, then so be it, so long as we do so with right intent and for no longer than necessary. The payments we have made have introduced no new corruption to the system and will likely cease when our opponents are defeated and the Iraqi people find their own voice.
Here's a Marine Capt's view on reporting from the "media"... I've corresponded with him, great man.
http://shepherdaway.blogspot.com/