Anything wrong with this?

JMI · 11-30-2005, 23:18

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051130...qmilitarymedia

Quote:

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.

JMI · 11-30-2005, 23:50

I agree 100%. I just don't like the timing.

lksteve · 12-01-2005, 14:42

i don't know who Brian Whitman is, but the fact that he is troubled is amusing...

QRQ 30 · 12-01-2005, 15:24

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by QRQ 30

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.

37F5V · 12-02-2005, 09:04

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.

QRQ 30 · 12-02-2005, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSYRGR

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.

37F5V · 12-02-2005, 11:14

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.

QRQ 30 · 12-02-2005, 16:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by PSYRGR

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.

37F5V · 12-02-2005, 16:48

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/2...3/104654.shtml

BMT

QRQ 30 · 12-03-2005, 10:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMT

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...3/104654.shtml

BMT

Quote:

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".