posted
It saddens me that as our president speaks boldly of freedom and democracy, our military is manipulating another country's supposedly "free" press.
U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press # Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice.
By Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi, Times Staff Writers
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.
ADVERTISEMENT 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.
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.
The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.
The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.
It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled "The Role of Press in a Democratic Society." Standards vary widely at Iraqi newspapers, many of which are shoestring operations.
Underscoring the importance U.S. officials place on development of a Western-style media, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Tuesday cited the proliferation of news organizations in Iraq as one of the country's great successes since the ouster of President Saddam Hussein. The hundreds of newspapers, television stations and other "free media" offer a "relief valve" for the Iraqi public to debate the issues of their burgeoning democracy, Rumsfeld said.
The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.
The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.
The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."
Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.
One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.
The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks.
U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets.
"There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.
Daniel Kuehl, an information operations expert at National Defense University at Ft. McNair in Washington, said that he did not believe that planting stories in Iraqi media was wrong. But he questioned whether the practice would help turn the Iraqi public against the insurgency.
"I don't think that there's anything evil or morally wrong with it," he said. "I just question whether it's effective."
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, they didn't announce that they were doing the same to the domestic press. Remember the reports the Department of Education distributed to the media that promoted the No Child Left Behind Act while masquerading a unbiased news report?
As to the current story, this is ridiculous. How can this practice be defended?
quote:from the story: One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.
I thought the wonders of our Freedom* and Democracy* were supposed to speak for themselves as we convert them to the glories of our Western existence...
posted
err...I don't see what the problem is. Are we saying that the stories aren't true? If so, that'd be an issue, but otherwise, I don't see anything wrong with it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering that Iraqi reporters are killed for reporting favorably on the Coalition presence, I hardly see anything wrong with the US information officers attempting to balance the picture. Considering that newspaper publishers and editors risk being targeted for assassination, and printers and news offices risk being bombed for publishing reports favorable to Coalition forces, I hardly see anything wrong with the US providing extra compensation for the extra risk they take.
At best, the LATimes is being irresponsible toward their Iraqi colleagues. At worst, it is yet another example of "how to build a truck bomb" sensationalism -- practiced by nearly all of the US news media in coverage of McVey's Oklahoma federal building bombing -- which unnecessarily endangers everyone.
posted
I remember the foundations of this story first coming out some time a go, around the beginning of the Iraq war.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no problem with the military distributing true accounts of their success in Iraq. Heck, start a 24 hour news channel if you like. What I do have a problem with is this:
quote:Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists....
... the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.
Is this really the best way to introduce democracy to the very people we're suppose to liberate?
Why do we always require links when people post facts on this forum? Because people want to know the source so they can decide for themselves whether the source is credible.
Why is the military concealing their identity? Because they know the people of Iraq doesn't trust them. So in order to gain their trust we should lie to them? Right. Good plan.
quote: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.
People blast the liberal media or Fox news for only presenting one side of the story. But when it is serving our interests in another country, wooohooo, we've got no problem with that right? Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't say that we're promoting a free Iraqi press if we're bribing them to print things that the "information operations" troops are writing.
I think these are the same people who are responsible for Bush's "impromptu" Q/A session with the troops a few months ago. (If it's not the exact same people, they're at least very similar -- PR divisions of the military)
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, still not seeing a problem. They're spreading propoganda through channels where it's going to be seen as legitimate. It's Psy-Ops, just like they said. We're at war and winning over the public opinion is the major goal in that war. They're not censoring stories nor are they (I'm assuming) telling obvious lies. The only thing they're doing is disguising the source of the propoganda. I don't see a problem with this.
edit: They don't really have a free press. They don't have anything like a free country. It's still war and propoganda is a vital component to fighting a war. As far as propoganda goes, the deception in this case is very minor.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ya can't say that the US has a free press when the media takes advertising money to pay salaries and printing/broadcasting cost. Of course the press would be far less free if only the government could pay to run the presses. The free world's choice of the lesser of two wrongs ensures that we receive a wide variety of information, of opinion.
The US is stuck between Iraq and a hard place inregard to the choices it must make to balance reportage there. I've never been one to think that allowing an evil to occur by standing on "moral" principles rather than commit a minor tort is a good.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I wouldn't say the American press is completely free from government interference, and I certainly wouldn't say it's free from corporate influence.
quote:I've never been one to think that allowing an evil to occur by standing on "moral" principles rather than commit a minor tort is a good.
So when Bush promoted the liberation of Iraq by focusing on intelligence that favored his position while ignoring information that undermined his views, that's ok right?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As a reformed journalist, it bothers me that it is happening. But when I think about it and try to see what is happening there and what it can mean, I tend to support Aspectre's side in this.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the Iraqi people's rights don't concern you, how about this:
quote:U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets.
The military plants positive stories in Iraq.
CNN picks up the story as an "independent" story presented by Iraqi journalists.
Bush uses the stories to further his case for war.
All in a days work.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the stories aren't false, at least as far as this tells me. So, what, I should be upset that we're getting not false stories but with a certain slant? Because I don't see how that's so different from a lot of what I get now.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:MrSquicky: But the stories aren't false, at least as far as this tells me. So, what, I should be upset that we're getting not false stories but with a certain slant? Because I don't see how that's so different from a lot of what I get now.
Baren answered that one already
quote:BarenOneHand: So when Bush promoted the liberation of Iraq by focusing on intelligence that favored his position while ignoring information that undermined his views, that's ok right?
These stories are not the work of independent reporters as is claimed, they are coordinated by a military PR team. It's like publishing half a court case, with only one side's information, zealously presented, and missing any information or analysis that would discredit it.
Journalism schools still teach that one is not to rely on one official source for an entire story. These stories, whether they contain factual information or not, are not credible journalism. They should not be treated as such.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the stories aren't false, at least as far as this tells me.
The stories that the Times is aware of are not technically false. But the Times story also points out that it does not know which papers or stations are under military influence.
Without the accountability that comes with proper source identification, how can we be sure all the military-generated stories are factual?
How great is the temptation to start making up stories if the military knows it will never be held accountable for them?
quote:So, what, I should be upset that we're getting not false stories but with a certain slant? Because I don't see how that's so different from a lot of what I get now.
So there's no difference between a slant planted by the military and a slant created by the editorial bias of reporters? One comes from the private sector while the other comes from the government.
Even if you think they are exactly the same, do two wrongs make a right?
quote:These stories are not the work of independent reporters as is claimed, they are coordinated by a military PR team.
At times I wonder if our pre-war intelligence was coordinated by an intelligence PR team. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Promoting&justifying war through major lies and deeply misleading half-truths is not a minor tort, BerenOneHand.
Even there, much of the responsibility goes to our Congressional representatives and the news media for allowing Dubya&Gang's threat of a possibility of terrorism to overide their duty to investigate and report on such serious charges for fear of losing votes, for fear of losing sales and advertising revenue.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points aspectre. I especially agree with your second paragraph.
Ask yourself whether you can be sure that a military influenced media can be trusted not to plant misleading lies and half truths.
Furthermore, does the idea that these planted stories may get picked up by Western media and used by Bush to further justify his war policies ("things are going great, even the Iraqi press said so!") bother you?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find this troubling. It's one thing for the military to do their military thing - whether it be propogandizing, planning/carrying out ops, etc. It's another for them to be representing "news reporting" as independent reporting, when it's not.
Not that any news source, data source, study, etc., can be truly deemed independent. Which is why we all want to know about the originating source - so we can determine the depth of reliability and trustworthiness of the reporting source.
Unfortunately, it also seems to be pretty much the norm in most journalism, on either side of the debate.
So, maybe I just see this as a more blatant case of deceptive journalism, whether by omission or by commission.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beren One Hand: At times I wonder if our pre-war intelligence was coordinated by an intelligence PR team.
As an aside, have you ever heard of the Office of Special Plans? Not exactly a PR team, but they certainly used slanted intelligence from sources with extraordinarily shoddy credibility. The OSP provided the intel backing much of the claims of WMD and the Niger Yellowcake Uranium forgeries.
Larry Franklin, who has since pled guilty to providing classified information to a foreign country (Israel) operated out of the OSP
----
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Even there, much of the responsibility goes to our Congressional representatives and the news media for allowing Dubya&Gang's threat of a possibility of terrorism to overide their duty to investigate and report on such serious charges for fear of losing votes, for fear of losing sales and advertising revenue.
posted
Shan, I agree that slanted journalism is almost accepted as the norm today. That's why Hatrack is such a great place to get more perspectives about what's going on in the world.
Thanks Nato, that was a good read. While I've read a few articles about the OSP in relation to the Report of Pre-war Intelligence, the Wikipedia entry you linked to provided a lot of information I didn't know about. The Daily Telegraph article was especially enlightening.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I hear the growls and cries about the issue of equity in America and then this, that a simple balancing of what is practiced in the Middle East, essentaily total control of the Media by Money Interests, being balanced by America spending some money in our interest as unfair and I cannot help but laugh.
We fight with gloves on and with hands tied, fine... we do it because we are better and it is in our long term interest to be seen so. To get ruffled over this is to give the media to the Insurgency in all its forms, might as well give up Rush as do that and give the American media to the Liberals, Sheesh...
posted
I'm of mixed mind on this. The idea itself is a bit unsettling, but when you examine the realities of media in Iraq, and how it is-literally-war, then I'm much less unsettled.
So far, every story reported has been true, has it not?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Leader, from the Textbook of English for 16-year-old Pakistani students as a part of the enlightened moderation which America has agreed to pay to disseminate in schools.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Bean Counter, if you think the US is taking the high road, why do we torture prisoners?
I believe that torturing prisoners, in and of itself, does not contradict taking the high road. Circumstances matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I believe that torturing prisoners, in and of itself, does not contradict taking the high road.
No, it does. It does not contradict taking the higher of two low roads, perhaps, but there is still a higher road which doesn't involve torture which is not being taken. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It contradicts taking the perfect road, yes...but show me a road atlas that has that road, and where to buy it, and I'm there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is planting true stories about the US military worse than planting false stories, such as the one about flushing a Koran down a toilet?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
