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.
"If all of the elements in that story were accurate, there are some things in there that I find troubling, and that's why I've asked for the facts," said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.
"It was news to me," he said.
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.
Iraqi staff of the Washington-based Lincoln Group sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives in their approaches to Iraqi media outlets, masking their connection to the US military, according to the report.
Whitman said the report was troubling because the practices it described appeared to be in conflict with the Pentagon's overarching information policy. But he would not be more specific.
"That's what we want to look at: what they're doing and under what authority they believe they are executing some of these things," he said.
The United States of America...bringing something like democracy to a country near you.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Phsy Ops at it's best.....
I am kind of surprised that this is news and seemingly unexpected......
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
This is about a billion times better than the death squads, secret prisons, and various corruptions that usually make up our scandals in Iraq, though, so I'm not all that concerned, to tell the truth.
(Not to mention that paying journalists to be nice to us is also better than killing them, which was apparently under consideration as our alternate plan.)
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I can certainly agree with that Mr. Simon.
Wholeheartedly.
I really only found this story interesting because one of my peeves is hypocrisy and in a true democracy, which we're allegedly spending lives and treasure on, we really shouldn't be doing this sort of thing.
And it just seems to indicate to me the poor way this whole adventure has been thought through.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Are you sure Pres. Bush isn't really Osama in disguise? or Saddam? Or Jong Il? or Adolf Hitlers clone?
Propaganda's always been a huge part of warfare. Making the good guys seem good and the bad guys seem bad. Rally the masses to your cause and whatnot. I'm not at all surprised to hear about this.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A lot of bad things are better than other bad things. Doesn't make them good enough to ignore.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote:Zaki said that if his cash-strapped paper had known that these stories were from the U.S. government, he would have "charged much, much more" to publish them.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
If you can't build a nation, build an image of one.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
I find it hilarious that the LA Times is being critical of someone else not doing unbiased stories. Hipocracy at its best....
B.J.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by Da_bang80: Are you sure Pres. Bush isn't really Osama in disguise? or Saddam? Or Jong Il? or Adolf Hitlers clone?
Propaganda's always been a huge part of warfare. Making the good guys seem good and the bad guys seem bad. Rally the masses to your cause and whatnot. I'm not at all surprised to hear about this.
Of course he's not.
Just because he a terrible president doesn't necessarily mean he's a terrible human being. I don't think of him as terrible human being. I think of him as just a man with a misplaced sense of mission, who has good interpersonal skills but lacks the wherewithal to facilitate the office he currently holds.
I find many of his decisions problematic. In part because Mr. Bush seems to seems to have walled himself off from dissent.
In essence becoming the President-In-A-Bubble.
This comes from a Seymour M. Hersh article in the New Yorker
quote:----
Current and former military and intelligence officials have told me that the President remains convinced that it is his personal mission to bring democracy to Iraq, and that he is impervious to political pressure, even from fellow Republicans. They also say that he disparages any information that conflicts with his view of how the war is proceeding.
----
The former senior official said that after the election he made a lengthy inspection visit to Iraq and reported his findings to Bush in the White House: "I said to the President, 'We're not winning the war.' And he asked, 'Are we losing?' I said, 'Not yet.' " The President, he said, "appeared displeased" with that answer.
"I tried to tell him," the former senior official said. "And he couldn't hear it."
And Dan Froomkin, a columnist at the Washington Post ask what seem to me to be a series of good questions.
quote:What does it say about the president of the United States that he won't go anywhere near ordinary citizens any more? And that he'll only speak to captive audiences?
President Bush's safety zone these days doesn't appear to extend very far beyond military bases, other federal installations and Republican fundraisers.
Tomorrow, Bush gives a speech on the war on terror -- at the United States Naval Academy. Then he attends a reception for Republican party donors.
Today, he visits a U.S. Border Patrol office, then attends a Republican fundraising lunch.
Yesterday, he spoke at an Air Force base and a Republican fundraiser.
Before leaving the country on his recent trip to Asia, Bush made one last speech -- at an Air Force base in Alaska. A few days before that, he spoke at an Army depot in Pennsylvania. When he delivered a speech on Nov. 1 about bird flu, it was to an audience of National Institutes of Health employees.
The best chance ordinary citizens have had in ages to be anywhere near the president comes Thursday at 5 p.m., when the Bushes participate in the Pageant of Peace tree lighting ceremony on the Ellipse. But it won't exactly be a policy speech -- and anyway, tickets to that event were distributed three weeks ago.
I guess where I'm going with this line of reason is that my disappointment that there seems so little real debate on a national level about the direction of the United States wants to go in or about the direction the current adventure in Iraq is taking us or whether it's the right thing to do in the first place.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: I find it hilarious that the LA Times is being critical of someone else not doing unbiased stories. Hipocracy at its best....
B.J.
Do elaborate on what you mean.
Posted by B.J. (Member # 858) on :
Oh, come on. The LA Times is one of the most biased papers out there. Just because they usually agree with *your* world view doesn't mean they're being objective.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Well, I guess I'll start calling him Bubble-Bush then. Does anyone else wonder sometimes about whether or not he's to create some law keeping him in power indefinately? Something about how he's not going to leave office until his middle-east agenda is complete. Bubble-Bush might just be a real life Emperor Palpatine. And let's not forget Darth Cheney. But that's just speculation.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
It was actually a pretty good speech. At least the part I saw on MSNBC.
[ December 01, 2005, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
quote:Originally posted by B.J.: Oh, come on. The LA Times is one of the most biased papers out there. Just because they usually agree with *your* world view doesn't mean they're being objective.
I don't actually read the Times. Although I did work there for a period.
I would however, love to debate examples rather than the 'come on you know what it's like' critique.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Just because they usually agree with *your* world view doesn't mean they're being objective."
Like FOX News.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I thought I might start calling Fox the 'Administration Mouthpiece Channel.'
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Are they getting paid for their propaganda? I suspect that had Zaki asked for more, if he found out how much he could be making, he'd be right pissed. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that the groundwork is being laid for something similar over there.
I honestly think I'd be less disturbed by Bush the younger's behavior if I felt like he was even remotely considering opposing viewpoints. Even if he rejected them afterwards and adopted the same bullheaded policies he has throughout this administration. I don't read a lot of non-fiction, but after seeing Richard Clark speak, I got his book. And it scared the poop out of me.
It's chilling to think that the same managerial attitude/bullshit I was dealing with when I was working as a janitor in high-school, the same indifference to the opinions of anyone who disagrees has made it to the highest office in the nation. It's one thing to disregard the voice of a precocious teen janitor, but it seems incredibly irresponsible to not listen to dissenting ideas when those ideas are coming from lettered experts with years of experience. I was appalled when Colin Powell 'left'. Not that he was half the pain-in-the-ass the administration needed, but he did represent some modicum of debate.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
NPR has interviewed several newspapers that knew full well that the stories were propaganda- it was no big shock and they needed the money. It's not like the insurgents are buying ad space to keep them in business. Besides, these were "fluff" pieces that praised local Iraqi cooperation more than pointing fingers at any one person.
Not that it's right. In fact, it's illeagal for the military to plant such stories in US papers- or even in US protectorates.
What's funny is that just two days before this story broke, Rumsfeld pointed to Iraq's press and an example of what a a free press should be. Makes me wonder how many "stay the course" stories from soldiers overseas are total bullshit. Does anyone attempt to verify those?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"What's funny is that just two days before this story broke, Rumsfeld pointed to Iraq's press and an example of what a a free press should be."
So, basically, he was being far more honest about his opinion than anyone suspected...
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
By Josh White and Bradley Graham Washington Post Staff Writers Saturday, December 3, 2005; A01
The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter insurgents' misinformation.
In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, "customary in Iraq," to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested that the "information operations" program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts.
"Serious allegations have been raised that suggest the process may be functioning in a manner different than is intended or appropriate," the statement said. Commanders are "reviewing these allegations and will investigate any improprieties," it said.
The statement from Baghdad was the first official effort to explain the media initiative after three days of news reports describing efforts by the U.S. military to plant stories in Iraqi media under the guise of independent journalism.
The episode has sparked an intense debate at the Pentagon and beyond, as military officials in Washington said privately that they are troubled by the situation and media experts said the program violated standard journalistic practices.
The controversy has also fanned a debate that has been underway for months in military circles about the role that information operations should be playing in nontraditional conflicts such as the Iraq situation. The term covers a wide range of activities -- some open, some not -- intent on undermining an enemy by fooling, confusing or refuting him.
"The broader debate is whether it's acceptable for the IO community to be doing this," said a general who has served in Iraq and has some experience in information operations.
After a briefing from Pentagon officials yesterday, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he remains "gravely concerned about the situation." He said the Pentagon is looking into cases in which there may have been "an omission" of labels in newspapers indicating where the material came from or that it was an advertisement.
In describing the program, military officials said third parties -- including the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- were sometimes hired to distribute the articles to newspapers to protect publishers that might have been targeted by insurgents if they were known to accept material from the military.
Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln Group intentionally misled newspapers by presenting the articles as freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S. armed forces.
----
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
So, given that the military admits to doing this, I guess that wipes out any �gee it was reported by the Times and we all know how biased they are� counter argument.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
It appears so, yes.
I am almost willing to be that the military finds nothing wrong, with the military, now, those pesky civilian contractors.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter insurgents' misinformation.
Jusr swap "insurgents" with "democrats" and you'll see why this is soo dangerous right here at home. It's such a small step after all....
quote:The episode has sparked an intense debate at the Pentagon and beyond, as military officials in Washington said privately that they are troubled by the situation and media experts said the program violated standard journalistic practices.
"Troubled" they got caught. What is this now? Five or six scandals all at once with this administration? More?
-Scooter Libby's indictment over purjury in the Plame scandal. -Delay's alleged kickbacks/bribery. -Randy "Duke" Cunningham resigning over admitting bribery. -Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio investigated for congressional bribery. -The FCC discriminating against non-replublicans when selecting a new PBS chairman. - The use of White Phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq. - and now the whole "pay for planted stories in a foeign media" bit.
I'm sure I've mossed a few though- Jay?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: - The use of White Phosphorus chemical weapons in Iraq.
This is an odd one for me, we fired WP rounds to create screens, or walls of smoke, to obsecure movements from the enemy. This is standard practice, and WP rounds are sometimes mixed in with high explosive rounds so that after the enemy is bombed it takes a bit longer to get re-organized and prepare for the following attack. WP rounds are fired in this country, at any military live fire installation. I have fired hundreds of this type of round both in Germany and here in the US.
If this is the case of the military being 'caught' using chemical weapons then you had better count any illumination rounds also, for they give off gases that could kill a person.
I would have to say the this particular one is media BS.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The issue is not WP rounds- it's the WP mortars fired blindly into civillian areas- something the Pentagon at first denied, then would not comment on, then said they were investigating and finally, that they "employed strategicaly".
That's a biiig step above smokescreens and tracers.
Who knows? Mabye no civillians were you know, incinerated by a mortar that missed it's insurgent target -they were fired mostly at night so it's posible in a "win the lotto" kind of way- but I think we'll hear about it (quietly) in a few years after the occupation is over and the locals tell their stories.
For the record, I had hoped it was just "media BS" too....
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:However, he "never saw anybody intentionally use any weapon against civilians", he said.
which is a far cry from saying there are no reports of it being used on civilians- even by mistake.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Allow me to provide you editorial cartoon assistance regarding the scandals.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
Some Melville reference. Maybe a white minnow named Sadaam on the end of a toothpick.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Well, Mr. Bush had to chase his White Whale.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Dick Cheney?
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
Saddam Hussein.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It was a jab at Cheney's pale complexion and rotund body....though I could say as much for Karl Rove, I suppose.
What's with Republicans anyway? A party of middle-aged, fat, rich white bastards.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
They're the best of what's left.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Jason, that is what I fired in the army, mortars, 11C is the MOS, 4.2in/107mm and 81mm.
WP isn't like napalm, but it does burn in to the skin and not go out, till you smother it anyway. Something like desert sand would work nicely....
I am not defending the danger close firing in to civilian areas, but firing them at night, moonlite nights, still helps with obsurement. The part that would cause the problem is the adjustment of the rounds, to get them on target, by means of bracketing. It is very rare that you get a first round on target, so even if the actual target is not particularly close to civilian areas rounds can get in to them.
Mortars are very accurate, after you have them aimed, but getting them aimed can be a bitch for a newly trained FO, Forward Observer, or a barely trained person. Some MPs received basic FO training when I was serving. This, compounded with the nearness of civilians, should have had the commanding officer a bit reluctant to use these weapons. Mk19 grenade lauchers, and regular hand grenades, can be employed to do the same thing, with both WP and CS as options.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...and now the whole 'pay for planted stories in a foeign media' bit."
Take out the word "foreign", of course, and this is nothing new. Armstrong Williams, anyone?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
An intresting article on Williams here. Just shows that this kind of crap is status quo for the Republicans (though it would not suprise me to learn elements in both parties are doing this).
Ritten, thanks for the info- I did not know they were that common in the US arsensal (the mortars). I still have to wonder why the Pentagon was so adamant about them not being used, unitll faced with evidence to the contrary.
No matter how "accurate" the mortars are though, I dont think firing them (at night!) into a civillian population center is at all justified.
-It's not like the people there would know what set them/ their house on fire in any case- "smothering" the flames wont work in a big fire and the local fire departments are hardly up to spec.
