The media would have you think so.
http://www.keepmedia.com/pubs/KansasCit ... &oliID=229
The original story can be found at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... _n15359054
So You Think We Are Alone In This?
Moderator: Super Moderators
Thanks for posting this.
Posts like this do not fall on deaf ears.
There are many lurkers who aren't from the vile moonbat left that appreciate these posts.
Posts like this do not fall on deaf ears.
There are many lurkers who aren't from the vile moonbat left that appreciate these posts.
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
- Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
Then of course you have the US admitting to "planting" and paying for bogus "Good News" in Iraq.
The Bad News Is the Good News Is Fake
NEW YORK, Dec 5 (IPS) - U.S. Congressional leaders who have been touting Iraq's new "free press" as a sign of progress in the troubled country are upset at the Pentagon's admission last week that it has been paying for "good news" stories written by the military and placed in Iraqi media by a Washington-based public relations firm.
In a briefing for the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, the military acknowledged that news articles written by U.S. troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media, and not always properly identified.
Warner told reporters after receiving a briefing from officials at the Pentagon that senior commanders in Iraq were trying to get to the bottom of a programme that apparently also paid monthly stipends to friendly Iraqi journalists.
Warner said there had been no indications yet that the paid propaganda was false. But he said that disclosures that a U.S. company, under contract to the Pentagon, was making secret payments to plant articles with positive messages about the United States military mission could undermine the George W. Bush administration's goals in Iraq and jeopardise Iraq's developing democratic institutions.
"I remain gravely concerned about the situation," he said.
He said he had been told that the articles or advertisements were intended to counter disinformation in the Iraqi news media that was hurting Washington's efforts to stabilise the country.
The story of the Pentagon's latest public relations efforts was revealed last week by the Los Angeles Times newspaper. It said that many of the articles were 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.
The Times reported that while 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. 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 newspaper wrote.
The articles are received from the military and translated into Arabic and then placed with Iraqi media, both print and broadcast, by the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based PR firm under contract to the Pentagon. Lincoln's website boasts of its extensive network of relationships with Iraqi journalists.
The Lincoln Group defended its practices, saying it had been trying to counter insurgent propaganda with accounts of heroism by allied forces. "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq," Laurie Adler, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Administration and Congressional officials have often emphasised the importance the U.S. places on development of a Western-style free media. Last week, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the proliferation of news organisations 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 administration is not alone in pointing to the "free" media as evidence of things going well in Iraq. In a Nov. 10 speech, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona touted Iraq's "truly free press".
But Congressional Democrats said the Lincoln Group's activities were the latest example of questionable public relations practices by the administration. In an earlier case, payments were made to columnists, among them conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who secretly received 240,000 dollars for promoting "No Child Left Behind", the administration's education initiative.
"From Armstrong Williams to fake TV news, we know this White House has tried multiple times to buy the news at home," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said. "Now, we need to find out if they've exported this practice to the Middle East."
Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called on the acting Pentagon inspector general to investigate the Lincoln Group's activities to see if they amounted to an illegal covert operation.
"The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favourable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," Kennedy said. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) recently returned from a trip to Iraq and wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal in which he pointed to Iraq's "independent television stations and newspapers" as evidence of the "remarkable changes" there.
"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it," he said.
In coordination with Bush's speech last week at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, the administration published a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Among its claims: "A professional and informative Iraqi news media has taken rootàMore than 100 newspapers freely discuss political events every day in Iraq."
A military spokesman in Iraq said contractors like the Lincoln Group had been used to market the articles to reduce the risk to Iraqi publishers, who might be attacked if they were seen as being closely linked to the military.
Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said Gen. Vines and his staff in Iraq insisted that their activities with Lincoln had been "in accordance with all policies and guidelines".
But Martin Kaplan, associate dean at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and director of its Norman Lear Center, told IPS, "Anyone who recalls the good-news propaganda than ran in the state-run communist press even as the Soviet Union was collapsing will find what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq creepy."
"It sends a deeply troubling message about what they think democracy is. But given their demonisation of dissent in the United States, it sadly comes as no surprise."
And National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said on Sunday that if the payola allegations are found to be true, it was bad policy and should be discontinued.
Iraqi journalists and their representative organisations have also objected to the practice.
This is not the first time the Pentagon's PR efforts have come under scrutiny. In 2004, the agency found itself engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.
The issue was whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official programme that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. One of the problems with such programmes is that in a world wired by satellite television and the internet, U.S. news outlets could easily repeat misleading information.
Earlier, Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31302
The Bad News Is the Good News Is Fake
NEW YORK, Dec 5 (IPS) - U.S. Congressional leaders who have been touting Iraq's new "free press" as a sign of progress in the troubled country are upset at the Pentagon's admission last week that it has been paying for "good news" stories written by the military and placed in Iraqi media by a Washington-based public relations firm.
In a briefing for the powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Republican John Warner of Virginia, the military acknowledged that news articles written by U.S. troops had been placed as paid advertisements in the Iraqi news media, and not always properly identified.
Warner told reporters after receiving a briefing from officials at the Pentagon that senior commanders in Iraq were trying to get to the bottom of a programme that apparently also paid monthly stipends to friendly Iraqi journalists.
Warner said there had been no indications yet that the paid propaganda was false. But he said that disclosures that a U.S. company, under contract to the Pentagon, was making secret payments to plant articles with positive messages about the United States military mission could undermine the George W. Bush administration's goals in Iraq and jeopardise Iraq's developing democratic institutions.
"I remain gravely concerned about the situation," he said.
He said he had been told that the articles or advertisements were intended to counter disinformation in the Iraqi news media that was hurting Washington's efforts to stabilise the country.
The story of the Pentagon's latest public relations efforts was revealed last week by the Los Angeles Times newspaper. It said that many of the articles were 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.
The Times reported that while 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. 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 newspaper wrote.
The articles are received from the military and translated into Arabic and then placed with Iraqi media, both print and broadcast, by the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based PR firm under contract to the Pentagon. Lincoln's website boasts of its extensive network of relationships with Iraqi journalists.
The Lincoln Group defended its practices, saying it had been trying to counter insurgent propaganda with accounts of heroism by allied forces. "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq," Laurie Adler, a company spokeswoman, said in a statement.
Administration and Congressional officials have often emphasised the importance the U.S. places on development of a Western-style free media. Last week, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the proliferation of news organisations 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 administration is not alone in pointing to the "free" media as evidence of things going well in Iraq. In a Nov. 10 speech, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona touted Iraq's "truly free press".
But Congressional Democrats said the Lincoln Group's activities were the latest example of questionable public relations practices by the administration. In an earlier case, payments were made to columnists, among them conservative commentator Armstrong Williams, who secretly received 240,000 dollars for promoting "No Child Left Behind", the administration's education initiative.
"From Armstrong Williams to fake TV news, we know this White House has tried multiple times to buy the news at home," Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said. "Now, we need to find out if they've exported this practice to the Middle East."
Senator Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called on the acting Pentagon inspector general to investigate the Lincoln Group's activities to see if they amounted to an illegal covert operation.
"The Pentagon's devious scheme to place favourable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers speaks volumes about the president's credibility gap," Kennedy said. "If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn't have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) recently returned from a trip to Iraq and wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal in which he pointed to Iraq's "independent television stations and newspapers" as evidence of the "remarkable changes" there.
"I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it," he said.
In coordination with Bush's speech last week at the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland, the administration published a "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq". Among its claims: "A professional and informative Iraqi news media has taken rootàMore than 100 newspapers freely discuss political events every day in Iraq."
A military spokesman in Iraq said contractors like the Lincoln Group had been used to market the articles to reduce the risk to Iraqi publishers, who might be attacked if they were seen as being closely linked to the military.
Larry Di Rita, the chief Pentagon spokesman, said Gen. Vines and his staff in Iraq insisted that their activities with Lincoln had been "in accordance with all policies and guidelines".
But Martin Kaplan, associate dean at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California and director of its Norman Lear Center, told IPS, "Anyone who recalls the good-news propaganda than ran in the state-run communist press even as the Soviet Union was collapsing will find what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq creepy."
"It sends a deeply troubling message about what they think democracy is. But given their demonisation of dissent in the United States, it sadly comes as no surprise."
And National Security Advisor Steven Hadley said on Sunday that if the payola allegations are found to be true, it was bad policy and should be discontinued.
Iraqi journalists and their representative organisations have also objected to the practice.
This is not the first time the Pentagon's PR efforts have come under scrutiny. In 2004, the agency found itself engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad.
The issue was whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official programme that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. One of the problems with such programmes is that in a world wired by satellite television and the internet, U.S. news outlets could easily repeat misleading information.
Earlier, Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon.
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31302
More on this discussion already on the ship
U.S. military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war
U.S. military pays Iraqis for positive news stories on war
Last edited by SETIsLady on 12-07-2005 07:31 AM, edited 1 time in total.
-
Guest
SETIsLady wrote: Then of course you have the US admitting to "planting" and paying for bogus "Good News" in Iraq.
The Bad News Is the Good News Is Fake
Warner said there had been no indications yet that the paid propaganda was false. But he said that disclosures that a U.S. company, under contract to the Pentagon, was making secret payments to plant articles with positive messages about the United States military mission could undermine the George W. Bush administration's goals in Iraq and jeopardise Iraq's developing democratic institutions.
Are you saying SETIs that just because the military paid the media in Irag to post positive stories that they are fake and have no validity?
I would like to see your evidence to that effect.
I read that article when it was first published.
I didn't see anywhere in the article or similar articles anything stating that it was made up news. There are no allegations to that effect either.
So all that article means is that good positive stories were told, very probably since there is no reason to suspect otherwise, true stories that could be tracked down by someone else in the media if they had a mind to.
In fact I am sure that this angle was researched, and that since nothing stating otherwise has occurred, the stories are more than likely true, or at least have a kernel of truth.
But if you have evidence stating otherwise, please post this.
The only alleged evidence of misreporting I can see is an allegation by the Times that the articles being reported were one sided, something that the media in this country does on a daily basis, something no one here seems to be very concerned about.
Don't believe me? Check out the missile story/LAX story elsewhere on this forum.
Now there is media repression at it's very best.
No Shecoda, what I am saying is that because of the lies and deceit that have been coming out of the administration, I don't trust anything coming from. I did not create this mistrust, this Administration did. And since the Military has admitted to the PAID propaganda, this just ads to the mistrust ( this article is the other thread that I pointed you to.)
Not to mention, I have 5 people that I know personally including my step childrens father who have come back from Iraq, with pictures of what is really going on over there. And they don't seem to be singing the same praises that the War supporters are. I will take their word over anything printed as well as anything coming from this administration. Since they were there and I have seen their pictures with my own eyes.
I pointed you to the other thread as this discussion was already going on there and thought you might want to join in.
Not to mention, I have 5 people that I know personally including my step childrens father who have come back from Iraq, with pictures of what is really going on over there. And they don't seem to be singing the same praises that the War supporters are. I will take their word over anything printed as well as anything coming from this administration. Since they were there and I have seen their pictures with my own eyes.
I pointed you to the other thread as this discussion was already going on there and thought you might want to join in.
Last edited by SETIsLady on 12-07-2005 11:36 AM, edited 1 time in total.
-
Cherry Kelly
- Pirate
- Posts: 12852
- Joined: 07-29-2000 02:00 AM
- Contact:
-
Guest
You are right about another thread on the reporting of news, but that isn't really what this thread is about is it?
It is in that our media doesn't seem to be inclined to tell us what is really going on there. And I agree with CK in that I think it very probably depends on where one is stationed as to whether or not one is in the "loop" so to speak.
Someone in an outpost on the edge of a town somewhere might not be aware of what is happening in Fallujah or other places.
They might not be truly aware of the steps that the budding Iraqi government is taking to become self sufficient.
But the media is rarely reporting that either.
The difference here is that you SETIs are talking about the military and what they did to the Iraqi press.
I am discussing our press which ostensibly by it's very nature as the fifth estate, shouldn't be biased one way or the other, or controlled by our government.
As to whether or not there is another thread about the military and the Iraqi media that is for another discussion elsewhere on the forum.
It is in that our media doesn't seem to be inclined to tell us what is really going on there. And I agree with CK in that I think it very probably depends on where one is stationed as to whether or not one is in the "loop" so to speak.
Someone in an outpost on the edge of a town somewhere might not be aware of what is happening in Fallujah or other places.
They might not be truly aware of the steps that the budding Iraqi government is taking to become self sufficient.
But the media is rarely reporting that either.
The difference here is that you SETIs are talking about the military and what they did to the Iraqi press.
I am discussing our press which ostensibly by it's very nature as the fifth estate, shouldn't be biased one way or the other, or controlled by our government.
As to whether or not there is another thread about the military and the Iraqi media that is for another discussion elsewhere on the forum.