Is paying for positive news stories in Iraq a good idea?

[ChumpDumper]

(long article)

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.

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....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-infowar30nov30,0,5638790.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[exstatic]

So much for "free" press. :lol

[Oh, Gee!!]

Happens here as well.

[boutons]

They military is just following the lead of the dubya-in-chief whose fake "news videos" that were used by TV stations as if they were real news instead of partisan propaganda were condemned by the GAO as illegal use of taxpayers funds.

Everything the Repubs touch turns to shit, above all the truth.

=================================

The New York Times

December 1, 2005

The Media

U.S. Is Said to Pay to Plant Articles in Iraq Papers
By JEFF GERTH and SCOTT SHANE

WASHINGTON, Nov. 30 - Titled "The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq," an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders' pessimism about the country's future.

"Western press and frequently those self-styled 'objective' observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation," the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.

But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.

The article was one of several in a storyboard, the military's term for a list of articles, that was delivered Tuesday to the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations firm paid by the Pentagon, documents from the Pentagon show. The contractor's job is to translate the articles into Arabic and submit them to Iraqi newspapers or advertising agencies without revealing the Pentagon's role. Documents show that the intended target of the article on a democratic Iraq was Azzaman, a leading independent newspaper, but it is not known whether it was published there or anywhere else.

Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.

In addition to paying newspapers to print government propaganda, Lincoln has paid about a dozen Iraqi journalists each several hundred dollars a month, a person who had been told of the transactions said. Those journalists were chosen because their past coverage had not been antagonistic to the United States, said the person, who is being granted anonymity because of fears for the safety of those involved. In addition, the military storyboards have in some cases copied verbatim text from copyrighted publications and passed it on to be printed in the Iraqi press without attribution, documents and interviews indicated.

In many cases, the material prepared by the military was given to advertising agencies for placement, and at least some of the material ran with an advertising label. But the American authorship and financing were not revealed.

Military spokesmen in Washington and Baghdad said Wednesday that they had no information on the contract. In an interview from Baghdad on Nov. 18, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, a military spokesman, said the Pentagon's contract with the Lincoln Group was an attempt to "try to get stories out to publications that normally don't have access to those kind of stories." The military's top commanders, including Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, did not know about the Lincoln Group contract until Wednesday, when it was first described by The Los Angeles Times, said a senior military official who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Pentagon officials said General Pace and other top officials were disturbed by the reported details of the propaganda campaign and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq, the official said.

When asked about the article Wednesday night on the ABC News program "Nightline," General Pace said, "I would be concerned about anything that would be detrimental to the proper growth of democracy."

Others seemed to share the sentiment. "I think it's absolutely wrong for the government to do this," said Patrick Butler, vice president of the International Center for Journalists in Washington, which conducts ethics training for journalists from countries without a history of independent news media. "Ethically, it's indefensible."

Mr. Butler, who spoke from a conference in Wisconsin with Arab journalists, said the American government paid for many programs that taught foreign journalists not to accept payments from interested parties to write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as news.

"You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility," he said.

The Government Accountability Office found this year that the Bush administration had violated the law by producing pseudo news reports that were later used on American television stations with no indication that they had been prepared by the government. But no law prohibits the use of such covert propaganda abroad.

The Lincoln contract with the American-led coalition forces in Iraq has rankled some military and civilian officials and contractors. Some of them described the program to The New York Times in recent months and provided examples of the military's storyboards.

The Lincoln Group, whose principals include some businessmen and former military officials, was hired last year after military officials concluded that the United States was failing to win over Muslim public opinion. In Iraq, the effort is seen by some American military commanders as a crucial step toward defeating the Sunni-led insurgency.

Citing a "fundamental problem of credibility" and foreign opposition to American policies, a Pentagon advisory panel last year called for the government to reinvent and expand its information programs.

"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."

The Pentagon's first public relations contract with Lincoln was awarded in 2004 for about $5 million with the stated purpose of accurately informing the Iraqi people of American goals and gaining their support. But while meant to provide reliable information, the effort was also intended to use deceptive techniques, like payments to sympathetic "temporary spokespersons" who would not necessarily be identified as working for the coalition, according to a contract document and a military official.

In addition, the document called for the development of "alternate or diverting messages which divert media and public attention" to "deal instantly with the bad news of the day."

Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said the terms of the contract did not permit her to discuss it and referred a reporter to the Pentagon. But others defended the practice.

"I'm not surprised this goes on," said Michael Rubin, who worked in Iraq for the Coalition Provisional Authority in 2003 and 2004. "Informational operations are a part of any military campaign," he added. "Especially in an atmosphere where terrorists and insurgents - replete with oil boom cash - do the same. We need an even playing field, but cannot fight with both hands tied behind our backs."

Two dozen recent storyboards prepared by the military for Lincoln and reviewed by The New York Times had a variety of good-news themes addressing the economy, security, the insurgency and Iraq's political future. Some were written to resemble news articles. Others took the form of opinion pieces or public service announcements.

One article about Iraq's oil industry opened with three paragraphs taken verbatim, and without attribution, from a recent report in Al Hayat, a London-based Arabic newspaper. But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.

The editor of Al Sabah, a major Iraqi newspaper that has been the target of many of the military's articles, said Wednesday in an interview that he had no idea that the American military was supplying such material and did not know if his newspaper had printed any of it, whether labeled as advertising or not.

The editor, Muhammad Abdul Jabbar, 57, said Al Sabah, which he said received financial support from the Iraqi government but was editorially independent, accepted advertisements from virtually any source if they were not inflammatory. He said any such material would be labeled as advertising but would not necessarily identify the sponsor. Sometimes, he said, the paper got the text from an advertising agency and did not know its origins.

Asked what he thought of the Pentagon program's effectiveness in influencing Iraqi public opinion, Mr. Jabbar said, "I would spend the money a better way."

The Lincoln Group, which was incorporated in 2004, has won another government information contract. Last June, the Special Operations Command in Tampa awarded Lincoln and two other companies a multimillion-dollar contract to support psychological operations. The planned products, contract documents show, include three- to five- minute news programs.

Asked whether the information and news products would identify the American sponsorship, a media relations officer with the special operations command replied, in an e-mail message last summer, that "the product may or may not carry 'made in the U.S.' signature" but they would be identified as American in origin, "if asked."

Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington for this article, and Kirk Semple and Edward Wong from Baghdad.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Dos]

propaganda during a war... say it ain't so....... sheesh

[101A]

Things happen in war...rights are infringed upon, sacrifices are made, that would not be appropriate in peace-time.

Rationing, censorship, internment camps, propaganda campaigns, on our own citizens, within our own shores, have all been tactics our govt. has used in past wars in order to help win those wars.

We may all want to believe that wars can be won without such tactics, but we would probably be wrong. The hearts and minds of the Iraqi people are the ultimate prize in this battle, after all.

Now, however, since the story is "out", that the US has been running a propaganda campaign posing as home-grown, Iraqi news & op-ed pieces, will probably make it much worse than if it never happened.

I have now seen this story on last nights news, in the paper this morning, on the morning shows, and all over the internet. The administration has committed a cardinal sin, this time. Infringing on the press is the WORST thing you can do in the minds of the press.

I mean, our press would never allow such propoganda, self-serving crap to be reported in this country....cough cough, Dan...Rather...cough cough.

[Spurminator]

I guess it's a question of whether the ends justify the means. I don't necessarily like the practice, but I also don't think a counterpoint to all of the anti-American news (some funded by terrorist organizations) is necessarily a bad thing... It's not like the soldiers are telling outright lies.

Worst part about the whole thing was the getting caught. Fighting fire with fire usually involves playing with fire, which can get you burned (how's that for a cliche combo?)

[SpursWoman]

(how's that for a cliche combo?)


Simply stunning. :tu :lol

[spurster]

Fighting fire with fire usually involves playing with fire, which can get you burned (how's that for a cliche combo?)
That's why they were caught red-handed.

[ChumpDumper]

Now, however, since the story is "out", that the US has been running a propaganda campaign posing as home-grown, Iraqi news & op-ed pieces, will probably make it much worse than if it never happened.
Worst part about the whole thing was the getting caught.Well, it's kind of an inevitable consequence of a free press, which is what we say we are trying to establish there. That's why I asked if it was a good idea in the first place.

[2centsworth]

Well, it's kind of an inevitable consequence of a free press, which is what we say we are trying to establish there. That's why I asked if it was a good idea in the first place.
I don't want it to be slanted, but I don't mind them paying to get truthful good news out.

[Nbadan]

Great article on this topic from Editor and Publisher: (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001612773)


So Who is Behind Planting Stories in Iraqi Press?

NEW YORK So what, exactly, is this Lincoln Group that helped plant pro-American propaganda in the Iraqi press, a phenomenon that has made front-page news this week and has now been denounced by everyone from top military leaders to journalism ethicists? And what about its sub-contractor, BKSH & Associates?

The story starts with the Washington D.C.-based Lincoln Alliance Corporation, a "business intelligence company” that also handles services related to commercial real estate in Iraq. It set up an offshoot called Iraqex last year, but its name was later changed to Lincoln Group.

It now has four offices, including ones in Baghdad and Basra, and it develops video, podcasts, and print publications, purchases TV and radio time, and has a three-year contract to oversee public affairs and advertising for the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I), all aimed at backing the U.S. effort there.

...

O'Dwyer's, a leading trade publication in the public relations field, reported in July that BKSH & Associates, one part of the giant communications company, Burson-Marsteller's, had been hired by The Lincoln Group, "one of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon in Iraq and other hot spots. BKSH has experience on the Iraqi front earned from work for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Col. James Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, said TLG was selected to develop 'cutting-edge types of media,' including radio/TV ads, documentaries, text messages, Internet spots and podcasts for the U.S. military."

[2centsworth]

Dan don't you have opinions of your own? You still post other peoples propaganda and push them off as your own thoughts.

[mookie2001]

weak 2cents

[2centsworth]

weak 2cents
I've been telling Dan that for almost 2 years. The guy is obviously smart and a good writer, so I don't see why he doesn't speak for himself.

[ChumpDumper]

It just seems duplicitous to hold workshops about how a free press should operate with one hand and hand out $1200 per story bribes to plant favorable articles in this alleged fledgling free press with the other.

[2centsworth]

It just seems duplicitous to hold workshops about how a free press should operate with one hand and hand out $1200 per story bribes to plant favorable articles in this alleged fledgling free press with the other.
Our democracy took 200 years to get to this point. Iraq has only been at it 2 years. As long as the facts of the stories are not twisted I have no problem. What should the US do, let the enemy win the propaganda war?

[101A]

I've been telling Dan that for almost 2 years. The guy is obviously smart and a good writer, so I don't see why he doesn't speak for himself.

NBADAN is actually an acronym:

NBA is the make =

New-age
Blogging
Automation, Inc.

DAN is the model =

Dedicated
Automatic
Naysayer

I thought everybody knew this. "He"'s essentially a search engine, scouring & studying a site, determining if one side has an unfair advantage (in this case the more conservative posters generally dominate the threads; I mean with Boutons leading the charge from the left how couldn't they), and then it takes up the cause of the underdog - posting articles and other relevent (or not so relevent) facts on their behalf to, you know, even the score.

Kori probably pays for the service.

[ChumpDumper]

Since it's been exposed, do you think this will end up being a net positive or negative in the long run?

[boutons]

How valuable, effective is pro-war/pro-US/pro-democracy propaganda to the Iraqi people who live the reality daily?

[101A]

Since it's been exposed, do you think this will end up being a net positive or negative in the long run?

No doubt, negative.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, given that and the fact that exposure was almost inevitable since there were so many middlemen and a decided lack of secrecy, I'll ask the question again -- was it a good idea in the first place?

[101A]

It might have been a good idea in principal, but by definition the way they chose to do it was not a good idea.

[boutons]

I assume the Iraqis aren't so stupid as to believe the politicized "press" if/when it's at total odds with what's before their eyes.

US propaganda into neighboring countries is a different tactic, but the (anti-US) political controls on the press present another set of difficulties.

Since "bringing democracy and freedom to Iraq" is Repub bullshit goal #10, and thereby to all of the (oil-producing) ME what are the attitudes in those countries? Again, polls in those counties are going to be dubious and politicized, but here goes:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002255.html

On the political front, the new strategy document says staying the course in Iraq is the key to the fate of the greater Middle East. If the United States left before the mission was finished, it said, "Middle East reformers would never again fully trust American assurances of support for democracy and pluralism in the region -- a historic opportunity. . . forever lost."

But a new public opinion poll to be released tomorrow finds that 77 percent of those surveyed in six countries -- Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, all U.S. allies -- say Iraqis are worse off than before the war began in 2003.

On democracy, 58 percent believe the U.S. intervention has produced less democracy in the region, said Shibley Telhami, author of the annual survey, a joint effort by the University of Maryland's Anwar Sadat chair for peace and development, and Zogby International. Almost 70 percent said they do not believe democracy was the real U.S. goal in toppling Saddam Hussein.

"So the consequences of the war are all negative from their point of view," Telhami said.

[101A]

Which is why we have to stay the course and prove that democracy in Iraq was, in fact, our intended goal; not just the overthrow of Saddam.

Then, assuming we're fans of democracy here, life WILL be better in Iraq, regardless of what people in Morocoo might think about it.

[Spurminator]

I think it would have been better to not try to disguise it as the free press.


"So the consequences of the war are all negative from their point of view," Telhami said.

Yeah no shit. I don't think the current situation was (or is) the ultimate goal. That's why they have to finish the job.

[Mr. Peabody]

Hell, Iraq is becoming more and more like the U.S. everyday....

[Nbadan]

I've been telling Dan that for almost 2 years. The guy is obviously smart and a good writer, so I don't see why he doesn't speak for himself.

I don't think my opinions go wanting in this forum. Just Google my avatar name. Besides, why reinvent the wheel? Many of the issues we talk about here are national issues.

[Nbadan]

Which is why we have to stay the course and prove that democracy in Iraq was, in fact, our intended goal; not just the overthrow of Saddam.

Then, assuming we're fans of democracy here, life WILL be better in Iraq, regardless of what people in Morocoo might think about it.

I thought we had given up the democracy charade in Iraq when they settled on a Islamic Republic-esque Constitution?

[101A]

I'm sorry, when did the definition of "democracy" become so limited?

[Nbadan]

I'm sorry, when did the definition of "democracy" become so limited?

When it looked like Allawi was gonna lose, obviously.

[gtownspur]

^Democracy just means rule by the people. It doesn't mean rule by equality, or rule by the nice liberal tart fary.

You should know this as someone who hates Democracy when it serves Conservative purposes all while admiring leftist Marxist governments.