THIS is what we call propaganda...?

Look...I understand the concerns regarding 'telling the truth' but we have to look closely at how war is waged in the world we exist in today. A factual story that provides a more favorable view of the Iraqi government and U.S. actions is considered bad? WTF?

I have an idea. Let's take a look (with the help of Bill Roggio at ThreatsWatch.org) at the recent stories regarding an "Uprising in Ramadi" so we can see what propaganda and false reporting REALLY look like:

The reported “mini-Tet offensive” in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate. In fact, it has been anything but. The Associated Press reported a massive citywide insurgent attack, and Reuters and other news outlets quickly picked up on the story.

Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”

So...is it worse to pay Iraqi papers to run stories that present the Iraqi government and American forces in a positive light...or to run stories that are blatantly false based on information provided by an enemy that feels no need to be constrained by the truth...?

Tags:

Iraq
propaganda
journalism