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:
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...?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.”
Tags:
Iraq
propaganda
journalism
3 comments:
Sorry Tim. Can't agree on this one. Any time the US military is paying reporters to run stories, regardless of content, it should be out of bounds for us. The damage done to our credibility should be enough of a reason, regardless of the moral implications.
And it should be noted that the content of such stories and the shading is heavily influenced by the people writing the checks. To argue that there would be 100% and no untoward influence is to argue what I think would be a naive position. It also ignores that not everything in a story is factual or verifiable. So you get all the benefit of the gray area subject matter.
-Mssr Martin
Eric,
The topic itself deserves more time than I gave it in my entry - and your response deserves more time and thought than this comment. But I'm on vacation in Europe so I'm afraid it'll have to wait. In the meantime, take a look at exactly what sort of content was being published.
Tim,
Enjoy your vacation. Respond when you have time. No worries. I didn't think you were ignoring me.
But I think you miss the point when you discuss the "content." That is irrelevant. The point is, we are destroying what remains of our credibility, and the nascent credibility of the free Iraqi press when we do things like this. It really is short sighted and counterproductive. How can any Iraqi journalist be trusted again when he or she writes a positive story about the US? People will assume the worst, and we have given them reason to.
Besides, a free press doesn't mean that the government (or occupying force?) should be paying to plant stories - even if 100% accurate. Leaving aside who judges such accuracy and how, the whole point is that the journalists make the editorial decisions - not the govt. or occupying force. Otherwise, it's not really a "free" press - or not the parts so corrupted. Regardless of content.
Post a Comment