« New Orleans will have free muni wi-fi | Main | Real VT: the Vermont brand »
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
U.S. pays for positive coverage in Iraqi media
This just depresses the hell out of me. The L.A. Times has this story today about how the U.S. goverment is covertly funding efforts to place pro-U.S. stories, written by U.S. troops, in Iraqi newspapers. Um, if you can't convince reporters to write positive stories about the war, maybe that's because the stories aren't actually all that positive.
Money quote:
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq.
Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're
breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it,"
said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting
stories in the Iraqi media."
I know people have this common complaint about the media, that reporters have an agenda, that they only focus on the negative, that they're biased toward one point of view. While I won't try to argue that reporters are all unbiased, I will argue that my job, as a reporter, is to report the truth as I see it. My loyalty is not to the government, or any insitution, but to the truth of a situation. And often that truth is at odds with the way the official spokespeople want to spin it.
It should be disturbing to any citizen to find out that a government, or a corporation, or a special interest has hijacked the media. I mean, it's one thing if the media outlet in question wears that bias on their sleeves. If these papers ran stories from American soldiers and properly identified them as such, that would be different. But that's not what's happening. The government is disguising stories as independent journalism. That's just wrong.
Of course, it's not much different from what the government has been doing right here at home. Ugh. No wonder trust in the media is so low.
November 30, 2005 at 09:32 AM in Media/Keeping an eye on the competition | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b91969e200d834635bce53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference U.S. pays for positive coverage in Iraqi media:
Comments
Um, I think the real concern is if they are paying to have false stories planted in the press.
What's the problem with true stories?
Posted by: CoolBlue | Nov 30, 2005 10:31:18 AM
Coolblue, are you serious? What's the problem with the government paying the press to run (true) pro-government pieces? No problem as long as it's clear that the pieces are advertisements, which is what they are. If the pieces are run as news stories and the government paid for them, then the press loses all usefulness and is merely a shill for the government. This idea is fundamental to democracy. Maybe I misunderstood your question.
Posted by: Bill Simmon | Nov 30, 2005 4:04:48 PM
It's easily possible to lie by telling the truth. You can just tell the papers that instead of the latest scandal, they should print an article about how the Wonderful Leader just presided over the opening of a new bridge.
I think it's time we started really striking at the root of the problem: Representative government is not good enough. It does get closer to being democratic as people have more accurate information and more choices in elections, but it never really gets very close at all. There is still a great degree to which the public can be misled. We need to start thinking about how to make governments that are truly accountable and transparent.
<3
Posted by: mungojelly | Nov 30, 2005 10:22:34 PM
From the LATimes picece:
"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."
First, I must point out that this is not a government controlled media as it is, say, in Syria, Iran, or Egypt. What that means is that the US point of view is not the only one out there.
Certainly the US view is competing at the very least with al Qaida propaganda, most of which is untrue.
Secondly, I would argue that the US military is working with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to combat the terrorist in the sphere of public perception as well as on the battlefield.
To the extent that ordinary Iraqis have faith in their government, faith in US intentions, and most importantly faith that the Terrorists are not on their side, is precisely the extent to which ordinary Iraqis will be willing to give intelligence against the murderers and thugs looking to defeat self-sustaining democratic institutions in Iraq.
To me, that's a good thing.
I would also point out that during World War II, the US government paid Hollywood to create blatently patriotic propaganda.
For reference:
prop·a·gan·da (prŏp'ə-găn'də)
n.
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Dec 1, 2005 11:12:14 AM
mungojelly wrote: "I think it's time we started really striking at the root of the problem: Representative government is not good enough. It does get closer to being democratic as people have more accurate information and more choices in elections, but it never really gets very close at all. There is still a great degree to which the public can be misled. We need to start thinking about how to make governments that are truly accountable and transparent."
What does this mean?
Posted by: CoolBlue | Dec 1, 2005 11:14:16 AM
I'll just lob a couple grenades into the debate for fun, and mayhaps will come by with something more substantive later.
First, our military leadership ain't all that happy with the development:
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." ...
And now, the words of a propaganda expert:
The function of propaganda does not lie in the scientific training of the individual, but in calling the masses' attention to certain facts, processes, necessities, etc., whose significance is thus for the first time placed within their field of vision.The whole art consists in doing this so skillfully that everyone will be convinced that the fact is real, the process necessary, the necessity correct, etc. But since propaganda is not and cannot be the necessity in itself, since its function, like the poster, consists in attracting the attention of the crowd, and not in educating those who are already educated or who are striving after education and knowledge, its effect for the most part must be aimed at the emotions and only to a very limited degree at the so-called intellect.
All propaganda must be popular and its intellectual level must be adjusted to the most limited intelligence among those it is addressed to. Consequently, the greater the mass it is intended to reach, the lower its purely intellectual level will have to be. But if, as in propaganda for sticking out a war, the aim is to influence a whole people, we must avoid excessive intellectual demands on our public, and too much caution cannot be exerted in this direction.
The more modest its intellectual ballast, the more exclusively it takes into consideration the emotions of the masses, the more effective it will be. And this is the best proof of the soundness or unsoundness of a propaganda campaign, and not success in pleasing a few scholars or young aesthetes.
The art of propaganda lies in understanding the emotional ideas of the great masses and finding, through a psychologically correct form, the way to the attention and thence to the heart of the broad masses. The fact that our bright boys do not understand this merely shows how mentally lazy and conceited they are.
Once we understand how necessary it is for propaganda to be adjusted to the broad mass, the following rule results: It is a mistake to make propaganda many-sided, like scientific instruction, for instance.
The receptivity of the great masses is very limited, their intelligence is small, but their power of forgetting is enormous. In consequence of these facts, all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in sloans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan. As soon as you sacrifice this slogan and try to be many-sided, the effect will piddle away, for the crowd can neither digest nor retain the material offered. In this way the result is weakened and in the end entirely cancelled out.
Heh. Indeed.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 1, 2005 5:09:37 PM
What's the problem with true stories?
What is Truth? Is it unchanging law? We both have truths: are mine the same as yours?
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 1, 2005 6:09:11 PM
What is Truth? Is it unchanging law? We both have truths: are mine the same as yours?
Um, are you arguing that everything is true? Are you arguing that there are no lies?
Are you saying that I shouldn't worry about if what is written in a newspaper is true or not because it's "true" to someone?
I don't believe this is a practical philosophy.
But my main point is that what the LA Times is reporting is not, to my mind, an abuse of public trust. On the other hand, this is.
Posted by: CoolBlue | Dec 2, 2005 10:07:20 AM
I think it *is* an abuse of public trust. I think it's sneaky and underhanded. I think it reflects poorly on the American government, mainly because the message it sends is that the only way we can get positive news coverage is by paying for it.
Ultimately, I doubt that it helps achieve its desired end, which is to help us secure peace in Iraq.
But I expect we'll have to agree to disagree.
Posted by: cresmer | Dec 2, 2005 2:24:37 PM
Um, are you arguing that everything is true? Are you arguing that there are no lies?
No, I'm quoting Pontius Pilate from Jesus Christ Superstar.
Posted by: NTodd | Dec 2, 2005 4:53:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.