It has come to light that the pentagon has been paying Iraqi publishers to print pro-American stories in the Iraqi media.

The aim of this program is to counter anti-American articles in Iraq.



I certainly agree that the enemy and those sympathetic to their plight have planted misinformation and are probably telling horrible tales of our troops in an effort to rile up the masses.

However, Senator Edward Kennedy takes a different angle



While I do agree that misinformation has occured, I am wondering why the pro-American part of the Iraqi population is so silent, or at least in the minority in this matter. If they were a vocal lot or constituted the majority, a pay for publish program would most certainly not be needed. Vice President Cheney has stated that we would be greeted as liberators. Where are the pro-liberator Iraqis and why is it that they are not taking care of this matter on their own?

Questions for debate:

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?


2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

I note that even the administration is looking at this situation with some concern.



1. I assume there are ways to get the truth out to the Iraqi people without having to bribe people to do it. (I'm going to be nice and assume that the military is not paying to plant false stories.) Although I am quite aware that this sort of thing is normal in wartime, I can't approve of it. Attack enemy propaganda with facts, sure. Publish and broadcast the true story, sure. Slipping somebody some cash to plant your story, no.

2. I tend to think that this is apples and oranges. The credibility of the President and the credibility of military information sources aren't directly related. As McClellan's quote seems to indicate, the President may not have even been aware of this situation.

3. I don't know if this really applies. I tend to think that a lot of people are happy to be without Saddam, but are not particularly happy to have the US there. I'm sure that there are also plenty of Iraqis who would be willing to publish or broadcast information in favor of the US. This just isn't the best way to do it.

[quote=nebraska29,Dec 4 2005, 12:20 AM]
It has come to light that the pentagon has been paying Iraqi publishers to print pro-American stories in the Iraqi media.

The aim of this program is to counter anti-American articles in Iraq.

[quote]“The information battlespace in Iraq is contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people,”[/quote]

I certainly agree that the enemy and those sympathetic to their plight have planted misinformation and are probably telling horrible tales of our troops in an effort to rile up the masses.

However, Senator Edward Kennedy takes a different angle

[quote]Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., characterized the program as a scheme that “speaks volumes about the president’s credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn’t have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people.”[/quote]

While I do agree that misinformation has occured, I am wondering why the pro-American part of the Iraqi population is so silent, or at least in the minority in this matter. If they were a vocal lot or constituted the majority, a pay for publish program would most certainly not be needed. Vice President Cheney has stated that we would be greeted as liberators. Where are the pro-liberator Iraqis and why is it that they are not taking care of this matter on their own?

Questions for debate:

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?[/quote] Yes. Find some "propaganda" that has been forced on a publisher, then there will be a case for a lack of ethics.


[quote]2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate? [/quote] Are his characterizations ever correct?

Okay, snickering aside, first, it says nothing about the President's credibility gap, unless you can find some articles placed by him. More significantly, Kennedy's characterization of "doctoring" the news is, as is so common for him, a product of his booze addled brain. If you want to see doctored news, I suggest you look to CNN's pre-war status in Iraq, to the Jenin "massacre", etc. Doctored news is news that is deliberately factually wrong. Nobody has made any such charges regarding the Iraq information efforts. Oh, one more case of "doctored" news... Rathergate.

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

[/quote] Gee, perhaps its evidence that we're expanding the efforts to "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people." What's really sad is that the reporting in this country is so lopsided that the Iraqi publishers can't just take the stories off the wire services...

Think about that.

(Nebraska 29 debate question)






Judging from this statement, you seem to imply that this story is incorrect. Correct me if my reading of your line is incorrect. If I have read it right, it is interesting to note that the military has admitted to engaging in this practice. Perhaps it's the notion that it is propaganda that you find objectionable? If a person pays another to run a flattering story about the person handing out the money, how is that not propaganda? Is it critical? Does it look at both sides of the issue? I'd argue no-every cause has propaganda, doesn't make us any worse, but we should be honest about it and drop leaflets from planes-not masquerade it around in newspapers under the pretense of bragging about some "free press" in a democratic nation that we are setting up.




Kennedy wasn't speaking in terms of poll numbers or that kind of thing. He was talking about how we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq and that everything is just gem-dandy. Things are soooooooooo good in fact, that we have to pay people to run positive stories about us. There is a disconnect between the two in that if things were truly progressing, we wouldn't be so hard pressed to find a sympathetic ear, let alone someone writing letters on our behalf(without the financial incentive to feel compelled to do so)



The only way this would be a wrong characterization would be if we were not paying for these kinds of stories. Whatever his faults may be, they have nothing to do with our government paying for positive press in a nation that we are setting up as a democratic model for the Middle East. How do our actions look to people in that region? Will they not see the humorous irony in us doing such a thing? Would they be so dumb as to fall for it?



My questions don't concern Jenin, if you want to discuss that, start a thread and I'd love to be a part of it.



I think we should, but shouldn't we desire to do so by appealing to their minds and not their wallets? Are things that bad that we have to bribe people to print positive things about us? Is it not hypocritical that a model democratic nation takes money from another nation to print positive stories about them? Can you have a free-press when yours can't wait to cash the check? That's democracy?

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?


2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?




I'll try to answer all three of these in somewhat of a freeform fashion......

First of all, if one looks up the Websters definition of the word "propaganda", they will find in part the following:



Ideas, facts, or allegations....

I zeroed in on the facts part for a reason. If the US is supplying factual information for publication in furtherance of their cause in Iraq, then the somewhat inflammatory term "propaganda" is appropriate. And, there is nothing wrong with doing that. It is something that is done all the time here in the US. Ever heard the term "public relations agencies"? That's what they do, and believe me, they do it for money, big money. As long as the information they provide to the media is factual, and it's always vetted by lawyers, there is nothing illegal or unethical about doing it. And, as I said before, it's done all the time. I would wager that anyone here who has watched any kind of a news program on television in the past week has seen more than one story that is actually "propaganda" provided by someone to "further their cause". They are called "video news releases" (VNR) and they are produced by outside agencies and placed by outside agencies with the news media for clients interested in getting their story out for whatever reason. To the untrained eye they look like any other news story because they are written, produced and packaged by experienced journalists who have done news for a living. And, there's nothing wrong with it at all. The benefit to the media is that they can air a story that they don't have to spend money putting together and the benefit to the client paying for it is obvious. And of course, the benefit to the public is that they learn something new.

Now, if that is what's happening in Iraq, if the US is paying a PR company to put together stories to run in the Iraqi media there's nothing wrong with that. It's a good idea and something we should be doing. However, if that PR company is paying off the media to run the stories then there's a problem and we need to find another PR company.

That is totally crap, Aquilla. EVERYTHING is wrong with it.

These are not "news stories." These are public relations press releases masquerading as legitimate news and they are to real journalism what a tofu burger is to ground chuck. It's a travesty and debasing of what the news is supposed to be.

I thought America was supposing to be bringing to Iraq the virtues of democracy. Isn't a free and independent press part of that deal? Are we supposed to be showing Iraqi journalists how to go out and get the story or to sit around and wait for a press release and a check?

If a p.r. firm wants to get the story out for a particular client, why don't they just run a commercial like anyone else. It is intellectually dishonest and total laziness for journalists---here and over there---to run these "news packages" without a disclaimer. This is checkbook journalism at its worse. It is completely lacking in both professional integrity or news value.

I've been a newspaper editor. EVERY DAY the fax machine, the e-mail, the U.S. mail and sitting in the lobby are publicists and p.r. professionals who want you to carve out a space in the newspaper. They make it really easy to accept their offerings because when you've got a hole on page 12 to fill their junk fits there quite nicely.

But while you can weaken and use some of it, you can't get hooked on that stuff because soon that's all you've got in the paper and then you're just another shill for every bozo and whatever product they're pushing.

It's not illegal. But everything that isn't illegal isn't always right. It doggone sure isn't journalism. It isn't even journalism-lite.

This will be a bit odd. Everyone who knows me knows I tend to be anti Bush Jr. and his handling of Iraq, but I have to say, this sounds like a bit of a tempest in a teacup.

So the US was paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-US stories. So what? The worst thing you can say is that it smack a bit of desperation, but it hardly new, it is hardly terribly surprising, and frankly I even have diffculty supporting that it is morally wrong.

If they were, say Paying newspapers NOT to run anti-US stories, then maybe I can understand outrage, but these newspapers are free to take the money, run the story, and then the next day (or even the same issue) run terribly anti-US stories. Besides, as people have pointed out, there is no evidence these stories are not true either...

It is generally easy to condemn many of the the actions of the US in Iraq, and in particular the actions of Bush Jr regarding Iraq, because in many cases they are worthy of condemnation, but in this case I am going to have to step from character and say this one really does not seem like a big deal.

I'm with Vermillion on this one. I'm pretty much down on Iraq and everything Bush touches, but if these stories were true, what's the big deal?

There really, really isn't any good reason to hope for failure in Iraq no matter what you think of the war. Utter failure is in nobody's best interest in Iraq. So, if good news isn't getting out or being washed out by bad news, I don't see how this is a bad thing. War is hell and there is a lot of propaganda on both sides. To allow propaganda on their sides and not ours, is simply handcuffing the efforts of the guys fighting and dying over there.

We won't hear good news about Iraq the same reason we don't hear good news about all the good things going on in Detroit - good things happen everywhere, but it doesn't mean we want to live there. We assume good things go on. It's only the really bad things that are newsworthy.

So, if getting out the good news helps our troops there, do whatever it takes - I don't want a loss in Iraq just for a cheap "Told you so!".

Now, if the stories are false, I have a big problem with that. Not necessarily for the bogus stories, but the fact that good news is so hard to come by in Iraq (and the reason it is not reported more frequently) that we have to fabricate it.

I'll be interested in the results of fact checking. I hope the stories are true - this would be helpful to all of us.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?


2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

[/quote]

First of all lets get the story straight. Even on super biased NPR the fact that the stories present are TRUE was clear. While there may be a very few stories that are “information warfare” even the critics said the stories were true and the reporters were paid to make it worth their while (lives) to risk harm in coming to get the stories.

The question I have is why we never see the true (positive) stories in the home media.


Kennedy is a liar plain and simple.


Certainly we are NOT liberators to the thugs and Suni butchers that ran the old Iraq. Obviously they are not in the majority. Just the fact that millions risked their lives to vote tells the story. Most people in Iraq want freedom. And this will spread in the Middle East - to our benefit.

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?

From what I read, it is actually pro-Iraqi stories. I would say that encouraging Iraqi courage at this point is very ethical.

Journalistically, the PR origination should be clearly flagged on articles, indicating that PR people, not journalists, wrote them. Call them what they are: advertisements.

The reaction of the administration is a little curious. Why so defensive? I'll let it slide as part of the seige atmosphere that the administration is under, knee-jerking and spooking too easily. This is reminiscent of the post-9/11 period and indicates a fundamental weakness. Rational thought seems to lose all the time to emotional hand-wringing and wild shooting into the brush.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

Without knowing the exact story contents, I think this is an automatic conclusion, so no, not necessarily accurate. Kennedy does this all the time. He isn't the brightest Democrat in the Senate.

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a grateful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

What letters? This article talked to planting articles in the Iraqi press, not letters.

I do think that buying print inches does indicate that money has to be an incentive, not truth. It's hard to judge without knowing the contents of articles and the articles that appear around them.

My common sense (pretty sure this isn't too far in the outfields) tells me that most of the Iraqi people are grateful to get rid of Saddam, but not grateful that the troops keep on hanging around. I know what Americans would think in the same situation, and I do see the sense that our troop presence is an incentive to continue fighting for some Iraqis. Others seem to be dead-set against the new government, and my common sense tells me that they are likely old Saddam supporters ticked off that the US came in and spoiled their good things.

The articles are probably powerless against the dead-set against crowd. Once some people make up their minds, that's that. Happens all the time in the US, so I imagine the Iraqis are no different. I'm all for encouraging Iraqi courage. These people need to take control of their own country so we can get the hell out.

The planted articles look to be part of the overall plan. They might be effective to help Iraqis who want their own country and are okay with a democratic/republican/parliamentary system. There is an obvious problem with those who want a theocracy, and I imagine a significant segment rejects anything that the US supports. Truth never works against irrationality. We should be accustomed to that part of human nature.

From nebraska29's MSNBC article:


Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?
No.

Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there?
Yes.

Why must we pay for articles when a grateful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?
Because the friends of our own friend Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi running the Al Mutamar newspaper are as expensive as Chalabi himself over there plus one Fox News contributor over here. Propaganda probaloney. We’re getting bilked in Iraq—again. Is the cause so far gone that we have no choice but to squirm with Iraqis that care so little about the future of their countrymen they would demand thousands of dollars for a little bit of print space or walk away when most of the population is struggling to pay for groceries?

You mean like the Jessica Lynch story. You know it’s one thing for the “liberal” media to make mistakes or deliberately misinform, we have the option to not watch or purchase their product. It’s quite another for our own government to be involved in “rigging” the news, either home or abroad.

Shameful, but a better option than bombing the news outlet. It reminds me of the saying “the appearance of an impropriety is often worse than the impropriety”, I’m sure the insurgency will use this against us.

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?
Hands on lessons are the best. It teaches them the fundamentals of democracy and capitalism: anything has a price tag and true democracy can be trumped with cash.

Once again our arrogance is disgraceful and another dent in our banged up international image. To think we know what’s best for the Iraqi’s is yet ANOTHER slap in their faces. It’s not what WE think that’s important, it’s what the Iraqi’s think and consequently what THEY write.

Most importantly it undermines the newspapers credibility. So now if an Iraqi journalist writes something positive the readers will probably think the opinion was purchased. Well done. Bravo.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?
It’s spot on. And to characterize this as a booze laden statement clearly demonstrates the Bush supporters are running out of excuses, “Ignore the man behind the 80 proof curtains”.

So if a teetotaler made the same comments the excuse would be….? And everyone who shares his opinion is nothing but an old sot? Nice.

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?
One would think that if there were truly all these wonderful, happy news stories we wouldn’t have to purchase their print space,. But the democratic experiment must be working, to the tune of what must certainly be a liberal media since they aren’t singing the Bush administrations favorite hits.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?
It’s spot on. And to characterize this as a booze laden statement clearly demonstrates the Bush supporters are running out of excuses, “Ignore the man behind the 80 proof curtains”.


How is a lie “spot on”. The stories, paid for or not, are factual and that is not what this bozo said. This is typical Washington politics at its worst and Teddy is right in front with the distortions.

I am in the I could care less camp on this one. I have no idea what the big deal is...how relevant is this when Iraqis have satellite dishes, internet connectivity and the lot? The idea behind a free and open society is that no man or collection of men can control what sources the people in the nation receive their information by just simply controlling the state's media. There is a great big world out there full of information.

I am sure the more pro-American newspapers are known for their slant...Iraqis are not fools.

If the democratic leaders in DC had the true moral authority on how to wage the GWOT they would be seriously discussing and making the president answer to the allegations that our nation now endorses torture. Instead they focus on this. I think there are far worse tactics the current admin is accused of employing in the GWOT than some article writing.

Distortions? If you actually read Senator Kennedy’s statement he’s not contending the stories are false. However, if you want to point out what part of the Senators statement is a lie that would be a start.

He’s only drawing the same conclusion that myself and others have since the story broke. You tell me why, if all these wonderful things were occurring in Iraq, we have to pay for “positive” press?

Here is what this stupid clown Kennedy said my friend:

“Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., characterized the program as a scheme that “speaks volumes about the president’s credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn’t have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people”

And as was said on NPR we “pay” the reporters to risk their lives coming to get the stories and print them. You may be able to imagine that there are people in Iraq who do not want positive (true) news to be printed.

So if the stories are true the they are not “doctored”, changed, lies, made up etc. And printing the truth is not a "scheme". Then Teddy is distorting the truth at best. To me it’s just plain lying.

What I think the idiots like Kennedy and the press that agree with him should do is PRINT all the stories so we can read them ---- then we can see if they are “doctored”. Of course if our press was interested in positive stories this would have been done by now. Obvoiously it much easier to use innuendo then examples.

Do you have any examples of “doctored" news stories??? Post them here please so all of us can read them.

I'm really torn on this one. How do you convince a people that is occupied by a conquering army that the army is really full of nice guys trying to improve your life? This question becomes all the more relevant in the light of the Abu Ghraib situation.

This is still a war in Iraq, not just an occupation.* And all the arms the soldiers have cannot change the minds of a people. If the invasion portion was still taking place, leaflets would be dropped for the Iraqis to read. Instead, news stories are being paid for and planted in Iraqi newspapers.

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?

From what the article said, the Pentagon is investigating it.

So it appears that the Pentagon is not sure that it is ethical. So those of us who are not sure have some company.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

Senator Kennedy does like to embellish things. And, I'm sure, it is quite easy for the writers of these articles to embellish things as well. It's not exactly the same as lying, but it can come awfully close to it.

Just how much are we embellishing these accounts for Iraqi readers? This alone is the answer to whether Senator Kennedy's characterization is accurate; I can't answer it.

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a [grateful] people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

Look, I have no doubt that the stories we received (such as the one about Jessica Lynch) were embellished to make it look like the whole country (except for a few stubborn, suicidal Saddam supporters--say that three times fast! ) was coming out to greet the troops as liberators. (Remember Bushie in the flightsuit on the aircraft carrier? He'd never fought in a war, but did that mar his shining moment? Heck no!) Why would it be any surprise to us to find that feel-good stories (Chicken Soup for the Liberated Iraqi Soul???) are being fed to Iraq's newspapers with dollars, not shekels (excuse me, is it dinari?), exchanged in the transaction?

We'd just better not be wagging our fingers next time at another country's government when it tries the same thing under similar circumstances. It's just been shown to us that even the "good guy" pays for good press.

*Unfortunately, it is largely because of U.S. bungling, such as dismissing the Iraqi police force when that force could have provided some needed help. The borders became open to anyone who wanted to cross, an insurgency was allowed to form, and the character of the fighting changed from army vs. army to guerilla warfare vs. conventional military.

The pro-liberator Iraqi's are probably realist enough to understand whats going on in terms which don't paint so stark a contrast as to portray one side as good and another as bad.

On the other hand, Iraq is an Islamic country and Muslims don't seem to like the idea of western style democracy so even those who might appreciate the US intervention into their nation are probably less enthusiastic about it than, say, that Dick Cheney.

Who knows why Iraq is the way it is? The nation of Iraq is an artificial construct anyway. It might not inspire all that much loyalty from many of its own citizens who are far more interested in their own tribal, religious or ethnic affiliations. Its like Jugoslavia, why would the Slovenians care about the rest of the country? As soon as they were able to they got out.

In Iraq, one might look upn many of the individual groups (like the Kurds) in much the same way.


Yes. Propaganda is normal in war and always has been. I don't see that this is a symptom of anything beyond its own need.

By which I mean, the fact that this has to be done demonstrates that it wouldn't have been done otherwise.


Yes, from his perspective it is very accurate.


I think this is evidence that people don't necessarily appreciate American liberation and thats about all it is. Not every one wants to be like the Americans.

The people of Iraq seem to be quite happy to have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein, but it doesn't immedietely follow that they are going to suddenly like the USA all the more just because of that.

After all, they're Muslims and Islam has a long history of hating the USA. Not only are they Muslims, but they are Muslims who live right next door to Iran...



I wonder how much propaganda Iran is pumping into Iraq these days?

Ok my friend, I thought this might be a matter of semantics. Kennedy’s statement was “we wouldn’t have to doctor the news”,

Obviously I can’t speak for Kennedy, but my interpretation was we weren’t doctoring the actual stories, but influencing what news was being published.

You even said yourself Senator Kennedy didn’t say stories were doctored and I would consider stories a subset of news. Semantics.

And I’ll go back to one of my original statements that this could further damage our reputation and the intentions could be misunderstood. You have to ask yourself if you were an Iraqi how would this sit with you? We should have just taken out advertisements.

With any plan you must always ask yourself “what happens if this is exposed, backfires, or fails?” Is the risk greater than the gain? Are there options to mitigate the risk? In this case and in my mind, the fallout of “buying journalist” could undermine our trust with the Iraqi’s. And in that vein it just appears to be another bad idea that wasn’t fully thought through.

And I agree, it would be nice to see the stories.

Fife and drum.
First back to what Teddy said. As it was stated he did say ,”scheme” and “doctored” both of which him very negative connotations. From the dictionary “doctored” means:

To falsify or change in such a way as to make favorable to oneself: doctored the evidence.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., characterized the program as a scheme that “speaks volumes about the president’s credibility gap. If Americans were truly welcomed in Iraq as liberators, we wouldn’t have to doctor the news for the Iraqi people.”

Please show me proof that true stories are “doctored” as above. Teddy was Bush bashing clear and simple. Obviously "scheme" is negative as well.

As for the idea that printing the truth and showing the positive things we are doing in Iraq could “backfire” or be “misinterperated” I have no clue what you mean. Certainly the other side gets lots of press in the area and anytime telling the TRUTH is bad is a time we should just hang it up. We should be proud of the good things we have done and are doing for the people of Iraq and the more we tell people about it the better. And if we have to translate the facts and compensated reporters for the risk of getting the stories printed IMO it is a good investment and not wrong at all.

Sorry, but in my book if you’re paying a newspaper to publish your stories I would consider that a “scheme”, and sure it carries a negative connotation. Do you think it’s positive when in the name of democracy a government buys journalists? You actually believe it’s not a breach of democratic integrity? You really don’t’ see the irony here? We’ll agree to disagree on Senator Kennedy’s statements, they’re the least of my concern in this matter.


I never said printing true stories would backfire. My point has been and remains that having journalist on the payroll, which is a completely different matter than printing the truth, potentially sends the wrong message to the Iraqi’s and the rest of the international community. And if you can’t separate printing the truth, regardless of the manner in which it was derived, from buying a journalist/editor than we really don’t’ have anything else to debate.

How would you feel if ten years ago it was discovered that Clinton and the DNC were paying journalist across the country to run stories that favored their position? I would be outraged.

I know many on the left here dislike comparisons of Iraq to any war 'cept Vietnam but here's one comparing a portion of it to WWII:



Office of Censorship ring any bells? Established by FDR to combat what is rampant in today's news - reporting that focus' on the negative, the old addage, "If it bleeds, it leads." Back in FDR's time - to criticize the war effort was to risk imprisonment.

As thoroughly repugnant as many find such an Office today - many of the critics would be silenced, and I'm betting that the war in Iraq would be going much better if Al-Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgent groups were robbed of their one major outlet of attack upon the Americans in the homeland, America's media.

1.) Ethics and reality rarely intermingle. What I believe is ethical is not what another person believes, so, it is a point of view question. I tend to believe that any propaganda of any nature cannot be ethical because it either stretches/invents truth.

2.) It is not.

3.) No. What it does prove is that people still fearful to print articles that would have gotten them executed in the old Iraq. If Iraqis feel they best can convey their stories as Iraqis then it is not a problem-- it is a solution. We should not be paying for articles at all if Iraqis are writing such examples of pro-Democratic, pro-Liberties pieces to start with.

The question for debate is too narrowly framed. As ethical issues, these press bribery programs don't approach the failure to account for civilian casualties, torture, prisoner mistreatment, use of white phosphorus and napalm, free fire zones, nor the sacking of whole cities. That is not to say that they weren't undemocratic - but since when is that new for the Bush Administration. The real issue here is the stupidity involved. They were clearly counter-productive. This is just another in what is now a long line of blunders in Iraq beginning with the invasion itself. Here is an article that makes my point.

Fife
let call it as it is. Kennedy used the words “doctored” and “scheme” to imply that what we were giving the press in Iraq was a pack of made up lies. The man is a despicable liar and a gross political hack for doing this. Undermining your government in a war is IMO despicable and this fool does just that.

AS STATED the stories are factual and our people there translate them for the press in Iraq. I have no idea what the “pay” is but I am sure it is low and as I have said numerous times the purpose of doing that was to cover the expenses of the reporters in getting the stories. And frankly who cares. If getting the truth printed, against all the lies printed in the Arab media, is a crime we are guilty of then IMO we should do more of it.

And since you mentioned our press I would be willing to bet the stories have been available to our press since day one and how many have we seen? Can you see the NYT printing a “good news” story from Iraq? Never happen.

If there is a crime it is that our media gets away with printing non stop bad news because it “sells” to the exclusion of all else.

That sounds like capitalism to me. Amazing how pro business those on the right are until a business doesn’t agree with or endorse their policies.

If there were truly all these wonderful things going on in Iraqi why aren’t they being show on Faux News? I don’t’ watch it every night, but when I do there’s never any positive stories out of Iraq.

Here’s an entire network dedicated to news, 24 x 7 (and decidedly pro-GOP) as opposed to the big 3 network news that have exactly one half hour every evening. If any network had the opportunity and motivation to show all these wonderful things it would be Faux. But nada, not one that I’ve seen anyway.

Maybe because the stories would be:
We’ve built X number of schools (because we blew them up)
We’ve built X number of new roads (because we blew them up)
We’ve built X number of water facilities (because we blew them up)

Geez - do your research better. They regularly have excerts and shows detailing the progress that include all the stuff in your list (minus the 'We blew it up' crap .. lot of it was in disrepair) and much more (such as showing business', detailing how the quality of life in Iraq has doubled since Saddam's time, stock markets, etc).

FOXNews - spelled F - O - X - N - E - W - S.... you may not like it because it criticizes your beloved left (as well as the right), but hey that's how it's spelled. I wouldn't recommend bringing up that piece of leftist trash video Outfoxed. The guy's a decietful propaghandist who has a habit of omitting details/facts that don't fit his view - that movie was debunked by USA Today.

Okay, okay. We get the picture, Ted. Apparently, you don't like Senator Kennedy. He's a bad, evil drunk who lies and commits treason. He probably eats raw puppy for breakfast. We get it. You've made your position abundantly clear. Your ad hominem statements on this person have become redundant.

Now back to our regularly scheduled debate...

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq?

The first casualty in war is truth... Um. I'm not surprised that there's pro-American propaganda being published in Iraqi newspapers. I also would be similarly unsurprised if anti-American propaganda were to be found in those publications too.

The question of ethics is an interesting one. If we are indeed engaged in a war, then propaganda can be very useful in demoralizing the enemy as well as winning over those folks who are "on the fence". It helps reduce casualties and perhaps stabilizes the situation sooner. However, if we are engaged in democratization, then propaganda has a deleterious effect. It undermines one of the basic tenets of democracy: freedom of the press.

Is it possible to be engaged in war and the rules of waging war while also engaging in democratization and the instilling the principles of democracy? I don't know if this is possible. We seem to want to do both simultaneously in Iraq. Techniques and strategies obviously beneficial in one context can have obviously negative effects in another context. I believe that the propaganda/free press issue is exactly such a case. The fact that the military feels the need to engage in propaganda indicates that there's still alot of "war" going on in Iraq.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate?

Personally, I think his characterization is inaccurate. I don't believe this has anything to do with Dubya's credibility gap. Nevertheless, I do believe there's a fundamental tension between democratization (nation building) and war.

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery?

It is evidence that Iraq is not a democracy (yet?). It is also evidence that military strategies and civilian principles do not co-exist very well.

I don't want to argue semantics at all, but if the stories are created by us, and then printed in Iraqi newspapers, it's hardly an article that Iraqi reporters discovered on their own. If they didn't discover it, "doctoring" perhaps fits since we are creating the news for them. I can see why you would object to the word "scheme" but since the U.S. public, not to mention our elected officials, were unaware of this program, then does that not constitute a scheme? A scheme is something a person doesn't want a whole lot of other people knowing about. The pentagon balked at first when these questions came out, they then promised to look into it, and now they are stating the truth. That kind of behavior to me, fits the definition of the "s' word completely. Perhaps Kennedy and the gang are a tad rough in their characterization of the program, but don't we need hard questions from our elected leaders from time to time?



Do we really know that? I haven't read any of the articles. Even if they are, the truth is something that Iraqi media personnel should discover on their own, not from us simply handing them material to print.



I don't doubt that there is a lot of suffering in Iraq and that their economy is in shambles. At the same time, any economic benefit to reporters and printers certainly comes at a greater price-the perception that they are our "lackeys" and "puppets" whose "objective journalism" coincides with the American dollar and American agenda.



I have no problem with things like VOA and that kind of thing. At the same time, I do think it's problematic when in a supposedly free Iraq, that pretenses of a free media are tarnished by a private pay for print program. It has every appearance of impropriety and dishonesty. We should be honest as to our efforts or have the articles stating where they originated from. If we don't do that, then are we being truly honest with the average Iraqi?




Media bias is an interesting debate topic, but we don't have an issue here of journalists and reporters being "on the take" like what this topic is about IMHO.

Military's information war is vast and often secretive


There is a lot more to this article. Please note that the campaign was begun soon after the September 11 attacks, but that the Bush administration is acting all weird about it now. They do tend to try to wriggle out of things from time to time.

Also from the article:

As mentioned by nebraska29, "If they [the Iraqi journalists] didn't discover it, "'doctoring'" perhaps fits since we are creating the news for them. I can see why you would object to the word "scheme" but since the U.S. public, not to mention our elected officials, were unaware of this program, then does that not constitute a scheme?"

Perhaps, 'booze hound' or not, Senator Kennedy is right.

Apparently the US governments manipulation of the Iraqi press is long standing and goes well beyond Rendon and the Lincoln group. (See this this NYT Article with UFPPC introduction).

The contempt for even the American press and public is made clear in the article.

In an NPR interview it was stated that the stories were “factual”. That means to me they were not falsified or made up which is what “doctored” means. Yes they were good news and yes we have an information warfare group that may have sent out other stories but the person interviewed said they were factual. We don’t know how the Iraqi press folks may have edited the stories so I dispute your idea they had no input. In fact it would seem likely they would (and could have) checked the stories out themselves. And if the press or Congress doubts that then lets print them and check them out!

This is little more than the Dems putting an evil face on everything the administration does and it is sickening.

1.)Is it ethical for the military to pay for pro-American propaganda to be published in a so-called free Iraq? absolutely not the way they did it... some have brought up WWII as similar. First this is nation building they did not attack us what so ever. being attacked first is a fundamental difference. The aggressor or major power should work from the high ground unless desperate. This to me is not the high ground.

2.)Is senator Kennedy's characterization accurate? well what is so great about it is we know who said it and we do get to decide. whereas obviously those stories being planted the real author is not disclosed. I have no problem with the stories being paid with the acknowledgement of “ a minority of Americans agree with this but the US paid for this article, and it was written by the US military”

3.)Is this evidence that we are not viewed as liberators by the majority of people there? Why must we pay for articles when a greatful people would write such letters themselves without bribery? Obviously with close to 40% of the Iraqi people thinking harm to americans is acceptable, showing we are not seen as liberators. I believe the military is way off here again we have changed from saving them from themselves to motivating and creating more terrorists that hate us that the world has never seen before. The army may think you beat terrorism with fake press but to me they have just created a more difficult condition and probably more determined terrorists who may strike us in 1 month, 10 or 20 years for our actions.

Another example of the potential consequences is we see members of the right in groups like the militia like Tim Mc Veigh who hated what he considered the “liberal” media and government cover-up of that wako in waco, and look at his statement. He only allowed Fox to interview him before he was executed. so is the continual lying about the media here a factor in terrorism?

I started a tangent thread in the media section that was closed partly for being duplicitous to this one, my angle/questions were quite different, so if you want that thread to be opened please request so. media debate