Paying for Press in Iraq

Been reading around on this topic. Kind of interesting at the views in the press and most of the blogs I've run across.

LATimes started it.

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.

Paying for the articles is suspect, but if they are factual, I don't see that there is much to be upset about. If you're going to try the "balanced article" argument, I'd say you should look pretty closely at the American press and how balanced a majority of their articles are. You should also look at the press in the Middle East and give me an honest analysis that can show that those press organs are providing balance.

The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.

"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 can understand a pure ethical stand, but that isn't the situation there. The press has been shown not to be fair to the actions of the west, never mind the US. Should the military stay away from trying to move the information more toward their own favor? I don't think so. Call it propaganda if you must, but it is to benefit the overall situation. Can anyone honestly say that psychological warfare isn't allowed as a tool to the present military?

One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece. The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks. U.S. law forbids the military from carrying out psychological operations or planting propaganda through American media outlets. Yet several officials said that given the globalization of media driven by the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, the Pentagon's efforts were carried out with the knowledge that coverage in the foreign press inevitably "bleeds" into the Western media and influences coverage in U.S. news outlets. "There is no longer any way to separate foreign media from domestic media. Those neat lines don't exist anymore," said one private contractor who does information operations work for the Pentagon.

The bleed over is not even an argument. The press in the US reports conjecture and heresay all the time. If it's said by someone even slightly reputable, then it's truth. Rumors bleed into the press all the time. Or did you miss the press in New Orleans after Katrina. It's not even approaching a violation of the law.

Use of the press to assist the military meet its objective has been used in many wars. WWII onward showed the extreme use of the press and radio to move the public. That would be the public of this country as well. Movies were heavily controlled to show Americans as the righteous fighters. Germany and Russia did the same things. Now our military is using the news to give themselves a more favorable look to the people that they have to work among every day.

I don't see any reason for an uproar. You might have had some ethical qualms if the information was completely false, but I have found no information that proves that any falsehoods have been put out due to this.