View Full Version : Did US pay Iraqis to plant fake news stories?
Hurin_Rules
12-01-2005, 07:29
On the upside, at least they're not gay hookers:
Report: U.S. buys positive press in Iraq
Pentagon spokesman vows to look into allegations
Thursday, December 1, 2005 Posted: 0205 GMT (1005 HKT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. military offered a mixed message Wednesday about whether it embraced one of its own programs that reportedly paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is "an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents."
"This is a military program initiated with the multinational force to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news," Johnson said in an e-mail. "I want to emphasize that all information used for marketing these stories is completely factual."
A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, called a report detailing the program troubling if true and said he was looking into the matter. (Watch the allegations of buying positive news in Baghdad papers -- 2:03)
Details about the program were first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. It marked the second time this year that Pentagon programs have come under scrutiny for reported payments made to journalists for favorable press.
Two other federal agencies have been investigated in the past year for similar activities, leading Congress' Government Accountability Office to condemn one, the Education Department, for engaging in illegal covert propaganda.
The Los Angeles Times quoted unidentified officials as saying that some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and while basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening in Iraq.
Some of those officials expressed fear that use of such stories could hurt the U.S. military's credibility, the newspaper said.
Defense Department officials did not deny the story's allegations, and Rumsfeld spokesman Bryan Whitman said he was looking into the program.
Whitman said the department has clear principles for dealing with news organizations, "so this article raises some question as to whether or not some of the practices that are described in there are consistent with the principles of this department."
He would not specify the questions he felt the article raised.
Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the program Wednesday.
"I wouldn't fault somebody trying to get the American message out," Lugar said. "[It] may be about the only way that any sort of a message will ever get to anybody. But that's a very forlorn conclusion early on, and really sort of violates what we're attempting to do to begin with in our emphasis on democracy."
The Pentagon hired the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based firm that translates the stories into Arabic and places them in Baghdad newspapers, the newspaper reported.
The organization's staff or subcontractors in Iraq occasionally pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they hand stories to Iraqi media outlets, it said.
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she could not comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government.
The company, which does work in Iraq, is a public affairs firm that does advertising and other communications in "challenging locations," she said.
John Schulz, a former executive with Voice of America who is now dean of the Boston University College of Communication, called the military program scary.
"The Bush administration, and some elements within the Defense Department, do not seem to grasp the irony that, in their efforts to create, impose or inspire democratic society in Iraq, they are subverting the very core of what democracy means and are instead, by example, undercutting the very thing they are attempting to instill in Iraq," Schulz said.
In the last year, the Bush administration has been called to task for paying journalists to promote its programs. GAO slammed the Education Department for illegal propaganda when the agency paid columnist Armstrong Williams to publicize the "No Child Left Behind" education law.
And the GAO is looking into the Heath and Human Services Department's contract with syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher to help promote a marriage initiative.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon's inspector general's office said it was investigating a program that paid journalists to write articles and commentary for a Web site called Southeast European Times that was aimed at influencing opinion in the Balkans.
Military officials who spoke to the Los Angeles Times on the condition of anonymity said the "Information Operations Task Force," part of a multinational corps with headquarters in Baghdad, bought an Iraqi newspaper and took over a radio station to put out pro-American messages.
Neither outlet was named out of fear that they would be targeted by insurgents, the newspaper said.
The stories in Iraqi newspapers often praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote the country's reconstruction efforts.
The Times said documents it obtained showed that the Baghdad-based newspaper Al Mutamar was paid about $50 to run one of the stories, which had the headline "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism" on August 6.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/11/30/iraq.media.ap/index.html
I guess freedom really isn't free!
Crazed Rabbit
12-01-2005, 07:34
The Los Angeles Times quoted unidentified officials as saying that some of the stories in Iraqi newspapers were written by U.S. troops and while basically factual, they sometimes give readers a slanted view of what is happening in Iraq.
Too bad we have to pay journalists to show the positive facts about Iraq when most are willing to slant views to favor the terrorists for free.
Crazed Rabbit
Kanamori
12-01-2005, 07:53
With the way things have been going, I wouldn't be surprised if they find out later that some of them were fake or wrongfully exaggerated:sad: Nothing that we know so far shows that they were fake or incorrect though.
The lack of internal control has been very troubling to me.
Oh no! The government may have put out some propaganda as part of the war effort in Iraq- such a scandal! ~:handball:
Operations such as this are important to any war effort- I hope the person who leaked this is punished appropriately.
Adrian II
12-01-2005, 13:46
Too bad we have to pay journalists to show the positive facts about Iraq when most are willing to slant views to favor the terrorists for free.
Crazed RabbitIt's a funny old world. Americans used to distrust big government. Nowadays they seem to love it, trust it, need it. Osama's ways are strangely effective.
master of the puppets
12-01-2005, 17:11
It's a funny old world. Americans used to distrust big government. Nowadays they seem to love it, trust it, need it. Osama's ways are strangely effective.
BAH!!! thats just propaganda from the big government, i don't want a big government, i want a big military and big economy(not in china mind you) and a fair yet unbribed judicial system, oh yeah and as an after though strip all lawyers of there liscences so we can be free of them for like 2 years while there gettin new ones.
also i say good even if they had to pay to do it its good news, the view is very slanted into seeming as if the entire thing is a failure, and why do they not print the praise that our people deserve, MONEY, we have unknowingly given them capitalist fever, but still show the good side for once yu money grubbing bastards.
ugh, well i guess the only thing wrong with capitalism is capitalists, and lo behold they rule the government/press/economy and probably everything else.
ok dats my ranting, enjoy.
Crazed Rabbit
12-01-2005, 17:57
Adrian, you are very much mistaken if you think I like big government.
Oh, and in answer to the topic's question; No, it says in the article you C&P'd that the news is factually correct.
Crazed Rabbit
Oh no! The government may have put out some propaganda as part of the war effort in Iraq- such a scandal! ~:handball:
Operations such as this are important to any war effort- I hope the person who leaked this is punished appropriately.
The whole point of the war was to spread freedom of speech and democracy. By doing this America only shoots itself in the foot.
Whoever leaked it should be commended and become a politician.
Hurin_Rules
12-01-2005, 20:44
The news stories are fake because they're being presented as independent articles. They may also be factually incorrect--the US government's first response was to say the articles are correct, but of course if they're presented as independent then they are NOT factually correct, and we have to depent on the word of the US government that they are correct. This is the same government that told us the Iraq had WMDs, the Al Qaeda operatives had been supported by the Iraqi government, that Iraq would be able to finance its own reconstruction, that the US would be welcomed with flowers in the streets as a liberator, and that as of last spring the insurgency was in its 'last throes'. So please excuse me if I treat the propaganda coming out of a psy-ops operative with EXTREME skepticism.
Remember when the Bushies planted that gay guy in the White House press core to lob softball questions at the president when the press was actually doing its job and asking the president real questions? Remember when it was exposed that the Bush government had paid American reporters to plant news stories favourable to its programs? Well, the Bush government admitted this was wrong for a democracy and reneged on their agreements (and the gay guy was expelled from the press corps, especially after it became known that he had run a gay porn website and posted nude pictures of himself on it). The Bush government was forced to concede that preventing the creation of a transparent, free press is not acceptable in a democracy. Why is it acceptable now?
And don't use that tired old, 'They're doing it too' argument. Zarqawi and his gang are also massacring civilians--that doesn't make it acceptable.
The whole point of the war was to spread freedom of speech and democracy. By doing this America only shoots itself in the foot.How's that? By trying to tell positive news stories and attempting to win hearts and minds they're shooting themselves in the foot- I dont follow you. Where's the scandal? Why wouldnt our forces try to draw attention to any positive deeds they are doing? It'd be stupid not to.
Whoever leaked it should be commended and become a politician.I guess that might be punishement enough. ~D
But seriously, the person who blew the lid off of a, by all accounts, harmless and largely factual upbeat news campaign designed to help rally the Iraqi people behind their new government and should be punished. Now it's ruined, any positive news in Iraq will likely be dismissed as American "propaganga" now regardless of its source. Whoever did this destroyed a benign hearts & minds program and has pointlessly and stupidly undermined our efforts in Iraq.
Hurin_Rules
12-01-2005, 21:15
But seriously, the person who blew the lid off of a, by all accounts, harmless and largely factual upbeat news campaign designed to help rally the Iraqi people behind their new government and should be punished.
'By all accounts' they are certainly not harmless and certainly not factual. They have obviously done considerable harm to the image of the US in Iraq, as you yourself note: "any positive news in Iraq will likely be dismissed as American "propaganga" now regardless of its source." And that's exactly what it is: Propaganda. The fact that its coming from a source you like doesn't make it any less wrong.
Did you find the planting of stories to be acceptable in the USA when the Bush government did it? Would it be ok for the DNC to secretly pay reporters to plant stories on FoxNews that are favourable to the democrats? I have a hard time believing you'd be fine with that. But of course if Americans are doing something, then I guess by definition it must be morally acceptable, even if it stinks like a pile of ****.
But of course if Americans are doing something, then I guess by definition it must be morally acceptable, even if it stinks like a pile of ****.Or is it if Americans are doing it, it's automatically wrong even if it's been a major part of warfare for all of modern history? Honestly, this is comical- you're condemning the use of in theatre propaganda operations as part of a war effort? What's it like in your world? ~D
Hurin_Rules
12-02-2005, 00:41
Or is it if Americans are doing it, it's automatically wrong even if it's been a major part of warfare for all of modern history? Honestly, this is comical- you're condemning the use of in theatre propaganda operations as part of a war effort? What's it like in your world? ~D
What is comical is people waging a war for 'freedom' by subverting the very freedoms for which they are supposed to be fighting. You're being truly Orwellian here. What exactly is it you're fighting for? The right to have free votes and a free press? Or the right of the US to subvert democratic institutions if it is in its interests to do so?
It would seem to me that one of the things the US military is fighting for is for the right of Iraqis to have free institutions, such as a free press. If the US military controls that press, whether through money or intimidation, that press is not free. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.
And you didn't answer the question: are you fine with your own government using propaganda against you? Or is it only ok if its in Iraq, and not designed to shape the opinions of US voters?
Should the press be free, or should it be taking money from the army and publishing the army's propaganda pieces as if they were facts?
What is comical is people waging a war for 'freedom' by subverting the very freedoms for which they are supposed to be fighting. You're being truly Orwellian here. What exactly is it you're fighting for? The right to have free votes and a free press? Or the right of the US to subvert democratic institutions if it is in its interests to do so?How is paying newspapers to print favorable stories a subversion of democratic institutions? Did Allied use of propaganda in WW2 undermine the democratic governments that we reconstructed?
It would seem to me that one of the things the US military is fighting for is for the right of Iraqis to have free institutions, such as a free press. If the US military controls that press, whether through money or intimidation, that press is not free. I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this.Sounds like a free press to me- they have to pay them to run the stories dont they? If it was state-run media they wouldnt have to pay them would they?
And you didn't answer the question: are you fine with your own government using propaganda against you? Or is it only ok if its in Iraq, and not designed to shape the opinions of US voters?It happens all the time- the government has been putting together "news" clips for years and distributes them to news outlets who then (lazily) air them as news stories. If anything, in Iraq and domestically, consumers should be upset with the media outlets for broadcasting government stories without noting their source. It's lazy and greedy of them to pass the stories off as news without disclosing their source.
However, you're trying to ignore an important distinction between the US and Iraq- one is a combat zone. And as I've said repeatedly- propaganda has been a major part of all modern warfare. Surely you realize outlets sympathetic to the insurgency regular parrot propaganda word for word and sympathetic groups likely even own media outlets.
Should the press be free, or should it be taking money from the army and publishing the army's propaganda pieces as if they were facts?If the stories are true, then they are facts- regardless of the source. Your position is silly by claiming that it's somehow wrong for US forces to try to get their message out and win hearts and minds.
Hurin_Rules
12-02-2005, 01:05
Imagine if the tables were turned. Lets say that US military command wanted to get out of Iraq quickly, and started a psy-ops campaign to get the civilian government of the US to support an immediate pull out of Iraq. So, the government starts paying CNN, FoxNews and ABC News to run stories from 'ordinary Iraqis' (really US military personnel) recounting horrible events of dead civilians and attacks on US personnel, and pointing out many, many incidents of rising hatred against America--all of them true. You'd be fine with your taxes going to support such an effort? That's just all fair game, a good free press, and you'd have no problems with that?
A 'free press' means one that is not duped and bribed.
Alexander the Pretty Good
12-02-2005, 01:11
Well, that case would be treason.
Adrian II
12-02-2005, 02:02
How is paying newspapers to print favorable stories a subversion of democratic institutions?Please tell us you are only being sarcastic here. If not, ask yourself why Congress has ruled explicitly against any attempts by the Pentagon to influence American public opinion by planting stories in the U.S. media. What is sauce for the goose...
Mind you, they are allowed to plant fake news in foreign media, and one of the reasons why they are doing this in Iraq is that these stories are subsequently taken up by pro-war media and blogs in the United States. 't Is the Pentagon's own little backdoor to American hearts and minds, my friend. Their product is the sort of 'feel good' stuff from anonymous sources that is regularly posted here by Gawain. You know, the crap that is allegedly written by 'a Marine' or 'a U.S. Army officer' even though it looks, sounds and smells like the fantasies of some jerk in a suit cooped up in a Beltway condo rented by one of the Pentagon's pr-firms.
I mean even I smell it, and I'm a bloody foreigner. ~;)
Soulforged
12-02-2005, 02:37
Sounds like a free press to me- they have to pay them to run the stories dont they? If it was state-run media they wouldnt have to pay them would they?That's incorrect. The article states that they PAY THEM specifically to distort the facts and BRING GOOD NEWS, not simply pay them. Poor turn of the words.
solypsist
12-02-2005, 04:22
What strikes me about this is just how badly the US military sucks. It's really pathetic, because their propoganda war just isn't working at all.
These "psychological warfare" experts need some remedial lessons back at the psych war academy.
Spetulhu
12-02-2005, 06:26
What strikes me about this is just how badly the US military sucks. It's really pathetic, because their propoganda war just isn't working at all.
The psy-ops may suck, but the fighting forces can still blow **** up in stupendous amounts.
/edit: watch the language
Tribesman
12-02-2005, 08:47
The psy-ops may suck, but the fighting forces can still blow **** up in stupendous amounts.
Which psy-ops is worse ?
Paying for stories under false pretences because only Al-Jazeera (oh they are the evil media arn't they) covers the good news locally .
Or burning people so you can tell the locals that you are tougher than the terrorists .
The second really sucks , the first only sucks because you have to do it as there have been so many stories from official sources that have been shown to false that when there is good news you have to pretend it is from independant sources as people don't believe you anymore .
Paying people to believe what you have to say ????
What a waste of money , if they had retained any credibility it wouldn't be neccesary.
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 09:25
If the local media doesn't cooperate, you could always use Kaiser's likely approach to the matter.
Having to actually pay local media to run positive stories isn't exactly going to help credibility or raise hopes about the situation in Iraq, though.
Spetulhu
12-02-2005, 15:17
The psy-ops may suck, but the fighting forces can still blow **** up in stupendous amounts.
Which psy-ops is worse ?
Paying for stories under false pretences because only Al-Jazeera (oh they are the evil media arn't they) covers the good news locally .
Or burning people so you can tell the locals that you are tougher than the terrorists .
Armies are usually measured for their ability to destroy stuff. The US armed forces are really good at it, so they don't suck in that regard. I only meant the fighting forces are tough, not that people like getting shot better than being fed propaganda.
Tribesman
12-02-2005, 16:10
Armies are usually measured for their ability to destroy stuff.
Yeah , but this isn't a destroy stuff fight is it , it is a lets convince the locals that we are the way forward and we are here to help you fight .
If there were improvements on the ground then they wouldn't have to pay journalists to tell them how much things have improved as the locals could see it for themselves .
And as for the other psy-ops incident I mentioned , that has to be just about the most counterproductive hearts and minds psycology in the history of the world .
Hurin_Rules
12-02-2005, 18:09
Looks like the congresional armed services committee is demanding answers from the Pentagon on this issue. Even the Republican John Warner seems quite disturbed by the reports:
Senators demand answers about Pentagon propaganda program
Sen. Warner concerned that program will cripple Iraqi press
Friday, December 2, 2005 Posted: 1441 GMT (2241 HKT)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon is struggling to answer questions, including those from Congress, about a military program that planted favorable stories in Iraqi media.
Defense Department officials, summoned to a briefing Friday before the Senate Armed Services Committee, have remained silent about the program. Multimillion-dollar contracts cover paying Iraqi newspapers and journalists to get into print such stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
"A free and independent press is critical to the functioning of a democracy, and I am concerned about any actions which may erode the independence of the Iraqi media," said the committee chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia.
Military officials in Iraq say the program is necessary.
"The purpose of this program is to ensure factual information is provided to the Iraqi public," Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a U.S. military spokesman, said in Iraq.
One of the companies involved -- the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, was for public relations and advertising work in Iraq and involved planting favorable stories in the Iraqi media, Defense Department records show.
The other Lincoln contract, which is with the Special Operations Command, is worth up to $100 million over five years for media operations with video, print and Web-based products. That contract is not related to the dispute over propaganda and was not for services in Iraq, according to command spokesman Ken McGraw.
The Lincoln Group shares that Special Operations contract with SYColeman, a division of L-3 Communications, and Science Applications International Corp., a San Diego-based defense contractor.
The program came to light just as President Bush released his strategy for victory in Iraq. It includes the need to support a "free, independent and responsible Iraqi media."
"We're very concerned," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. "We are seeking more information from the Pentagon."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, 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."
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said late Thursday he was still trying to gather information from U.S. military officials in Baghdad.
A military spokesman in the Iraqi capital was asked if the program undercuts the credibility of the military or the news media. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch quoted a senior al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, as saying that "half the battle is the battlefield of the media."
Lynch said the terrorists lie to the Iraqi people, but the American military does not.
"Everything we do is based on fact not based on fiction," Lynch said.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/02/iraq.newsstories.ap/index.html
Geoffrey S
12-02-2005, 18:53
A military spokesman in the Iraqi capital was asked if the program undercuts the credibility of the military or the news media. Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch quoted a senior al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, as saying that "half the battle is the battlefield of the media."
Lynch said the terrorists lie to the Iraqi people, but the American military does not.
So Iraqi media equates terrorists, does it?
Presumably, whatever the media in Iraq might say the public there would be able to perceive for itself whether it's true or not, whereas people outside Iraq would have to rely purely on the media or government information. So who is the target of such a program?
Proletariat
12-02-2005, 21:28
Presumably, whatever the media in Iraq might say the public there would be able to perceive for itself whether it's true or not, whereas people outside Iraq would have to rely purely on the media or government information. So who is the target of such a program?
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Iraqi citizens who live in a country apparently on the brink of a civil war are impervious to misinformation, but the people outside with access to multiple sources of media and information are gullible and susceptible?
Tribesman
12-02-2005, 21:47
, but the people outside with access to multiple sources of media and information are gullible and susceptible?
Some clearly are Prole .
"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," That says it all honestly. The enemy is getting their propaganda out freely, but when we try to counter it it's apparently a criminal act. ~:handball:
Tribesman
12-03-2005, 02:22
when we try to counter it it's apparently a criminal act.
What is "criminal" Xiahou is that they are having to spend money to pretend that it is not themselves that are the source of the story .
If they retained a decent level of credibility then they wouldn't have to go to such unnecesary expense .
solypsist
12-03-2005, 04:05
The backdrop of the story is there's a section in the U.S. law that bars the American government from planting propaganda in the media: it only bars them from planting stories directly in the U.S. media - and, even though they've found other ways to run domestic propaganda campaigns, it at least keeps a lid on that sort activity. But if they plant a bogus story abroad, and it, as even may be intended, finds its way into the U.S. media where it's widely discussed as fact, that's perfectly legal. If a reporter (like Judith Miller) meets a CIA-trained "informant" abroad for a story to appear in the NYT the next day, that's perfectly legal. See where this starts getting on the slippery-slope of disinformation to American citizens?
solypsist
12-03-2005, 04:07
Because what's the value of victory if we resort to the same tactics used by those we're fighting against?
Oh right, cause it's us, we can do those things. It's not evil when we do it, only when some non-christian country of brown people does it. Torture, lying, planting evidence, it's just not cool when THEY do it.
Unfortunately, if propaganda planted abroad and trickling back into America keeps half of the US public in the cozy belief things are just going great in Iraq, and dissenting voices can easily be tuned out by dismissing them as unfair and unbalanced bias, it will slow down the process of withdrawing. The war the US government is leading is mainly a propaganda war against its own people.
That says it all honestly. The enemy is getting their propaganda out freely, but when we try to counter it it's apparently a criminal act. ~:handball:
Because what's the value of victory if we resort to the same tactics used by those we're fighting against?
Oh right, cause it's us, we can do those things. It's not evil when we do it, only when some non-christian country of brown people does it. Torture, lying, planting evidence, it's just not cool when THEY do it.
Oh yes, now we're equating news stories with torture. I doubt they were that badly written.
The terrorists are using guns too I understand- we better stop using them as well since 'what's the value of victory if we resort to the same tactics used by those we're fighting against?' Gimme a break. ~:rolleyes:
bmolsson
12-03-2005, 06:46
I can't see anything wrong with using fake news to get peace in Iraq....
KafirChobee
12-03-2005, 07:31
I can't see anything wrong with using fake news to get peace in Iraq....
LOL .... I know you jest!
That is just the most preposterous one liner I have yet to read here (aside from the No's, yeses, maybes, and I be withs hims).
The point of the entire thing is quite simple: at what point do we become what we purportedly abhore by employing their methods? Is it OK for us to use propagandic methods, while deploring the use by an opposition? Or, is it that we are so right in our cause, that they are absolutely wrong in theirs?
Peace, has nothing to do with the use of propaganda. Propaganda is about supporting the continuance of failed policy (s). Propaganda is used when all else fails, and to promote ideas normally beyond the acceptance of a society (like torture being OK under the proper circumstances, or going to war because you scared the bejesus outta your populace). Paying papers that oppose your philosophical slant on things (and believing it will stay a secret?), is dumb. Just dumb, not stupid - just naive beyond belief. Then again, what else could we expect from Bushy's clan of inempt loyalists. You do know this is from the school teacher (Mrs. whatever) he put in charge of the "hurts and mine" (ms intent) policy?
Unbelievaaaaaaaaaaaable! Can this administration get much dumber? Turn in tomorrow - same bat channel......... ~;p
Is it OK for us to use propagandic methods, while deploring the use by an opposition? Or, is it that we are so right in our cause, that they are absolutely wrong in theirs?Are you joking? Of course that's the difference- there's no moral equivilence between the Iraqis and coalition members who are trying to setup a stable representitive government and the insurgents who only seek to blow up and murder their own people.
Now I'll sit back and wait for people to explain how we're every bit as bad as the terrorists.~:rolleyes:
Tribesman
12-03-2005, 11:31
I can't see anything wrong with using fake news to get peace in Iraq....
The news isn't really fake , only the supposed source .
Now that the story is out that the good news being published is really coming not from independant sources but from people who have in the past put out fake news means that even if the good news is real people won't believe it because the real source is a proven liar . So it is a waste of money .
Once again it is a case of "the boy who cried wolf" .
So while last week we had government figures making speeches that Iraq is moving to freedom and openess as evidenced by the establishment of 18 independant newspapers , this week we hear that the independant newspapers are being paid to run stories by people who claim to be someone else .
How many times can this administration shoot itself in the foot ?
Geoffrey S
12-03-2005, 12:46
I don't understand what you're saying. Are you saying that Iraqi citizens who live in a country apparently on the brink of a civil war are impervious to misinformation, but the people outside with access to multiple sources of media and information are gullible and susceptible?
Not quite. It really depends on how slanted the articles in question are, and to be honest I don't know how far the ones in question went; if there's too large a discrepency between what's reported and the truth Iraqis would be able compare what they read to what they see for themselves and decide how trustworthy an article is. Outside Iraq, we are forced to rely on second-hand information provided by the media or by our governments, and don't have the personal experience to accurately evaluate their worth and hence, yes, are more susceptible to selective reporting or political bias. This works both ways, both when it comes to liberal or conservative bias, terrorist propaganda or US spin.
The Iraqis aren't immune to misinformation any more than people in the rest of the world, but they do have the personal experience of the situation that they can apply to what they're told which, something most of us people in the West lack.
Are you joking? Of course that's the difference- there's no moral equivilence between the Iraqis and coalition members who are trying to setup a stable representitive government and the insurgents who only seek to blow up and murder their own people.
But is that government (or in this case, the media) stable and representative if it's being propped up by an outside force such as the US?
Soulforged
12-03-2005, 19:49
Are you joking? Of course that's the difference- there's no moral equivilence between the Iraqis and coalition members who are trying to setup a stable representitive government and the insurgents who only seek to blow up and murder their own people.
Now I'll sit back and wait for people to explain how we're every bit as bad as the terrorists.No...Don't worry...We all know that you're the crusaders.
It's amazing that this same kind of irrational behavior of a thousand years ago is still present. You fight for something (dunno, maybe oil, more economic and political power?), the others fight for other reasons, maybe you know what are their reasons, you appear to know "terrorists", not humans he! terrorists!, very well don't you?~:rolleyes:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.