Military Pays Iraqi Media To Run Favorable Stories

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Media, The War On Terrorism, War

If this story proves true, it’ll be a major blow to our credibility in Iraq, and could serve to further undermine our mission both there and all over the Middle East.

In other words, credibility is vital and we don’t seem to care or realize this.

More of my thoughts are over at The Moderate Voice.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 30th, 2005 and is filed under Media, The War On Terrorism, War. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

12 Responses to “Military Pays Iraqi Media To Run Favorable Stories”

  1. This&That Says:

    Odd. When having the miltary pass out/pay for factual information in local media in Kosovo there was no problem with it….

    “In support of the Multi-National Brigade–East MNB(E) peacekeeping mission in Kosovo, the Army conducted information operations to affect the flow and content of information in the area of responsibility (AOR) and achieved information superiority by disseminating timely, truthful information to key local leaders and populace groups. The operational advantage gained by information superiority was the local populace’s support for MNB(E) operations.”

    “MNB(E) operations were constrained to nonlethal means. To support maneuver operations, MNB(E) employed tactical PSYOP teams, a public affairs detachment, civil affairs (CA) tactical support teams, combat camera teams, medical treatment teams, unit commanders, and unit patrols. These dissimilar IO assets used disparate means, such as PSYOP loudspeaker operations and handbills; radio broadcasts; press releases and media events; medical assistance programs; reconstruction and short-term employment projects; face-to-face meetings; and force presence. The challenge of information operations was to translate these means into focused capabilities that fulfilled the commander’s intent.”

    “MNB(E)’s primary IO-capable assets were–

    * A PSYOP company, which focused on influencing the attitudes, perceptions, and behavior of Kosovo’s indigenous populace. Tactical PSYOP teams conducted loudspeaker operations and faceto-face and other direct PSYOP product dissemination. The company’s PSYOP dissemination detachment produced handbills, posters, and other print products as well as radio and TV programming.”

    Why I bet they even “paid” some local newspapers to print their stories….

    So did this tactic become “….a major blow to our credibility in Iraq [Kosovo], and could serve to further undermine our mission….” when used in Kosovo? No?

    Hmmmm. Oh it will be a problem NOW after the various Lefties spin turn it into pro-terrorist anti-USA propaganda.

    But then Bush is in the WhiteHouse so obviously the tactic is Evil.

    Sigh. Who needs enemies with friends like these?


  2. Joshua Says:

    I’ve seen this story discussed on other blogs, and what Justin has described doesn’t quite tell the whole story.

    Apparently the real purpose of this “information offensive” is to influence not the Iraqi people but America’s own MSM, who gather much of their Iraq-war scoops from Iraqi and Arab media. In other words, the goal is to shore up support for the war on the homefront (where it’s needed the most) rather than in Iraq itself.

    Producing war propaganda for the home front is nothing new. (“Why We Fight”, anyone?) The only thing novel about the Iraqi “information offensive” is in its roundabout methodology – propaganda by osmosis, you could call it. It was a clever try – but of course, now that the secret’s out the value of this tactic has pretty much disappeared.

  3. sleipner Says:

    Why not? This administration has been paying the media in OUR country to run stories favorable to its (ridiculous) opinions, so why not there?

  4. Monica Says:

    Paying to play factual stories? What’s exactly is the problem?

  5. sleipner Says:

    There’s a huge difference between propaganda and fact. In Iraq it sounds as if the stories are true, but that they are written in such a way to make the facts sound better than they truly are – i.e. the usual Republican (ok, politician) media spin that we’ve been increasingly blitzed with since 1998 or so.

  6. Chris Says:

    Speaking of spin, This&That does a great job in his own right. Everything he describes that went on in Kosovo is plain old public relations (and I work in PR, so it’s not a dirty word to me.) The big difference in what we’re doing in Iraq is paying the news media to run stories. So how does that compare to Kosovo? “Why I bet they even “paidâ€Â? some local newspapers to print their stories.”

    Funny how the central fact that supports his thesis came out of his ass.

    That said, I’m not as horrified as some people by the whole thing. It’s not something we should tolerate here, but when fighting a war it seems like a pretty mild tactic. And I say this as one who is very opposed to the war.

  7. Justin Gardner Says:

    As I stated before, this certainly hurts our credibility AND the credibility of those news sources.

    So what will the Iraqis think when they pick up their papers? That’s the point. Imagine if you knew your papers were actually getting paid to write stories favorable to the adminstration. We saw it recently with Armstrong Williams. He’s disgraced now. So too will be these Iraqi papers, and a stable and trustworthy media is vital in any Democracy.

    Also, it bugs since this is exactly what SHOULDN’T be happening in a democracy? This is Saddam regime nonsense, and everybody knows it.

  8. Justin Gardner Says:

    Paying to play factual stories? What’s exactly is the problem?

    And by the way, you’re kidding, right Monica?

  9. Monica Says:

    Justin -

    No, I’m not kidding. In a war, I don’t have a problem with paying to play factual stories.

    It wouldn’t be acceptable to do this in the United States, but a war is going on in Iraq. That changes everything.

    It’s not as if we’re planting false stories, and your reaction gives support to that very off based message. I don’t get understand it.

  10. Justin Gardner Says:

    Monica, I think the fact that they’re factual is much better than if they were false, but it’s still dirty poker.

    I guess initially I was caught off guard by your response because it was so non-chalant. But now that I know you really don’t understand why this could be very damaging to our credibility in Iraq and the region, I’m even more curious why you are so seemingly blaise. And if you seriously don’t understand the implications of paying newspapers in a country you invaded to run stories, I don’t know that I can really explain it to you.

  11. Monica Says:

    Justin -

    I think you should’ve said … And if you seriously don’t understand the implications of paying newspapers in a country you invaded to run FACTUAL stories, I don’t know that I can really explain it to you.”

    That would’ve been more accurate.

    I understand the implications, but I weigh that against no good stories being printed and choose the former. What is your solution? I’d be interested to hear it.

  12. Donklephant » Blog Archive » Propaganda 2.0 Says:

    [...] With the recent revelation that the military was paying Iraq newspapers to run positive stories about the US fresh in our minds, now comes a peak behind the scenes at our military’s effort to win the “information war.” [...]

Leave a Reply


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.

Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.

One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.

Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.

Related Posts: