It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WAR: U.S. Military Pays Iraqi Newspapers to Run Pro U.S. Stories

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Many of the news articles in Iraqi newspapers that are written by "freelance" reporters are actually paid advertisements for the United States. These articles, while probably true, are not what we would call reporting since they focus more on one side of the issues. You can bet that side of the issue is pro-United States reporting since the United States isn't likely to pay for articles slamming itself.
 



seattletimes.nwsource.com
As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by U.S. 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 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 rebuilding efforts.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


What this amounts to is a propaganda war on the part of the United States. Instead of dropping leaflets from airplanes, the U.S. is instead inserting it's leaflets in to newspapers disguised as stories. These stories are truthful in the same manner that "We love Bush" stories are truthful at welovethepresident.com. There are no outright lies, but any problems can be overlooked while the positive is overstated.

Wasn't it just last week that Donald Rumsfeld stated that the freedom of the press was one of the signs that the War in Iraq was successful? No, the war is still in progress and military propaganda is in full-effect.

Related News Links:
www.courant.com




posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
why is it that all of the U.S. secret ops are so public?

That said, this doesn't really surprise me one bit. remember that the most trusted name in news in the middle east is Al Jazeera. So, a little counterprogramming in the newspapers is actually a smart play by the military.

Allowing the operation to become public knowledge is kinda funny actually.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   
These people pay for friendly media coverage here at home.

I can't say it shocks me that they're doing it in Iraq too.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Wasn't it just last week that Donald Rumsfeld stated that the freedom of the press was one of the signs that the War in Iraq was successful? No, the war is still in progress and military propaganda is in full-effect.


Maybe he did not read through the constitution America imposed on Iraq.

www.cpa-iraq.org...

Iraq does NOT have freedom of the Press.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   


And this surprises who?

This is the administration that has been convicted by the US General Acounting Office for using public funds for propaganda.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
.... with over 22 privately owned papers (not including magazines) their economy has improved to the point that they can accept or reject whatever adverts/stories they want to. Besides it's not actually propaganda of it's true.
Also, SOMEONE has to oppose, or at least propose a different slant on the things
Aljazeera is saying.

ArchAngel: the Constitution was voted on by people who faced possible death just for showing up at the polling places.... and were happy to do so. Same goes for the voting in Afghanistan, neither of which would have happened if we didn't continue the war started in '91.
No... the people here *itch if they have to stand in line for a while.. or if it's raining outside... Boo Hoo...

[edit on 30-11-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
These people pay for friendly media coverage here at home.


I am not saying your stretching the truth, but with a statement like that it would show a whole lot better if you could please provide a link to me that proves the statement true.

We have the proof in Iraq, but where is the proof here at home?

- One Man Short ®



[edit on 30-11-2005 by One Man Short of Manhood]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

ArchAngel: the Constitution was voted on by people who faced possible death just for showing up at the polling places.... and were happy to do so.


That will not take effect until a new government is formed.

The CURRENT Constitution was imposed by the Occupational Forces, and does not allow Freedom of the Press.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 02:57 PM
link   
ArchAngel: Their Constitution doesn't have to give them "permission" to allow for freedom of the press, and it most certainly does not prohibit freedom of the press; they decide it for themselves; at least they did while I was there. I'll check it when I go back. I've read the entire thing, and there is nothing which prohibits free speech in the press, or anywhere else, for that matter.

By the way, enough has happened that it is no longer an occupation (as in "occupation forces") but liberation.

[edit on 30-11-2005 by zappafan1]

[edit on 30-11-2005 by zappafan1]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by One Man Short of Manhood

We have the proof in Iraq, but where is the proof here at home?




It's old news, but for example:

www.gao.gov...
"CMS violated the Antideficiency Act, 31 U.S.C. § 1341..."

Also see:

Bush Used Tax Dollars for Propaganda. Update March 13, 2005

GAO Says HHS Broke Laws With Medicare Videos

Bush administration blurs media boundary

List of Laws Broken by the Bush Administration, Covert Propaganda Violations



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   
....my god nobody reads, whats wrong with factual info about good things we're doing? what, we're not allowed to counter negative reports now? what is the big deal?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
The big deal is politics. For those who are either against the Iraqi conflict, or up against those who support the conflict, the leaking of this information is a huge political victory, as it both makes the supporters look bad, and hamstrings the effort towards conflict resolution in Iraq, making the entire situation look worse. It is disgusting. Political gain that means more troops deployed longer and more casualties should be considered treason.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 01:43 AM
link   


I am not saying your stretching the truth, but with a statement like that it would show a whole lot better if you could please provide a link to me that proves the statement true.


It's amazing how quickly these things fall off the public radar, am I the only person who remembers this:? Bush administration blurs media boundary



In January came news that commentator Armstrong Williams, a syndicated broadcast host, had received a $240,000 payment from the Education Department to promote the No Child Left Behind Act. On a lesser scale, commentators Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus were paid $21,500 and $10,200, respectively, to advise the Department of Health and Human Services on its marriage initiatives. Unlike Williams, neither were paid explicitly to promote White House policy in their columns.


[edit on 12/1/05 by xmotex]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 02:16 AM
link   
But Ofcourse they are!
Just as there are no pictures of Dead US soldiers in the US Media - there are supposed to be Pro-US and no Anti-War stories in Iraqi newspaper also! This is not just War on Terrorism, it is also War on Media, as it was shown number of times. If you do not report for US, you are against US, meaning you are in the Bed with the filthy Terrorists.

Anyway, you might wanna check this out:


The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq


Media War was never so Fierce as it is Today.
Too many News Stations, too many Reporters, too many Blogs, too many Sources, too many versions of Truth.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 07:42 AM
link   
This is clearly a propaganda war, and a propaganda war would have to be invovled in any campaign to win over a populace. The pentagon is apparently taking a cue from the Bush Administration, since the administration paid 'journalists' and pundits to write editorials and 'news peices' in their favour. Bad idea domestically, great idea internationally.

Wonder if some of the budget that was cut from VOA was used to fund this. Would be a similar use.

[edit on 1-12-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 08:12 AM
link   
For those of you who say, "what's wrong with this?" I say, why should the truth have to be purchased?

You claim that since the other 'side' is using propaganda, that we have to counter with the same. Since when do two wrongs make a right?

And, even if, somewhere, it's decided to sacrifice freedom of the press for the greater good, don't you think you should think twice before tooting a big horn about how there's freedom of the press?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
But Ofcourse they are!
Just as there are no pictures of Dead US soldiers in the US Media - there are supposed to be Pro-US and no Anti-War stories in Iraqi newspaper also! This is not just War on Terrorism, it is also War on Media, as it was shown number of times. If you do not report for US, you are against US, meaning you are in the Bed with the filthy Terrorists.

Anyway, you might wanna check this out:


The media are minimising US and British war crimes in Iraq


Media War was never so Fierce as it is Today.
Too many News Stations, too many Reporters, too many Blogs, too many Sources, too many versions of Truth.


Do the research; there is a lw, enected during WWII that does not allow media photos or television broadcast of fallen soldiers.

The last time I checked, "the media" is a for-profit business, and payment for advertising would be expected; you know.... so the people that work there can buy food, heating fuel, pay their bills, etc.

The Iraqi media can report what it wants and, since most of them believe in freedom for their people, would help get across the positive things that are happening, which are many. Aljazeera works for Alqueda...... let them promote the "bad" things.

Since you bring up "war crimes", a little reminder: Al-Queda, and all the other terrorists, do not meet the requirements to be protected under the the Geneva Convention. We should go back to the way it used to be.... the aggressor sets the rules for engagement. However, America will never do that... you won't see American of British soldiers burning people and hanging them from light posts, for example.

The decision still belongs to the Iraqi media. I merely mentioned there are no laws or constitutional requirements prohibiting publication of anti-war information.

"Propaganda" is a military tool, and has been for centuries. Get over it.

Namehere: don't get too upset... the facts don't matter to many here.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 09:33 AM
link   
The elections in Iraq resemble the style and techniques of elections in the USA, why shouldn't the government-supported media do the same? Yes, this is no surprise whatsoever to me.

Little USA, anyone?



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Little USA, anyone?


Well now that we dominated the media and are littler but sure introducing thanksgiving, the holy tree, next will be Christmas lights and Santa.

Hey . . . can you imagine an Iraqi Santa ridding a Camel?

We better hurry up and get the chimneys going so Santa can bring the spirit of western holidays to the Iraqi children lives.

Next will be the eastern bunny and hum . . . maybe St. Patric day?


Yes I give it a few more years and they will be all singing Christmas Carols in the desert.



posted on Dec, 1 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jadette
For those of you who say, "what's wrong with this?" I say, why should the truth have to be purchased?

Who said anything about 'the truth'?

You claim that since the other 'side' is using propaganda, that we have to counter with the same.
Even if they weren't using propaganda, it'd be in the US's best interests to do so.


And, even if, somewhere, it's decided to sacrifice freedom of the press for the greater good,

In iraq? Who cares. When the US leaves the iraqis can do whatever they want and write up history books about how the US had to resort to shameful manipulation of the media to defeat the insurgency. Who cares.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join