U.S.
government-influenced Iraqi war coverage
hypocritical
Eric
Strand
Government
contracts and newspapers do not mix well
in the minds of the public.
That’s the bottom line. Journalists get paid by editors to report stories,
not the other way around.
And now, as if the Iraqi people needed more evidence that the American war
effort in their country is based on secrets and lies, the Pentagon has not
only admitted to, but defended a program that pays Iraqi newspapers and media
outlets to publish stories written by Americans that give a slanted, positive
view of the war and conditions in Iraq.
Last week the Los Angeles Times reported our military hired the Washington-based “strategic
communications” firm, the Lincoln Group, to translate stories written
by American troops for print in Baghdad newspapers without necessarily revealing
their sources.
This sort of thing—paying media outlets to publish propaganda—is
not only legal, but also completely normal during times of war.
The Pentagon defends this program by saying there is a need to counter lies
put forth by the enemy in Iraq, who publish similar propaganda discrediting
the American occupation and new Iraqi government.
I don’t know what it takes to run a country or command a war. I’ve
never had the desire to try either. But regardless of whether or not this is
commonplace during times of international conflict, it seems a program which
encourages paying media outlets to print slanted positive views of the war
in Iraq undermines everything “Operation Iraqi Freedom” is about.
I understand propaganda is a weapon of war and rules and ethics do not always
apply when the situation becomes grave enough. I also understand that in politics
honesty is not always the best policy.
But when we say we want to instill freedom and end tyranny in Iraq and then
contribute to a campaign which blatantly insults the concept of a free press,
what are the Iraqi people supposed to think about democracy when we can’t
even get it right ourselves?
To be sure, American newspapers and media outlets do this sort of thing too,
though certainly not to the extent being exercised in Iraq.
An editor who is supposed to act as a gatekeeper selects commentary pages and
editorials in American newspapers.
Commentary is frequently written by pundits, who are paid by the newspaper
for their opinions, but not the other way around.
Are American troops pundits when it comes to the war in Iraq?
Most likely.
And are the conditions in Iraq actually better than the Iraqi journalists could
report them?
Maybe.
But it is disturbing the Pentagon and the Lincoln Group are behind all of this—organizations
several thousand miles
from the combat zone.
We are fed these same success stories and liberation tales almost daily by
the president, vice president and secretary of defense, who do not flinch when
it comes to discussing the positive and negative effects of the war. The war
is good, they say. They bombard us with reassurance.
What I want to know is, how the hell would they know?
This column originally appeared in The Daily Vidette Illinois State University.
|
