| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| How useful is US propaganda in Iraq? |
| 2005-12-28 |
| Experts say it might help, but almost three-quarters of Americans dislike the idea. By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com In a USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey released just before Christmas Day, 72 percent of Americans thought that it was "wrong for the US to pay Iraqi newspapers and journalists to publish and write stories about US efforts in Iraq." USA Today reported earlier this month, however, that the US actually plans to continue with the program and expand it to other countries, spending more than $300 million in the effort. Smart move, I heard recently that the Simpsons now has an Arab counterpart called the Shampshons. But no bacon + no beer = no Simpsons in my book. As Alan Pusey of The Dallas Morning News reports, these incidents have reignited the debate over the value and limits of propaganda in an age of global communications and "perpetual political spin." This isn't a new debate in the world of counterinsurgency campaigns, it's just a fact of life. "Propaganda gets a bad rap," said P.J. Crowley, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and former senior director of public affairs for the National Security Council in the Clinton administration. "The issue is not whether it's good or bad; it's a fact of life. ... It's whether or not it hurts or helps." Finally an applicable comment. "There is really a misconception about the value of propaganda, particularly in wartime. But it's an indispensable tool of modern war," said Aaron Delwiche, an expert on the subject at Trinity University in San Antonio. "There's no way any responsible commander would go to war without propaganda in the tool kit." True to fact, these guys have my ear. The Morning News reports that the problem with the payment of money to Iraqi journalists, according to many experts, is that the US military deliberately obscured its role in producing the material. The program also is a reflection of government action earlier this year, when some federal agencies "paid journalists to write stories or columns that were sympathetic to the Bush administration's efforts to support traditional marriage and 'No Child Left Behind.'" Government investigators found these efforts inappropriate. As long as they keep the propoganda out of the US, its fine in my book. Wars require killing, maiming, destroying, suspending rights, etc...domestic policies are in a different cart altogether. Victoria Clarke, a former Pentagon spokeswoman and now media consultant, says it's a good thing that the US Defense Department has said it will halt payments to Iraqi journalists. Clarke says the revelations have undermined the goal of the overall mission: to create a free Iraq and free Iraqis. That can't happen if burgeoning Iraqi newspapers are seen as tools of the United States or anyone else. It's a good thing that they say they will halt payments, set up some shell non profits that recieve funding from the DoD through back door channels and then pay these dudes anyway. Problem solved, plausible deniability done, lets move forward. "I understand the frustration of the military. They thought they weren't getting the kind of good press they deserved," Clarke said. "But that is short-term thinking. You might have a good story for one day, but you aren't going to instill in the society you're hoping to create the kind of independent values that you want." Follow Elvis's advice hun! The New York Times reported Monday on how former Bush advisor Karen Hughes is handling the tough job of promoting the image of the US abroad without using 'propaganda.' Ms. Hughes admits it is not an easy sell. Plausible deniability, need I repeat this again? "This is a big job with a lot of different moving pieces," Hughes, President George W. Bush's confidante and former communications director, said in an interview four months after taking office. "Ed Murrow once famously said that there's no cash register that rings when a mind is changed. But I think over the long haul we can begin to shape a better perception in the Middle East." Hughes received a fair amount of criticism for her first trip to the Middle East this past fall, where she was accused of just repeating talking points and had to listen to a lot of criticism about the US's role in Iraq and the world. But the Times reports that Hughes gained respect for her willingness to listen to her critics. The times reports it, so it must be true huh? I think she's doing far better than her predecessors," said Shibley Telhami, the Anwar Sadat professor for peace and development at the University of Maryland. "Because of her closeness to the president, she has real influence on policy. The problem is that she and her staff still lack real expertise in the Middle East." He's lobbying for a job in this statement. The University of Maryland is a non profit, so they need a new department, so this guys wants to be an expert? So again, where there's a will, there's several ways. Hughes has made some changes. She recently cancelled the glossy magazine 'Hi,' a pro-US lifestyle magazine aimed at Mideast audiences, and has appeared on the Qatar-based Arab news channel Al Jazeera to argue the US viewpoint, despite advice from others in the Bush administration that she should avoid such appearances. Meanwhile, some commentators challenge the notion that Arab and Middle East media always provide biased coverage of the region and the war in Iraq. Rami Khoury, the editor of The Daily Star of Lebanon and a former Nieman Fellow in journalism at Harvard Unversity, writes that he has spent hours watching Arab satellite TV and talking to Arab media staff and senior administrators to "better understand their view of the world." He says the result is that he believes any useful, accurate analysis of the Arab media must separate "professional conduct from their political impact." So who funded this fellowship at Harvard? He sounds like he'd like another, have a CIA agent pay him a visit and make a deal. In the past three years, covering the Anglo-American led war in Iraq and its messy aftermath, I've made it a point to regularly watch Arab, European and American television services in order to compare their coverage. On the basis of what I have witnessed during the past 1,000 days, I would like to bet Donald Rumsfeld a double cheeseburger with cheese, and Karen Hughes two tickets to a Yankees-Rangers baseball game on a balmy July evening, that the overall coverage of Iraq on the mainstream Arab satellite services has been more comprehensive, balanced and accurate than the coverage of any mainstream American cable or broadcast television service. We'd like you to continue criticizing us, while you say what we're doing is right, the Arabs love that shit, and it makes you more believable. Oh, and about that fellowship. Also, not everyone believes that the Pentagon is playing by the rules, even in the US. The Chicago Tribune reported earlier this month that in a lengthy study in 2003, former US colonel and Pentagon adviser Sam Gardner said he found 50 stories in US publications based on information disseminated by the Pentagon even though it knew the information was false. "It's a culture that believes that it's OK to manipulate the story," Gardiner said. "It goes all the way from the senior leaders down to the battalion commanders." We call that good training. The Pentagon has denied this charge, calling the allegation "absurd, wrong, misguided, pick your adjective. Someone at the Pentagon knows how to spell plausible deniability I see. Good hire. Who gives a shit what "regular" people like or dislike. Propoganda is a significant part of any counter insurgency campaign. "Regular" people don't like to kill people, even when they have to, that's why we have trained military personnel to take care of business when necessary. I am a political scientist and a student of propoganda myself, and think our guys are doing a stand up job on this counterinsurgency war on the hearts and minds side and propoganda is among the fine jobs they are doing. Most "regular" people don't have beyond a 5th grade reading level according to recent studies I've seen, so why must we give a shit what they think or do or say in regards to this matter. Leave it to the experts kiddies and enjoy your double vanilla latte frappachinos. EP |
| Posted by:ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding |