If it’s good news, it’s propaganda. If it’s bad news, its “fair”.
Really, that’s what the Los Angeles Times is asserting in the article highlighted by Jeff Goldstein today. Yes, it may certainly appear that the real rub is that the US is paying Iraqi newspapers to run “good news” articles, but that’s not what seems to irk the Times the most. Here’s where the real contention lies:
The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.
Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said.
So the articles are “basically factual” are they? Notice the qualifier “basically”. It’s a weasel word that means “It’s factual, but doesn’t include the facts I think should be there”. In other words, the articles aren’t lying – they’re just not including enough pictures of dead Americans and Iraqis and quotes from terr…err…”insurgents”.
The most laughable thinng about this (as if a purposeful effort to blunt a successful ongoing propaganda effort by our country in the middle of a war could be laughable at all) is that this isn’t new news. As Chuck Simmins notes, this was hardly the covert operation the newspaper made it out to be, considering that both the contractor involved and the Defense Department has public announcements out and the Washington Post had reported on it months ago.
So for all the Times’ breathless breaking of a “covert” operation to spread “basically true” propaganda, there’s nothing here but yet another newspaper doing its best to hamper yet another successful US action against the terrorists murderers in Iraq.
UPDATE: Stephen Spruiell asks “where can I get one of those Iraqi newspapers?” I’d be content if we could swap editorial staffs between any one of those papers and the Los Angeles Times. Maybe we’d get better war coverage that way.
"U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press" (UPDATED)
From the LA Times:As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq. The articles, written by U…
No, I think the main part of the article is in its title (because it is what grabs the readers attention to read more) “U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press
Troops write articles presented as news reports. Some officers object to the practice.”
I believe, that if they had wanted to accomplish what you state they did, that being “The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country” then why not put that as the title? Sounds like that would be a much more convincing title if that is what they had wanted to accomplish, don’t you agree?
You also took issue with the LA Times writing “Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments, officials said” and you wrote that you did not like this stating that “So the articles are “basically factual” are they? Notice the qualifier “basically”. It’s a weasel word that means “It’s factual, but doesn’t include the facts I think should be there”. Now contrast that with what you wrote in your opening paragraph: “Yes, it may (your ‘qualifier’) certainly appear that the real rub is that the US is paying Iraqi newspapers to run “good news” articles, but that’s not what seems to irk the Times the most. Here’s where the real contention lies:” Do you see the similarity?
Therefore, if I follow and use your logic, then you have done exactly what you accussed the LA Times writers of accomplishing. Because of that, you too have now found the reason why I (and anyone else) can take issue with your argument because of the way you in which you attacked the writers; you attacked and discredited yourself.
Again, using your logic someone could conclude:
“There’s nothing here but yet another newspaper(blogger) doing its (his/her/their) best to hamper yet another successful US (liberal newspaper) action (critique) against the terrorists murderers (Administration) in Iraq.”
Remember, it’s following your logic.
-Carl
Man, I don’t think you’d understand logic if it walked up to you and slapped you with a mackerel.
There is a difference between what I said and what the sources said. The sources in the article admitted, reluctantly, that the Iraqi articles were factual but that they didn’t contain “both sides of the story”. My contention has nothing to do with whether the article was factual or not but whether the thrust of the article as presented in the lead was the actual thrust of the article.
Two different things.
Now I don’t know how they do logic where you come from but I certainly don’t recognize it. Maybe you’d describe it as “basically” logic.
No. If I had thought my logic was “basically logic” then I would title it “Basically Logic”. But since that is not my “thrust” I would not title it that. Instead I will title it “Logic” because that would be my “thrust”; this all occurring of course if I wrote an article titled “Logic”. The “thrust” would therefore be implicit in the title and i would therefore have no reason to discuss anything different than what I wrote in the title. This supporting my case as to why I believe that in fact “the thrust of the article as presented in the lead was the actual thrust of the article”.
-Carl
P.S. I don’t think it’s logical to think that “logic” itself will “walk up to” me someday and “slap me with a mackerel”. So, until that day, I will stick with my own logic. BUT when that day comes, I assure you, YOU will be the first to know
P.P.S. I come from the USA and you’re right, logic does seem to have taken on different qualities in the past few years. I think you can logically determine from there who I am quesitioning (cough cough Iraq War= A logical connection to our war on Terrorism? cough cough)
P.P.P.S. Don’t worry, i have thoroughly enjoyed your site and wish you all the best of luck. I am sorry to say though that I will be unable to carry on these conversations anymore because I will be going abroad to Italy to study there through my college. i hope that you have been able to see what my differences are and I know that I have been able to establish your differences with mine. Put all those aside for a moment and i would like to wish you the best of Luck in the New Year. I am being completely honest here now so I hope you take it that way as well.
Many Thanks,
Carl