@@ U.S. admits paying media to write fake news and reports @@
Arash
December 3, 2005
Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News
Possible 'Improprieties' to Be Investigated
By Josh White & Bradley Graham
The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that
it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but
officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter
insurgents' misinformation.
In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, "customary in Iraq",
to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers.
But the statement suggested that the "information operations" program may have veered
into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi
newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that
Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts.
"Serious allegations have been raised that suggest the process may be functioning in
a manner different than is intended or appropriate", the statement said. Commanders
are "reviewing these allegations and will investigate any improprieties", it said.
The statement from Baghdad was the first official effort to explain the media
initiative after three days of news reports describing efforts by the U.S. military
to plant stories in Iraqi media under the guise of independent journalism.
The episode has sparked an intense debate at the Pentagon and beyond, as military
officials in Washington said privately that they are troubled by the situation and
media experts said the program violated standard journalistic practices.
The controversy has also fanned a debate that has been underway for months in
military circles about the role that information operations (IO) should be playing in
nontraditional conflicts such as the Iraq situation. The term covers a wide range of
activities -- some open, some not -- intent on undermining an enemy by fooling,
confusing or refuting him.
"The broader debate is whether it's acceptable for the information operations (IO)
community to be doing this", said a general who has served in Iraq and has some
experience in information operations.
After a briefing from Pentagon officials yesterday, Senator John W. Warner (R-Va.),
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he remains "gravely concerned about
the situation". He said the Pentagon is looking into cases in which there may have
been "an omission" of labels in newspapers indicating where the material came from or
that it was an advertisement.
In describing the program, military officials said third parties -- including the
Washington-based Lincoln Group
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lincoln_Group) -- were sometimes hired to
distribute the articles to newspapers to protect publishers that might have been
targeted by insurgents if they were known to accept material from the military.
Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln Group
(http://www.prwatch.org/node/4235) intentionally misled newspapers by presenting the
articles as freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S.
armed forces.
Lincoln Group (http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12840) officials would not
discuss specifics of the contract.
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the company, said yesterday that Lincoln Group has
been promoting truthful reporting across Iraq.
"We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that
highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for
freedom and security", Laurie Adler said in a written statement. "We are encouraged
by their sacrifice and proud to help them tell their side of the story".
Officials familiar with the Lincoln Group's contract said it allows the firm to pay
to have articles placed in the Iraqi press. The contract reportedly says nothing
about disguising the origin of the articles, but some military officers defended the
practice as a necessary security measure, to protect the Iraqi journalists used to
deliver the accounts and the Iraqi news organizations that print them.
If it were known that the journalists and the news organizations were carrying
information provided by the U.S. military, these officers said, insurgents would
surely target them. Indeed, at least two of the Iraqi newspapers cited in initial
news reports as having printed the articles in question have since received threats
from insurgents, according to military officials.
Proponents of such tactics argue that different standards should be applied to what
is permissible in a combat zone such as Iraq than, say, in the United States or other
stable democracies. Although the idea of the military using covert methods to get
favorable information into print appears unethical at home, the argument goes, there
are mitigating circumstances justifying such tactics in Iraq.
Warner met with several officers and civilian leaders at the Pentagon yesterday for a
briefing on the program, a meeting that yielded few details. Senator Warner told
reporters on Capitol Hill that the program was authorized through the U.S. Central
Command and that the Lincoln Group was allowed to provide payments for the placement
of articles with the understanding that any such material would be labeled as an
advertisement originating from coalition forces.
The material, produced by information operators and not by public affairs officials,
was reviewed by a flag officer and commanders before distribution, and it received
legal clearance in Iraq, Senator Warner said.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, sent a
letter to the Defense Department's inspector general asking for an investigation into
the program and the Lincoln Group contract. Kennedy called it "a devious scheme to
place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers."
Top Pentagon authorities appear to have been caught off guard by the disclosure of
the Lincoln Group's activities, and the three days it has taken for the Defense
Department to produce yesterday's statement seemed to reflect considerable
uncertainty about how to respond. Several senior Pentagon officials expressed their
own frustration over waiting for an explanation from the military command in Baghdad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454.html