Post-Gazette Editorial – 12/6/05

This page was last updated on December 7, 2005.

News plant / The best Iraq coverage money can buy; Editorial; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; December 6, 2005.

I’m not sure which is the better way to view this editorial. It’s either very sad or an example of incredible hypocrisy.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“We suppose it goes with everything else, but the idea that the United States is paying Iraqi journalists and newspapers to plant stories in the Iraqi media reflecting the U.S. government’s view of the war may be a new low.”

“The Department of Defense gave a multimillion-dollar contract last year to a Washington public relations firm, the Lincoln Group, to translate and plant pieces written by American military personnel in Iraqi news media. Although the pieces were factual, they were designed to put a slanted, positive face on activities in Iraq. The Lincoln Group, made up of businessmen and former U.S. military officials, is headed by Christian Bailey, a Republican Party fund-raiser. The contractor has disbursed more than $1 million in cash to Iraqi journalists, trying not to reveal the American source. One of the stories a newspaper was paid to run carried the headline, ‘Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism.’”

[RWC] Heaven forbid that the U.S. military make every effort to make sure the good news about what’s going on in Iraq gets reported. Remember, even the editorial concedes, “the pieces were factual.” What does the PG expect? Does the PG expect the U.S. to sit around and do nothing to make sure people get both sides of the story? Remember, the U.S. mainstream media (MSM) and anti-American outlets in Europe and the Middle East constantly barrage us with bad news and terrorist-supplied propaganda.

In effect, the PG is simply accusing the military of doing the reverse of most of the MSM. The MSM consistently puts a slanted, negative face on activities in Iraq and we can’t even assume the pieces are factual. With all of the documented errors in Hurricane Katrina coverage here on U.S. soil, why should we believe they could report accurately about Iraq?

The editorial seems to worry that the program tried “not to reveal the American source.” The MSM constantly provides less than full disclosure about its sources. For example, when the Medicare prescription subsidy was big news, two networks interviewed a woman described as a typical “victim” of high prescription costs. Neither network mentioned the woman was an activist for AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons).

“When asked about the project by American media, the Department of Defense initially tried to label it classified, to protect the contractor and the government’s role. Fortunately, Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, a Virginia Republican, demanded and received a briefing on the matter Friday, then defended the practice in part.

“Ironically, the Defense Department’s action in this regard cuts squarely across other efforts the U.S. government is undertaking in Iraq, paying contractors more millions to inculcate in Iraqis the importance of a free and independent press.

“First of all, the Pentagon’s project is at odds with the liberty that the Bush administration claims it is trying to introduce in Iraq. A free and independent press is an integral element in American democratic principles in action.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note the news outlets chose to take the stories; they weren’t forced. Picking and choosing your news sources is part and parcel of a “free and independent press.”

“Second, the American people are confronted by an extraordinary activity -- a U.S. contract awarded quietly and an effort by the Defense Department to classify its existence in the face of critical questioning.”

[RWC] Of course it was done quietly. WE ARE AT WAR!!! When will people on the left figure this out? Fighting a war is much more than armed combat.

“Third, this may be another successful effort on the part of business people and former U.S. military officials to make money out of the war. It isn’t clear yet to what degree the Lincoln Group’s contract was subject to competition. This piece of it was worth $6 million, while the Lincoln Group’s overall relationship with the Pentagon has given it access to $100 million so far.”

[RWC] If you believe the PG really cares about the money spent, I have a bridge to sell you.

“Perhaps the worst piece of the story is that the Defense Department has not yet said that it is closing down the operation in the face of the questions raised when news of it appeared last week.”

[RWC] The editorial fails to note the news outlets chose to take the stories; they weren’t forced. Picking and choosing your news sources is part and parcel of a “free and independent press.” “The worst piece of the story” would be if the Pentagon killed this program.

“The Bush administration’s claim that bringing democracy to Iraq is now the principal objective of the American presence there is threadbare in any case. The U.S. government’s bribery of the nascent Iraqi free press through the Lincoln Group makes the claim even more of a bad joke. All of this comes only weeks before Iraq’s Dec. 15 elections, billed to put in power a legitimate democratic government.”

[RWC] It may be sad the U.S. needs to pay to ensure the good things get reported, but it’s entirely the right thing to do. As I noted above, even this editorial concedes, “the pieces were factual.” It would be different if we were lying to the Iraqi people. I believe what bothers the PG the most is that the military doesn’t need to lie to report the good news.

For those of you who care to see what’s going on in Iraq that the MSM doesn’t want us to see, “Winning Iraq: The Untold Story” on Fox News Channel (Greg Palkot; December 3, 2005) was an eye opener. In the media I occasionally hear people who have visited Iraq claim the reporting we constantly hear bears little resemblance to what is really going on. “Winning Iraq” really drives that point home. It’s not a “rah, rah” piece; Palkot openly discusses the dangers in today’s Iraq. What sets the piece apart is that Palkot – who spent six weeks criss-crossing Iraq – also shows the good things going on. For example, did you know the liberal Brookings Institution reports the Iraqi standard of living has doubled since 2003, the Iraq economy is expected to grow 16.8% in 2006, and the post-war Iraq dinar has held its value better than the U.S. dollar?

“It is shameful. Unfortunately it is not new. In the United States, conservative columnist Armstrong Williams was paid $240,000 to tout the administration’s ‘No Child Left Behind’ act and James Guckert, working under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon, was a Bush favorite in White House press conferences before he was unmasked in February.”

[RWC] The Armstrong incident was unfortunate, but the editorial is comparing apples and oranges. Regarding the Guckert dustup, what really bothered the MSM was that Mr. Guckert occasionally asked loaded questions intended to unmask liberal positions for what they were. You see, only the MSM is allowed to ask loaded questions. How many times have we had to endure pseudo-reporter Helen Thomas going off on an anti-Bush rant during what’s supposed to be a news conference?

Finally, consider the hypocrisy. On April 11, 2003, Eason Jordan of CNN revealed CNN spiked stories about abuses occurring in pre-war Iraq to maintain access to government officials. By downplaying and/or not reporting the bad but reporting the “good” things from Iraq government sources, CNN was in effect a propaganda outlet for Saddam Hussein. I searched the PG website for “Eason Jordan” and didn’t find a single story or editorial covering CNN’s actions. The PG has no problem with CNN shilling for Saddam Hussein, but is offended when the U.S. military simply tells the truth.