Posted on 12/10/2005 2:05:57 PM PST by 68skylark
The media center in Fayetteville, N.C., would be the envy of any global communications company.
In state of the art studios, producers prepare the daily mix of music and news for the group's radio stations or spots for friendly television outlets. Writers putting out newspapers and magazines in Baghdad and Kabul converse via teleconferences. Mobile trailers with high-tech gear are parked outside, ready for the next crisis.
The center is not part of a news organization, but a military operation, and those writers and producers are soldiers. The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit based at Fort Bragg turns out what its officers call "truthful messages" to support the United States government's objectives, though its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their American sponsorship is hidden.
"We call our stuff information and the enemy's propaganda," said Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, during a tour in June. Even in the Pentagon, "some public affairs professionals see us unfavorably," and inaccurately, he said, as "lying, dirty tricksters."
The recent disclosures that a Pentagon contractor in Iraq paid newspapers to print "good news" articles written by American soldiers prompted an outcry in Washington, where members of Congress said the practice undermined American credibility and top military and White House officials disavowed any knowledge of it. President Bush was described by Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, as "very troubled" about the matter. The Pentagon is investigating.
But the work of the contractor, the Lincoln Group, was not a rogue operation. Hoping to counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, the Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden, according to documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I'm glad the Times has started putting a label on their stories!
When it comes to propaganda, the NYSlimes knows their topic. I'm really surprised they didn't wedge the gay issue into the story.
The MSM runs DNC press releases as "news". They reveal their true colors any time they refer to ANY positive portrayal of the American government (when led by Republicans) as propaganda.
Years ago we had "Voice of America" broadcasts. We may even still have them but last I heard they had become quite critical of the United States. So I must ask, why fund broadcasts designed to smear your country and sour foriegn relations?
Just because it doesn't come from the government, doesn't mean something isn't propaganda.
Liberals loved F911. At least a few were honest enough to admit it was propaganda.
When it comes to War, I vote for results, not fairness.
Well the nyt's doesn't seem like it's part of a news organization, but rather an arm of the deafeatacrat party, and their writers and editors seem to be all libs.
They just don't get why they're losing readers do they?
We call our stuff information and the enemy's propaganda," said Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, during a tour in June. Even in the Pentagon, "some public affairs professionals see us unfavorably," and inaccurately, he said, as "lying, dirty tricksters."
This Colonel is on our side????? What a dork. He has no sense at all that his comments like this are used by the Slimes and other msm to make the military look bad. Maybe he is a plant from the Times??
I think the quotes you mention are reasonable -- they don't seem "dorky" to me.
Try this:
The local car magazine comes to my dealership for a story on what we are doing. I like what we do here but others think we are crooks and dishonest. We think we are "truthful." (Italics added as the Times added them in the article)
What is the reporter going to think? In the case of the article, what is the reader going to think when he sees someone supposedly defending his operation, but at the same time, raising the possibility that he is lying?
My point is that we get enough bad press from the Times without inviting more.
The Political Front (Information is an important tool on the road to victory in the war on terror.)
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
King Prout pinged me to the first link. After I posted, "Dr. Deans Retreat," freema referred me to look at www.Aljazeera.com last night. Since I can't read Arabic, it makes me want to go hmmm.. The difference between Aljazeera.Net and Aljazeera.com is like night and day in English.
Information is released by our Military in order to give a more positive view on events during the reconstruction of Iraq. This undoubtedly will anger the enemies of America causing our enemies much despair which will be voiced in media sympathetic to Jihadists. Apprentently the New York Times is going on the record where their support is registered.
Thanks for the ping!
They kind of, sort of put a label on this one after about 70 years!
A report commissioned by the [NY] Times said the work of 1932 Pulitzer Prize-winner Walter Duranty had a “serious lack of balance,” was “distorted,” and was “a disservice to American readers of the New York Times…and the peoples of the Russian and Soviet empires.”--New York Sun Oct. 22, 2003
From the article:
Limbaugh told his listeners that students at a journalism school (in Afghanistan) asked him "some of the best questions about journalism and about America that I've ever been asked."
One of the first queries, Mr. Limbaugh said, was "How do you balance justice and truth and objectivity?"
His reply: report the truth, don't hide any opinions or "interest in the outcome of events." Tell "people who you are," he said, and "they'll respect your credibility."
WYSIWYG
Long ago they say that guys like Colonel McCormick published newspapers and you knew he was a Republican and what he stood for. He may have been an SOB, but you knew before you read him what he was. Now we have all this middle of the road crap. The only thing in the middle of the road are stripes and dead animals.
As you say, our press today claims to be objective. But in truth, they're not fooling anyone at all (with the possible exception of themselves).
The NY Times is foursquare against the United States in this war -- an article like this one is obviously an attack on U.S. information operations, trying to make those efforts ineffective.
You are correct,our press today "claims" to be objective.
When you read The Nation or National Review you expect some ax grinding.
Facts are filtered by the reporter.
With a claimed objective press all you actually get is uncertainty.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.