Posted on 03/22/2006 1:44:01 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON, March 21 An inquiry has found that an American public relations firm did not violate military policy by paying Iraqi news outlets to print positive articles, military officials said Tuesday. The finding leaves to the Defense Department the decision on whether new rules are needed to govern such activities.
The inquiry, which has not yet been made public, was ordered by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the senior American commander in Iraq, after it was disclosed in November that the military had used the Lincoln Group, a Washington-based public relations company, to plant articles written by American troops in Iraqi newspapers while hiding the source of the articles.
The final report was described by officials in Washington and Iraq who have read or been briefed on it and were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
Pentagon officials said Tuesday that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was considering new policies for regional commanders to clarify existing doctrine and rules on military communications and information operations.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
After the MSM churns out agitprop on a par with Joseph Goebbels and Sergei Eisenstein, what a hoot! I'm surprised the Times put this above the fold on the frontpage of its national edition.
And if honest reporting can be considered propaganda, what do we make of stories like CBS's Memogate?
Yesterday DU was awash with threads about an alleged incedent in Iraq where Marines went into houses and shot 15 people in two families including the children after an IED went off. It is NOWHERE to be found today. You don't suppose that DUrs are so "supportive of the troops" that they would run with a rumor designed to make Marines "baby killers" do you?
Opening line used the word "Propaganda".
That's an emotionally ladden word. Opening line the author in this NYT's story tells us about the "Propaganda" he's trying to push.
Because the left says so?
Heh heh. Not anymore :)
I don't even care if its true. If the military commanders in a foreign war zone think it will help the military effort, liberals in America can suck a monkey.
Half of the truth certainly can be. And since nobody prints absolutely all of the truth - no editor even knows all of the truth - all speech and print should be suspected of containing propaganda. Including, sometimes, the dictionary.And certainly including the news reports which, we are solemnly assured by journalists, are "objective." The First Amendment does not say that journalism is objective; it says that it doesn't have to be objective because judging that isn't the government's job. Conversely journalism's judgement of the truthfulness of government officers is not dispositive either. The only way to unseat a president, for example, is impeachment or expiration of his term of office.
Media bias bump.
But it was. Which to my mind makes it completely unobjectionable. And ought to make folks wonder why we have to pay to see it in print.
Mr Hewitt politely acknowledged the risk taking by both reporters. Then he got down to business. He said the terrorists were "playing the media like Stradivarius fiddle". I think I got that quote pretty close.
Later he accused the media of costing hundreds of American lives. He,Hewitt of course must of needs be concise and polite. Very effective indeed.
The indignant outrage of the press, on the so-called "propaganda" smacks of, ah yes, a word now almost fading into disuse.
Cant.
I was able to use Drudge to find the CNN transcripts in his left hand column.
Hugh Hewitt.
Mild slap on wrist for self.
Thanks for the Ping.
...Yet another reason I refuse to read the New York Times.
THOM SHANKER
Perfect name for the NY Times. |
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.