Wednesday, November 30

The Media Are The Enemy

prop·a·gan·da ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)n.
1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

2) Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

3) Propaganda Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

WASHINGTON — 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.S. military "information operations" troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. 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. Records and interviews indicate that the U.S. has paid Iraqi newspapers to run dozens of such articles, with headlines such as "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism," since the effort began this year.

The operation is designed to mask any connection with the U.S. military. The Pentagon has a contract with a small Washington-based firm called Lincoln Group, which helps translate and place the stories. The Lincoln Group's Iraqi staff, or its subcontractors, sometimes pose as freelance reporters or advertising executives when they deliver the stories to Baghdad media outlets.

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

Where to begin. I guess I'll start with the basics. The United States in particular and the Western Civilization in general is at war with Islamofascism, a totalitarian doctrine with its roots in the religion of Islam. The President asserts that this is not the entire religion of Islam, but a perversion of its teachings.

There are those who dispute that. Nevertheless, the principle front in this war is currently in Iraq and, contrary to the evidence in the Mainstream Media, by historical standards we are winning a stunning victory. Part of that victory lies in convincing the Iraqi people that it is in their best interest for us to win. This is nothing but the truth. Indeed, in the passage above the authors admit that the stories are true, but that they only present one side of the story.

Wartime propaganda, to be sure. A legitimate tactic of war that does not, at least directly, cost any lives. If one reads the entire article, one will see that the goals of this propaganda offinsive were two-fold: encourage the common Iraqi people to stand firm in the face of terrorism and to strike fear and doubt into the minds of the terrorists in Iraq that are attacking our troops and the Iraqi people.

These journalists find that troubling. You see, freedom of speech means you can omit any good news about Iraq while obssessing and exaggerating any bad news from Iraq. Let's discuss propaganda, shall we?

Two words: Abu Ghraib.

You see, independant journalists only focus on the elements of a story that make the US look bad. To read the media's acounts of Abu Ghraib, one would believe that the poor, innocent terrorists were tortured. Forced to be strip-searched, held in small cells, and humiliated by having women guards. Not to belittle the enormity that was Abu Ghraib...well, yes, I'll belittle it. People who cut off people's heads can wear a pair of panties on theirs, and be happy they still have one. We aren't talking about nice people, here. We are talking about illegal combatants. Terrorists. The same kind of people our media like to label "insurgents".

The same kind of people who have kidnapped four anti-American "Peace" activists in Iraq this week. Let's hope they come back safe and wiser than they were. I'm not holding my breath for either.

Remember the Mazar-e Sharif prison uprising? The US media didn't when Abu Ghraib broke. Yet undoubtably it played a part in the mindset of the guards at Abu Ghraib.

One sided reporting, anyone? I suspect that the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were hardly model prisoners, but, while you can find hundreds of thousands of stories about how a few of our troops behaved, you can't find much at all about the behavior of the prisoners. Did they cooperate with their guards? Did they resist their guards? Did they willingly answer questions, questions that could possibly save the lives of soldiers still fighting?

Yes, let's hear both sides of this story. That knife cuts both ways. Before these so-called "independant" journalists complain about a US Military propaganda operation in Iraq, they should first tend to their own pro-Jihadi propaganda effort in America.

You see, the media are the enemy. Not all of them, that is true, but many of them want us to lose this war. They will pound a story like Abu Ghraib for months, yet when is the last time you heard about Nick Berg in the LA Times? Panties on your head is an atrocity, you see. Cutting off someone's head hardly bears notice.

As a final point, I would like to mention that the Mainstream Media has, yet again, spent months over the Valerie Plame affair, where a not-so-covert CIA agent had her "cover" blown based on anonymous leaks. Here, a major military operation was blown, based on anonymous leaks.

Let's hear both sides of the story. The Plame Game didn't get anyone killed. Blowing this one may prolong the war, and that will get people killed. Who leaked this, and why? Were any laws broken in this leak? Further, what contacts do Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi have with Islamic extremists?

Were they paid to write this article?

Or did they do their propaganda for free?

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

eXTReMe Tracker Weblog Commenting and Trackback by