of course we're winning...

[nostatic]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113001876.html

[Joeaksa]

Not sure about my feelings on this but we know that the other side is doing this on a daily, if not hourly basis through Al Jezera and other news outlets, so why is it so bad for us to do the same thing?

JoeA

[RoninLB]

good article.
The theme is that the military is not politically correct in dealing with the media in Iraq.

NYC PD has the same problem dealing with murderers. Mayor Giuliani reduced murders from 2,000/yr to 400/yr until the new formed NYPD in-house Street Crimes Unit became disbanded due to political correctness toward murders. The current level is around 500/yr and climbing. The Unit was too aggressive in its "stop and frisk" tactics. [I knew guys in that Unit. Many transfered to FD afterward due to disgust].

The current Mayor Bloomberg has to now decide if he wants to be politically incorrect and disturb the lib progressives or live with a future of relative NYC mass murder.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Joeaksa
Not sure about my feelings on this but we know that the other side is doing this on a daily, if not hourly basis through Al Jezera and other news outlets, so why is it so bad for us to do the same thing?

JoeA

Joe, I'm not sure either, but I think the issue is how can you "bring democracy" to Iraq and control the media at the same time. The two are supposed to be mutually exclusive. We aren't exactly "leading by example" then. But then again, Iraq ain't a democracy so it really doesn't make a difference...

[dd74]

It's war. All bets are off. If it helps get our guys home faster, fine. Leading by example? I think we've permanently altered that idea.

And anyway, manipulation of the media by the U.S. Military isn't - or at least should not be - anything new.

[island911]

Originally posted by nostatic
Joe, I'm not sure either, but I think the issue is how can you "bring democracy" to Iraq and control the media at the same time. The two are supposed to be mutually exclusive. . . . .

Thats odd.

Joe just outlined how the otherside is using propaganda . . .then, ourside (hardly controlling all the media) puts out counter propaganda.

Oh, right . . . it's not PC.

[nostatic]

well, by all means, lets stoop down to the level of the other side. What other tactics shall we imitate?

[island911]

uhmm . . . WAR

[island911]

you make it sound like countering propaganda is an extreme measure.

Maybe we should just nuke 'em. . . ..you know; so that we wont be shaming ourselves.

[nostatic]

no, I don't make it sound like an extreme measure. Just pointing out the irony of it. I don't have that big of an issue with it, and expect it. I just thought it was kinda funny that we would be paying for good press. To read some around here. there is so much good stuff going on over there the locals couldn't help but trip over it.

[fintstone]

Originally posted by nostatic
no, I don't make it sound like an extreme measure. Just pointing out the irony of it. I don't have that big of an issue with it, and expect it. I just thought it was kinda funny that we would be paying for good press. To read some around here. there is so much good stuff going on over there the locals couldn't help but trip over it.

You are correct, but even if they trip over it....they risk their life to print it. A little compensation tends to increase one's bravery dramatically.

[dd74]

Originally posted by nostatic
no, I don't make it sound like an extreme measure. Just pointing out the irony of it. I don't have that big of an issue with it, and expect it. I just thought it was kinda funny that we would be paying for good press. To read some around here. there is so much good stuff going on over there the locals couldn't help but trip over it.

1) Any person with one-half of a mind knows not to believe in its entirety what is printed or broadcast. Iraqis aren't stupid. They know what is going on in their own back yard, whether for better or worse. Plus, no one said what was being written comprises all-out lies. I think this is a reaction taken on by the U.S. Military because they can't get decent coverage from our obviously partial, and in growing cases, anti-military news press.

2) A few wasted words published with the intent to quell ill-will to the soldiers is a hell of a lot better than losing more soldiers to this war - even if the soldiers are posing as news reporters. What's the difference between this and Stars and Stripes? Remember "Full Metal Jacket?" The actor in that movie was a S&S photog and carried an M-16. All reporters were soldiers first, reporters second.

3) Paying for press coverage. It happens every day in this country in every media market.

Overall, I think what the military is doing in this regard is a wise decision. And I think papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times should look at their own poor news judgment and practices (i.e. embellishing or all-out lying) in their news writing, rather than lambaste an effort that might expedite an end to the war.

After all, the U.S. soldiers aren't confectioners, but no one's b!tching about some grunt handing out candy bars to a bunch of Iraqi kids...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by nostatic
Joe, I'm not sure either, but I think the issue is how can you "bring democracy" to Iraq and control the media at the same time. The two are supposed to be mutually exclusive. We aren't exactly "leading by example" then. But then again, Iraq ain't a democracy so it really doesn't make a difference...

Add to the mix that the vast majority of the citizens in Iraq have never lived under a democracy and are not familiar with the process of actually deciding who is going to run their country and lives.

Its a large task ahead of us and the Iraqi people but given the option between that and Saddam the choices narrow substancially.

JoeA

[red-beard]

Originally posted by dd74
1) Any person with one-half of a mind knows not to believe in its entirety what is printed or broadcast. Iraqis aren't stupid.

I lived in Pakistan for a few years. Stupid isn't the word. Uneducated is definitely the word. We had an argument breakout in the power plant as we took the operators on a tour of the plant to help them understand what they were doing (many we're shepards displaced from thier land by the Power projects). We were describing why you have speed holds as you bring a large steam turbine on-line: to let the turbine shell expand so the rotor doesn't grow faster than the shell. The fight was (in Urdu) all about: "Do they think we are stupid? Metal doesn't grow!".

Many of the people working in and around the plant were illiterate and generally they received information from thier Mullah and other more educated people around them, who might not be much more educated or might have an "agenda".

Originally posted by dd74
Plus, no one said what was being written comprises all-out lies. I think this is a reaction taken on by the U.S. Military because they can't get decent coverage from our obviously partial, and in growing cases, anti-military news press.

Agreed. In fact the article states that the prime reason is to counter the mis-information being spread around. You know, the articles about how the Americans killed a nobel Iraqi trying to save children from tooth decay, by blowing up his car in the midst of those children...I exagerate, but probaly not...

Originally posted by dd74
1)2) A few wasted words published with the intent to quell ill-will to the soldiers is a hell of a lot better than losing more soldiers to this war - even if the soldiers are posing as news reporters. What's the difference between this and Stars and Stripes? Remember "Full Metal Jacket?" The actor in that movie was a S&S photog and carried an M-16. All reporters were soldiers first, reporters second.

3) Paying for press coverage. It happens every day in this country in every media market.

Overall, I think what the military is doing in this regard is a wise decision. And I think papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times should look at their own poor news judgment and practices (i.e. embellishing or all-out lying) in their news writing, rather than lambaste an effort that might expedite an end to the war.

After all, the U.S. soldiers aren't confectioners, but no one's b!tching about some grunt handing out candy bars to a bunch of Iraqi kids...

Absolutely. +1

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by dd74
1) Any person with one-half of a mind knows not to believe in its entirety what is printed or broadcast. Iraqis aren't stupid. They know what is going on in their own back yard, whether for better or worse. Plus, no one said what was being written comprises all-out lies. I think this is a reaction taken on by the U.S. Military because they can't get decent coverage from our obviously partial, and in growing cases, anti-military news press.

2) A few wasted words published with the intent to quell ill-will to the soldiers is a hell of a lot better than losing more soldiers to this war - even if the soldiers are posing as news reporters. What's the difference between this and Stars and Stripes? Remember "Full Metal Jacket?" The actor in that movie was a S&S photog and carried an M-16. All reporters were soldiers first, reporters second.

3) Paying for press coverage. It happens every day in this country in every media market.

Overall, I think what the military is doing in this regard is a wise decision. And I think papers such as the Washington Post, New York Times and LA Times should look at their own poor news judgment and practices (i.e. embellishing or all-out lying) in their news writing, rather than lambaste an effort that might expedite an end to the war.

After all, the U.S. soldiers aren't confectioners, but no one's b!tching about some grunt handing out candy bars to a bunch of Iraqi kids...

I have to agree with you here. Part of war is winning the hearts and minds. As long as there are no lies printed, I see no harm in this.....

[island_dude]

Well, it is true that a standard part of our tactics is to employ propaganda. For some reason I am troubled by this, but I am having difficulty sorting out why. I suspect that in this case I expect that the information is basically untrue or highly spun.

I am thinking of the civilians here. Right now, they are in a state of flux. Their lives have been turned upside down. In some ways for the better, and in many for the worse. How are they suposed to make any informed decisions at the polls if there is no objective source of information. I think it does the civilian population no good at all if they decide that anything we publish has not credibility. It makes matters worse if they now believe that many news items are planted.

For me the bottom line is that the civilian population will not be inclined to beleive anything that seems positive -- even if it is true. Doesn't that go against our interests?

[IROC]

Originally posted by island_dude
For me the bottom line is that the civilian population will not be inclined to beleive anything that seems positive -- even if it is true.

Gee, are you talking about Iraqi citizens or Americans? I think the same dynamics are at work here for similar reasons.

Mike

[red-beard]

Originally posted by island_dude
For me the bottom line is that the civilian population will not be inclined to beleive anything that seems positive -- even if it is true. Doesn't that go against our interests?

Oh, so we should only print things that are negative, because they are the only things people will believe? That makes no sense at all!

The more you print the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the turth, the better the world will be. There is too much spin, everywhere.

The problem is, we get too many "Micheal Moore"s and "Cindy Sheehan"s covered instead of "Joe Lieberman"s.

I keep thinking about the Song "Dirty Laundry". It spelled it out years ago...

[Joeaksa]

Originally posted by island_dude
Well, it is true that a standard part of our tactics is to employ propaganda. For some reason I am troubled by this, but I am having difficulty sorting out why. I suspect that in this case I expect that the information is basically untrue or highly spun.

I am thinking of the civilians here. Right now, they are in a state of flux. Their lives have been turned upside down. In some ways for the better, and in many for the worse. How are they suposed to make any informed decisions at the polls if there is no objective source of information. I think it does the civilian population no good at all if they decide that anything we publish has not credibility. It makes matters worse if they now believe that many news items are planted.

For me the bottom line is that the civilian population will not be inclined to beleive anything that seems positive -- even if it is true. Doesn't that go against our interests?

While I can somewhat agree with you, I would have to side with CC and if its telling the truth, then whats the harm?

About believing anything, do we do that now? Look at the various talking heads and the slant that they put on our nightly news and so on. While most of it may be true (except CBS and Rathergate) it has the slant that the news director wants and who knows if that is the truth or slightly propaganda?

JoeA

[creaturecat]

What,exactly, does this mean:

"I want to emphasize that all information used for marketing these stories is completely factual."

I know what it DOESN'T mean.