"US Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press," by Mark Mazzetti and Borzou Daragahi - the Los Angeles Times, 30 Nov 2005
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....
The military's information operations campaign has sparked a backlash among some senior military officers in Iraq and at the Pentagon who argue that attempts to subvert the news media could destroy the U.S. military's credibility in other nations and with the American public.
"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.
The arrangement with Lincoln Group is evidence of how far the Pentagon has moved to blur the traditional boundaries between military public affairs — the dissemination of factual information to the media — and psychological and information operations, which use propaganda and sometimes misleading information to advance the objectives of a military campaign.
The Bush administration has come under criticism for distributing video and news stories in the United States without identifying the federal government as their source and for paying American journalists to promote administration policies, practices the Government Accountability Office has labeled "covert propaganda."
Military officials familiar with the effort in Iraq said much of it was being directed by the "Information Operations Task Force" in Baghdad, part of the multinational corps headquarters commanded by Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were critical of the effort and were not authorized to speak publicly about it.
A spokesman for Vines declined to comment for this article. A Lincoln Group spokesman also declined to comment.
One of the military officials said that, as part of a psychological operations campaign that has intensified over the last year, the task force also had purchased an Iraqi newspaper and taken control of a radio station, and was using them to channel pro-American messages to the Iraqi public. Neither is identified as a military mouthpiece.
The official would not disclose which newspaper and radio station are under U.S. control, saying that naming them would put their employees at risk of insurgent attacks....
Actually, Iraqis probably have a pretty good idea already of which newspaper and which radio station are U.S.-run, simply from their content.
"Report: US Buys Positive Press in Iraq" - AP (Washington), 30 Nov 2005, as carried on CNN.com
The U.S. military offered a mixed message Wednesday about whether it embraced one of its own programs that reportedly paid a consulting firm and Iraqi newspapers to plant favorable stories about the war and the rebuilding effort.
Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Iraq, said the program is "an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents."
"This is a military program initiated with the multinational force to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news," Johnson said in an e-mail. "I want to emphasize that all information used for marketing these stories is completely factual."
A spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, however, called a report detailing the program troubling if true and said he was looking into the matter....
Sen. Richard Lugar, an Indiana Republican who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, questioned the program Wednesday.
"I wouldn't fault somebody trying to get the American message out," Lugar said. "[It] may be about the only way that any sort of a message will ever get to anybody. But that's a very forlorn conclusion early on, and really sort of violates what we're attempting to do to begin with in our emphasis on democracy."...
Laurie Adler, a spokeswoman for the Lincoln Group, said Wednesday she could not comment on the contract because it is with the U.S. government.
The company, which does work in Iraq, is a public affairs firm that does advertising and other communications in "challenging locations," she said.
John Schulz, a former executive with Voice of America who is now dean of the Boston University College of Communication, called the military program scary.
"The Bush administration, and some elements within the Defense Department, do not seem to grasp the irony that, in their efforts to create, impose or inspire democratic society in Iraq, they are subverting the very core of what democracy means and are instead, by example, undercutting the very thing they are attempting to instill in Iraq," Schulz said....
"Pentagon Pays Iraqi Papers to Print Its 'Good News' Stories," by Jamie Wilson (in Washington) - the Guardian (UK), 1 Dec 2005 (posted to www.guardian.co.uk as of 30 Nov 2005)
...A spokeswoman for the [Lincoln] group did not return calls yesterday. On one occasion documented by the LA Times a man with the same name as a Lincoln worker paid editors at the Al Mada newspaper $900 (£520) to publish an article headlined "terrorists attack Sunni volunteers". He paid cash and left no calling card. Records obtained by the LA Times show the man told the Lincoln Group he gave the paper more than $1,200.
Iraqi editors apparently reacted with a mixture of shock and shrugs when told they were targets of a US military psychological operation. The editor of Al Mada, widely considered the most thoughtful and professional of Iraqi newspapers, said if his cash-strapped paper had known the story was from the US government he would have "charged much, much more."
Added 1 Dec 2005:
"Military Planting Articles in Iraq Newspapers," by Josh White - the Washington Post, 1 Dec 2005 (registration required)
Positive articles about the war in Iraq written by U.S. troops have been appearing in Iraqi newspapers under the guise of independent journalism, part of a coordinated effort by the U.S. military to win over Iraqi civilians, according to military officials.
Officers in Iraq say the program is an essential element of an "information war" against an insurgency adept at spreading its message through local and international media, largely with violent acts. The newspaper articles promote the positive aspects of the United States-led coalition's work and encourage Iraqis to take part in the burgeoning democracy....
"This is a military program to help get factual information about ongoing operations into Iraqi news," said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman in Baghdad. "Because this is part of our ongoing operations and an important part of countering misinformation in the news by insurgents, I can't provide details of what that entails. I want to emphasize that all information used for marketing these stories is completely factual."
The program has been run out of the Multinational Corps commanded by Lt. Gen. John R. Vines in Baghdad, with the help of a Washington-based contractor, Lincoln Group. The company translates the articles and markets them to Iraqi media outlets without indicating the material came from the U.S. military....
Media experts decried the practice of paying to plant articles by the military as undermining the newly emerging free press in Iraq.
"In the very process of preventing misinformation from another side, they are creating misinformation through a process that disguises the source for information that is going out," said John J. Schulz, dean of Boston University's College of Communications and a veteran journalist. "You can't be creating a model for democracy while subverting one of its core principles, a free independent press."
Mark Bench, executive director of the World Press Freedom Committee, said the military's approach inappropriately clouds the source of the information. "Of course, the U.S. government is a major source of public relations information, but to be paying people to carry it is really unacceptable," Bench said.
Such information warfare is not new to Iraq. U.S. service members have worked throughout the war to spread messages through all media, and have been reaching out to individual communities through pamphlets and posters that advocate the military coalition and degrade insurgents.
Troops working in "information operations" and other units routinely send out factual, positive articles about the coalition to international news organizations, but soldiers assigned to "psychological operations" have been more aggressive in manipulating information for military gain. One example concerned the death of Iraqi Gen. Abed Hamed Mowhoush, who was killed during interrogations near the Syrian border.
After his death, a news release said Mowhoush had cooperated and died of natural causes, and local communities were notified that he had identified key insurgents in the area, when he had not.
What bothers me about this 'information program' isn't so much that it's unethical as that it's just dumb. You're not persuading anyone of anything this way, and you're not building the credibility and trust you need to carry out effective public communications. You're achieving nothing of value in the world outside your head beyond slopping a few more bucketfuls of money to your contractor pals.
By the way, the details the Washington Post report gives on this 'information warfare' project highlight a major difference between psychological operations and public diplomacy (or any other kind of public communication). Psy ops is about breaking down your enemy's relationships. It seeks to divide loyalties and undermine trust. Public diplomacy, by contrast, relies on building relationships, appealing to loyalties, and earning trust. You can't conduct psy ops and public diplomacy with the same audiences at the same time and expect to achieve anything.
"White House Wants Answers on Planted Iraq Stories," by Will Dunham - Reuters (Washington), 1 Dec 2005
The White House and a senior Republican lawmaker expressed concern on Thursday about secret military payments to get Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American articles, but the military said it was important to spread the truth while insurgents were "lying to the Iraqi people."...
"We're very concerned about the reports. We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, asked Pentagon officials to brief the panel on the matter on Friday.
Warner said he did not know whether the practice was taking place, but said, "I am concerned about any actions that may undermine the credibility of the United States as we help the Iraqi people stand up a democracy."...
"So Who Is Behind Planting Stories in Iraqi Press?" - Editor & Publisher (New York), 1 Dec 2005
So what, exactly, is this Lincoln Group that helped plant pro-American propaganda in the Iraqi press, a phenomenon that has made front-page news this week and has now been denounced by everyone from top military leaders to journalism ethicists? And what about its sub-contractor, BKSH & Associates?
The story starts with the Washington D.C.-based Lincoln Alliance Corporation, a "business intelligence company that also handles services related to commercial real estate in Iraq. It set up an offshoot called Iraqex last year, but its name was later changed to Lincoln Group.
It now has four offices, including ones in Baghdad and Basra, and it develops video, podcasts, and print publications, purchases TV and radio time, and has a three-year contract to oversee public affairs and advertising for the Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I), all aimed at backing the U.S. effort there.
The Lincoln Group's Web site says it "brings a unique combination of expertise in collecting and exploiting information; structuring transactions; and mitigating risks through due diligence and legal strategies."
A June 11, 2005, Washington Post article reported that the Pentagon had just awarded three contracts, potentially worth up to $300 million over five years (if the effort panned out), to three companies to handle "psychological operations" to improve foreign public opinion about the United States, particularly the military. The contract winners: Lincoln Group, Science Applications International Corporation, and SYColeman, Inc., a subsidiary of L-3 Communications.
O'Dwyer's, a leading trade publication in the public relations field, reported in July that BKSH & Associates, one part of the giant communications company, Burson-Marsteller's, had been hired by The Lincoln Group, "one of three firms selected last month by the U.S. Special Operations Command to wage psychological warfare on behalf of the Pentagon in Iraq and other hot spots. BKSH has experience on the Iraqi front earned from work for Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. Col. James Treadwell, director of the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, said TLG was selected to develop 'cutting-edge types of media,' including radio/TV ads, documentaries, text messages, Internet spots and podcasts for the U.S. military."...
I thought the name 'Lincoln Group' sounded familiar. It came up in a story I posted a link to back in June -- see Pentagon Funds Psy Ops (Not Public Diplomacy!) Effort.
Added 2 Dec 2005:
"Senator Seeks Answers on Iraq Stories," by Josh White and Jonathan Finer - the Washington Post, 2 Dec 2005 (registration required)
...In Baghdad yesterday, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, responded to a question about the planted stories by saying: "We don't lie. We don't need to lie. We do empower our operational commanders with the ability to inform the Iraqi public. But everything we do is based on fact, not based on fiction."
Lynch quoted a senior al Qaeda leader, Ayman Zawahiri, as having told Abu Musab Zarqawi, the main terrorist leader in Iraq: "Remember, half the battle is the battlefield of the media."
An Army officer who worked in Iraq last year said there was increasing pressure in late 2004 to promote "good-news stories" and that there was a growing divide between the public affairs officers and the "information operations" officers about how to get the message out. In some cases, the officer said, Iraqis were hired by U.S. forces to write stories that would be sent to Iraqi newspapers, but the source of the stories was always clear. The planted stories, by contrast, were presented to newspapers by people posing as freelance journalists, and the source of the material was hidden.
The officer, who spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the program, said American employees of Iraqex -- Lincoln Group's former name -- arrived in Baghdad in 2004 under a multimillion-dollar contract and aggressively sought to get involved in influencing the Iraqi media. The officer said Iraqex took the military's ideas and then embellished them.
"Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News," by Josh White and Bradley Graham - the Washington Post, 3 Dec 2005 (registration required)
The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a legitimate campaign to counter insurgents' misinformation.
In a statement, the command said the program included efforts, "customary in Iraq," to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested that the "information operations" program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive accounts.
"Serious allegations have been raised that suggest the process may be functioning in a manner different than is intended or appropriate," the statement said. Commanders are "reviewing these allegations and will investigate any improprieties," it said.
The statement from Baghdad was the first official effort to explain the media initiative after three days of news reports describing efforts by the U.S. military to plant stories in Iraqi media under the guise of independent journalism.
The episode has sparked an intense debate at the Pentagon and beyond, as military officials in Washington said privately that they are troubled by the situation and media experts said the program violated standard journalistic practices.
The controversy has also fanned a debate that has been underway for months in military circles about the role that information operations should be playing in nontraditional conflicts such as the Iraq situation. The term covers a wide range of activities -- some open, some not -- intent on undermining an enemy by fooling, confusing or refuting him....
In describing the program, military officials said third parties -- including the Washington-based Lincoln Group -- were sometimes hired to distribute the articles to newspapers to protect publishers that might have been targeted by insurgents if they were known to accept material from the military....
A nice point, but it misses the forest for the trees. Deliberate deceit is something you do with your enemies, not with your friends. The very fact of lying to someone poisons your relationship with them. Either the Iraqi people are our partners in a struggle to establish a free society -- and, as such, entitled to respect and candor from us -- or they are our enemies, worthy of contempt and deceit. We can't have it both ways.
(There's a separate, more specific rebuttal to the argument that Lincoln Group employees misrepresented themselves for the noble purpose of protecting editors from insurgent retaliation. In other civil conflicts, journalists have been attacked by insurgents simply for reporting news seen as favorable to the authorities (and vice versa) -- regardless of whether the information came from the authorities or not. It's the news, not the source, that draws fire. You aren't doing an Iraqi editor any kindness by obscuring the origins of a DOD piece. You are, perhaps, tricking him into taking a risk he would not venture if he did not think the piece came from a third party and therefore had some news value.)
Added 11 Dec 2005:
"Probe into Iraq Coverage Widens," by Rick Jervis and Zaid Sabah - USA Today, 9 Dec 2005
A U.S. investigation into allegations that the American military is buying positive coverage in the Iraqi media has expanded to examine a press club founded and financed by the U.S. Army.
The Baghdad Press Club was created last year by the U.S. military as a way to promote progress amid the violence and chaos of Iraq, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman.
The Army acknowledges funding the club and offering "reporter compensation," but insists officers did not demand favorable coverage. "Members are not required nor asked to write favorably," said Lt. Col. Robert Whetstone. "They are simply invited to report on events." He said the military exercised no editorial control over the coverage.
The U.S. military investigation, headed by Rear Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, will look into whether there were efforts to place U.S.-produced stories into the local press without identifying the United States as the source. Paying reporters directly to write positive stories might also violate ethical guidelines....
Ahmad al-Hamdani, a reporter at Alhurra, an American-funded television station, said press club members were invited to cover U.S.-led reconstruction efforts, such as restored sewage plants and newly-opened schools. The syndicate of 25 to 30 freelance reporters and staff employees for television stations and newspapers were paid about $25 for each story and $45 if the piece ran with photos, al-Hamdani said. Television reporters were paid $50 for pieces, he said. He said he did not participate.
Whetstone would not say how much the U.S. military paid the club, but said the budget included "basic journalism equipment, interpreters, assistant director, office employee, board members and reporter compensation."
It's not uncommon for Iraqi journalists to accept gifts or cash in exchange for favorable stories, said Emad al-Sharr, a reporter for Radio Dijla in Iraq. Cash or gifts such as watches and pens are often handed out following press conferences or on trips with Iraqi officials, he said. "The problem is you have poor journalists who will accept anything: $100, $50, $20 to publish articles under their names," al-Hamdani said. "They don't think it's wrong." Most monthly salaries in Iraq are under $300....
The press club story is much less disturbing than the stories about the Lincoln Group's misrepresentation of employees and sources. There's nothing wrong with providing facilities that make it easier for journalists to cover news and file stories. That's what press centers (as in the international press centers the State Department maintains in major US cities) and press rooms (as in the State Department, White House, etc.) press rooms routinely do. As a practical matter, in a country where reporters don't have resources like reliable transportation or travel funds, it's common sense and common deceny to do something like arrange a bus trip to a reconstruction site and provide beverages and a meal if the journalists would otherwise have to forego that to cover the story.
Paying Iraqi journalists for coverage, as described here, strikes me as more weird than sleazy. I realize there are societies where reporters routinely get some kind of compensation from officials, organizations, and companies they write or broadcast stories about. I'm not aware of official Americans ever having taken on that patronage role, and I'm not comfortable with the idea. It seems to strictly monetize a relationship that, in the case of local patrons, has 'hometown' dimensions of interest, identity, and loyalty as well. It also seems the kind of social or cultural practice that means one thing when a member of the society or culture does it, in the context of that belonging, and a different thing when an outsider does it. If I were in a position to decide on handling payments like these, my preference would certainly be to let an Iraqi government agency involved in the same project handle the gratuities -- even if it meant not getting direct credit for the payments, and even if it meant a risk of some money disappearing into middlemen's pockets.
Of course the question of payments to journalists also highlights a contradiction between our tactics and goals in Iraq. If our goal is to build a strong democracy in Iraq, continuing the practice of paying journalists for news coverage is self-defeating. But if one tactic in achieving that goal is to get information about reconstruction to Iraqis, and the only way to get that news covered in local media is to engage in making payments, you don't seem to have much choice other than to accept the practice in the short term.
Comments