Steve Green answers Matt Welch’s Reason Hit and Run piece on paid PR “journalism” in Iraq, which yesterday took issue with several “apologias” (including my own) for the US propaganda efforts. Writes Welch:
There’s a reason, aside from international treaty, we no longer use nerve gas on enemy lines, or napalm on villages, or atomic bombs on cities—world reaction would cause more negative consequences than whatever “positive” gains could be had on the ground.
I addressed this argument obliquely in my post, making the point that the actual “outing” of the propaganda effort by the LAT is, ironically, the only thing that might cause the effort to backfire—but then, we murder to dissect, as they say.
Be that as it may, though, the wisdom of disseminating propaganda in a particular context is a separate question entirely from the ethics of doing so—which would suggest that Welch, in calling our defenses “apologia,” is perhaps being a bit too free with the emotionally-charged rhetoric. After all, I wasn’t apologizing for the practice; I was simply pointing out the such a practice is common and, in a wartime setting, completely ethical.
Anyway, the part of Steve’s response to Matt that really resonated with me—and which I hadn’t yet seen expressed quite so concretely—is this bit about appropriateness of response in a given wartime context:
Now then. If a nuke were to go off in New York or Los Angeles or even Des Moines tomorrow, do you doubt that even President Kerry (cough, cough) would hesitate before retaliating in kind? Oh, but that would be retaliation, wouldn’t it? And would it not therefore be a fair response? And what about propaganda? It’s not as if the enemy doesn’t use it—so why should our government be so restrained? Especially when our stuff is pretty damn innocent?
Taking this parallel one step further, let me add that our use of propaganda seems to me to fit this paradigm perfectly, insofar as we have used it to beat back the anti-American rhetoric coming not only from the Arab world, but from the western press as well.
Or to put it more bluntly, this campaign was designed to retaliate not only against enemy propaganda in Iraq and other parts of the middle east, but ironically (and sadly) against our very own media, whose coverage has been almost uniformly sensationalistic and dire.
Was it a good idea? That depends. Do Iraqis read the LA Times…?
Y’know…I remember, as a wee lad, wondering why houses burning down was always THE TOP STORY on the local news.
This current situation is, I think, local news grown into 24-hour, hairsprayed maturity.
Hopefully, this media model – the application of provincial sensibilities to issues of national and global importance – will eventually die off…perhaps as a result of an upcoming generation that has adopted a uniform, healthy skepticism about anything the media reports, combined with the decentralization of information dispersal…
Hmmm.
So is Matt Welch upset because propaganda is so …. wrong? Or is he upset because a successful propaganda campaign would make the MSM look foolish?
As for ethics and journalism. Dan Rather. Mary Mapes. etc etc etc etc etc. Really. Anyone who can discuss journalism and ethics in the same conversation, without laughing, has my respect.
Frankly each and every example of what the Pentagon supposedly did wrong has been done by “respected” journalists in the MSM time and time again.
1. “As to whether the propaganda is or isn’t “fake,” and whether it resembles your average MSM article, consider today’s New York Times follow-up to the story:”
Anybody remember “fake but accurate”?
2. “But the military version took out a quotation from an oil ministry spokesman that was critical of American reconstruction efforts. It substituted a more positive message, also attributed to the spokesman, though not as a direct quotation.”
Yet when the New York Times does it’s called; editing.
3. “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.”
How is this different from Mary Mapes, forged documents and RatherGate?
4. “So, intentional plagiarism, falsified quotes, and made-up shit to cover up American military actions are the norm in the American press?”
No Mr. Welch. Intentional plagiarism [sic], falsified quotes and made-up shit is to cover Democrat and liberal actions and it is the norm in the American press.
…
Somebody wake me up when Welch becomes relevant.
If their plummeting subscription numbers are any indication, nobody reads the LA Times.
Hmmm.
Ok. I missed this last beautiful quote in Welch’s article.
Seriously. What blockhead thinks that labelling propaganda is the ethical thing to do? Is Welch suggesting that if the Pentagon put a disclaimer on the propaganda that he’d then like it?
If the Pentagon has to put a disclaimer on every piece of propaganda in order to follow some goofy imaginary lefty ethics, then so does the MSM.
Starting tomorrow I want the NYT, which I don’t bother to read anyways, to print a similar disclaimer directly underneath their masthead. Ditto the rest of the maggoty crowd. What a kooky thing.
War. Now New and Reformulated with Lefty Ethics!
“Lefty Ethics” isn’t that an oxymoron?
Isn’t propaganda only what the other side publishes?
Heh. The security word on this post is ‘left’.
I think we need a propaganda effort in our country.
Yesterday morning, I heard that “insurgents” had taken over the Iraqi city of Ramadi, attacking Iraqi and US outposts and stalking through the streets like the very Gods they are. It was repeated at least twice, during each of two half-hour news updates. The radio station was apparently getting the story from the AP wire.
The story was pure crap:
And:
On November 28th, the LA Times ran a story headlined “Use of Chemical in Iraq Ignites Debate”. Any bets on what that’s about? Any bets on the slant of the article, and how willing it was to accept the claims of the WP nutjobs? Here’s a hint:
That story is pure propaganda, and false propaganda, at that. They bitch about the morality of truthful, if one-sided, stories, while they’re running crap like this?
Was Matt upset when CNN admitted they white washed Saddam’s crimes for access? Just asking.
so would you be surprised if there wasn’t such a response? and was such a response not experienced in previous wars?
you’ve concluded that you must fight fire with what you’re calling – friendly embers. briquettes of freedom, even. but what type of fire are we fighting here? a brush fire? a grease fire? oh this big wood analogy has me in vapors.
it definitely stinks that this is viewed as an acceptable tactic. clearly anyone with have a brain can see directly through it. half, even.
but hey, I’m just a civilian, what do I know? I haven’t even read The Art of War.
what would I like to know? this type of stuff fascinates me. humans are funny creatures.
wars must have been a lot easier when I was stupider. or less aware.
it would seem to me though that if what was happening on the ground was really good, the truth of it would shine through. I’ll give you the media bias here in this country. I honestly have no idea what’s going on on the ground over there. but I will raise you – if what is going on over there is really as good as you say, then the story should be writing itself.
where are those good people?
Mr. Fun, how do you feel about CNN white washing Saddam’s crimes for access? Just asking.
The MSM and Welch are just pissed because they print UNPAID propaganda. They can’t make the business model work.
There is no established media over there. Just underfunded rookies trying to figure out how freedom works. Oh, and Al-Jazeera, of course.
Also, all of you people who are used to perfect results instantly on every project you undertake, please e-mail me, we are hiring.
I don’t know one “journalist”, local or national, who doesn’t picture himself/herself as the Bono of the media.
They (for the most part), have egos bigger than Ashlee Simpson, and the intellect to match. They know how the world SHOULD be, and GODDAMN IT, THAT’S THE WAY IT”S GONNA BE!!
It seems that since Watergate, the whole media ethos is to destroy something or someone. The MSM is just a twisted version of “Girls Gone Wild” – always looking to see somebody else’s boobs.
Well, at least those of us with a TV know just where the boobs really are…
You mean that we have to PAY Iraqi reporters to tell the truth?? Gee, I wonder what would happen if we tried that here??
Nah, the vain bastards would charge too much. Plus, too many of them are so addicted to the leftist kool-aid that they wouldn’t know the truth if it bit them on the bum.
TW: soviet. Ah, nothing would be complete without a reference to the masters of propaganda!!
Propogada? Is that some sort of Latin dance, Jeff?
‘No longer’ use nerve gas? And we did this, where again? Not that I’m terribly upset about it, mind. Mr. Welch demonstrates typical ignorance of why actions like that were taken, that they very well might be again, and how he’s contributing to that end.
I’m also curious, now that he brought it up, as to who outside of the democratic West pays any attention to treaties?
SW: You know what ‘they’ say…
Short version: If we don’t stop this propaganda stuff, we’re no better than the terrorists!!
Plus, we’re losing in our illegal hegemonic war for oil and empire!
Don’t question my patriotism!!
There, that should do it. Any standard-issue Mark 1 Mod 0 shrieks I might’ve missed here? I really don’t have time to read the whole article.
Ssshhh. No one tell Welch about “Encounter”.
The frowned-upon dance!
Propaganda, like torture, is morally wrong and should be banned outright.
Just like hypocrisy. And pie.
– Ban propaganda?…How would the left function without propaganda. You must be kidding McGehee…As for banning pie. Well thats just un-American….
To sum up:
All things terrorists, Baathist meglomanicas, and their allies around the world “do” must be viewed through the lens of historical persecution of <insert “grievance group”–not, repeat, not evil bastards here>.
All things the US does must be viewed through the narrowest possible lens to affirm nefarious intent.
Does that pretty much capture the spirit of the hour?
Note to libs: Please read Churchill’s The Gathering Storm. And then let’s talk. Simpletons.
God, how my head hurts.
Someone on another blog/thread made a point which bears repeating here: what’s NPR (National Public Radio) if not propaganda – however ‘soft core’ – that tax dollars pay for right here at home?
I listen each and every work day during my commute for two reasons: 1) to get a bit of news and 2) to hear what the other side is thinking. Make absolutely no mistake, NPR programming is so biased that if NPR were a ship it’d be going around in small circles lying on its port [left] side. It’s pure Dem talking points dressed up as news, sprinkled with kitschy sound effects and garnished with a sneering Daniel Schorr to remind us how far we are from his vision of a utopian socialist paradise. (I sneer right back at the idiot but he pays me no heed.)
Today NPR programming is paid for mainly by private and institutional donations. A small amount (2% or so) – though it was much more in the 70’s and 80’s (more than 50%) – is/was paid for using tax dollars. Yes, your tax dollars. You are paying for sometimes rabid but always solid lefty propaganda right here in the US, however small your tax portion may be. News with a slant, if you like, but there it is.
How does this differ from what we’re doing in Iraq? From my perspective it appears about the same: using public funds, an external agency creates news segments and then provides them to local stations as both a service (give the station something interesting to broadcast) and to further its own ends, both politically and financially. (NPR may be non-profit but their on-air talent doesn’t work for free.)
So for the lefties who’ve bunched their panties over this I’d say: let’s fix the issue in the US before we worry about Iraq. That, or leave both well enough alone since they’re effectively the same thing.
Surely you remember the report on Tailwind, where the Army used nerve gas on US Deserters in Vietnam. He means times like that.
So when the MSM tells me I’m a fascist pig who’s oppressing the Iraqi people I should believe that. But when an Iraqi villager whose backyard I’ve just cleared of UXOs thanks me and I want to tell everyone about it, its propaganda which is “transparent†and “obviously” fabricated and probably counterproductive.
Conversely, when the terrorist scum trumpet their success in “defying the oppressing American occupiers” by killing one of my friends while he’s trying to disarm an IED. Or when the same inhuman garbage beheads an innocent claiming reciprocity for past US misdeeds, advertising their behavior is “telling the noble truthâ€Â?
Give me a break! I’ve lost too many colleagues to this war to let this one slide. As an EOD troop I’ve done my part to make Baghdad a safer place and protect my coalition brethren. To have a pack of lying morons degrade a harmless effort to counter enemy propaganda is almost more than I can bear.
Well said Dan, well said…………
Did communists pay cash for favorable treatment in Hollywood and the MSM? Or was it just professional courtesy?
I thought we stopped using napalm (specifically, since we still use incendiaries) because we fucking freaked out over seeing horrible pictures of villagers doused in the stuff. IOW because the results of how we used it were so awful when we were confronted with them, especially by the victims themselves. There is no parallel with the planting of (mostly) accurate but slanted reports. However I will buy that, since this is speaking directly to our desire to “win hearts and minds” in the country, the moral question–“sure it’s legal/we’ve done things like this in the past, but is it right”–is a lot more meaningful than it was when folks were using it to question our use of WP.
There’s two issues:
1. Whether it is effective.
2. Whether it is morally upright.
The first is specific to this specific instance. The second is not, and directly relevant to the concerted effort by our “elites” and “world opinion” to handicap and browbeat the United States to the point where it cannot defend itself.
Hmmm.
I think we stopped using napalm because FAE, Fuel-Air Explosive, weapons are much much more effective. As an example the Daisy-Cutter is an FAE bomb. When it strikes it releases an extremely fine mist of fuel that mixes with the surrounding air, much like what happens in a cylinder in a car’s engine. Then the bomb detonates the fuel-air mixture causing a huge explosion.
Thanks Dan
and Todd.
Ed, the Daisy Cutter isn’t an FAE device, it’s a GSX device (gelled slurry explosive), similar to the Oklahoma City device.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-82.htm
Hmmm.
Well I learned something new today.
BLU-82B
I have no idea where I picked it up that the Daisy-Cutter was a FAE. Thanks for the correction!
Napalm, delivered to my front on several occasions, saved my life. I used WP on one occasion but saw it used quite a few times. Feather Merchants need to develop a painless weapons system that acomplishes what the nasty stuff does.
First: If “newspapers” accept money to run stories, they are really “advertisement papers”, and we are merely buying advertising.
The moral question resides with the publisher who decides what type of product to publish. It does not reside with the advertiser(us).
Second: Buying advertising seems pretty smart to me.
What if newspapers accept “backgrounders”, “exclusives”, “tips” and “Heads ups”, what do you call that?
.
Dan:
I think you win the ring today.
– This has to be the mother of all hypocracies…. the lefties bitching about press manipulation… How rediculous can they get…. If it wasn’t for the NYT and the rest of the lefty press, including CNN/AP/MSNBC etc, they would largely dissapear from the political stage….What a bunch of lying feckless assholes….
I disagree with matt Welch on this issue to but some of the attacks on him in this thread are unfair and unfounded. Just because you disagree on one issue doesn’t mean a person is evil.
If anybody believes that propaganda is ineffective, they should try reading a little about the ineffective propaganda that kept Stalin free to murder tens of millions of his own people. Then they should read about how ineffective propaganda allowed Hitler to go on his rampage. Then they should read about Mao…
And those are just the bad guys.
Anybody that claims propaganda doesn’t work is talking out of their ass.
mike and ed:
I’ve heard people refer to any large, powerful, air-deliverable explosive designed or used for clearing minefields as “daisy-cutters,” so that’s probably where the confusion came from.
BLU-95 / 96’s. Unfortunately not too effective against mines or wire obstacles, despite what I would have expected.
US corporations and special interest groups spend billions annually to influence the LA Times and others. It only does this because they believe that they can manipulate the press to cover and to cover favorably their pet interests. The LA Times has also accepted on several occasions, but most notably re: the Staple’s Center, paid placements masquerading as editorial. Why PR and advertising should be off-limits to the US military is beyond me. Whether or not such efforts are efficacious, I’d rather have that determination made by the folks accountable for the efforts than by the likes of Welch who doesn’t have nearly the data-set required to make any sort of informed decision whatsoever.
Welch is doing exactly what he was programmed to do.
“Welch, in calling our defenses “apologia,†is perhaps being a bit too free with the emotionally-charged rhetoric. After all, I wasn’t apologizing for the practice; I was simply pointing out the such a practice is common and, in a wartime setting, completely ethical.”
An apologia is a defense. The “Apology” of Socrates is Socrates defending himself, not apologizing (in our contemporary sense) for himself. Welch isn’t using emotionally-charged rhetoric in this instance.
I answered this on somebody else’s site, but I’ll do it again here:
I am aware of Plato’s dialogues and the Apology of Socrates. But in addition to having meaning in classical rhetoric (which, by the way, marks it as a “formal defense”—hardly what you’d call a blog post if you were trying to be precise), the word “apologia” carries with it today the sense that the person engaging in it is acting as an apologist—that is, that the defense is perfunctory and strained—and the tone of Welch’s piece makes that particular usage fairly clear, at least to me.
[…] that we must fight wars with our hands tied in order to keep things “fair” (recall the outrage from certain quarters when the US was found to be feeding stories to Iraqi papers, eg.) or keep […]