Propaganda

[Basstrap]

I hear a lot of talk about the "Iraqi Propaganda machine" cutely labeled the IPM

I was just wondering if the Fine US citizens here seriously believe they are not on the receieving end of a lot of propaganda

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Did I mention that one of the reasons I am so happy not to be living in the USA at the moment is because I don't have to rely on that propaganda machine? ugh.

 

[kobayashi]

embeds are your friends

 

[Kristie]

there's a LOT of US citizens that think their news (whichever one they may watch/read) is 100% accurate and not slanted in any way.
Makes me sad.

 

[verte76]

There's no doubt in my mind that we're on the receiving end of a propaganda machine. The American Friends Service Committee (the Quakers) has an "alternative" news source based in Amman, Jordan. It's called "The Human Face of War". I don't have that URL handy but look for the AFSC on your friendly local search engine. It's honest, non-governmental news.

 

[speedracer]

During war, it seems that a journalist's three main sources of information are:

1. Military sources.
2. Direct observation.
3. Individual conjecture.

It is fair to criticize networks in the US for relying on (1) too much, but I can't think of an incident where a piece of information obtained from military sources was not identified as such.

In contrast, I have noticed that a lot of foreign sources rely on (3) without always clearly portraying it as such.

 

[Tip Top Prince]

What makes anyone, anywhere in the world think they are not subjected to any form of propaganda?

It's kinda sanctimonious to think only the US media engages in 'selective' reporting. From where I stand, there aren't too many perfect places (worlds/people..etc).

 

[meegannie]

Here's some info on it: http://www.peaceresponse.org/face.shtml

 

[nbcrusader]

Stop this nonsense. You are using the term "propaganda" to include everything from selective reporting or "spin" to outright lies. Also, evaluate the control the respective governments have over the media.

You cannot simply create the presumption that everything we hear in the United States is propaganda and, therefore, unreliable. Given the vast amount of information flowing into the country and number of independent reporters given front line access, to any way equate the US media with the Iraqi Minister of Information or Al Jazeera is fraught with ignorance.

Alternative news sources have their own agendas and, according to the suggested analysis, should be considered ?propaganda?.

 

[meegannie]

Al Jazeera's slogan is "objective and balanced."

 

[kobayashi]

During war, it seems that a journalist's three main sources of information are:

1. Military sources.
2. Direct observation.
3. Individual conjecture.

It is fair to criticize networks in the US for relying on (1) too much, but I can't think of an incident where a piece of information obtained from military sources was not identified as such.

In contrast, I have noticed that a lot of foreign sources rely on (3) without always clearly portraying it as such.

(1) is relied because it is the main source of information-it is where the news happens. yes the source is cited and it is a very trustworthy source (ex. 'the pentagon', 'the administration', 'officials', etc.). this is easy information to collect for the news outlets because it is cheap (free) and immediately available.
this source role puts institutions of power in a position to distribute whichever information they want. that is a bias that is inherent in the system.
but the news source can play it up to the point that a viewer is desensitized to a lack of pluralism of viewpoints being presented to them.

this barrier has seeminlgy been broken down with the utilization of 'embedded' journalists in this conflict. approximately 600, from what i've seen so far they are either american or british, journalists are placed within a division or section of the military offensive. this move has positives and negatives for viewers. we are getting footage unlike any we've ever seen before and this footage is coming at a speed we are unaccustomed to during war time. however some evidence of control over those images has already come about. there is, of course, a natural clash of cultures between journalism and the military. so some of these differing opinions on what should be shown are inherent and some are purposeful methods of control.
in my opinion embeds are bad. while we are given unprecedented access, this access is easily shaped to further fit the needs of the military.

could you provide examples of what you mean by (3)?

 

[nbcrusader]

however some evidence of control over those images has already come about. there is, of course, a natural clash of cultures between journalism and the military. so some of these differing opinions on what should be shown are inherent and some are purposeful methods of control.
in my opinion embeds are bad. while we are given unprecedented access, this access is easily shaped to further fit the needs of the military.

Can you provide evidence of what you are describing. I realize reporters cannot disclose their position (for obvious reasons), but what other "evidence of control" are you referring to?

 

[oliveu2cm]

I was going to start a new thread but I didn't know.. ANyway- do we know if the Iraqi people really want us there? I know that they do not have free speech and cannot speak out against Saddam w/o fear of death, but is there anything?? Cheering by the people as the US military comes to "free them"? Anything?

 

[nbcrusader]

oliveu2cm,

See this Thread

 

[kobayashi]

Can you provide evidence of what you are describing. I realize reporters cannot disclose their position (for obvious reasons), but what other "evidence of control" are you referring to?

nothing that wasnt unexpected or predictable in my opinion.

ABCNews.com
Tight Lips
Embedded Journalists Learn About Restricted Access Early On

Reporter's Notebook
By Ron Claiborne

A B O A R D U S S L I N C O L N, March 14 ? The media who have been "embeded" with military units have been promised unprecedented access to cover the build-up to a possible conflict with Iraq and a war itself, if it happens.

But less than a week into the embedding, there is already a lot of bristling among some of the journalists aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier deployed to the Gulf region. Some of them ? us ? began muttering when we were told we had to be accompanied by our escorts ? members of the ship's crew including some public affairs officers ? everywhere we went except the restroom. The escorts also monitor our interviews with ship's personnel.

A few days into the embed, they were told to keep a record of who we speak to and what we talk about. We were told it was so they would have a log of how many people were spoken to and for what stories. Reporters are famously resistant to anyone monitoring them working.

Ordered to Leave

This week, Admiral John Kelly, head of carrier Task Force 50, had an "admiral's call" for enlisted sailors in the ship's cavernous hangar bay. Some of us were informed just before it took place that we should steer clear of the meeting because it was private. But not everyone got the word.

Witnesses say when two photographers accidentally wandered into the hangar bay during the meeting, the admiral stopped suddenly and barked at them. According to one reporter, the cameramen were confronted by armed guards and ordered to leave.

Another newspaper reporter who planned to do a story about the Navy's policy prohibiting fraternization between the sexes said interviews she had arranged with ship personnel were abruptly canceled because, she said she was told, the admiral did not like the subject matter.

Cynics had predicted that the military and journalists would never mix. The cynics are no doubt chuckling to themselves.

 

[womanfish]

nothing that wasnt unexpected or predictable in my opinion.

This thread is a joke. Comparing Iraqi propaganda with the U.S. and British. (and you wonder why some people equate anti-war with pro-Saddam????)

kobayashi's "evidence of control" is absurd! Of course they are going to have to have escorts with them, and they are going to have to have their interviews monitored. This is a war. You think that they are just going to slap a hundred journalists in with all the branches of the military and say "have at it!" If journalists were given free reign to disclose locations, types of vehicles, types of weapons, number of troops, ETA's to other locations, etc.... the list goes on and on.... then we would be sitting ducks to the enemy.

Just last night i saw live action of bombing raids in the north as the embedded reporter was giving a report on the days events. It just happened behind him. This is real time, I think that we can applaud the fact that we are getting this news that is not being manipulated other than the fact that we can't always know their location or next move.

You act like the reporter from ABC is there with two guys aiming a gun at his head reading a script of what they want him to say. There are legendary journalists out in the field right now. Some that have covered 3,4, even 5 wars. They are saying they are given more coverage and information and freedom to report than in any other war before this. (but I'm sure that's just propaganda too)

And I am REALLY, REALLY sick of people acting as though the U.S. is the only country that would ever use propaganda. I know that reports that come out of the Pentagon are many times veiled in half-truths and double-speak to make it sound like everything is going great. But guess what? I KNOW it and am AWARE of it and can make up my own mind. Yes it's true, as hard as that is to believe. I can actually watch Bill O'reilly and say, what a dumbass, and NOT believe the rhetoric that he spews out. I can read articles in the New Independent and I don't have to believe all of the one-sided crap that they say. It's amazing I know. I live in America and can actually think objectively about news reports that I read.

If you think every other country in the world is propaganda-free, I truly feel sorry for you. I just watched a journalist on the BBC saying how they did a report on the war coverage in the media of Europe and some words that he used were: "appalling, uninformed rhetoric, irresponsible, misleading, and shameful) This is a British reporter, not U.S. by the way.

Another interesting example was a man making a trip to Muslim countries asking muslims what they thought of the U.S. - One person said that they think we blame them for everything and that we blame the for 9/11, but she read that muslims weren't involved in 9/11, it was Americans that did it to themselves.

It almost made me cry to think that they believe this, it was so sad. But there ya go, propanda outside the U.S.

 

[U2girl]

I think both sides use propaganda, if nothing else for boosting moral of their forces - just think how at the start of war both US and Iraquis claimed they were doing great.

For the info, I turn to our own newspaper/TV or German TVs, and CNN.

 

[womanfish]

I think both sides use propaganda, if nothing else for boosting moral of their forces - just think how at the start of war both US and Iraquis claimed they were doing great.

For the info, I turn to our own newspaper/TV or German TVs, and CNN.

I agree U2girl -

I do think that Iraqi propanda is more outright lying ( for example, saying that the U.S. and British are blocking humanitarian aid, when in fact we are trying to clear out water mines set by the Iraqi's in order to get aid in) and Coalition propaganda is more about bending things to sound like we are doing well. But to say the media does this is not always the case. The U.S. media last night was very, very questioning on the progress of the war which was good to see.

what differences do you see in your TV coverage and CNN?

 

[U2girl]

Erm, actually I don't watch the news on our TV lately, I just turn to teletext and newspaper. They seem to be more critical and questioning toward the Coalition then, say, CNN.

 

[MSU2mike]

Erm, actually I don't watch the news on our TV lately, I just turn to teletext and newspaper. They seem to be more critical and questioning toward the Coalition then, say, CNN.

Slanted towards what you want to hear is still slanted.

 

[Rono]

Maybe we should ask the director of the Rendon group. This is a advertising company put American flags into the hands of the kuwait people for better images on TV during the liberation in 1991. And they made those TV films about the kuwait refugees in Cairo. You see there crying children ect.

This company send a bill for in total of 7,5 million dollar in the timeperiode after 11 september till now. And i think this is not because the Rendon group does the toilet cleaning at the white house.

I did read it in a Dutch newspaper ( the Volkskrant ) so i could be propaganda.

 

[womanfish]

thanks U2girl. Just an FYI for people out there without cable. Out of the Big three networks: NBC, CBS and ABC. NBC and CBS are fairly similar in their coverage (more liberal and questioning than say FoxNews, but still fairly conservative) And ABC seems to be the most "liberal minded" out of the bunch.

 

[kobayashi]

This thread is a joke. Comparing Iraqi propaganda with the U.S. and British. (and you wonder why some people equate anti-war with pro-Saddam????)

kobayashi's "evidence of control" is absurd! Of course they are going to have to have escorts with them, and they are going to have to have their interviews monitored. This is a war. You think that they are just going to slap a hundred journalists in with all the branches of the military and say "have at it!" If journalists were given free reign to disclose locations, types of vehicles, types of weapons, number of troops, ETA's to other locations, etc.... the list goes on and on.... then we would be sitting ducks to the enemy.

Just last night i saw live action of bombing raids in the north as the embedded reporter was giving a report on the days events. It just happened behind him. This is real time, I think that we can applaud the fact that we are getting this news that is not being manipulated other than the fact that we can't always know their location or next move.

You act like the reporter from ABC is there with two guys aiming a gun at his head reading a script of what they want him to say. There are legendary journalists out in the field right now. Some that have covered 3,4, even 5 wars. They are saying they are given more coverage and information and freedom to report than in any other war before this. (but I'm sure that's just propaganda too)

And I am REALLY, REALLY sick of people acting as though the U.S. is the only country that would ever use propaganda. I know that reports that come out of the Pentagon are many times veiled in half-truths and double-speak to make it sound like everything is going great. But guess what? I KNOW it and am AWARE of it and can make up my own mind. Yes it's true, as hard as that is to believe. I can actually watch Bill O'reilly and say, what a dumbass, and NOT believe the rhetoric that he spews out. I can read articles in the New Independent and I don't have to believe all of the one-sided crap that they say. It's amazing I know. I live in America and can actually think objectively about news reports that I read.

If you think every other country in the world is propaganda-free, I truly feel sorry for you. I just watched a journalist on the BBC saying how they did a report on the war coverage in the media of Europe and some words that he used were: "appalling, uninformed rhetoric, irresponsible, misleading, and shameful) This is a British reporter, not U.S. by the way.

Another interesting example was a man making a trip to Muslim countries asking muslims what they thought of the U.S. - One person said that they think we blame them for everything and that we blame the for 9/11, but she read that muslims weren't involved in 9/11, it was Americans that did it to themselves.

It almost made me cry to think that they believe this, it was so sad. But there ya go, propanda outside the U.S.

hi womanfish, thanks for responding.

im going to ask you to go back and read my post.

in summary i alluded to, and im paraphrasing myself here, 'evidence of control that was predictable and not unexpected' which was attributed to 'a clash of cultures which is bound to occur when mixing journalistic and militaristic individuals'.

now, i didnt mean to ever suggest that viewers should be told where troops are, how many there are and precisely what they are doing. i dont quite know how you surmised that this is what anyone here is asking to know. such information would be of little use to anyone except the opposition.

i never suggested that

the reporter from ABC is there with two guys aiming a gun at his head reading a script of what they want him to say

.
what i am suggesting is what the article said. that there is liable to be trouble between these groups.

you are right, there are a lot of decorated journalists who are presently in the field. and some of them are doing very good work. there are also, however many that denounced the move

my concern with the embedded journalists is that, while the media are given a free pass to the front line to experience war like never before, they are also placed under the control of the military who host them. this is little different from their normal operation. as i stated in my original post, it is from government officials where 'news' usually emanates, and this is done for a variety of reasons which also have already been stated.

but the appearance is much different for the viewer. and keep in mind that the results and effects of this coverage wont be fully comprehended until much analysis has been completed, something only likely long after the conflict is finished.

the viewer is now made to feel as though they are, experiencing everything that is going on. that they know precisely what the military initiative is and how it is being executed.

this myopic presentation of the war is, in my opinion, liable to overemphasize some aspects of the conflict and underemphasize some others. time can be distorted quite easily as well, something which rumsfeld himself alluded to yesterday. it is with almost certainty that there is a lot going on in absence of cameras. this is by neccessity and probably deservedly so, that is the nature of war.

there is also a danger in the development of a sort of 'stockholm syndrome' where the embedded journalists become so comfortable with their hosts, what objectivity they did have is lost in their reporting.

in total, though the embeds are providing innovative and original pieces the likes of which we have never known, their benefits are outweighed by the danger that they are merely tools in the military plan. not in a way that they will be influenced so much, but the viewer believes he or she now knows all having heard the days report from the embedded journalist. but it does have its positives and negatives.

you seem like an intelligent individual. as such i would expect you to be able to naturally skeptical. i personally dont have the same confidence in your fellow americans level of skepticism, though i may very well be wrong.

edit: i just wanted to add that there are numerous other threads in this forum in which we have argued coalition/iraqi propaganda and acknowledged the use and existence of such. i dont think anyone is pretending that this is not a two way street. propaganda is a very powerful tool and it is used accordingly.

 

[kobayashi]

thanks U2girl. Just an FYI for people out there without cable. Out of the Big three networks: NBC, CBS and ABC. NBC and CBS are fairly similar in their coverage (more liberal and questioning than say FoxNews, but still fairly conservative) And ABC seems to be the most "liberal minded" out of the bunch.

well womanfish, take this for what its worth. empirical evidence of the networks you cite. the fact that FOX was left out of the calculations is, in my opinion, an oversight. but they would have further tainted the ratings and im guessing they're penetration into american homes isn't as pervasive as the big three.

from Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
ACTION ALERT:
In Iraq Crisis, Networks Are Megaphones for Official Views

March 18, 2003

Network newscasts, dominated by current and former U.S. officials, largely exclude Americans who are skeptical of or opposed to an invasion of Iraq, a new study by FAIR has found.

Looking at two weeks of coverage (1/30/03-2/12/03), FAIR examined the 393 on-camera sources who appeared in nightly news stories about Iraq on ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and PBS's NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The study began one week before and ended one week after Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation at the U.N., a time that saw particularly intense debate about the idea of a war against Iraq on the national and international level.

More than two-thirds (267 out of 393) of the guests featured were from the United States. Of the U.S. guests, a striking 75 percent (199) were either current or former government or military officials. Only one of the official U.S. sources-- Sen. Edward Kennedy (D.-Mass.)-- expressed skepticism or opposition to the war. Even this was couched in vague terms: "Once we get in there how are we going to get out, what?s the loss for American troops are going to be, how long we're going to be stationed there, what?s the cost is going to be," said Kennedy on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03).

Similarly, when both U.S. and non-U.S. guests were included, 76 percent (297 of 393) were either current or retired officials. Such a predominance of official sources virtually assures that independent and grassroots perspectives will be underrepresented. Of all official sources, 75 percent (222 of 297) were associated with either the U.S. or with governments that support the Bush administration's position on Iraq; only four out of those 222, or 2 percent, of these sources were skeptics or opponents of war.

Twenty of the 297 official sources (7 percent) represented the government of Iraq, while a further 19 (6 percent) represented other governments-- mostly friendly to the U.S.-- who have expressed doubts or opposition to the U.S.'s war effort. (Another 34 sources, representing 11 percent of officials, were current or former U.N. employees. Although members of the U.N. inspection teams made statements that were both critical of Iraq's cooperation and supportive of further inspections, because of their official position of neutrality on the question of war they were not counted as skeptics.) Of all official sources, 14 percent (43 of 297) represented a position skeptical or opposed to the U.S. war policy. (Sources were coded as skeptics/critics if either their statements or their affiliations put them in that category; for example, all French government officials were counted as skeptics, regardless of the content of their quote.)

The remaining 96 sources-- those without a current or former government connection-- had slightly more balanced views; 26 percent of these non-official sources took a skeptical or critical position on the war. Yet, at a time when 61 percent of respondents in a CBS poll (2/5-6/03) were saying that they felt the U.S. should "wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time," only sixteen of the 68 U.S. guests (24 percent) who were not officials represented such views.

Half of the non-official U.S. skeptics were "persons in the street"; five of them were not even identified by name. Only one U.S. source, Catherine Thomason of Physicians for Social Responsibility, represented an anti-war organization. Of all 393 sources, only three (less than 1 percent) were identified with organized protests or anti-war groups.

Overall, 68 sources, or 17 percent of the total on-camera sources, represented skeptical or critical positions on the U.S.'s war policy-- ranging from Baghdad officials to people who had concerns about the timing of the Bush administration's war plans. The percentage of skeptical sources ranged from 21 percent at PBS (22 of 106) to 14 percent at NBC (18 of 125). ABC (16 of 92) and CBS (12 of 70) each had 17 percent skeptics.

 

[womanfish]

I see your arguement more clearly now. I was not referring to what you had personally posted, but more to the article that you posted to support your arguement. I don't think the article is a good one. It makes it seem as though having military personnel monitoring their conversations is a bad thing. If they are embedded with them, they must do this. I mean we were attacked by grenade by our one of our own troops, it doesn't seem too far-fetched to think a journalist could be handing out sensitive information to the wrong people.

I am a little skeptical of the embedded journalists, but seeing someone like Ted Koppal who has been around the block and probably has seen more war action than many of the commanders out there, I do trust him to tell it straight.

Believe me, I don't just believe all that is said, and I don't that only getting info from the embedded journalists is a good idea. There are quite a few independents over there as well. And it would be nice to hear more from them. But as we move closer to the front lines, the less we will hear from them.

But let me ask you this - In past wars, if there was heavy fighting on the front lines, our news reports would pretty much all come from military spokespeople and then written up or reported by journalists. Now, even though they will still have military influence on the, Don't you think we are still going to get a more objective report from somone who is right there on the scene?

 

[oliveu2cm]

oliveu2cm,

See this Thread

Thanks

 

[U2girl]

Slanted towards what you want to hear is still slanted.

I suppose it's so hard to imagine that a non-war party media will have a more non-biased view than any party-involved-in-the-war media?

 

[womanfish]

Kobayashi -

Actually, there was a followup report on this the other night. This is what is skewed about these findings when I read through this. Many times they will use ex-military personnel to give their view on how the war will be fought, what strategy do you think they will use if we go to war, etc..., but many times they aren't there for commentary on the issue of why or if we should go to war. This in my mind says that these percentages are taken somewhat out of context.

Also, they don't account for people who are neutral towards the war. Someone who says, "well Saddam is bad and should be taken out, but do we really have the legal right to do so?" It seems as though the people who did this report are making their own judgement on who is for or against the war. (And we know what bias they are doing this study from).

Also, your view that Fox would taint the ratings farther to the conservative side is wrong in my opinion. People make misconceptions about Foxnews. While many of the hosts on Foxnews have a conservative slant, they are one of the few stations that brings on guests with liberal views to debate the issues. And they do it all the time. I would say several a day, on shows that are played several times a day. I think I see why they didn't include FoxNews on their "fair" study of the network coverage. It would have made it more balanced.

 

[Lilly]

Al Jazeera's slogan is "objective and balanced."

so is fox news'





The concept that all news sources are unbiased is, I think, just not true. As long as there is marketing with news, there is a bias, as long is it's reporting about an American-led war to Americans (or a French-led war to French, or Britain-led to Britains etc), there is bias.

I like getting my news here, then reading Le Monde or BBC reports as well. That way I've got 3 sources that aren't all from the same backing.


And while Basstrap has a great point about making sure not to believe everything you hear, I would make a note to acknowledge the term "propaganda."

Merriam-Webster dictionary entries 2 and 3:
2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person.

3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect.

I would venture to say that the emphasis of Basstrap's point is on definition 3. The only issue I have with that is the term "deliberate." While there are, I'm sure, deliberate attempts to further the US cause and damage Saddam's name, I think that in general newspapers and WRITTEN news sources tend not to outright propagandize (these are independent, generally major, written news sources) this war.

I'd also like to say that the term propaganda connotes this:

(I found others too, but they were very offensive.)

Perhaps I'm just not the best person to discuss this with, seeing as I already realize there is a bias in my news. But the average American is glued to the television screen literally watching this war unfold and not reading about it or bothering to go more in depth. In effect, the network's choice of what is and is not shown could be linked back to propaganda - but I think that it's missing the deliberative section of the definition. (I'm more than positive it has more to do with ratings than with convincing the American public of anything.)

 

[melon]

Al Jazeera's slogan is "objective and balanced."

Al-Jazeera was created by the current king of Qatar--where our Central Command is located. Considering the king's admiration for Western ideals (and the high likelihood that he could one day turn the nation into a democracy, ironically enough), I doubt Al-Jazeera is anti-U.S. just for the sake of it.

News is crafted continually with bias. There is no such thing as "objective" reporting. Al-Jazeera is likely going to report from the Arab perspective, because that is Al-Jazeera's audience. In the same regard, the U.S. media is likely going to report from the U.S. perspective. Have you wondered why 35 dead "coalition" troops are a "tragedy" in the U.S. media, while 1000+ dead Iraqis are a "statistic"? Al-Jazeera, if guilty of anything, is portraying this war with the interest of the Arab audiences in mind, and they don't give a flying fuck about the U.S. and its "successes."

The U.S. isn't interested in freedom of the press as much as pro-U.S. coverage. And that's a fact.

Melon