[infowar.de] WPO 03.12.05: Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News

[Georg Schoefbaenker <schoefbaenker -! - aon - at>]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/02/AR2005120201454_pf.html

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for NewsPossible 'Improprieties' to Be 
Investigated

By Josh White and Bradley GrahamWashington Post Staff WritersSaturday, 
December 3, 2005; A01

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.

"The broader debate is whether it's acceptable for the IO community to be 
doing this," said a general who has served in Iraq and has some experience 
in information operations.

After a briefing from Pentagon officials yesterday, Sen. John W. Warner 
(R-Va.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said he remains "gravely 
concerned about the situation." He said the Pentagon is looking into cases 
in which there may have been "an omission" of labels in newspapers 
indicating where the material came from or that it was an advertisement.

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.

Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln 
Group intentionally misled newspapers by presenting the articles as 
freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S. 
armed forces.

Lincoln Group officials would not discuss specifics of the contract. Laurie 
Adler, a spokeswoman for the company, said yesterday that Lincoln Group has 
been promoting truthful reporting across Iraq.

"We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual 
stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and 
their struggle for freedom and security," Adler said in a written 
statement. "We are encouraged by their sacrifice and proud to help them 
tell their side of the story."

Officials familiar with the Lincoln Group's contract said it allows the 
firm to pay to have articles placed in the Iraqi press. The contract 
reportedly says nothing about disguising the origin of the articles, but 
some military officers defended the practice as a necessary security 
measure, to protect the Iraqi journalists used to deliver the accounts and 
the Iraqi news organizations that print them.

If it were known that the journalists and the news organizations were 
carrying information provided by the U.S. military, these officers said, 
insurgents would surely target them. Indeed, at least two of the Iraqi 
newspapers cited in initial news reports as having printed the articles in 
question have since received threats from insurgents, according to military 
officials.

Proponents of such tactics argue that different standards should be applied 
to what is permissible in a combat zone such as Iraq than, say, in the 
United States or other stable democracies. Although the idea of the 
military using covert methods to get favorable information into print 
appears unethical at home, the argument goes, there are mitigating 
circumstances justifying such tactics in Iraq.

Warner met with several officers and civilian leaders at the Pentagon 
yesterday for a briefing on the program, a meeting that yielded few 
details. Warner told reporters on Capitol Hill that the program was 
authorized through the U.S. Central Command and that the Lincoln Group was 
allowed to provide payments for the placement of articles with the 
understanding that any such material would be labeled as an advertisement 
originating from coalition forces.

The material, produced by information operators and not by public affairs 
officials, was reviewed by a flag officer and commanders before 
distribution, and it received legal clearance in Iraq, Warner said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.), a member of the Armed Services Committee, 
sent a letter to the Defense Department's inspector general asking for an 
investigation into the program and the Lincoln Group contract. Kennedy 
called it "a devious scheme to place favorable propaganda in Iraqi newspapers."

Top Pentagon authorities appear to have been caught off guard by the 
disclosure of the Lincoln Group's activities, and the three days it has 
taken for the Defense Department to produce yesterday's statement seemed to 
reflect considerable uncertainty about how to respond. Several senior 
Pentagon officials expressed their own frustration over waiting for an 
explanation from the military command in Baghdad.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: infowar -
de-unsubscribe -!
- infopeace -
de
For additional commands, e-mail: infowar -
de-help -!
- infopeace -
de