Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Useful Idiots: All The Lies That Are Fit To Print
More and more evidence of the US military and it's [sic] propaganda missions are coming out. Bloggers are now being offered filthy lucre to shill like crazy about the war.
I just have one question. Does the truth even matter anymore? The linked article spews forth line after line of nauseating bilge:
The U.S. military has had no success in turning pro-war bloggers into actual combat units willing to be blown up in Iraq.
My, what a non-violent thought. If only everyone we disagreed with could be so easily disposed of.
Worse, the White House failed miserably in its effort to get pro-war bloggers to pay for Iraq's "reconstruction" out of their own pocket.
Has the Constitution been re-written? Does the President now have the power to levy selective taxes directly on the good citizenry? Damn. I must have missed that part.
But it appears the bloggers are indeed willing to blog what the Pentagon tells them to blog, as they're already doing that without direction from outside propaganda agencies.
Right. Let's see how one Milblogger (who has both criticized and praised the administration) reacted to the Army's email:
...who knows if this firm is legitimate or not? My first thought was it was some kind of trap...
I suspect (and have verified in some cases) that we retired and veteran bloggers have no intentions of dancing to anyone's tune (let alone the DoA), but we are interested in getting out the content that the MSM fails to provide about our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines (and you Coasties, too).
Yes, I'd say he's drunk the DOD Koolaid. Just like this Pentagon shill:
As far as being some kind of willing arm of the government leadership at the expense of the truth or the wellbeing of our troops on the ground, I don’t have the words for how low I would have to sink in my own esteem to do that!
Much like Blackfive and John Donovan, I’m interested in the possibilities of this program, but a bit unsure of its value. I was initially puzzled by the email, and phrases like “exclusive editorial content” sound strange to me. I sent HS&L a warm response to their email and I’m still awaiting clarification of what is being offered, but I am under zero obligation to write about or reproduce anything HS&L may send my way (as Mr. Rondek made clear in his initial email, reproduced here).
The way I see it, LGF Watch and Sploid owe Milbloggers a big apology. Nowhere do I see any mention of money changing hands. I see no suggestion of coercion on the government's part, nor any particular willingness on the part of bloggers to swallow "government propaganda" whole.
How does this kind of disgusting smear campaign get started anyway? I'll tell you how: it started in the Washington Post.
The Army's Buying PR
Word comes from RL that the Army has hired PR firm Hass MS&L of Detroit to offer "exclusive editorial content" to blogs willing to run government propaganda.
Ooooh. And how do we know it's "propaganda"? Because Mr. Arkin oh-so-helpfully tells us it is, that's how. And all good Americans know the definition of propaganda:
Main Entry: pro·pa·gan·da
Pronunciation: "prä-p&-'gan-d&, "prO-
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from Congregatio de propaganda fide Congregation for propagating the faith, organization established by Pope Gregory XV died 1623
1 capitalized : a congregation of the Roman curia having jurisdiction over missionary territories and related institutions
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
All right. I'll buy off on this. Of course the Army is doing this to help the war effort. But this definition could apply equally to much of the mainstream media's war reporting. In case you're curious about Mr. Arkin's opinions on the war, he's not shy. He'll tell you right up front:
By the end of 2006, the United States will have fewer than 100,000 troops in Iraq and will be well on its way to withdrawing its forces, Osama bin Laden will still be at large, Iran and Syria and North Korea will be safe from U.S. military attack.
You don't say. Iran, Syria, and North Korea have always been safe from U.S. military attack.
It took 12 years of UN sanctions, a broken cease-fire, an assassination attempt on a former American President in Kuwait (while Saddam was supposedly "contained" in Iraq), aiding and abetting an attack on the WTC in 1993 (while Saddam was "contained" in Iraq), firing on coalition jets in the no-fly zone, using WMDs to murder 5000 Kurds in Halabja, the starvation and murder of countless numbers of his own countrymen under the auspices of Oil-for-Terrorists, and the bipartisan passage of a 1998 law demanding regime change - none of which have occurred with respect to Iran, Syria, or North Korea - for us to invade Iraq. Yet "national security" experts like William Arkin are still snarking away about *that* decision two years later. On what pretext would we attack Iran, Syria, or North Korea?
Oh, but Mr. Arkin isn't done showing us his impartiality:
Basically, nothing will really be different. Dick Cheney will still be there, and though there won't be a major terrorist attack in the United States -- strike major, there won't be any -- the administration will still manage, despite approval ratings in the toilet, to jerk the American public around "fighting" a war on terror that should hardly be labeled a war anymore.
If only Dubya could produce some dead bodies here on the home front. Then, perhaps, Mr. Arkin would believe the war was real. Until then, he has his doubts.
Speaking of war, the same 2005 critics of administration policy in Iraq in 2006 will start to fret about whether the U.S. isn't withdrawing too quickly and will start to argue -- convenient for the administration -- that we have to leave at least 30,000 troops in country to continue to help Iraqi forces fight the insurgency.
Like John Murtha, Mr. Arkin would prefer that we simply "redeploy" safely to the rear leaving the Iraqis defenseless (it being the expert judgment of 'national security experts' that terrorists who are trying to prevent democracy from taking hold will simply give up once American troops leave). You know... it'll be a cakewalk.
Congress for its part will hold anemic hearings on NSA spying and will continue to make believe the super-bureaucracy of the Director of National Intelligence solves our "intelligence" problems. It will throw money at the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon and the intelligence community who will all argue that they are turning the corner getting it right in their post 9/11 revamping.
Of course if Congress wasn't throwing money at DHS, Mr. Arkin would be hastily penning an angry column wondering why they weren't keeping us safe. At any rate, the idea that the military might be trying to do something to counter the constant barrage of media negativity about the war really irks Mr. Arkin:
I'm not sure I know what the think of this. Military families are increasingly relying on soldier blogs and support networks based on blogs to keep in touch, and maybe this is an innocuous way for the Army to push its "public affairs" content to the new medium.
But the "content" under discussion, an Army public affairs officer tells me, is not the nitty gritty of deployments and living conditions overseas. It is planned to be an official counter to the perceived unwillingness of the mainstream media to report the "good news" from Iraq and the war on terror.
And we wouldn't want too much of that good news to get out, would we? Just what is Mr. Arkin's beef here? Is he afraid that the Army will lie? Or is there such a thing as "too much" good news? Like "too much" information?
As a representative of the news media, I am constantly asked by military people, "How come the press doesn't report the good news from Iraq?"
Plenty of "good news" stories come out of Iraq. The reconstruction and election and Iraqi police and military recruiting and bravery story has been told. In fact, one could argue that there is so much good news and progress, the President is measuring it to see when enough good news accumulates so that he can start withdrawing U.S. military forces in earnest.
(As an aside, I guess all of the military types and Iraq hawks who want MORE good news are essentially arguing that they are ready to withdraw U.S. forces and just need more evidence or backbone to carry out their eventual goal.)
This is utter and unreconstructed garbage. I don't know who this man is talking to, but most military folks are arguing to give Iraq all the time she needs to get on her feet. Mr. Arkin needs to get out of his office more. Maybe talk to some actual 'military types' (funny, I always thought we were people, not 'types').
Mr. Arkin seems to be of the same mind as Clarence Page. He seems to think that there is "enough" good news coming from Iraq and Afghanistan. You see, too much "good news" is dangerous. Only military and military families who are critical of the administration can be trusted: all other sources are "propaganda".
But if you recall that definition I looked up at the beginning of this post, propaganda has two uses. It can be used to help or hurt a cause. The important thing to look at is whether or not the information being presented is complete, accurate, and true.
In this case, as with so much of the mainstream media's war reporting, it is not.
Milbloggers are not being paid to blog for the DOD.
Had any of the sources linked to above bothered to check around, they'd have quickly learned that the Milbloggers contacted were skeptical of the Army program, but willing to help get out any true good news about our military men and women because the mainstream media have done such a poor job of telling the American people what a great job they're doing. If that weren't so, we wouldn't need Milbloggers, and we certainly wouldn't need initiatives like Project Hero.
Because the names of our fallen heroes would be household words. Perhaps William Arkin can explain to me why they are not. Because for the life of me, I'll be damned if I know.
9 Comments:
By 
TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 11, 01:55:00 PM:
Like, where's my filthy lucre. Here I devote myself to writing no end of hawkish screeds and what do I get? Not even a t-shirt (and, quite frankly, some cool CENTCOM logo attire would go a long way). If there's blood money to be handed out, I think that I deserve my share.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 11, 05:33:00 PM:
Nah. I didn't forget Roggio, but given all the problems Blogger is having today, I figured I'd never get to post it if I didn't just go ahead. It was too long as it was and had been rewritten several times (which I NEVER DO) because I'm running a fever, my head's pounding, and I've been on the phone non-stop all day, so I can't think straight.
I still haven't been able to get back in and add John Donovan's link either - that got left out.
Soooooooo frustrating.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 11, 05:38:00 PM:
The other interesting thing is that Arkin never bothered to drop by and check any of the bloggers who commented on his article (and the ones he named).
I've had journalists contact me - IMO a reputable journalist who is concerned about being fair will do that. But the Post (my hometown paper, by the way) is very insular that way. They just can't be bothered to get it right. Other big city papers will do it, but not them. What a shame, because I think the Post has really come up lately. I hate to see them get an attitude.
By Eric, at
Wed Jan 11, 08:02:00 PM:
I was interviewed by a Columbia Journalism student for his thesis. I asked him that question, why the MSM seemed to be ignoring war heroes like MoH recipient SFC Paul Smith. His reason was exaggerated and false stories about PFC Jessica Lynch and the admin's stance on discouraging pics of flag-draped caskets. He implied that the Bush admin was the reason for negative reporting by the MSM.
By Solomon2, at
Wed Jan 11, 08:14:00 PM:
The antidote: Confidence in Western Moral Superiority.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 11, 09:38:00 PM:
Telling the truth is its own reward.
Any moron can go up on the USMC web site or the CENTCOM site and get the information on our medal winners.
The sad truth is that the MSM are not interested in this information. That's where I get the information for my posts. If they wanted it, they could get it.
They simply don't care and they're punishing our men and women in uniform our of their pettiness.
This whole casket business is a load of crap. I cannot imagine anything more profoundly disrespectful to our war dead than having the MSM gathering like carrion crows snapping pictures of caskets and pasting them up on TV.
Do they have no decency? These people have families. How would THEY feel if someone snapped a photo of THEIR family's caskets?
Come to think of it, maybe I'll just start going to media funeral and pasting pictures on the Internet and see how THEY feel about it. Vultures. They are disgusting. Military people do not give up their dignity when they join the armed forces.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 11, 09:40:00 PM:
I apologize for being so heated.
This is obviously a very emotional issue for me.
Going to funerals does that to you.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Jan 11, 10:10:00 PM:
The most depressing thing about this is I do not think that most of these journalists are actually nefarious. This enormous gulf in perception is not intentional, in the sense that most of these reporters do not, I think, consider every morning how they might embarrass the military and show contempt for the mission. Just a guess, but journalists are people too. So then what is the problem? There is a huge gulf in perception in our society, and it is not just because of the MSM. There is something deeper.
Or -- maybe -- it is always this way in war. Perhaps World War II, which for many hawks is the archtype (we're always wishing that reporters were like Ernie Pyle) was really a giant exception. I am near the end of the previously recommended audiobook on the Civil War. The discussion of the politics during the Union election of 1864 was astonishing. The Democrats ran on, essentially, an anti-war campaign, arguing that the Union was in a quagmire and the North should cut a deal. The North had been making significant strategic progress, especially in the year or so since Gettysburg, but it was tough to see on the map. The Confederate Armies of Northern Virginia and the Tennessee were still intact, and neither Atlanta nor Richmond had fallen at the time of the Democratic convention in August. That summer, Lincoln himself thought he would not be re-elected. The Democratic press was strenuously anti-war. But then Sherman took Atlanta and dealt some severe damage to the Army of the Tennessee, and Lincoln won an electoral vote landslide. But McClellan still got 45% of the vote in New York. So maybe the answer is that war is tremendously polarizing, and it is always the case (with the exception of World War II!) that opponents and proponents tend to cluster around radically different, but sincerely held, perceptions.
By Cassandra, at
Wed Jan 11, 10:31:00 PM:
I agree with you, TH.
I spent the night before I quit Jet Noise in a rather heated email discussion with an embedded journalist whose name I think most of you would recognize. A good man who has done a lot of reporting that was, IMO, quite supportive of the military.
And yet even he was defending the media, which just blew me away b/c at other times he had seemed to disagree with them. So I didn't know if he thought I was just being too harsh (which is quite possibly a just criticism) or perhaps it was also partly loyalty or a desire to be fair (which would also be understandable).
I've seen plenty of reporters who do a creditable job out there every day, and some who are uneven. But then I see some who just seem to have no standards whatsoever and their own profession does not want to hold them to account. And yes, I am hard on them because they do so much damage. If you have great power you must exercise great care with it, and they don't too much of the time. I don't expect any more of them than I do of myself.
They can destroy lives, get people fired, ruin reputations and careers, all with impunity. And when I see them refuse to run retractions or print only part of a story that makes me very angry.
When they put bloggers down for wanting to get the rest of the story out or questioning their version of events, that is even worse because we've all seen over time that they don't get it right much of the time. But hey - no one does. It takes time for the full truth to come out. Why not let people add what they can find out?
Apparently this smacks to much of letting the plebians participate for some people...
