CNN Duped by Pentagon Into Portraying Iraq as 'Quagmire'
 

CNN Duped by Pentagon Into Portraying Iraq as 'Quagmire'
by Scott Ott

(2004-12-02) -- The Pentagon announced today it will launch an internal investigation to determine whether media reports that the Iraq war is a hopeless quagmire may have originated from Pentagon spokesmen engaged in "psy-ops" (psychological operations) to deceive the enemy.

The probe follows a report in the Los Angeles Times that CNN passed along Pentagon disinformation about the timing of the offensive to liberate Fallujah. A Pentagon source intentionally planted the false story to observe the reaction of terrorists to the announcement that an attack had begun.

If the 'quagmire' stories have also resulted from the Pentagon's psy-ops against the enemy, it could shatter the relationship of trust shared by reporters with their defense department sources.

"It makes me wonder whether things are going as badly in Iraq as we've been reporting," said one CNN producer. "If the defense department has tricked us into putting negative spin on U.S. progress in the war, the insurgents will have a false sense of confidence, which sets them up for a crushing defeat. And CNN has become an unwitting accomplice in this Pentagon scheme. I feel dirty."

why the media would trust the government to begin with is beyond me- most of the higher-ups in the Bush Admin were around during Watergate and Iran-Contra.

If the media was so eager to report that without a credible source, it's their own fault. They're supposed to investigate and confirm things before airing them.

Of course, the Pentagon could only be investigating this as a psy-ops measure to make it look like the media was duped into using this phrase and to make it appear that things are going better.

Is this real??!?

-Rudey

I thought Scott Ott was a satirical news-blogger...

Oh wait he is...

http://www.scrappleface.com/

A little harsh, but it begs a couple of questions for me.

First, if the government isn't a credible source, what is?

Second, is the government a credible source?

Answer to number one: We should be able to believe what we here from the government. Can we? I don't think so.

Answer to number two: No, unfortunately, it isn't.

Which is why I object to immediately casting blame on the media whenever it says anything contraversial.

Talk about a rock and a hard place.

The media is not itself out for the public's interest. The media is there to make some money, money, money and get ratings, ratings, ratings.

-Rudey

Nobody said the media is a not for profit. Except maybe NPR, PBS, and a few others.

But the comment I responded to is whether the government is/should be considered a credible source.

But, I guess I would respond to your comment that many (maybe most/certainly not all) politicians -- the ones who direct (notice I didn't say run) the government are not themselves out for the public interest. Politicans are there to make some money, money, money and power, power, power.

If they have to lie to the media and the American public along the way, is that OK?

Is it OK? For them yes, for others no. Will it keep on happening? Yes.

And the profits do matter when you decide to show only certain topics or to do investigative journalism that some might say single a person out or might even be wrong...

-Rudey

I think I prefer a for profit system over a government owned/run system where the above is almost insured.

I don't know... the "government" system in the case of the ABC (Australian Broadcst Corporation), CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation), and BBC (British Broadcast Corporation) all seem to do well when it comes to investigative reporting and objective journalism....

In your opinion. I have read bias reports on the BBC's reporting in regards to certain areas. Also the BBC hand a nasty little affair that involved a scientist who died. I don't know as much about the other two because they lack the level of prominence.

DeltAlum, you're right. I do think that the private sector is the best way to do reporting, even if it has its faults.

-Rudey

Pyschological Warfare...it's nothing new.

This has been done thousands of times in the past. Usually to ferret out moles in the gov't.

Riveria got in big trouble for showing a rough map on the news awhile back. I think it's perfectly fine for us to trick the media into passing false info to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.

Besides, the gov't can't trust the media, why should the media think they can trust the gov't?

Fine institutions all, but even BBC, while admired around the world, has had problems as Rudey correctly points out above. There was a huge reorganization at the top at BBC due to that. I certainly used to enjoy watching The National when I lived in Detroit and could watch CBC.

But those three are exceptions in that they aren't immediately under the control of whomever is in power. And, like the US, the administration(s) change with some amount of regularity through an orderly (?) process, so the government point of view changes. And they are democracies where freedom of the press is considered necessary (although sometimes a necessary evil by some).

What I had in mind was systems where the broadcasting/media are directly controlled and are little more than propaganda channels.

By the way, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought CBC (and maybe even BBC) are partially commercially supported due to cutbacks on government budgets. My memory could be wrong on that.

Kind of like PBS and NPR which now get little or no government funding and have to resort to commercial underwriting.

Taking your argument to its ultimate conclusion, nobody would end up trusting either government or the media.

The early leaders of our country felt that an adversary media was as necessary as the balance of powers in keeping the government on course.

That's why we have a First Amendment.

True the operating costs are not totally supported by the government anymore... and technically haven't been since the late 60s.

However you and I could agree that these networks don't operate as an organization where profit is a primary (or even major) concern... which is what seperates them from say a wholely private business concern with all the attendant need to monitor both the bottom-line and profitability. In much the same way as a totally government funded and operated media orginization will always keep their eye on the government's agenda... if the journalism is beholden to a large degree to either the government or the dollar - then the journalism can be too easily "tainted" or stray from the path of objectitivity (or appearance of :))

I like the ABC, CBC, and BBC for the fact that they aren't "subject" to the whims of anyone major concern - they can remain in the "gray zone" and avoid undue influence (well mostly).

Maybe
 

Maybe we should start a thread to discuss America's "Public Broadcasting Service", and my contribution would be that it's time to make these stations self-supporting thru ads, or sell off the channels for big bucks.

Years ago, PBS did a lot of nature shows, adventure shows, even soccer from Germany, etc.

Now, with most homes having 100+ available channels, what show does PBS do that is not already being done - profitably - by Discover Channel, History Channel, ESPN, etc. I can't think of any.

PBS has become a cushy employment setting for the PBS crowd - many who could not make similar salaries in the private sector.

I'd also tell NPR: "make some money or sign off." Let's find out if their supporters will buy ads and if there are enough ratings to be successful.

Re: Maybe
 

The truth is that what you suggest has already happened to a great extent.

The belief that these two services are government supported is a myth rooted in the fairly far distant past. The exceptions are those stations owned by state supported universities (or a few local school systems).

A few years ago, Speaker Gingrich managed to all but "zero out" Federal funding for "educational/public" stations.

While Congress has yet to allow those stations to sell advertising, per se, you now see a fair number of "underwriting" messages at the end of most PBS shows. That's also what spawns those annoying "pledge drives" on both media.

As for "cushy employment" for the "PBS crowd," you should look closer. Their salaries run WAY behind those of their commercial counterparts, and budget cuts precipitated by loss of funding have cut staffs and other line items drastically. The bottom line for employees of PBS stations is that they make a lot less money and have little or no job security.

It's interesting to me that the same people who are ready to attack commercial broadcast media for being slaves to the "almighty dollar" would criticize those stations who at least try to stay away from that rat race.

It's like anything else in life, realistically you can't have it both ways. Either you're swayed by profit motive or not.

Iraq isn't a quagmire?

They are subject to the whims and influence of the government or the editor's desires, hence why there have been so studies on bias within the BBC (again the other 2 are not well known enough so I don't know enough about them).

-Rudey

Re: Maybe
 

REGENCY HOUSE PARTY.


Actually, in all seriousness, PBS is the only television station out of the 100+ I got this summer that showed ballet, stage musicals, or classical music on anything resembling a semi-regular basis.


I'm not sure why this is being argued, though. Even if "most" homes have 100+ channels (a statistic I would like to see backed up), not all of them do. Almost everyone I know has about 70, which a couple exceptions. I have five, three of which come in -- one of which is PBS.

Well all media suffers from the whims of the editor :)

Yes BBC is influenced by the government, but it is not beholden to the government - they get some funding from the government yes, but they also get a great deal from other sources... so money isn't a primary concern to the management of the BBC, nor is toeing the government line either (many have been around for many administrations)... this allows them to concentrate on non-profitable (or not very profitable) endevours in addition to journalism...

Now the BBC does make at least an effort to maintain an atmosphere of objectivity... while their coverage doesn't always please everyone, they at least don't appear to be promoting one cause or interest over the another.

Stop trying to put out these claims.

-Rudey

It's been a long time since I studied international broadcasting, but in its original charter, the BBC reported to the Postal Service (yep, the mail folks) and supported totally by a per head postal tax, so they really weren't that concerned about Parliament whims, etc.

As we've already mentioned above, though, that funding has changed somewhat over the years.

ETA

As I think about it, though, the reason for the BBC's former reputation for independence (to say nothing of its reputation for being a bit "stiff") was its total lack of competition. Until the 1960's when Thames Television, London Weekend and ITV were allowed by Parliament, BBC TV had no competition at all, and I don't believe BBC Radio did either with the exception of "Pirate" stations operating from ships outside the three mile limit.

Competition can be a blessing and a curse. It forces you to be better, but can also cause mistakes.

I am sure that We all know that there are more leaks in any Government than a culindar. Who do they leak it to? The Media.

Psy-ops maybe. But maybe that is why there needs to be a central Intelligence Head. Each Agency is to worried about funds that will be allocated to them to do a proper job.

In the mean time, We and all of The Partners for Democracy are losing People there. That should be a main concern for us.

Yep the BBC was offically part of the old British Empire structure that dealt with communications - so they were "administered" by the same group that handle the telegraph, postal, Parliamentary messengers, and radio - anything doing with communication under the purvue of the government...

Now even under the old system of the head tax they were still subject to oversite by governmental folks... the same way as someone in the government keeps tabs on the Postal Service. Now the budget wrangling came in when the whole "communications" group of governmental supported folks would plead their case for a share of the budget.. or sought to increase the tax as a whole.

Day to day governmental functions really where of little concern simply because the BBC functioned in the beuracracy of the system... yes they were funded but no one really paid them that much attention (well until a scandal involving them or their party broke)...

Here's an update on BBC:

BBC plans significant layoffs, budget cuts
Dec 13, 2004 2:20 PM, Beyond The Headlines

"The British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) announced plans last week for some of the biggest budget cuts in its 82-year history, slashing at least 10 percent of its staff and more than $550 million.

Mark Thompson, the BBC's new director general, told the BBC’s staff "there will be a period of pain and uncertainty, and I am sorry for that."

The BBC, which is funded largely by a mandatory public licensing fee of about $225 per household, has been the object of intense criticism on two fronts in recent months. The more visible dispute has been between journalists and Prime Minister Tony Blair over a BBC radio report that in the prelude to the Iraq invasion, Blair’s government knowingly distorted intelligence reports about Iraq’s alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction.

After a public inquiry exonerated the government, the corporation’s chairman and director general were forced to step down. The conflict affirmed the view of conservative critics who contend the BBC has been the voice of the left-of-center establishment, while the corporation’s supporters saw the struggle as a battle for the BBC’s journalistic integrity and independence, the Washington Post reported.

But the more protracted struggle has been over the role and future of the nonprofit corporation, which seeks to maintain its special status as a public service institution while competing for talent and ratings with a host of private, profit-driven networks, cable and satellite television stations, and other media companies. The BBC’s public charter is due for renewal in two years, giving critics in Parliament a rare opportunity to slash or attempt to eliminate the licensing fee."


The underline, which I added, would seem to me to prove that BBC is more than just a "house organ" for the party in power.

Technically no, its just all in your head. Nothing is real anymore, its just a TV show.

Damn.