The weird thing about this media war is that the media hasn't said what it's fighting for, only what it's fighting against.

The long-term question will be whether or not the Internet has enough firepower to repel the mainstream media assault on the common man.

That its being touted by some as "fake news" says something very important about that person.

He believes that news is dependent on who says it... not on what's being said. Anything out of a "journalists" mouth is news, no matter whether its true or false... where as facts about an event from anyone else must be fake.

They've "run dozens of such articles". Considering the dozens of newspapers, and likely the dozens of articles in each, and their cycles of publication, we seem to be looking at an extreme minority of total articles.

If indeed they are such a minority, they will either be so far beyond typical news as to be unbelievable, or maybe, just maybe, these paid articles are believable because they jive with otherwise typical news content.

I've taken the liberty of re-writing that first sentence...

"As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. mainstream media is paying its reporters to publish stories in an effort to destroy, defame and defile the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq."

Well, I guess that made FDR a fascist, since his administration paid to have the "Why We Fight" series of propaganda films made. While the films were basically factual, they presented only one side of events and omited information that might have reflected poorly on the U.S. or Soviet governments.

'Though the articles are basically factual, they present only one side of events and omit information that might reflect poorly on the U.S. or Iraqi governments'

This would be different than SeeBS, AP, CNN, ABC, NBC, NYT, WaPo, ...... how?

Sorry, I take umbrage at the comment that the LA Times doesn't get it. I think they get it pretty well. After all, they spew propaganda constantly. It's just that the US Gvmt information doesn't support the LA Times' propaganda campaign.

Have these people no idea why the VOA was formed, or what it's primary purpose is presently?

See the forest, not the trees. This is not the LA Times against the US government. This is the LA Times lashing out at newspapers that are actually making money.

Hogarth, you stole my thunder. This morning, I wrote a letter to the LA Times editor...

"The U.S. military is paying Iraqi newspapers to run pro-U.S., pro-free Iraq stories? Maybe the LA Times should take a hint from the Iraqis. Judging by the Tribune Company's recent financial statement, you could use another revenue stream. And you CERTAINLY could use an occasional pro-U.S., pro-free Iraq story."

Example: Joe Lieberman's positive Thoughts on Iraq were on Fox News ,But Not on ABC, MSNBC, OR CBS. They are spiking good news from Iraq and promoting bad news. Everyday

So Micah Ian Wright is upset about "fake news" -- ie, dishonesty?

Micah Ian Wright?!?

Truly, the world is upside down.

I am the first to note that:

a) This story was first published by the Washington Post in June 2005.
b) The contract is not covert, as both the DOD and the Lincoln Group have it publicly available on their sites.
c)It isn't even a real story. No name sources are quoted. No public documents are cited. I did more reporting in the ten minutes it took me to google and post my story earlier today.

http://blog.simmins.org/index.php/2005/11/la-times-fails-reporting-standards

Well, then, it should be okay for any U.S. government to pay newspapers and television stations in this country to place articles that appear to be "unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists."

Right?

And when Hillary is president too.

Right?

LNS hits on a key point, which proves yet again conservatives are evil evil Hilters...BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRACY!!!

So, LNS believes that currently "unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists" exist in the MSM? Does she/he have any evidence to back up this belief?

I listened to an LATimes reporter on NPR this afternoon about this story, and never once did the question of whether or not the stories were factual. Isn't this important?

I'll tell you what, conservatives should be able to pay newspapers to print positive, factual stories until they quit voluntarily printing negative, false stories from liberals for free.

Isn't that fair?

Why are we shocked at the faux outrage of the MSM and the left?

Has it not been obvious for some time now that they are actively against the US winning this war?

Oh, but remember, they support the troops!

Hey, LNS?

They're doing it now.

Hint: "National Public Radio" ...

We await your principled opposition to this.

Wasn't the old United States Information Agency basically the same idea? And wasn't that started by a Democratic Administration (JFK)? And wasn't its purpose to elevate and promote the image of the U.S. in other parts of the world?

Stupid fascist Kennedy--ha ha.

THIS JUST IN:

Some companies pay the LATimes to print propaganda supporting their products and services. Though basically accurate, these so-called "advertisements" present only one side of the story, leaving out details that are damaging to their respective companies.

You guys missed this one. You're too busy defending our right to do something and believing in its wisdom as a matter of logic that you're ignoring the question of whether this is/was productive. More here (LINK).

This war isn't an exercise in logic and privileges.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth (I didn't call anyone a fascist, or say that anyone was committing HYPOCRACY (sic)), and also for not answering my question, which, again, was do you think it is okay for any U.S. administration, of any political party, to pay any newspapers to print articles written by government agents that appear to be "unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists."

It's fine for the US government to put out as much propaganda as they want so long as it's identifiable as such to the reader. What's wrong about this operation is the deceptive aspect. The presumption is that any media organization, even a biased one, operates on a business model where revenue is obtained from subscriptions and/or advertising and that the content of their articles is produced not at the direction of a secret financial backer (which doesn't want to make money by maintaining readership but instead has propaganda goals) but rather solely with the goal of producing stuff their readership finds valuable.

It's not analogous to the L.A. Times printing biased stuff (which perhaps they do) because as you right-wingers know, if an organization is putting out biased, bad info then in theory the free market should eventually correct for this because the outfit will lose credibility and readership and eventually wither away (as Hogarth points out :) ). Market forces won't correct for this in the situation where the outfit is secretly being paid to publish certain content, though.

Did you folks defend the Amstrong Williams payola practices? Even Bush conceded that was wrong. If it's wrong to deceive the American people that way, why is it OK to deceive the Iraqi people that way?

I don't see anything in the Post article that explicitly says we'd be paying Iraqi papers to print our stuff and present it as standard straight news, so it seems to me the LA Times story is still newsworthy. Maybe that could have been inferred from terms like "psyops" and "creative" techniques that appear in the Post article, but it's hardly obvious.

And yes, the CIA has done this kind of media payola thing for a long time. It was one of the techniques they used to incite a coup in Iran to oust Mossadegh (who wasn't such a bad guy and was more-or-less democratically elected) and reinstall the Shah. 25 years later we got the ayatollahs as a counterreaction. So you see how that worked out.

The newspapers could always refuse to accept the money and run the stories.

In other news, the LA Times was shocked - shocked I tell you - to discover that when engaging the "insurgents", the army uses live amunition.

Related to this topic... I've forever been torqued off when I tune into C-SPAN to watch congressional hearings, only to see our elected representatives sit on their high perches and read the Washington Post and New York Times articles to each other. As if that's what their job is - to read MSM articles into the congressional record. Tell me that ain't wrong!

The articles are written by US troops and someone wants to claim that there is some deception of intent involved?

Just how stoopid do you think Iraqis are?

Forget all that Media stuff and whos what slant.

They are ALL businesses and they Will slant the stories, just like advertisers do with Cheap tennis shoes made in China, then "Nike-ing" them, ALA media Propaganda. Media is Same. WHY are you guys JUST now acting Surprised? or Blaming Political Groups? Hell they'd tell you they were Martians if you'd buy More Web site hits, Book Sales, or WMD, Whateve..

The MAIN problem the 70-90% WHO cant TELL the FECKIN difference. That is the ones HERE Jaw Jacking *peanutbutter peepees.

Useless is ALL this Blabber here read, Its Crap and YOU KNOW it.
Turn off the TV and have a great Holiday Season.
(Having ones dick in a JAR of Peanut Butter, FUCKING NUTS) scuse my french.

The US military has a legitimate excuse to generate "accurate but biased" news stories, but what is the excuse of the LAT ?

I suspect that the writers for the US military get paid better.

It's nice to see that rather than debate the facts of the story and whether or not the US SHOULD be engaging in a media war in this way...(impersonating real Iraqi reporters). The bloggers have decided to attack the LA Times for reporting what the US is doing.

Its nice to the the Bush "Shoot the Messenger" tactic has trickeled down.