Skip to main content

What price Progaganda?

At first there were the usual denials...

But then the US admitted that, yes, it was writing news articles for Iraqi newspapers. Needless to say the spin in those articles had been predictably positive - even if it did not accord with fact. Why let the truth get in the way? Perhaps not surprisingly, a former aide to VP Cheney defended the practice as "entirely appropriate" in presenting images.

Anyone with half a brain and reflecting on the tactic would readily realise that propaganda is one thing but re-writing the facts or giving them a slant totally out of whack with reality is just not gonna fly! - as this Newsweek piece so clearly spells out.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Are you just making up what this article says? Please re-read it. Nothing in it says or implies that the foreign articles "did not accord with fact" or that the writers were "re-writing the facts or giving them a slant totally out of whack with reality." Please show a single line that says this. You are the one creating propaganda. All it refers to is that we are paying for positive news to appear in the Arab press. The ethics of this you are free to debate. People focus on the negative and that is what always is the loudest voice, in the Arab world and here as well. No one is going to print the positive because hearing about a new school or local elections isn't as interesting as a car bomb killing dozens. The news is very powerful, especially in a culture that has had state-run media for several decades. The best route to peace at home and abroad is to report some positive news once a while, even if we have to pay for it.
December 07, 2005 1:36 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Pentagon's eye-popping spending....and waste!

Only a gigantic bureaucracy could get away with spending of such dimensions - and the amazing waste involved in part of that ginormous spend.   Think US Pentagon..... "From spending $150 million on private villas for a handful of personnel in Afghanistan to blowing $2.7 billion on an air surveillance balloon that doesn’t work, the latest revelations of waste at the Pentagon are just the most recent howlers in a long line of similar stories stretching back at least five decades.  Other hot-off-the-presses examples would include the Army’s purchase of helicopter gears worth $500 each for $8,000 each and the accumulation of billions of dollars' worth of weapons components that will never be used. And then there’s the one that would have to be everyone’s favorite Pentagon waste story: the spending of $50,000 to investigate the bomb-detecting capabilities of African elephants. (And here’s a shock: they didn’t turn out to be that great!) The elephant research, of course, represe...
Post a Comment
Read more

Video: Israel demolishing a Bedouin village

From Mondoweiss - Israel's supposed "most moral army in the world", the IDF, engaged in immoral, and according to international law, illegal action.... "Israeli forces have demolished every home in the Bedouin village of Khirbet Taha in the northern West Bank district of Nablus during three separate demolitions since the start of the year. Unlike most Bedouin villages, the residents in Khirbet Taha own their own land. However that land falls in Area C, territory in the occupied West Bank under full Israeli control. The village’s only school was also destroyed, leaving children to study in a dilapidated 100-year-old mosque — the only structure left standing in the village. According the United Nations, Israel has demolished half as many Palestinian buildings in the first few months of 2016, as they had in all of 2015. In February alone, the UN found that more Palestinians homes were destroyed than any other month since 2009, when the organization began its docum...
Post a Comment
Read more

What does a no-fly zone actually mean?

As some countries consider imposing a no-fly zone in relation to Libya, the pertinent question must be what does that mean and entail? FP provides the answers: "It depends on the circumstances. There are two primary types of no-fly zones imposed by air forces. The first is imposed by one military over another, while the two sides are at war. In practice, this type of no-fly zone amounts to a warning from one side that it will engage the other's aircraft if they are spotted in a given territory. The second type, more applicable to the situation in Libya, is when an outside power possessing overwhelming air superiority restricts flights over a given country in order to discourage an internal conflict or humanitarian crisis. This is a relatively recent tactic, which was used most famously in Bosnia and Iraq during the 1990s. No-fly zones are often a compromise in situations where the international community is demanding a response to ongoing violence, but full military interven...
6 comments
Read more