I may be late to the following Los Angeles Times article concerning U.S. soldiers writing news stories for Iraqi newspapers, but it’s quite humorous what the article is implying. First the excerpt from the LA Times:

As part of an information offensive in Iraq, the U.S. military is secretly paying Iraqi newspapers to publish stories written by American troops in an effort to burnish the image of the U.S. mission in Iraq.

The articles, written by U.S. military “information operations” troops, are translated into Arabic and placed in Baghdad newspapers with the help of a defense contractor, according to U.S. military officials and documents obtained by the Los Angeles Times.

Many of the articles are presented in the Iraqi press as unbiased news accounts written and reported by independent journalists. The stories trumpet the work of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce insurgents and tout U.S.-led efforts to rebuild the country.

Somehow this must be different than press releases which end up as stories in the LA Times or any other number of newspapers accross the globe, though I can’t quite figure out the difference. And, of course, this is partially what I do for a living so I should be able to point out the obvious differences.

So what are these articles? From the LA Times, we learn they are pieces discussing reconstruction and what good things Coalition forces are doing. How are these any different than the other articles written by whomever that discuss a school opening up or a terrorist attack? The only difference is who wrote it, but that implies a U.S. soldier cannot fathom writing an article with the truth behind it. Yep, that dumb grunt pounding away at a keyboard in Iraq has no clue what’s going on in the nation therefore he couldn’t possibly write a news article on the subject. Or at least that is what the LA Times is implying.

For the sake of argument, let us assume these are not in the form of press releases but they are articles written by U.S. soldiers. Let us also assume these articles advocate one side to the conflict. How is this different than what all media outlets do when they pull stories from wire services to fill a column inch or ten or when any number of newspapers use their same old biases against any number of social causes? Is there a disclaimor next to articles by certain AP journalists who are advocates of socialism and are vehemently anti-war? No, yet we call most of the international press a free press. The LA Times even uses these reports, sans disclaimor of course.

But Justin Gardner writing at The Moderate Voice seems to believe this type of report makes it that much more difficult to stop the comparisons between the Coalition and Saddam Hussein. What comparisons? Oh, those comparisons made by people with a political agenda, sans a disclaimor of course.

I’m not sure what is more humorous to me about this entire story. Is it the fact the LA Times has a double standard or is it that general public’s lack of knowledge on how the media works? They’re both funny to this know-nothing.

via Memorandum

Update:
I forgot to mention the LA Times article states the U.S. military pays these newspapers to include their articles which is somehow different from U.S. newspapers taking advertising revenue for ads and news stories about a product. Open up your local newspaper and find a story on some new car next time you get the chance. That article was provided as an added bonus to advertising, at least it was nine times out of ten. But you see, there’s got to be a difference somewhere. Heh.

Dr. Rusty Shackleford writes an interesting post on using propoganda in during war. Yes, the above could be considered propoganda, but so too could any press release either published straight or one which excerpts are pull from could be considered the same.