Military's media manipulation demands more investigation

December 3, 2004

The Los Angeles Times revealed this week (12/1/04) that the U.S. military
lied to CNN in the course of executing psychological warfare operations,
or PSYOPS, in advance of the recent attack on Fallujah. This incident
raises serious questions about government disinformation and journalistic
credibility, but recent discussions of the government's propaganda plans
have excluded some valuable context.

In an October 14 on-air interview, Marine Lt. Lyle Gilbert told CNN
Pentagon reporter Jamie McIntyre that a U.S. military assault on Fallujah
had begun. In fact, the offensive would not actually begin for another
three weeks. The goal of the psychological operation, according to the
Times, was to deceive Iraqi insurgents into revealing what they would do
in the event of an actual offensive.

This operation raises obvious questions about the government's use of
media to broadcast disinformation at home and abroad-- not to mention
questions about journalistic gullibility and reluctance to question
official claims. But the CNN story has received little pick-up so far
from other news outlets-- and when it is covered, it's treated like an
isolated episode, even though recent history shows that U.S. government
plans to deceive journalists and the public are widespread and systematic,
not aberrational.

Shortly before the launch of the "war on terror," an unnamed Pentagon war
planner seemed to warn journalists everywhere when he told Washington Post
reporter Howard Kurtz: "This is the most information-intensive war you can
imagine.... We're going to lie about things." (9/24/01)

In February 2002, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon's Office
of Strategic Influence (OSI) was "developing plans to provide news items,
possibly even false ones, to foreign media organizations" in an effort "to
influence public sentiment and policy makers in both friendly and
unfriendly countries."

The story got widespread attention, and the Pentagon announced that the
office would be eliminated. But considerably less media attention was
paid when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld later said that, while the OSI
had been closed, its mission would be taken up by other agencies.

As Rumsfeld put it, "I went down that next day and said 'Fine, if you want
to savage this thing, fine-- I'll give you the corpse. There's the name.
You can have the name, but I'm gonna keep doing every single thing that
needs to be done and I have.'" (FAIR Media Advisory, 11/27/02) So the
revelation that a misinformation campaign bearing a striking resemblance
to the description of the OSI was actually being carried out ought not to
come as a total surprise.

Earlier this year, another Los Angeles Times scoop (6/3/04) revealed that
one of the most enduring images of the war-- the toppling of the statue of
Saddam Hussein in a Baghdad square on April 9, 2003-- was a U.S. Army
psychological warfare operation staged to look like a spontaneous Iraqi
action:


"As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on
Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam
Hussein. It was a Marine colonel-- not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was
widely assumed from the TV images -- who decided to topple the statue, the
Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological
operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi
undertaking."


CNN's history of voluntary cooperation with PSYOPS troops is also worth
considering. In March 2000, FAIR and international news organizations
revealed that CNN had allowed military propaganda specialists from an Army
PSYOPS unit to work as interns in the news division of its Atlanta
headquarters.

As FAIR reported at the time (3/27/00), some PSYOPS officers were eager to
find ways to use media power to their advantage. One officer explained at
a PSYOPS conference that the military needed to find ways to "gain
control" over commercial news satellites to help bring down an
"informational cone of silence" over regions where special operations were
taking place.

And a 1996 unofficial strategy paper written by an Army officer and
published by the U.S. Naval War College ("Military Operations in the CNN
World: Using the Media as a Force Multiplier") urged military commanders
to find ways to "leverage the vast resources of the fourth estate" for the
purposes of "communicating the [mission's] objective and endstate,
boosting friendly morale, executing more effective psychological
operations, playing a major role in deception of the enemy, and enhancing
intelligence collection."

Of course, the full extent of these programs is not yet known. But the
fact that the U.S. government is intentionally lying to journalists, and
by extension to the public, should be big news. Unfortunately, the L.A.
Times report is generating little mainstream media attention. CNN's Aaron
Brown reported the story (12/1/04), admitting that "none of us are
particularly comfortable when we're talking about things, about ourselves
if you will."

Brown also made another, even more revealing comment:

"There is an important and explicit bargain between the press and the
Pentagon in a time of war. We don't do anything to endanger the troops or
operations. They don't lie to us. Each is essential in a free society and
each is made more complicated by the information age, but it seems that
sometimes in an effort to mislead the enemy the military has come close,
very close, to crossing the line and misleading you."

Of course, in this case the military did not come "very close" to
misleading the public; they did mislead the public. And while Brown may
have confidence that such a "bargain" exists between the press and the
military, it would appear that the Pentagon does not agree. If
journalists were more willing to accept the old adage that "all
governments lie," we might all be better served.