Is Another Pentagon Propaganda Unit Really Necessary?
Take a look at this from the BBC News Web site today:
"Speaking in an interview with Fox News, Mr [Dick] Cheney said that [Iraqi] insurgents were using the internet to time their attacks, although he did not provide any evidence to that effect.
'There isn't anything that's on the internet that's not accessible to them. They're on it all the time. They're very sophisticated users of it,' Mr Cheney said.
Pentagon spokesman Eric Ruff has echoed the vice-president, saying that the militants are trying to 'increase opposition to the war and have an influence against the president.'
Their comments come amid one of the worst months of violence since the war began, which has claimed the lives of 101 US troops and many more Iraqis.
The upturn in violence also coincided with the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, which Mr Cheney said could have been a contributory factor.
Despite the violence, the BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the Bush administration does not believe the true picture of events in Iraq has been made public.
The White House is particularly concerned that insurgents are using the internet to disseminate their message and give the impression they are more powerful than the US, our correspondent says.
In response the US defence department has set up a new unit to better promote its message across 24-hour rolling news outlets, and particularly on the internet.
The Pentagon said the move would boost its ability to counter "inaccurate" news stories and exploit new media."
So let's hope U.S. media doesn't get duped again by yet another government effort -- not the first since World War II and certainly not the last -- to combat "inaccurate" news stories. Guess who gets to define what's accurate and what isn't? In three WebWatch studies, most recently this one, online media scored high marks for credibility (though readers should be aware that most of it is the same recycled stuff from Reuters and the Associated Press, a lot of which is, in turn, recycled from newspapers, which, no matter what anyone says, remain at the top of the food chain when it comes to original journalism).
There's two things to be worried about here. One, concentration of media ownership is well on the way to creating an enormous media echo chamber in which fewer and fewer people will have the power to determine what's "accurate" and what isn't (and, trust me, you and I don't get invited to their cocktail parties). The other is the notion of "exploiting new media," which is a BBC paraphrase, but a little scary to actually see in print nonetheless. The Web has created a lot of openings for different points of view and alternative means of reporting news. It's also created large holes for propaganda to ooze through. But does the Pentagon really need to spend money creating a propaganda bureau?
Write a letter to the FCC or go to their public hearing in Washington on Friday (Nov. 3) and tell them you're a little concerned three of the four main broadcasting networks are owned by movie studios (or megacorporations who own movie studios) which view them, largely, as "distribution channels" for "product." (Fox progenitor Rupert Murdoch, by the way, made his bones 35 years ago as a newspaper publisher with flagship British newspaper The Sun, notable for printing a picture of a topless woman every day on page three). The other is owned by an enormous manufacturing company that makes lightbulbs, medical diagnostic instruments, weapons, ovens and a whole bunch of other stuff.
And take anything the White House says, no matter which party is in charge of it, with mucho graino salto.