Pentagon to monitor war coverage...

09-01-2006, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by article

U.S. offers $20 million to monitor Iraq stories
Contract winner would watch tone of U.S. and foreign war coverage

WASHINGTON - The U.S. command in Baghdad is seeking bidders for a two-year, $20 million public relations contract for monitoring the tone of news stories about the Iraq war filed by U.S. and foreign media.

Proposals, due Sept. 6, ask companies to show how they would "provide continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international and U.S. media," according to the solicitation issued last week.

Contractors also will be evaluated on how they would provide analytical reports and customized briefings to the military, "including, but not limited to, tone (positive, neutral, negative) and scope of media coverage."

The winner of the contract probably also would be required to develop an Arabic version of the multinational force's Web site.

Attempts by The Associated Press to contact officials connected to the project by telephone and e-mail were not successful Thursday night.

Coincidental timing?
The program comes during what has appeared to be a White House effort, before the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks, to take the offensive against critics as polls show withering support for the Bush administration's Iraq policy.

President Bush addressed the American Legion's national convention in Salt Lake City on the issue Thursday, stressing that a U.S. pullout from Iraq would lead to its conquest by America's worst enemies.

He continued a theme set by both Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice when they spoke to the administration-friendly group earlier in the week.

The military last year was criticized for a public relations scheme in Iraq that included hiring a consulting firm that paid Iraqi news media to carry news stories written by American troops.

Pentagon officials have defended the program as a necessary tool in Bush's campaign against terror. But critics have said it contradicts American values of freedom of the press.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I think the government allowing a company to create news articles and a website in arabic is a good idea. My concern is how much of this is going to be propganda bs in terms of content? Is all of it going to be shit or are we goin gto get some real news out of this? I'm all for a different perspective but not lies. I'm not saying thats going to happen but it makes me wonder given the way this has been put together.

Publius · 09-01-2006, 03:19 PM

Yes, a government owned news site, being bid on my PUBLIC RELATIONS COMPANIES, is a wonderful idea.

Propaganda overload, here we come...

09-01-2006, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Yes, a government owned news site, being bid on my PUBLIC RELATIONS COMPANIES, is a wonderful idea.

Propaganda overload, here we come...

I dont have an issue with it especially publishing war info in arabic. The question is how will it be handled. I have feeling it'll be a clusterfuck

Publius · 09-01-2006, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dont have an issue with it especially publishing war info in arabic. The question is how will it be handled. I have feeling it'll be a clusterfuck

Most things the government touches are.

motivez · 09-01-2006, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Yes, a government owned news site, being bid on my PUBLIC RELATIONS COMPANIES, is a wonderful idea.

Propaganda overload, here we come...

09-01-2006, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

Most things the government touches are.

I agree, but I think they should at least attempt something to counter the negative atmosphere thats been created by the arab networks in the middle east.

motivez · 09-01-2006, 03:37 PM

What's there to be positive about that's true?

A momentary semi-lull in the violence, where only 300ish people have died this week to car bombs?

Hey guys, at least it's not 400!

09-01-2006, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

What's there to be positive about that's true?

A momentary semi-lull in the violence, where only 300ish people have died this week to car bombs?

Hey guys, at least it's not 400!

You're kidding me?

Oil production has been up (until recently) wages are climbing, standard of livings are coming up, jobs are becoming more readily available and children are getting better educations. The problem is you really have to dig to find any of this stuff.

motivez · 09-01-2006, 03:55 PM

Maybe because it's inconsequential when there's such a large chance that you will get blown the fuck up heading to the market to buy some food?

Oil production doesn't mean anything to 'stability' in the short term, and neither does wages when the government can't ensure access to water, electricity, basic services, and they have shia/sunni militias roaming the streets and going into hospitals dragging people out of their hospital beds and shooting them in the back of the head.

Security has to be there before any of that matters. The rest, while 'nice', is just that, 'nice'. It's not some great achievement they can tout when the rest of the crap is going on and outweighs what little good there is.

Donkey® · 09-01-2006, 04:03 PM

The average wage has gone up because the population is falling so rapidly.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 04:07 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I agree, but I think they should at least attempt something to counter the negative atmosphere thats been created by the arab networks in the middle east.

How would you feel about a state run news agency here in the US?

Ardentfrost · 09-01-2006, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How would you feel about a state run news agency here in the US?

FNN?

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

FNN?

I was going to be nice and not even bring them up.

It was a serious question.

09-01-2006, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

How would you feel about a state run news agency here in the US?

I'd say its a waste of tax payer dollars.

edit: and btw we have it, its called pbs

Publius · 09-01-2006, 04:13 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'd say its a waste of tax payer dollars.

edit: and btw we have it, its called pbs

PBS isn't really a news agency though.

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I'd say its a waste of tax payer dollars.

So it's less of a waste if we have a state news agency who doesn't even report here to the people who pay for it?

09-01-2006, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So it's less of a waste if we have a state news agency who doesn't even report here to the people who pay for it?

I dunno, I think we need something to counteract the bias? Am I wrong?

Scrum · 09-01-2006, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I dunno, I think we need something to counteract the bias? Am I wrong?

So we should all pay for it?

Aren't you in another thread arguing about the redistribution of wealth and now your in here being ok with paying for a PR machine in Iraq to counter bias?

motivez · 09-01-2006, 04:27 PM

Why?

Maybe we should focus our energy on changing to a winning strategy that'll net positive coverage instead of trying to convince everyone that everything is going perfectly well when it's obviously not?

Ardentfrost · 09-01-2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

So we should all pay for it?

Aren't you in another thread arguing about the redistribution of wealth and now your in here being ok with paying for a PR machine in Iraq to counter bias?