The Post Has Decided Who To Believe

Look at this headline: "Ramadi Insurgents Flaunt Threat." That, my friends, is a statement of fact to anyone skimming their newspaper. And to anyone about to read the article that follows, it tells them that the Post has already decided, in the dispute between two sides over what really happened in Ramadi yesterday, which of those two sides is more credible, or, at least, has the more believable position. Only in the subhead does a reader learn, "US Dismisses Reported Display of Force As Hype." Yet that too, takes the same side as the headline. Because, as you'll only learn from reading the following article quite carefully, the key word there is "reported." The US isn't so much dismissing the reports as "hype," as in "an exaggeration of an actual event." They're dismissing the reports as essentially "fake," which is a horse of another color.

The first two grafs make clear that the reporter believes the reports:

Armed fighters claiming allegiance to Abu Musab Zarqawi took to the streets of a western Iraqi provincial capital Thursday in a fleeting show aimed at intimidating Iraqi Sunni Arab leaders taking part in dialogue with U.S. Marines in a stronghold of the insurgency, provincial officials, residents and other witnesses said.

The scene -- lean figures, many in masks and dark tracksuits lugging shoulder-mounted rocket launchers or wielding AK-47 assault rifles -- reinforced what the U.S. military has acknowledged is the strong insurgent presence in the Euphrates River cities and towns of Anbar province, an overwhelmingly Sunni area near the Syrian border. The appearance of the fighters dismayed many of the residents of Ramadi, the war-blighted provincial capital.

By the way, notice the way the writing very consciously sets the scene (even using that phrase) so as to create the impression that the reporter is reporting on events she was present to witness herself.

The 3rd and 4th continue in a similar vein (although quoting a resident opposed to Zarqawi's group, always nice to see.)

Only in the fifth graf do we see this:

The U.S. military, which maintains Marine bases and thousands of troops on the outskirts of Ramadi, denied the accounts of unrest, saying that the city was largely calm Thursday and that insurgents were manipulating the news media. "Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse," Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a spokesman for the 2nd Marine Division, said in an e-mail to news organizations. (My emph.)

Boy, how bad do things have to be before a military spokesman spanks the press that baldly?

This is an absolutely stunning report:

Witnesses in Ramadi said they saw some of the armed fighters instruct a journalist for an Arabic-language news outlet to report that Zarqawi's group, al Qaeda in Iraq, had taken over the entire city. The Arabic outlet by late Thursday was reporting only that the fighters had held some streets of the city center -- a description of events in line with the eyewitness accounts and reports from other news organizations. News directors for the organization did not respond to requests for comment. The news organization is not being identified for security reasons.

First, does that mean they were originally reporting the group had taken over the entire city, but changed their report later in the day? Second, what damn security concerns? The terrorists already know which networks they're manipulating, and they therefore know that the network changed its message later in the day. But that network's audience doesn't know where they get their news, and we Americans need to know, given how often American outlets get their reporting from Arab networks. The American media will out the military for placing true news reports, but they'll protect Arab networks who place false ones? Not acceptable. Third, given how many outlets are basing their reporting on what happened in Ramadi yesterday, not on what their reporters saw, but on "eyewitnesses," the fact that Zarqawi's men were in the streets -- and we now know telling at least some people what to say happened -- gives more credibility to the US military's story, not less. Because I have yet to see a news organization whose reporting was based on a Western reporter's having been in the city at the time this supposedly happened. (Why would a Western reporter have more credibility, aside from the usual issues of Iraqi stringers not being trained? Well, for one thing, Zarqawi's boys presumably couldn't successfully threaten their family.)

More:

In Baghdad, Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, denied at a news conference what he called the "spurious reports" coming out of Ramadi.

"The idea that there's this mass uprising and the insurgents took control of the city is incorrect," Lynch said. "When I hear reports about how the insurgents have taken over the town and I call the commander on the ground and he says I have no idea what you're talking about . . . ."

That would be enough, you would think, for the Post to frame the story in terms of doubt and uncertainty.

More:

Numerous provincial officials, residents and witnesses in Ramadi separately reported the appearance of the armed men, however. Witnesses said they saw dozens of the fighters in the streets of the city center after about 7 a.m., and saw at least one impromptu checkpoint in which roughly 10 fighters were checking the identities of each driver.

Fighters at one roadblock abducted and later killed a city official, Mohammed Khalef, a transportation official for Ramadi, said Khalid Qaraghouli, a spokesman for the Anbar provincial government.

Fine. Let's say there were fighters inside the city, even a checkpoint set up. That's quite different from reports they had essentially taken over the city center, which is what we were getting before. What I'd like to know is how the press can report they were pressing journalists to report the story in a particular way, and report that average citizens feel intimidated, and then accept the story from average citizens that works in the terrorists favor when the Marines are saying it didn't happen. (I just realized we're talking about al Queda, not the usual thugs wandering around Ramadi. These aren't insurgents, as the headline suggests, but the worst of the worst currently in Iraq. No wonder people are scared. Wouldn't you be?)

Before going on to discuss the politics and so forth of the situation in the city, the reporter notes that it isn't clear if the Marines were in the city at the same time as the incident (presumably casting doubt on their ability to cast doubt.) Fair enough, although the Marine in charge didn't say he didn't see it happen, he said it didn't happen.

Still, that seems a fairly fine point to pick for a reporter who didn't bother to ask her eyewitnesses if those terrorists attempted to intimidate or spin any other witnesses before she takes their word for what happened as the Gospel truth.

Comments

[davod]

The MSM is screaming about US DOD 'propoganda' in Iraq but reports as fact what it gets from 'neutral' stringers. Bettsy's Page page has a link to Walter Jajko's letter to the LA Times regarding the use of information.

"CRITICS OF THE Iraq war are outraged over the revelation that the U.S. military has been paying millions of dollars to plant pro-American, Pentagon-written propaganda articles in Iraqi newspapers and to buy off Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

But in my opinion, it's about time. Information is a critical part of any war, and the U.S. has for too long — to its own detriment — ignored this powerful and essential tool, a tool especially well-suited to the globalized Information Age.

Even third-rate countries routinely use information and disinformation as an instrument of foreign policy, often against the United States. The U.S., in turn, cannot win the war of ideas by speaking softly or keeping its mouth shut. But we have been doing just that."

Jajko's letter is a concise rebuttal to those who are squeemish about the dissemination of information.

PS: I do not know hoe to link so the full details are listed below.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-jajko2dec02,0,7860067.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

[Athena]

Bill Roggio, a blogger, is embedded with Marines near the Syrian border and is providing first-hand coverage at http://www.threatswatch.org.

[Michael Gersh]

The Left wants America to lose this war. Inasmuch as they deny it, how can they explain the fact that they insist that we disarm, that is, not use propaganda as a weapon, while at the same time promoting the enemy's propaganda. Indeed, using it against us, in order to promote their plan of willful defeat, as they practiced successfully in Vietnam.

Things are getting much better in Iraq. Even claiming that encouraging good news stories about the Iraq situation constitute propaganda betrays their agenda. Good news from Iraq is merely the truth. The Left can't handle the truth.

[dauber]

I will again pt out that there is a great, long difference b/w arguing that the left's arguments or ideas do not support victory b/c they are flawed, and arguing that they willfully support defeat. The reason I'm so aggressive about this is that I think people aren't precise enough about drawing lines between who exactly falls into the "left" (to me that would be people like ANSWR, many of whom probably would be rooting for defeat) and the "liberal," and even the farthest left reaches of the elected representatives of the Democratic party, for example, are still, to me, liberal, not truly left.

[Bill Adams]

I came upon this web page as because I am addressing a peace demonstration March 17, 2007 and wanted to get the facts straight about names and so forth. I am going to use what happened to my son and other members of his unit in Ramadi Iraq December 1, 2005. My son SGTFC Brent Adams was killed by an anti-tank round that pierced the truck he was driving in Ramadi, Iraq Deecember 1, 2005, his passenger was hospitalized for over a year with one leg amputated and as today it is not known if he will keep his other leg. I know of at least two other soldiers who were wounded in battles that day in Ramadi, Iraq. I spoke to at least three officers I came in contact with during the services for my son and questioned them about what I saw on TV, Maj General Rick Lynch telling the nation that there were no casualities there was no fighting in Ramadi Iraq December 1, 2005. There all said they would get back to me, but guess what, none of them did. I know the truth of what happened In Ramdi Iraq, December 1, 2005. it is a shame we a government that willfully distorts the media to achieve the vision it has of itself rather than what it is in reality.