Political Cortex: Brain Food for the Body Politic

The idea of the State Department training journalists on the finer points of a free media in a free democracy strikes me a little like hiring Jack Abramoff to train aspiring lobbyists.  We can only guess what skills journalists are learning under the careful tutelage of folks like Karen Hughes, Condi Rice, and other Bush operatives who long ago confused integrity with loyalty.  The article continues:

"The State Department is working with journalists in Iraq to help them develop the skills that you all have in terms of reporting and journalistic ethics and practices," the State Department spokesman, Sean McCormack, told reporters on Thursday.
"That's important," the department spokesman said. "This is a country where free media didn't exist for decades, so they are learning. We think it's important to assist them in that."

Of course, the blogosphere has long been reporting on such propaganda developments since the beginning of the Iraq War and continued to track additional evidence.

Was anyone in Congress paying attention?  Why the outrage now?  What's new here?

For one thing, WH spokesman, Scotty McClellan, of course, is now "very concerned" with the revelation that the Department of Defense is paying friendly Iraqi journalists with monthly stipends.

"We're very concerned about the reports," the White House spokesman said. "We have asked the Department of Defense for more information."

As usual, there seems to be some confusion about who's doing what and how to proceed.  (Doesn't anyone in this Administration get tired of the same issues coming up over and over?)

Another reason for renewed interest is the mention of the Lincoln Group:

Even as the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development pay contractors millions of dollars to help train journalists and promote a professional and independent Iraqi media, the Pentagon is paying millions more to the Lincoln Group for work that appears to violate fundamental principles of Western journalism.

Here are the small details again, in case you missed it:

In addition to paying newspapers to print government propaganda, Lincoln has paid about a dozen Iraqi journalists each several hundred dollars a month, a person who had been told of the transactions said. Those journalists were chosen because their past coverage had not been antagonistic to the United States, said the person, who is being granted anonymity because of fears for the safety of those involved. In addition, the military storyboards have in some cases copied verbatim text from copyrighted publications and passed it on to be printed in the Iraqi press without attribution, documents and interviews indicated.

Unfortunately, the American authorship and financing were not revealed--until now, of course.  And that's the problem.  Another pseudo-admission of outrage.   Not of guilt, however; that's what Congressional investigations are for. This crowd never admits anything, until, like "Duke" Cunningham, you get caught with no other escape.

Yes, Pentagon officials said General Pace and other top officials were disturbed by the reported details of the propaganda campaign and demanded explanations from senior officers in Iraq.  No doubt, Pace is shocked, shocked to learn that this kind of thing is going on.

So, too, as the article pointed out, are some journalists:

"I think it's absolutely wrong for the government to do this," said Patrick Butler, vice president of the International Center for Journalists in Washington, which conducts ethics training for journalists from countries without a history of independent news media. "Ethically, it's indefensible."
Mr. Butler, who spoke from a conference in Wisconsin with Arab journalists, said the American government paid for many programs that taught foreign journalists not to accept payments from interested parties to write articles and not to print government propaganda disguised as news.
"You show the world you're not living by the principles you profess to believe in, and you lose all credibility," he said.

As usual, if you tug on these threads enough, the source always seems to track back to the early plans for Iraq in the Administration's strategy.  Consider this small reference:

"Government alone cannot today communicate effectively and credibly," said the report by the task force on strategic communication of the Defense Science Board. The group recommended turning more often for help to the private sector, which it said had "a built-in agility, credibility and even deniability."

You may remember the DoD's Strategic Communication Plan from Bush's first term.  I do, having written previously about Rumsfeld's disinformation campaign. The  tactics, strategies, and practices are by now, sadly familiar, but here's an excerpt:

Recent revelations, from the Times, underscore the current confusing attitudes toward the use of deception. (Highlights below, with my emphasis):

The efforts under consideration risk blurring the traditional lines between public affairs programs in the Pentagon and military branches - whose charters call for giving truthful information to the media and the public -and the world of combat information campaigns or psychological operations. . . .
Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion.
Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon. . . .
The fervent debate today is focused most directly on a secret order signed by Mr. Rumsfeld late last year and called "Information Operations Roadmap." The 74-page directive, which remains classified but was described by officials who had read it, accelerated "a plan to advance the goal of information operations as a core military competency."

Forced to close the Office, Rumsfeld's explanation was equally enlightening.  Given recent facts that have come to light, I guess maybe old strategies (and Offices) die hard.

And about the Lincoln Group, which seemed to come as news to broadcast and print media--Billmon was all over this last summer, long before the LATimes stirred this pot this week.  

If I had to speculate, I would guess that having scored the big Pentagon contract -- despite just a one-year track record and no apparent PR experience -- front man Bailey and his unknown partners sold out to a bigger firm (Lincoln Alliance) with the resources and bench strength to actually perform the work. This is as customary among Beltway Bandits as it is among Silicon Valley venture capitalists. At some point thereafter, Lincoln Alliance was relabeled the Lincoln Group.

Billmon also points out the difficulties of tracking down Lincoln Alliance's business, which also provides its intelligence capabilities to political candidates (at least Republican ones).

Lincoln has developed a unique service which provides campaign managers and their staff with concise actionable information in order to understand their candidate's time and events, media planning, voter interest, issue positions and several other factors . . . This service is restricted and available only to select clients. (emphasis added).

So to sum up: We have a tiny start-up venture, controlled by persons unknown, that suddenly materializes in late 2003 doing "private equity" deals in the middle of a war zone, and then obtains a huge PR contract from the Pentagon, and then hires a bunch of unemployed GOP campaign operatives to execute that contract, and then is absorbed by a shadowy DC company that specializes in corporate and political detective work and that may have close ties to both the Republican Party and the intelligence community, which then is awarded an even bigger contract to produce even more Pentagon propaganda.

Just another day in the unfolding saga of lost credibility.  Or maybe another subject for a new Richard Clarke novel.