The old right-wing canard about having to pick up a Baghdad paper to read something positive about the war has proved as bogus and contrived as the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place.
Suspicious over reports of actual progress in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times launched an investigation and was shocked to discover that the Pentagon had been paying the Iraqi media to publish articles that “while factually correct, presented a positive view of the conditions in Iraq”. As they descended further down the rabbit hole, the Times learned that many of the planted reports were penned by U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, most of whom don’t even have journalism degrees and therefore cannot accurately describe the pointless futility of an illegal and immoral war for oil. According to the Times, the stories would often “praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote the country's reconstruction efforts”, a total contradiction what the Los Angeles Times has been printing for over two years.
I guess this will put to rest the radical right’s constant attacks on the integrity of the mainstream press. Say what you will about the New York Times, but you certainly couldn’t pay the Old Gray Lady to write anything positive about the troops.
BlameBush!: Bush Poisoning Iraqi Media Against Insurgency, Democrats
[posted with ecto]