posted 05-09-2002 07:57 PM               

Every election campaign produces, among other things, media myths and bad language. During the elections of the last decade, the language was infected by a new myth called spin control.

The phrase, which broke a speed record in becoming a cliche after the 1988 election, implies that a good media relations practitioner can control the nature and texture of a story in the press -- can put the right spin on it to get the journalist to tell it the spinner's way.

It's just not so. For all that the myth implies, when it comes to the media, we propose -- but others dispose. Thus it was, and thus it always shall be, so long as we have a free press.

But is the telling always accurate? No. Is it always fair? No. Sometimes, despite all of the public relations professionalism, and despite all the cooperation we may offer the press, the story comes out badly. Disaster, dispensed in the aura of a supposedly objective press, doesn't merely strike, it reverberates.

The picture you so carefully and accurately painted is distorted, the wrong people are quoted and the right people are not, the facts are warped and bent beyond recognition, and the whole piece reads as if it were written by your most malicious competitor. Certainly, it will be relished by your every detractor.

The Experts' Advice
Beyond the first scream of outrage, what can you do? Or more significantly, what has been done most effectively by others who have lived through it -- and survived?
Perhaps the hardest factor of a negative story to deal with is that most people who are not professional marketers tend to overreact. At one extreme is incredible upset and anger; at the other is casual disdain that says, "So what, no one will believe it." Neither extreme is warranted nor accurate.

The most useful course, then, is to do nothing until you've recovered from your anger. Even doing the right thing in the wrong frame of mind can perpetuate, not cure, the damage. So...

Don't act precipitously. Think of every action in terms of possible reaction. What seems like a good idea at the moment may be a backfire next week.

After you've gotten over the emotional impact and the anger, don't think vindictively. You may have to live with that publication again someday, and vindictiveness in any event is not profitable.

Assess real -- not assumed or presumed -- damage. That's where you've got to focus your attention. Much assumed damage at first light disappears when the sun comes up. What's left is damage you can deal with. It's this last point that's crucial to successfully limiting the damage of bad press. Too often, the defense is predicated on imagined damage, in which case the reaction is an overreaction, and causes more damage than the original article.

Experts rarely concern themselves with why it happened. Unless libel is involved, it doesn't really matter. The reporter could have functioned out of ignorance or laziness. Reporters are people, and are not immune to such foibles as preconceived notions that can subvert the professionalism of even the most experienced journalist. There may have been an adverse chemical reaction to somebody in your firm, or a fight at the journalist's home that morning. It fact, it really doesn't matter, because the reason for an adverse story is rarely an element that can be dealt with in damage control.

There are some specific questions to be addressed:
What does the article really say? Is it bad because it's wrong -- or because it's right?

Is the article distorted because the facts are wrong, or because they are put in a wrong context that distorts the facts?

What is the real damage? Is it libelous? Misleading enough to cause real business damage? Or just embarrassing?

Consider the publication. Is it widely read, or will people you care about never see it? (Consider that under certain circumstances, your competitor may want to make a point by sending a reprint of the article, along with a favorable one about himself from the same publication). What's the publication's reputation for credibility?

Is the potential damage internal as well as external? Sometimes an unfavorable article can hurt internal morale more than it affects an external perception of the firm.

The Impact Fades Quickly
Staying power is an important consideration. How long after publication will the story, or at least it's negative aura, linger? Depending upon the publication and the nature of the story, considerably less time than you think. As one experienced marketer put it, the impact fades quickly, but the impression can linger.

Some time ago, a major professional firm was savaged in the press for nepotism. The impact was shocking. In fact, the firm not only lost very little business, but continued to grow. Did the story, on the other hand, contribute to competitive defeats? Hard to say. An impression may have lingered in a prospective client's mind, and contributed to other negatives. But ultimately, the damage was nowhere equal to the impact and shock of the article's first appearance.

Responding To The Damage
Assessing the damage accurately allows you to choose the appropriate response. There are, in fact, a number of responses, some, unfortunately, inappropriate. You can:
Sue, but only if there is real libel and real -- and demonstrable -- damage. There rarely is.

Get on the phone and scream at the editor. Good for your spleen, lousy for your future with at least that segment of the press. And you'll never win.

Write a nasty letter to the publisher. Only slightly better than screaming, but with the same results. On the other hand, there are some positive things that can be done:
Avoid defensiveness. Plan positively.

Warn people. If you know an article is going to appear that might be unfavorable, alert your own people, so that it doesn't come as a surprise.

Have a plan and a policy, preferably before you need it. This should cover how to deal with the press, who does it and who doesn't, how to deal with client reactions, how to deal with internal reactions. It should cover how calls are handled, who responds and who routes calls to whom, what to say to clients and who says it, and so forth.

A letter to the editor is important, if only to go on record. But it should be positive, non-vitriolic, and deal only with the facts. It should not sound petulant or defensive.
Deal with the real damage. If the real damage is in specific markets, mount a positive public relations campaign aimed specifically at those markets. If the damage is internal, try to assess the root causes for the negative reaction. It would take a powerful article in a powerful journal to demoralize a firm that's otherwise sound and comfortable with itself.

Consider how a competitor might use the piece, even within the bounds of propriety. It could be, for example, reprints to a particular market. Offset this with positive publicity to the same market. No story is so bad that it should warrant extreme reaction. No publication that's still publishing is so devoid of credibility that some readers won't accept what they read. The role of the professional trained and experienced marketer is to maintain perspective, to assess the damage appropriately, and to see that the response is equal to -- but does not exceed -- the damage.

If bad press meant nothing, then neither would good press, and we know that consistently good press means a great deal. But one story -- good or bad -- rarely has sufficient impact to seriously aid or damage a company (although a negative story is more titillating than a positive one). Most positive public relations is a consistent series of positive articles, interviews and news stories. If a negative press consists of more than one story, then the problem is usually not the press -- its the subject of the stories.

posted 05-28-2002 05:10 PM               

Propaganda & Spinning the News

Truth has been called the first casualty of war. Is it now?

By Peter Vilbig

An American b-52 opens its bomb bay doors over Afghanistan and out pour not bombs, but 385,000 slips of paper, some containing a picture of a U.S. soldier shaking hands with an Afghan man, others a message urging Afghans to tune their radios to U.S broadcasts.

Meanwhile, Osama bin Laden, suspected mastermind of the September 11 attacks on the U.S., dispatches a videotape from his Afghan hideout to an Arab television station. Up close and personal, bin Laden's face suddenly stares from TV screens worldwide, delivering his anti-American message.

So it goes, day by day, in the battle for information control being waged by the U.S. and its opponents in the war on terrorism.

The Bush administration is trying to persuade audiences here and abroad to support the war. At the same time, it is trying to control the release of information about military intelligence and operations.

The effort is a backhanded acknowledgment that bin Laden and the Taliban forces that support him in Afghanistan are formidable propaganda foes, having spent years winning the hearts and minds of much of the Muslim world.

Through news briefings and highly orchestrated press tours, both sides try to make the most of successes and minimize setbacks. This is done through methods that range from spin control to pure propaganda. Spin control gives a partial picture of the truth, to portray an event, such as the results of a battle, in the best possible light. Propaganda is a tricky term that is often misused to label opposition statements as untrue; in fact, it means any information spread deliberately to further your cause, or to damage your opponent's, such as the leaflets dropped by the B-52s.

"They are trying to manipulate world opinion in a way that is advantageous to them and disadvantageous to us," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says of the enemy. "And we need to do everything we can to make sure the truth gets out." Rumsfeld, however, makes it clear that he sees acceptable shades of gray between telling the whole truth and outright lies. "There are dozens of ways to avoid having to put yourself in a position where you're lying," he says.

Besides limiting information that could erode public support or help the enemy, the Pentagon has heated up its psychological operations, using methods such as the flyers dropped by the B-52s. One of them offers this justification for the bombing campaign: "On September 11, the United States was the target of terrorist attacks, leaving no choice but to seek justice for these horrible crimes."

Another warns: "We have no wish to hurt you, the innocent people of Afghanistan. Stay away from military installations, government buildings, terrorist camps, roads, factories or bridges." Air Force planes then drop food packets to try to drive home the point that the United States is a friend of the Afghan people.

Even aspects of the Pentagon briefings can be part of the psychological warfare. At one session, officials showed night-vision video of an Army Ranger raid in Afghanistan, in part to reinforce the message to the Taliban and bin Laden's terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, that the U.S. military could land and carry out operations on the ground.

What Americans and the world heard, saw, and read about the attack, however, was completely controlled by the Pentagon. The Defense Department has effectively barred journalists from gathering independent information about military strategies, successes, and failures. It has no plans to allow reporters to accompany troops. Government officials say that having reporters on the ground could risk divulging important information to the enemy.

Meanwhile, the Taliban are doing their best to manipulate the media, too. After first barring Western reporters, the government invited some to see what officials said were sites where U.S. bombs had gone astray, killing civilians. The Taliban claimed more than 1,500 civilians had been killed, a figure the Pentagon called wildly exaggerated.

Reporters who took the Taliban's guided tours said they couldn't verify casualty figures. Their first stop was at a medical dispensary where the Taliban said 11 were killed, but a man standing nearby told reporters only 3 had died in the attack. Reporters expected to be taken to a hospital to see the wounded, but were hurried instead to another attack site. At many of the stops, they met people whose comments seemed programmed with anti-American talk.

The media war between the Pentagon briefings and the Taliban news conferences has given rise to skepticism in Europe, where many seem unwilling to believe either side. The Frankfurter Rundschau, a leading liberal newspaper, has run a warning every day since the bombing began: "Substantial amounts of information about current military actions and their consequences is subject to censorship by parties to the conflict," it says. "In many cases, an independent confirmation of such information is not possible for this newspaper."

Part of the problem for the U.S. is bin Laden's skill as a media manipulator. Since the September 11 attacks, he has released a series of videotaped messages, speaking classical Arabic in a calm, soothing voice laced with references to the Muslim holy book, the Koran, while denouncing U.S. policy and exhorting Muslims to join the holy war against America. "You have to choose your side," he told the world's 1 billion Muslims in one of the tapes.

The tapes were sent directly to Al Jazeera, an Arab satellite television station based in the tiny Persian Gulf nation of Qatar. U.S. officials criticized the broadcasts and asked American networks not to air them unedited. Yet the tapes continue to air in many Arab and Muslim countries, where experts say bin Laden has been particularly effective at playing upon anger over Palestinian grievances in their battle with Israel, a major U.S. ally, for land and statehood.

At the same time, the U.S. message—that the war against terrorism is a justified response to the September 11 attacks, and isn't targeting Muslims or Arabs—is getting buried beneath videos showing civilian casualties from the bombing campaign in Afghanistan, and the back-and-forth attacks by Israeli troops and Palestinian gunmen. When National Security Adviser Condeleeza Rice spoke on Al Jazeera, the report was followed by pictures of Israeli tanks rumbling through a Palestinian village.

But the U.S. is trying to improve its record in the information war. Recently, after bin Laden released one of his videos, an Arabic-speaking American official appeared on Al Jazeera and criticized the speech for about 15 minutes. The State Department is also planning a television and advertising campaign in the Arab world to try to influence Islamic opinion; one segment could feature American celebrities, including sports stars, and a more emotional message.

For the average American, figuring out what to believe when information is so tightly controlled presents a challenge. To avoid being taken in by false or misleading information, experts on media and the use of propaganda give this advice:

.Look for loaded words. In any report, whether in print, television, radio, or on the Internet, notice language that appears to be trying to sell you a way of viewing the information, or that uses words to appeal to your emotions. Watch for adjectives like patriotic, good, evil, barbaric, inhuman. Are they justified?

.Check the sources. Are the sources of the news identified? Are the people quoted and the government agencies mentioned unbiased, or do they seem to have an agenda? Are the sources eyewitnesses? If not, do they seem trustworthy, such as experts on the topic? Is more than one point of view represented? Be skeptical of any source that repeats hearsay and rumors.

.Beware of getting only half the story. Propaganda experts say the subtlest forms of propaganda succeed not by lying outright but by giving only a partial truth. Images, which may be the most powerful form of communication, are particularly vulnerable to this type of manipulation. Photographs of dead and wounded people, for example, can be shocking, but by their nature they give only one side of the story.

How do you avoid falling prey to such forms of subtle propaganda? "It's really difficult to do," says Jim Naureckas, of the media watchdog group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. "You need to use your imagination to think about the images you're not seeing, and imagine how you would feel if you were. http://teacher.scholastic.com/upfront/issue/articles/7apropaganda.htm

Spin it in the other direction
by Janet Morgan

'All that spin is making me dizzy'. That was the headline of a recent story from one of the leading US international newspapers. It was - surprise, surprise - an article about spin doctors.

In the past few years, the spin doctor seems to have become top pariah. Peter Mandelson, the man who helped swing round the tremendous change in government in the UK to Labour - is the devil incarnate if the papers here in the UK are to be believed. Yet nine months ago, before the election, he was the boy wonder.

Suddenly it seems the media is fed up with manipulation. To a point, they have a good cause. In terms of government, journalists are forced to rely on what the party in power tells them.

But there is more to spin than government spokespersons, and any journalist worth their by-line should be able to research a story past its spin.

Spin is a much more widespread phenomenon than the media would have the public believe. The worst part being that even journalists can be guilty of putting spin on a story. The only difference being that we call it news judgement.

Let's face it, spin is nothing more than putting your side of the story. We conveniently forget to mention the negatives or, if we do, we play them down.

Every publication has an editorial policy. In the UK, The Financial Times supports the business sector, while in Canada The Globe and Mail is conservative.

I shall never forget the gist of a picture caption The Globe and Mail ran when the NDP presented its first budget in Ontario. It ran something like: 'Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren laugh as they reveal their budget to Ontario'. How much more biased can you get?

Of course, scientists and medics believe they are above the criticism of spin. They argue that the scientific procedure and the double-blind placebo-controlled trial eliminates the opportunities for bias.

Not true. It is all about statistics, or as Benjamin Disraeli said: 'Lies, damn lies and statistics.'

If journalists believe that scientists do not have another agenda, they should think again. Being published is essential to the career of the academics, and publications are more interested in positive results than negative ones.

Alternatively, if you are carrying out work for a pharmaceutical company, you are under pressure to produce good results. It is possible to crunch the numbers favourably. In fact, I was told the story the other day of a biotech company which was delaying the publication of Phase II results because the initial analysis was unfavourable and they were looking for new ways to present the numbers and put a positive light on the outcome.

And is it easy to pull the wool over the eyes of the average reporter with no scientific experience? Yes, would be the answer.

For instance, a recent report in one large circulation Sunday newspaper here reported the experience of one US scientist who had 'successfully performed' head transplants on monkeys. On further reading of the story, it became apparent that the survivors had been given immunosuppressants while those that did not survive had been given a placebo.

Given that we know the chances of organ rejection are nearly 100 per cent without immunosuppressants, is it any surprise that the control group had a lower survival rate? Is this valid science or is it just a study constructed to show positive results and thereby justify the research?

Perhaps the ultimate spin in science is the story of 'evidence based medicine' - the new religion that claims that all treatments/therapies must be subject to numerous placebo-controlled trials before they can be accepted.

Aside from the argument against placebo control when an adequate treatment exists, the whole basis of the evidence-based study is questionable. By definition, the only study that seems to qualify for evidence-based is the meta-analysis which brings together five or more large studies to assess the results.

What the evidence-based crowd fails to recognise is that the methods of all these trials may have been so different that the results of the various studies are incomparable.

Unfortunately, even the British Medical Journal is guilty of this spin on evidence-based medicine. As prime supporters, they seem to overlook the problems of these studies.

So, if everyone is guilty of spin, how are science writers to report on stories accurately? The answer is contacts. Every story has at least two sides to it. So find the opponent. Don't rely purely on the contacts or the PR office for sources. It is in their interest to only put forward supporters of the story.

In today's information-friendly age, it is easy to do a quick search on the web for critics. Look for lead names on referenced papers that appear to take an opposing view. This is particularly true if in the paper you are reporting on they take special effort to downplay or negate the conclusions of that paper.

With political stories, there are always outcast backbenchers who can provide another slant on the story.

The trick, as the journalist in the middle, is to remember that everyone has their own axe to grind. You will be a better reporter if you can find out what that axe is. And of course, whatever you do, don't take what are presented as facts at face value.

Janet Morgan is a CSWA member and a freelance writer living and working in the United Kingdom. http://www.interlog.com/~cswa/slink/jan98/janet.html

posted 01-31-2003 12:30 PM            

Commentary > Daniel Schorr
from the March 01, 2002 edition

Official US deception: Can it be trusted?

By Daniel Schorr

WASHINGTON - "Dezinformatsia" (disinformation) - department D of the KGB since about 1959, and later mimicked by the CIA. Disinformation goes beyond misinformation to planting information, source concealed, that pretends to be truthful.

E-mail this story

Write a letter to the Editor

Printer-friendly version





Related stories:

02/22/02

Defining propaganda, illegal deception




monitortalk:

Weigh in on issues of the day in our MonitorTalk forums.

Click here...




A classic piece of CIA disinformation was a pornographic movie made in the 1960s with an actor pretending to be President Sukarno of Indonesia. It was meant to undermine Mr. Sukarno with Muslims.

The subject of disinformation is back with a report that it was one of the tools considered by the Pentagon's short-lived Office of Strategic Influence. The office circulated classified proposals for aggressive campaigns using the foreign media to improve America's standing abroad.

History teaches that this kind of "black" propaganda cannot be confined to the foreign media. In 1986, national security adviser John Poindexter wrote for President Reagan a "disinformation program" aimed at destabilizing Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi by false reports in the foreign press about an impending conflict between the two countries.

But the false information reached an American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal - a phenomenon known in the trade as "blowback."

And, with no effort by the White House to steer it away from the phony story, the Journal headlined that Libya and the United States were on a collision course. Soon, the Poindexter memo was revealed in The Washington Post, and in the ensuing flap about a policy of lies, Bernard Kalb resigned as assistant secretary of State.

We have not heard much since then of an information policy based on deliberate deception. With the revolution in communications, blowback to the American media would be a constant problem - if it is considered to be a problem. The Pentagon has a resource in Admiral Poindexter, President Reagan's disinformation specialist, who is back in government as head of the Pentagon's Information Awareness Office.

Last week, in Salt Lake City, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said "The Pentagon is not issuing disinformation to the foreign press or any other press," and he gave assurance that "what we tell the public is accurate and correct."

Maybe that rules out disinformation as a policy.

But, then how do we know?

• Daniel Schorr is a senior news analyst at NPR.

posted 02-01-2003 04:02 PM            

This text is Part I in a two part series. Part II focuses on "Fabricating an Enemy"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Military planners in the Pentagon are acutely aware of the central role of war propaganda. Waged from the Pentagon, the State Department and the CIA, a fear and disinformation campaign (FDC) has been launched. The blatant distortion of the truth and the systematic manipulation of all sources of information is an integral part of war planning. In the wake of 9/11, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld created to the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or "Office of Disinformation" as it was labeled by its critics:

"The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries -- as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.1

And, all of a sudden, the OSI was formally disbanded following political pressures and "troublesome" media stories that "its purpose was to deliberately lie to advance American interests."2 "Rumsfeld backed off and said this is embarrassing."3 Yet despite this apparent about-turn, the Pentagon’s Orwellian disinformation campaign remains functionally intact: "[T]he secretary of defense is not being particularly candid here. Disinformation in military propaganda is part of war."4

Rumsfeld later confirmed in a press interview that while the OSI no longer exists in name, the "Office’s intended functions are being carried out" 5 (Rumsfeld’s precise words can be consulted at http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html ).

A number of government agencies and intelligence units --with links to the Pentagon-- are involved in various components of the propaganda campaign. Realities are turned upside down. Acts of war are heralded as "humanitarian interventions" geared towards "regime change" and "the restoration of democracy". Military occupation and the killing of civilians are presented as "peace-keeping". The derogation of civil liberties --in the context of the so-called "anti-terrorist legislation"-- is portrayed as a means to providing "domestic security" and upholding civil liberties. And underlying these manipulated realties, "Osama bin Laden" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" statements, which circulate profusely in the news chain, are upheld as the basis for an understanding of World events.

In the critical "planning stages" leading up to an invasion of Iraq, the twisting of public opinion at home and around the World, is an integral part of the War agenda, War propaganda is pursued at all stages: before, during the military operation as well as in its cruel aftermath. War propaganda serves to drown the real causes and consequences of war.

A few months after the OSI was disbanded amidst controversy (February 2002), The New York Times confirmed that the disinformation campaign was running strong and that the Pentagon was:

"…considering issuing a secret directive to American military to conduct covert operations aimed at influencing public opinion and policymakers in friendly and neutral nations …The proposal has ignited a fierce battle throughout the Bush administration over whether the military should carry out secret propaganda missions in friendly nations like Germany… The fight, one Pentagon official said, is over ‘the strategic communications for our nation, the message we want to send for long-term influence, and how we do it….’We have the assets and the capabilities and the training to go into friendly and neutral nations to influence public opinion. We could do it and get away with it. That doesn't mean we should.’6

Fabricating the Truth
To sustain the war agenda, these "fabricated realities", funneled on a day to day basis into the news chain must become indelible truths, which form part of a broad political and media consensus. In this regard, the corporate media –although acting independently of the military-intelligence apparatus, is an instrument of this evolving totalitarian system.

In close liaison with the Pentagon and the CIA, the State Department has also set up its own "soft-sell" (civilian) propaganda unit, headed by Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Charlotte Beers, a powerful figure in the advertising industry. Working in liaison with the Pentagon, Beers was appointed to head the State Department’s propaganda unit in the immediate wake of 9/11. Her mandate is "to counteract anti-Americanism abroad."7 Her office at the State department is to:

"ensure that public diplomacy (engaging, informing, and influencing key international audiences) is practiced in harmony with public affairs (outreach to Americans) and traditional diplomacy to advance U.S. interests and security and to provide the moral basis for U.S. leadership in the world." (http://www.state.gov/r/ )

The Role of the CIA
The most powerful component of the Fear and Disinformation Campaign (FDI) rests with the CIA, which, secretly subsidizes authors, journalists and media critics, through a web of private foundations and CIA sponsored front organizations. The CIA also influences the scope and direction of many Hollywood productions. Since 9/11, one third of Hollywood productions are war movies. "Hollywood stars and scriptwriters are rushing to bolster the new message of patriotism, conferring with the CIA and brainstorming with the military about possible real-life terrorist attacks."8 "The Sum of All Fears" directed by Phil Alden Robinson, which depicts the scenario of a nuclear war, received the endorsement and support of both the Pentagon and the CIA.9

Disinformation is routinely "planted" by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels. Outside public relations firms are often used to create "fake stories" Carefully documented by Chaim Kupferberg in relation to the events of September 11: "A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the "official reality" is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain."10

Covert disinformation initiatives under CIA auspices are also funneled through various intelligence proxies in other countries. Since 9/11, they have resulted in the day-to-day dissemination of false information concerning alleged "terrorist attacks". In virtually all of the reported cases (Britain, France, Indonesia, India, Philippines, etc.) the « alleged terrorist groups» are said to have «links to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda», without of course acknowledging the fact (amply documented by intelligence reports and official documents) that Al Qaeda is a creation of CIA.

The Doctrine of "Self Defense"
At this critical juncture, in the month(s) leading up to the announced invasion of Iraq, the propaganda campaign is geared towards sustaining the illusion that "America is under attack". Relayed not only through the mainstream media but also through a number of alternative internet media sites, these "fabricated realities" portray the war as a bona fide act of self-defense, while carefully concealing the broad strategic and economic objectives of the war.

In turn, the propaganda campaign develops a casus belli, "a justification", a political legitimacy for waging war. The "official reality" (conveyed profusely in George W’s speeches) rests on the broad "humanitarian" premise of a so-called "preemptive", namely "defensive war", "a war to protect freedom":

« We're under attack because we love freedom… And as long as we love freedom and love liberty and value every human life, they're going to try to hurt us.» 11

Spelled out in the National Security Strategy (NSS), the preemptive "defensive war" doctrine and the "war on terrorism" against Al Qaeda constitute the two essential building blocks of the Pentagon’s propaganda campaign. The objective is to present "preemptive military action" --meaning war as an act of "self-defense" against two categories of enemies, "rogue States" and "Islamic terrorists":

"The war against terrorists of global reach is a global enterprise of uncertain duration. …America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.

…Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terror and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction (…)

The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction.

The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction— and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, (…). To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."12 (National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html )

Feeding Disinformation into the News Chain
How is war propaganda carried out? Two sets of "eye popping" "statements" emanating from a variety of sources (including official National Security statements, media, Washington-based think tanks, etc.) are fed on a daily basis into the news chain. Some of the events (including news regarding presumed terrorists) are blatantly fabricated by the intelligence agencies. These statements are supported by simple and catchy "buzzwords", which set the stage for fabricating the news:

Buzzword no. 1. "Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda" (Osama) is behind most news stories regarding the "war on terrorism" including "alleged", "future" "presumed", and "actual" terrorist attacks. What is rarely mentioned is that this outside enemy Al Qaeda is a CIA "intelligence asset", used in covert operations.

Buzzword no. 2. The "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" statement is used to justify the "pre-emptive war" against the "State sponsors of terror", --i.e. countries such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea which allegedly possess WMD. Amply documented in the case of Iraq, a large body of news on WMD and biological attacks, are fabricated.

The "WMD" and "Osama bin Laden" statements become part of day to day debate, embodied in routine conversations between citizens. Repeated ad nauseam, they penetrate the inner consciousness of ordinary people molding their individual perceptions on current events. Through deception and manipulation, this shaping of the minds of entire populations, sets the stage --under the façade of a functioning democracy—for the installation of a de facto police State. Needless to say, war propaganda weakens the antiwar movement.

In turn, the disinformation regarding alleged "terrorist attacks" or "weapons of mass destruction" instils an atmosphere of fear, which mobilizes unswerving patriotism and support for the State, and its main political and military actors.

Repeated in virtually every national news report, this stigmatic focus on WMD-Al Qaeda essentially serves as a dogma, to blind people on the causes and consequences of America’s war of conquest, while providing a simple, unquestioned and authoritative justification for "self defense."

More recently, both in speeches by President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, as well as in the news, WMD statements are now carefully blended into Osama statements. UK Defense Minister Jack Straw warned in early January "that ‘rogue regimes’ such as Iraq were the most likely source of WMD technology for groups like al-Qaeda."13 Also, in January, a presumed al Qaeda cell "with links to Iraq" was discovered in Edinburgh, allegedly involved in the use of biological weapons against people in the UK. The hidden agenda of "the links to Iraq" statement is blatantly obvious. The objective is to discredit Iraq in the months leading up to the war: the so-called "State sponsors of terror" are said to support Osama bin Laden, Conversely, Osama is said to collaborate with Iraq in the use of weapons of mass destruction.

In recent months, several thousand news reports have woven "WMD-Osama stories" of which a couple of excerpts are provided below:

"Skeptics will argue that the inconsistencies don't prove the Iraqis have continued developing weapons of mass destruction. It also leaves Washington casting about for other damning material and charges, including the midweek claim, again unproved, that Islamic extremists affiliated with al-Qaeda took possession of a chemical weapon in Iraq last November or late October."14

North Korea has admitted it lied about that and is brazenly cranking up its nuclear program again. Iraq has almost certainly lied about it, but won't admit it. Meanwhile Al Qaeda, although dispersed, remains a shadowy, threatening force, and along with other terrorist groups, a potential recipient of the deadly weaponry that could emerge from Iraq and North Korea.15

Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair listed Iraq, North Korea, the Middle East and al-Qaeda among "difficult and dangerous" problems Britain faced in the coming year.16

The WMD-Osama statements are used profusely by the mainstream media. In the wake of 9/11, these stylized statements have also become an integral part of day to day political discourse. They have also permeated the workings of international diplomacy and the functioning of the United Nations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Notes
1. Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002.

2. Air Force Magazine, January 2003, italics added..

3. Adubato, op. cit. italics added

4. Ibid, italics added.

5. Quoted in Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Secrecy News, http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/secrecy/2002/11/112702.html , Rumsfeld’s press interview can be consulted at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/news/2002/11/dod111802.html .

6. New York Times, 16 December 2002.

7. Sunday Times, London 5 January 2003.

8. Ros Davidson, Stars earn their Stripes, The Sunday Herald (Scotland), 11 November 2001).

9. See Samuel Blumenfeld, Le Pentagone et la CIA enrôlent Hollywood, Le Monde, 24 July 2002, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BLU207A.html .

10. Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation for 9/11, Global Outlook, No. 3, 2003, p. 19, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KUP206A.html .

11. Remarks by President Bush in Trenton, New Jersey, «Welcome Army National Guard Aviation Support Facility, Trenton, New Jersey », 23 September 2002.

12. National Security Strategy, White House, 2002, http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html

13. Agence France Presse (AFP), 7 January 2003.

14. Insight on the News, 20 January 2003.

15. Christian Science Monitor, 8 January 2003

16. Agence France Presse (AFP), 1 January 2003