$20 million for positive press in Iraq?

August 31, 2006

At first blush, the idea of a $20 million-public relations contract for the Middle East doesn’t sound like a bad idea. The United States’ image in the region is … well, let’s just say there’s room for improvement.

But the closer one looks at the details, the less encouraging the proposal sounds.

U.S. military leaders in Baghdad have put out for bid a two-year, $20 million public relations contract that calls for extensive monitoring of U.S. and Middle Eastern media in an effort to promote more positive coverage of news from Iraq.

The contract calls for assembling a database of selected news stories and assessing their tone as part of a program to provide “public relations products” that would improve coverage of the military command’s performance, according to a statement of work attached to the proposal. […]

The proposal, which calls in part for extensive monitoring and analysis of Iraqi, Middle Eastern and American media, is designed to help the coalition forces understand “the communications environment.” Its goal is to “develop communication strategies and tactics, identify opportunities, and execute events . . . to effectively communicate Iraqi government and coalition’s goals, and build support among our strategic audiences in achieving these goals,” according to the statement of work.

What’s a “public relations product”? Well, in 2003, the State Department produced an Arab-language monthly magazine called Hi, which pitched America as a “gee-whiz futuristic society whose consumers are obsessed with the latest gadgets and peculiar dating strategies.” For some reason, the Pentagon seems to believe we can do better. I suspect they’re probably right.

This is not to say, however, that this $20 million contract is a good idea.

Monitors are to select stories that deal with specific issues, such as security, reconstruction activities, “high profile” coalition force activities and events in which Iraqi security forces are “in the lead.” The monitors are to analyze stories to determine the “dissemination of key themes and messages” along with whether the “tone” is positive, neutral or negative.

The media outlets would be monitored for how they present coalition or anti-Iraqi force operations. That part of the proposal could reflect Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld’s often-stated concern that the media does not cover positive aspects of Iraq.

Keep in mind, we’re not just talking about Middle Eastern press outlets; the U.S. is seeking bids on a $20 million contract that would also “monitor” domestic media, “track” news outlets, and “analyze” whether their coverage of the war in Iraq is positive or not.

What, exactly, would Donald Rumsfeld do with this information? And why would it cost $20 million? And if the administration is so concerned about public perceptions regarding Iraq and the progress of the war, shouldn’t officials start concentrating more on actually creating good news for the media to report?

Given the administration’s track record on media research and public-relations contracts, I’m not at all encouraged.

Just note that, whatever you might think, “monitored” does not = “spied upon.” Nope. Nuh-uh. Nothing to see here. Though I sense your “tone” is “negative.” Might have to do something about that…

  • In this context, “public relations product” = “glad-handing bullshit” … just so you know.

  • Somebody call Stevens in Alaska. This costs $5 millions more than the database.

    Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms, to coin a phrase.

  • Can’t those stupid bastards stop obsessing over public relations long enough to actually do something for the public!!!

  • A 20 million dollar grant to nourish a Middle Eastern blogosphere might tell them what they need to know.

  • hmmmmmm…..

    Seems the admin is stuck on FULL BLOWN IDIOT alert on this.

    Just because they could BS, er, PR….. Texans through all of Bush’s incompetence as Gooberner of Texass doesn’t mean it works

    for eternity.

  • So—who do they have in mind for the MidEast-centric roles of Hannity, O’Reilly, and SnowFlake? Because that’s what this is going to be—a pro-American media outlet. I wonder—will they call it “FOX?” Or better still a good Farsi term for this thuggery could be “sootee” (think phonetically here)—which, I believe, basically means something like “blatantly-fraudulent hacker.” But hey—it describes FOX to a “T”—now doesn’t it?

  • Isn’t this Karen Hughe’s job? What happened to her?

    Is she now getting $20 million to explain Texas to Iraqis? And to get Texans to appreciate a foreign culture? If so, it is not enough.

  • Well, at least they’re not wasting good money on treating head trauma injuries, which is on the rise among troops wounded in Iraq. That would be stupid.

  • Excellent comment 2Manchu! Do you think some Democrat might get on the ball and point this crap out?

  • Criminals always cover their tracks. What’s so difficult to understand about that?

  • Seems to me as just a simple way to create an enemies list. And spend the Tax Payers’ money to do it.

    Nothing here about actually creating good news in Iraq.

  • 20 mil?
    I’m in…
    So long as the message for this prop-agenda is:
    “Bush, Iraqi President, 2008”
    Seriously.
    For two reasons:
    1) What better person to lead Iraq than the man who gave them their freedom?
    2) He is a well read man. If anyone can teach those people the ‘Merican meaning of democracy… it is him.

  • At first blush, the idea of a $20 million-public relations contract for the Middle East doesn’t sound like a bad idea — CB

    As someone who used to live in an authoritarian system (communist Poland) and who even worked in their propaganda dept for a short while… I can tell you it’s a *hideous, hare-brained, wasteful and useless idea*. At the first look, and the fifth, and the tenth.

    1) “Cooking the news” is against all the principles of US; why should we try to sell a shoddy version of democracy to Iraqis?
    It’s a waste of money.

    2) “Cooking the news” doesn’t work; the first time you’re caught lying, or even “polishing the truth” you loose all credibility, forevever. It’s a waste of money, time and effort. InPoland, we listened to Radio Free Europe and the Voice of America (when we could get he signal) but we didn’t believe it much. Well, OK, the more the signal was blocked, the more we believed it

    3) It’s inefficient financially, both from the Iraq and US POV. The same amount of money spent — honestly (no Halliburton deals) — on things that Iraqis *need* (water, electricity, bread… The basics) would go much farther in producing the “right” propaganda for us than any amount of “foam whipping” will. And, at the domestic front, the same amount of money spent on constructing the user-friendly database of pork-spending would *exceed* the most ambitious dreams, while making people believe that “something was being done”.

    I don’t know… I grew up elsewhere, so I have an instinctive mistrust of advertising (if a product is any good, why does it need to be “sold”?). This mistrust doesn’t seem to be shared by most Americans; even at home, I often hear “it was recommended on TV” as an argument *for* rather than against something.

    But this… this … excrescence of peddling is really beyond anything a sane person can believe… Isn’t it?

  • This is a superb idea. Instead of doing things right in the first place, let’s spend hundreds of millions of dollars screwing them up. THEN we’ll use what’s left of our credibility (if any) and spend millions more on a program to restrict any freedom of press and tell the Middle Eastern people what they need to believe in order for them to understand that the three car bombs that went off last month are actually a sign of freedom on the march.

  • I have the perfect guy, Mr. CBP himself Ken Tomlinson. At the CPB he established a “balanced” approach to programing Public Broadcasting after evaluating the tone of the shows on PBS and deciding it was too liberal. He then added a WSJ Editorial page show and Tucker Carlson (bow tied Gen X tool).

    Since Tomlinson has already overseen this process he is perfect. I, for one, am looking forward to more “Where’s Gerlado” and less of this WAAAAHHH! Roadside bomb! WAAHHHHHH! Assassination!!!! WAHHHHHH! genocide!!!!!! crap.

    No coffins, no bombings, no problem generating support for the war.

  • This idea raises a lot of questions. Who determines when a story is “negative?” Whether a story is negative or not depends on the determiner’s point of view. What happens if a story is “negative?” Will the offenders be cut off from sources of information? Freedom of the press could be under attack again.

    • Comments are closed.