[Media-watch] Detecting disinformation, without radar

[david Miller]

fyi


Here is an article from the excellent iraqwar.ru website (definitely the
website of the war so far) which has provided a steady stream of
analysis/psyops/schadenfreude:



Detecting disinformation, without radar
10.04.2003 [15:33] 


How to tell genuine reporting from an article manufactured to produce the
desired propaganda effect? The war in Iraq provides us plenty of interesting
samples for a study of disinformation techniques.   Take the article "Basra
Shiites Stage Revolt, Attack Government Troops", published on March 26 in
The Wall Street Journal Europe. Using its example, we will try to arm
readers with basic principles of disinformation analysis that hopefully will
allow them in the future to detect deception.   The title of the article
sounds quite definitive. The article starts, however, with the mush less
certain "Military officials said the Shiite population of Basra ... appeared
to be rising". "Military officials" and "appeared to be" should immediately
raise a red flag for a reader, especially given a mismatch with such a
definitive title. Why "officials"? Were they speaking in a chorus? Or was
each one providing a complementary piece of information? A genuine report
certainly would tell us this and also name the officials or at least say why
they cannot be identified.   Why "appears to be"? There are always specific
reasons why something "appears to be". For example, information about the
uprising may be uncertain because it was supplied by an Iraqi defector who
was not considered trustworthy and has not been confirmed from other
sources. Again, every professional reporter understands that his job is to
provide such details and it is exactly such details that make his reporting
valuable, interesting, and memorable. If such all-important details are
missing, this is a sure sign to suspect intentional disinformation.   Going
further down the article, we see even more astonishing example of the same
vagueness. "Reporters on the scene said that Iraqi troops were firing on the
protesting citizens ..." For an astute reader, this short sentence should
raise a whole host of questions. Were the above-mentioned reporters Western
media reporters embedded with the troops? What was their location and the
distance from which they observed the event?   Obviously, being inside a
besieged city with riots going on is an exceedingly dangerous business. Why
were the names of the reporters distinguished by such shining bravery
concealed from us, instead of being proclaimed with pride? Why do they not
want to tell us where they were observing from and how they managed to get
there? In any case, under the circumstances, being closer to the scene than
the distance of a rifle shot, say one kilometer, merits a special
explanation. Now, an interesting question is, what are the visual clues
allowing a reporter to distinguish, at such distance, between an uprising
and, let's say, troops firing on looters or many other possible explanations
for the same observation?   The only cue I can think of is not visual, but
an aural cue from an editor requesting the reporter to report what we cannot
explain as anything but an attempt of intentional disinformation. Given a
very specific nature of the disinformation produced in this particular case,
its obvious potential effect on both resisting Iraqis and anti-war public
opinion, we cannot see any other explanation for it, except that The Wall
Street Journal directly collaborates with the psychological warfare
department in the Pentagon.   Some unexpected light on the story is shed in
"UK: Iraq to feel backlash in Basra" posted on CNN.com also on March 26. In
this article, the original report on a civilian revolt is attributed to "the
British military authorities and journalists", again unnamed. Here, the
chorus of "the officials" singing in unison with "journalists" makes the
somewhat more specific and exceedingly bizarre statement: "We have radars,
that, by tracing the trajectory of mortar rounds, are able to work out the
source, as well as the target location, which in this case were civilians in
Basra." So, now we know that the uprising in Basra was detected by British
officials and journalists watching a radar screen! This amazing British
radar can even tell an Iraqi official from a simple citizen and a civilian
from a soldier! Moreover, it apparently can read minds and determine the
reasons people fire on each other!   Truly, there is a big lie in the
information attributed to British officials. Or maybe I am wrong and this is
an example of the famous British sense of humor deployed to get rid of
pestering American correspondents? Chorus of American correspondents: "Is
there an uprising going on in Basra? There must be. My editor told me to
report it. You say, how would you know? That's impossible, my editor told me
..." British official: "All right, chaps. I see it on the radar." Sounds of
cellphone dialling and keyboards rattling ...   To conclude: Remember the
following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is
vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is
not in focus, there must be reasons for it.   Want to know the names of
rising stars of disinformation to watch? The Wall Street Journal article was
"compiled" by Matt Murray in New York from reports by Christopher Cooper in
Doha, Qatar, Carla Anne Robbins and Greg Jaffe in Washington, and Helene
Cooper with the US Army's Third Infantry Division in Iraq.    
????????: Gregory Sinaisky/Asia Times