MONDAY'S LETTERS: Debating Wartime Propaganda, Wikipedia and More

By: E&P Staff Does the press have a different role to play during wartime, specifically one of patriotic acquiescence? One reader argues that such actions are not without historical precedent.

***

Iraq and Victory

As for the LA Times story that the Army was "planting" stories, the only thing that should be surprising (and nauseating) is the press's reaction. In WW II, if Gen. Dwight Eisenhower went to the major papers and said, "Look, we plan to invade Normandy, but we want Hitler to think we are invading Calais. Will you run some 'leaked' stories about our 'invasion' plans for Calais?" the papers not only would have not questioned whether this was "planting" a story, but they would have enthusiastically done what Ike asked.

Fast forward to 1991, when Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf fed reporters false stories about amphibious landings along the Kuwait coast to pin down Saddam Hussein's forces facing the sea. Reporters blew a gasket that they had been "used." Not an once of patriotism, not a shred of responsibility or concern for our troops (but plenty of concern for the poor abused souls at Abu Ghraib!). Schwartzkopf knew that by 1991, he could count on the press to HARM our national interest, especially if it involved the military, and relied on the media to leak out information that was false, but which they thought was true.

And journalists just can't understand why most Americans think they are unpatriotic. Imagine that.

Larry Schweikart
Professor of History
University of Dayton
Author, "Why Americans Win Wars" (Forthcoming, 2006)

***

Re: Controversy Builds Over Planted Stories in Iraqi Press

Back in the Eighties a correspondent for the Soviet newspaper Trud [Labor] told me glumly: "Nobody believes us even when we tell the truth."

Are we aiming for the same result in Iraq?

Pavel Chichikov
Washington, D.C.

***

So Who?

Regarding the article on the planting of Iraqi news articles and the Lincoln Group. Why no names from the firm, directors, managers CEO, CFO, are they unknown? Thanks for the great site.

B. Wheeler

***

Re: How Bush Caught the 'Feaver' in Big Iraq Speech This Week

Great article on Feaver.

But couldn't you pass along that neat trick that discloses who wrote the articles when Adobe is used? Be helpful for reading on WH.gov.

It's important that the National Strategy for Victory is not for victory in Iraq, but for victory in the polls.

The cynicism and intellectual corruption of the Bush supporters is .... I'm at a loss for words to describe it.

Bob Reynolds
Orange Park, Fla.

***

Wikipedia Debate Intensifies

Since E&P first wrote about "The Dangers of Wikipedia" last Wednesday, several readers have written in either to defend the popular citizens media Web site, offer suggestions on how it could improve its oversight capabilities, or, failing that, simply to share frustrations on the veracity of information found there. A number of letters, like the sampled one below, can be found here. Check back with E&P's Online News section later today for the latest developments in the intensifying Wikipedia debate.

Where's the Fair Play?

Jimmy Wales's assertion that Wikipedia operates a self-correcting mechanism pays mere lip service to fair play.

The right to edit an entry represents no right of reply if a subsequent visitor to an "amended" entry goes in and rewrites it yet further (have you *tried* to decipher amendments in its History files?).

Wales and those who run Wikipedia are not only arrogant but also naive. A year ago I posted my views as a footnote to an utterly factually wrong entry on a specialist subject in which I have been an active participant. I declined to "edit" the existing entry, saying that the Wikipedia ideal was flawed: any entry is only as good as the last pair of hands to edit it, which guarantees nothing. In any case I'd have had to completely rewrite the item in question, which betrayed its authors to be secondary sources.

Weeks later my comment was removed to the bowels of Wikipedia's history, as was a second critical footnote I submitted earlier this year. The original incorrect entry stands to this day.

Julia Stitch
United Kingdom

***

Bill O'Reilly's 'Enemies List'

Gentlepeople,

How does one get on Bill's hit list? Seems to me it would be a badge of honor and a guarantee that such a person had class and at least a modicum of integrity.

In the Spirit of Crazy Horse,

Art Durand aka Whitebear

***

As a former newspaper reporter I occasionally visit the Editor and Publisher website -- and I notice that you often state that essentially there is no liberal bias in the major media. I had a question and I would appreciate a response.

When Rep. Murtha made his comments urging withdrawal, he was turned into a media superstar (even though he's made negative comments about Iraq since September 2003 and May 2004). Murtha, in effect, is pretty much falling in line with the view of many Democrats. However, when Sen. Lieberman wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal -- very much opposed to the standard Democrat party line -- he is shunned in the major media (no coverage in the Washington Post, NY Times, USA Today, ABC or CBS). I'm appalled by such unbalanced and one-sided coverage. Do you have an explanation?

Steve Wampler