U.S. Government Devises Fake News In and About Iraq?
No Way . . .

Just another average everyday case of propagating the news by the U.S government.   From an historical perspective on journalism, this report by the Los Angeles Times is quite interesting as it raises a highly hypocritical point; namely, the purchasing of legitimate news.  I wonder how that late champion of public relations, Edward  Bernays, would defend this unethical practice by The Lincoln Group.  Actually, I have a pretty good idea about how his argument would go.  Bernays would take his usual bourgeois stance and say that PRganda is an absolute necessity for the elite governing class.  I mean, what better way is there to manipulate public opinion?

This said, should the government PR’s be exempt from labeling their purchased 'news' as such?  In the interest of objectivity the answer is a resounding no.  But then again, what is really objective about anything coming out of Washington?  And is there really any difference between purchasing and planting one’s agenda? The self-righteous public relations counsels of early corporate America (many of which held government accounts as well) lambasted their theatrical brothers for such practices while simultaneously implementing the same methods albeit on much larger scales and with higher consequences. 

The issue here is the same one that has been debated since the 1920s: Is the spread of propaganda worth the long term consequences (namely damaging the public's trust) or is it simply a necessary evil? Unfortunately, I don't know the answer to that one. However, what I do know is purchasing media space and strategically planting information for the "good" of the client is what PR is all about and anyone who begs to differ is either a PR, media professional, or someone who has a PR on their payroll.  But hey, don’t get me wrong. I love the art of publicity; I just sometimes worry about its consequences.