Talk:U.S. military covertly pays to run stories in Iraqi press

This article is an editorial, which means it was written with intent to push or present in a positive view only one point of view of the event. While this may seem like news to some, this is quite frequent for governments to do (at some times, the US government does pay for some articles to be included into prolific news outlets). Of course, the allegations of it being propaganda would have to be backed with evidence, or stressed that only one outlet (LA Times) is reporting them as (additionally, it would have to be proven that the articles are being funded by the US Government as well - or stressed that only the LA Times is the one making the allegations). --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 00:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I cleaned up the language a little to make sure that claims that have not been verified independently from the LA Times are identified as coming from the LA Times. But by now there are also quotes from a military spokesperson in Iraq indirectly confirming the report.
 * About the US paying to get articles published. That is certainly true, but the articles need to be labeled as such. In recent cases where this did not happen pertaining to the "no child left behind act", the US Government Accountability Office has labeled it as "covert propaganda" (link to the document in question is in the sources). The article does not label the current actions of the US miltary as "propaganda". If there are no further objections, then I will publish. --vonbergm 04:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * mrm, can u please substantiate (with wn policies and guidelines) how the article (as it stood at the time ( ?)) is editorial as you claim above? r u also suggesting the subject is not newsworthy? while the source of the allegations should be reported, why shld it be *stressed* that only one outlet has reported it? as to *proving* that the articles are being funded by the government, wikipedia is not a state gazette, publishing only court verdicts - it is perfectly valid for wiki to report an  allegation (as an allegation), and report facts which appear to back (or refute) the allegation.  thanks, Doldrums 11:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

breaking News?
I think this article is hot enough, and still developing.International 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Certainly not "breaking", and definitely not out of the ordinary (see above).  --MrMiscellanious (talk) (contribs) 03:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Red Eye
Does anyone have access to Nexis or a February edition of "Red Eye" (Chicago Tribune sub.). Apparently there is an interesting [report] on people working for the Lincoln Group that more than confirms the LA Times article. I would hesitate to report this without having someone look at the original source. --vonbergm 04:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)