Managing public perception, managing the media

Companies all over the world hire public relations firms to manage their corporate communications. Even small businesses have some kind of a spokesperson. But for some reason, I found it surprising that the U.S. Army has had contracts out for groups to handle public relations for the Iraq War.

It makes senses that companies with agendas, businesses that sell things and groups that disseminate a specific message to the public would need someone controlling the perception of that message. But the fact that this also is being done with the Iraq War is kind of scary, especially for the journalists charged with cutting through that to get the truth.

A Washington Post Article, written by Walter Pincus in August 2006 discussed a $20 million bid from U.S. military leaders in Baghdad “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 article goes on to say that the Bush administration didn’t like what the media was saying about the war. Therefore, the bid called for monitors, who would “analyze stories to determine the dissemination of key themes and messages along with whether the "tone" is positive, neutral or negative.

Journalists are taught that it is their job to get the news and report information in a way that provides people with the tools needed to make their own decisions regarding the “tone” of a story. Journalists face a daily struggle in trying to keep biases out of their stories and maintain some objectivity so as not to mislead readers. But when the only information journalists can get to is already full of biases and has been managed and monitored to the point that the true news of the story is lost, it seems like reporters have few options.

The Washington Post story also said that a public relations firm, the Rendon Group, at the time, held a year-to-year contract with the military command in Iraq.

James Bamford profiled the head of the group, John Rendon, for a Rolling Stone article in 2005, titled “The Man Who Sold the War.” With all the pro-war stories run in Rolling Stone, an article that takes a scathing look at the propaganda that sold the Iraq War is quite surprising.

But however left leaning the story may be, it raises some interesting questions about what the media can do when there is someone like Rendon who could be doing anything from managing the dissemination of information to flat out lying. It’s certainly admirable of those reporters who refuse to accept that and will do whatever necessary, likely in the case of the Iraq War, risk their lives, to get the truth. But with few journalists like that working today and an increasing number becoming discouraged by the fight they are up against, accurate coverage of the Iraq War is suffering.

Bamford quoted a speech Rendon gave at the U.S. Air Force Academy. “I am a politician, a person who uses communication to meet public-policy or corporate-policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager.”

These seem like several contradicting jobs. When a politician involved with the Iraq War also is working to get highly-designed messages out to the public about that war, there are going to be some problems with what information the media have access to.

As for Rendon being an information warrior, I’m not really sure what that is. But it sounds like something that should be left up to journalists. Whether it means fighting for accurate information or fighting to get the information out to the public, it doesn’t seem like someone such as Rendon, trained to manipulate information, should be the one to be doing the fighting. As for him being a perception manager – well, I never thought perceptions were supposed to be managed.

On top of all of this, the U.S. military contract that was awarded in 2006 went to the Lincoln Group, “a public relations company known for its role in a controversial U.S. military program that paid Iraqi newspapers for stories favorable to coalition forces,” according to a story from USA Today.

So the saga continues. While journalists may be partially to blame for less than thorough coverage of the war, it’s difficult to see many options reporters have when the U.S. government continues to practice tactics that prevent reporters from doing their jobs.