[Reader-list] Detecting disinformation, without radar

[Harsh Kapoor]

Asia Times
April 3, 2003

Detecting disinformation, without radar
By Gregory Sinaisky

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.
(Copyright 2003 Gregory Sinaisky)