(Also posted on Daily Kos)
Going over recent coverage of anti-U.S. demonstrations in Baghdad’s Firdos Square last week makes interesting reading. Most of the U.S. media took pains to point out that Firdos Square was also the site of the now-famous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in an apparently spontaneous outpouring of emotion by Iraqis, jubilant over the arrival of U.S. troops.
Footage of the statue of Saddam Hussein being toppled by freedom-seeking Iraqis dominated coverage of the April 2003 fall of Baghdad, and has become the dominant image of the early days of the American occupation. But did it really happen that way, and should the American media know better than to perpetuate those images as it did last week during the anti-American demonstrations?
The answer to the first question is no, and the answer to the second question is yes. That yes ought to be particularly true of The Los Angeles Times and The Seattle Intelligencer. They need only to read their own archives.
Here is an excerpt of the Los Angeles Times’ coverage of last week’s massive anti-U.S. demonstration from the April 10, 2005 paper:
“By 11 a.m., the massive but orderly demonstration assembled in Firdos Square, where on April 9, 2003, several hundred Iraqis — with the help of U.S. forces — toppled Hussein’s statue in a now-famous gesture”
And here is an excerpt from the Associated Press coverage carried by the Seattle Intelligencer on April 8, 2005:
“Images of jubilant Iraqis toppling a 40-foot statue of Saddam Hussein and pelting it with garbage and shoes in Firdos Square defined the moment Baghdad fell to U.S. troops two years ago, a prelude to what many hoped would be democracy and freedom in a new Iraq.”
But on July 3, 2003 a very different version of events was depicted in the Los Angeles Times under the headline: “Toppling of Saddam statue was staged,” by David Zucchino.
Here are some relevent excerpts from that Times’ article:
“The Army’s internal study of the war in Iraq criticizes some efforts by its own psychological operations units, but one spur-of-the-moment effort last year produced the most memorable image of the invasion.
As the Iraqi regime was collapsing on April 9, 2003, Marines converged on Firdos Square in central Baghdad, site of an enormous statue of Saddam Hussein. It was a Marine colonel — not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images — who decided to topple the statue, the Army report said. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.
After the colonel — who was not named in the report — selected the statue as a ‘target of opportunity,’ the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage Iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.”
And much earlier, on May 30, 2003, The Seattle Intelligencer published a guest column by Steve Ludwig entitled: “Lights, camera, rescue.” Relevent excerpts follow:
“Shortly after the world was wowed by TV coverage of the toppling of Saddam’s statue, doubts were raised. A Reuters photo of the square was circulated showing a much smaller crowd than the close-up TV footage implied. Eyewitness accounts belied the news coverage of a ‘jubilant’ crowd: ‘ … it happened at only about 300 meters from where I was, and it was a very small crowd. The rest of the square was almost empty, and when we inquired as to where the crowd came from, it was from Saddam City (a poor neighborhood some distance away). In other words, it was a rent-a-crowd’ (Rev. Neville Watson, interviewed on SBS-TV, Australia).
British columnist Robert Fisk, writing from Baghdad on April 11 for The Independent, described the statue episode as ‘ … the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima.’ And this from David Robie, senior lecturer at Auckland University of Technology: “I watched BBC World in the lead-up to the toppling. The square was largely empty except for three strategically positioned U.S. Abrams tanks and an armored personnel carrier plus a small paltry crowd of 100 or so, many of them apparently journalists. A BBC World news presenter kept asking, ‘Where is everybody?’ “
The Los Angeles Times and The Seattle Intelligencer deserve considerable kudos for their earlier coverage that peeled away the layers of deception that shrouded those early images broadcast from Firdos Square. Why, one must ask, are they now once again falling into line and passing off the deception they had themselves helped expose? One might have hoped instead that the reality would have replaced the lie.
and I’m pretty sure it was by you. The angle was different, with your LTE and the editor’s note. I found it interesting, and IIRC recommended it.
Can’t find it now – did you delete or do a major edit?
Yes. I think the letter to the editor format made it a tedious read. I decided to redo it because I think it is important I was hoping more people would read it.
OK.
It’s probably a good idea to let people know that you deleted (comments lost) and re-posted, or made an update.
Anyway, I’ll recommend again because I think we need to remind ourselves how the media continues to manipulate us.
Oh, IMHO, I think you should update this diary with the LTE/Editor’s note story because it so clearly emphasizes the manipulation. They publish your LTE, then try to neutralize it with a note containing more of the same BS.
Thanks for the advice. I am new to this so I appreciate the direction. And good point about the letter to the editor.
I wrote a letter to the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal pointing out the milseading nature of their AP coverage re: that “spontaneous” toppling of the statue by the Iraqis. i cited the July 3, 2004 LA Times piece. The Intelligencer Journal printed my letter this morning, but added an Editor’s note citing The LA Times coverage of last week instead of their 2004 investigative piece: “By 11a.m. the massive but orderly demonstrators assembled in Firdos Square, where on April 9, 2003, several hundred Iraqis – with the help of U.S. forces – toppled Hussein’s statue in a now famous gesture.”
It would seem that the clear intent was to suggest that I had misrepresented the Times’ coverage.
When I wrote my post below, I hadn’t noticed your account of the events as referenced in your comment above. (I should have paid closer attention to detail)
I’m playing catch-up with my diary reading, so I missed your original post. You’d be doing yourself and others a service by expanding your diary to include a copy (or link) of your LTE along with the newspaper’s response. That would be very helpful in my understanding of the issue – and you should receive all due credit for taking the time to write the LTE. Thanks!
For some reason I cannot find the letter on the web site. They have eleven pages of letter titles, but mine is not there. Perhaps they post after the fact. In any event, here is the text of both letters:
April 12, 2005
To the editor of the Lancaster Intelligence Journal:
Your AP story last Friday April 9th on the protests against the American occupation held in Fridos Square in Baghdad made uncritical reference to the toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein which “defined the moment Baghdad fell to U.S. troops two years ago, a prelude to what many hoped would be democracy and freedomn in a new Iraq.”
One would think from reading this that the latter event was a spontaneous outpouring of fervor by Iraqis jubilant over the arrival of the U.S. troops.
That is the way it was reported at the time by an unquestioning media, but on July 3, 2004 The Los Angeles Times revealed that the toppling of Saddam’s statue was in reality a psychological warfare operation staged by the U.S. Army to look like a spontaneous Iraqi action.
The media didn’t know better back in April 2003, but to continue to suggest that what we now know was staged propaganda was a spontaneous actual event is inexcusable. It is not supposed to be the role of the media to perpetuate a hoax played upon the world by our government. We deserve more independence and more candor from the media.
April 14, 2005
To the editor of the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal:
I was gratified to see my letter published this morning challenging the Associated Press account in your paper last week that continued the mythology that the toppling of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad’s Firdos Square in April of 2003 was a spontaneous event rather than a staged U.S. military operation. I was puzzled, however, to see the appended “Editor’s note” which cited the Los Angeles Times of April 10, 2005 in a semi-rebuttal: “By 11a.m. the massive but orderly demonstrators assembled in Firdos Square, where on April 9, 2003, several hundred Iraqis – with the help of U.S. forces – toppled Hussein’s statue in a now famous gesture.”
It is unfortunate that The LA Times seems to have forgotten about an earlier article that appeared in its pages on July 3rd 2004 by David Zuchinno headlined: “Army Stage-Managed Fall of Hussein Statue.” The Times asserted, based upon an internal Army study it had obtained. that “It was a Marine colonel – not joyous Iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the TV images – who decided to topple the statue. And it was a quick-thinking Army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous Iraqi undertaking.”
That isn’t all. A much earlier article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer on May 30, 2003 by Steve Ludwig entitled “Lights, Camera, Rescue” pointed out that shortly after the toppling of the Saddam statue, “a Reuters photo of the square was circulated showing a much smaller crowd than the close-up TV footage implied.” The article quoted witnesses who said it was “a very small crowd” brought in from the city’s poor neighborhoods. “In other words, it was a rent-a-crowd,” according to a minister interviewed by the Australian media. And finally, British journalist and columnist Robert Fisk, writing from Baghdad on April 11, 2003 for The Independent (and also cited in the Seattle Intelligencer article) described the episode as “the most staged photo opportunity since Iwo Jima.”
I repeat what I said in my original letter: “It is not supposed to be the role of the media to perpetuate a hoax played upon the world by our government.” Your “Editors note” helps perpetuate the hoax rather than setting the record straight.
How evil the Iraqi regime was for showing US POW’s on camera, in violation of Geneva conventions. Shameful.
I found the Jessica Lynch rescue the most disgusting PsyOps of the invasion of Iraq.
But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.
When footage of the rescue was released, General Vincent Brooks, US spokesman in Doha, said: “Some brave souls put their lives on the line to make this happen, loyal to a creed that they know that they’ll never leave a fallen comrade.”
The American strategy was to ensure the right television footage by using embedded reporters and images from their own cameras, editing the film themselves.
The Pentagon had been influenced by Hollywood producers of reality TV and action movies; notably the man behind Black Hawk Down, Jerry Bruckheimer.
Jessica Lynch condemns Pentagon
Jessica Lynch website
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
“But as the ambulance, with Private Lynch inside, approached a checkpoint American troops opened fire, forcing it to flee back to the hospital. The Americans had almost killed their prize catch.”
The American troops at a checkpoint open fire on a vehicle transporting a rescued hostage….
Hmmm… sound familiar? Luckily for its occupants, however (and oddly enough, really), that time the ambulance driver was quick-witted enough – and was allowed enough time (!) – to turn around and get out of there. But wouldn’t that have been suspicious behavior in itself? Fleeing a checkpoint?
I guess the problem with Giuliana Sgrena’s rescue was that no one was thinking of filming it for posterity and/or propaganda.
What are the newspapers saying about the Sgrena story?
Is there any way the Italian investigators can force the release of the car for their observation, through a lawsuit or something?
Recent Sgrena links
Than I’m deeply embarassed for the intelligence of “the world”. The scene from the toppling statue was so blatently staged – did no one question the lack of different camera angles or that the media played that footage over and over ad nauseum? (Much like the Iraqis dancing in the street – there were probably a total of ten “jubilant” Iraqis, who appeared to be celebrating on cue.)
Just wondering why this is a newly reported issue. In spite of all the evidence of WH propaganda – some of which stretches all legal boundaries (Armstrong Williams, et. al) this incident seems to be old news that failed to get any traction. People believe what they want to believe, and when it comes to allegations concerning their beloved president, they likely don’t care to know the truth. (But I’d be interested to read your LTE)
“The rest of the square was almost empty, and when we inquired as to where the crowd came from, it was from Saddam City (a poor neighborhood some distance away).”
I had read a different version, with pictures: “The pro-American Iraqis involved were members of Ahmed Chalabi’s Free Iraqi Forces Militia… recently flown into Iraq by the Pentagon.”
In any case, they were NOT spontaneously uprising neighborhood Iraqis.
I saw that too, but it was on the internet, not the mainstream media.
You’re right.
Of course, we could NEVER expect the mainstream media to publish something as damning as that.
The problem is, even if they did, people wouldn’t pay attention anyway. What counts in these things is the first impact, the first impression — who gets there first with the biggest, loudest scoop. Little does it matter if it’s true. The more spectacular and widely spread it is, the better.
It’s like when someone is slandered in the headlines and a big scandal ensues. If the slanderous statements are later withdrawn, and even if an apology is made, the news ends up buried in a tiny little bit in the middle of the papers where it won’t even be noticed. And even if it is, what remains impressed in people’s minds is the scandalous initial attack, which automatically becomes the truth, even for the future.
That’s how the Repugs operate in general, and that’s why they’ve been so successful.
I saw that as well, and as I recall, some of them were even identifiede. I was merely quoting the newspaper in this case. Remember, this was a news report from the scene. One of the “demonstrators” was probably asked where he was from and answered “Sadr City.” I don’t see a real conflict of facts here.
What a hoax! and the hoax has now become an historical ‘fact.’
I will preface this by saying that all actions taking during wartime are tainted if the underlying reason for war is illegitimate. Conversely, many actions that are of dubious morality are mitigated if the underlying reason for war is survival or to defeat a terrible enemy.
I am not a moral absolutist.
Psychological operations are a legitimate tool in the armed force’s box.
The statue toppling was a successful operation at the time. It had an effect on public opinion in Iraq and throughout the region, and that effect was largely beneficial to US interests.
I believe the capture of Saddam Hussein actually occurred one or two days before the raid that ostensibly captured him. If true, that was also an effective operation.
There is a built in problem with psy-ops though. You can fool the enemy if you can’t fool the American people. And that is why it is critical that the war’s aims are absolutely necessary for the country’s survival.
In a war of choice, where we can always pick up our ball and go home, these type of psy-ops have the effect of artificially maintaining support for the war by misrepresenting how well it is going.
This is a metaphor for the whole Iraq war.
We want the enemy (the insurgency, if you will) to think we are confident, that we are winning, that the American people support what our troops are doing. The cannot defeat us on the battlefield, but only by turning the American people against the war.
Therefore, it is just as critical to maintain support at home as it is to find the IED makers, and car bombers.
For a news organization to knowingly report facts they know to be untrue, or to be badly distorted, might make sense if defeat meant an end to our freedoms, and the imposition of National Socialist or Bolshevik principles of governance. But that is not the case here.
Once again, it is the lack of moral necessity for this war that makes all psy-ops dubious, and insofar as the media agrees to play along, they are bucking up public opinion over a war that needs to be debated…precisely because it CAN be debated.
My initial response to this was to set out to write another sarcastic riposte, something like “Oh, so your point is…what? Iraqis were actually sad to lose their beloved Saddam, and so were you?” But I’d hate to get downrated again.
Really, though, what is the point of this and similar postings, that come up like clockwork on Kos and are getting more and more numerous here as well? Is it, as it appears, just a kind of mindless churlishness, since the day Baghdad was liberated was an awkward memory for the antiwar crowd? Surely this does not represent an actual belief that Iraqis were better off under Saddam’s rule?!? I’d suggest a little introspection about what motivates these petulant outbursts. It certainly isn’t ever going to be effective at preaching to anyone but your own choir.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I’ll take a shot at this:
The point of the diary is that the toppling of the statue was a staged event.
Why is that relevant?
It’s most relevant because it indicates that other events may be staged. It puts a chink in the tin-foil resistance spray too many people self-apply.
Now, as for Saddam. Everyday life is now worse for a significant portion of Iraqis than it was under Saddam. First of all, tens of thousands of people are dead, that were alive under Saddam.
Most of them would consider that a downgrade.
Most women in Baghdad are much worse off, jobless, harassed, scared to leave the house.
Christians are worse off, liquor store owners are worse off. Ba’athists are worse off (mostly a good thing). Anyone who like electricity and water is worse off.
Of course, many people are better off. And things may improve in the future. But right now, things are not going well, and yet the US papers are reporting phony news to make it appear that things are better than they are.
Now, how this message sells with Joe Public is another issue.
you making an utilitarian argument?
I am not a fan of those.
Right now, today, I’d say more people are worse off in Iraq, and certainly in the world.
Of course, it would not be fair to judge by today alone. Ten years from now if might be that people are much better off. We can only hope.
I guess I am a fan of utilitarian arguments. And I disagree with you that more people are worse off right now (at least, as a result of the war). I do agree wholeheartedly with your last paragraph, though.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
that the Iraqis are any less grateful than you would be if your town were liberated by say, Iranian gunmen, torturers and sexual predators.
I think this “primary source” (once again, coverage from CNN the day the statue was toppled–this time, it’s Larry King talking to journalists who witnessed the event) presents a pretty good picture, and certainly not the one-sided one everyone here seems to remember the media presenting. Emphases mine:
Alan
Maverick Leftist
to those who might have feared that the popularity of Manifest Destiny was fading at CNN.
You’ve not been noted for excessive brevity in past posts. Are you afraid you can’t actually back up that snark? ‘Cause frankly, I don’t think you can–it just doesn’t match up with what I quoted.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
make my points for me better than I can, complete with CNN snips to illustrate for anyone who didn’t get it, It is my privilege and my joy to lay the hammer down and enjoy the luxury of brevity.
in my view, the piece demonstrates just the opposite. So perhaps you’d be so kind as to actually, you know, make your frickin’ argument instead of playing these disingenuous games. Just a thought.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Slacker, just because they provided a modicum of balance that day, doesn’t mean they should continue to ignore that it was staged today. Does it?
I took the argument as being a critique of what the media did at the time (and I won’t deny there was some embarrassing jingoism–even apart from Fox News, which is “All Jingoism All the Time”–but I don’t think it was as complete a wipeout as many maintain). But I see your point, that perhaps the critique is more of the revisionist history being presented now. And since I haven’t watched any television news since the week Bush was elected, I can’t speak to that.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
Well, the media didn’t know it was staged at the time. They may have got caught up in the moment. I know I did. I was relieved to see Iraqis slapping Saddam’s mug with their shoes.
But the critique is clearly related to continued references to that event that do not mention that the whole event was staged, even by newspapers that have reported that fact in the past.
You seem talented …
probably of more than average intelligence, although someone who does not adhere to international treaties, international conventions on treatment of prisoners, International Law and UN treaties.
Take no responsibility for the loss of life and severe wounded US soldiers returning home. The loss of 30,000 innocent Iraqi lives, the devastatingly poor judgement on the aftermath of an illegal and immoral invasion of another country that posed no imminent threat to the US, nor was involved in the Al Qaeda terror movement.
Come repeatedly with denigrading observations of persons writing diaries at Booman Tribune:
But I’d hate to get downrated again.
As I do not want to spend my time in useless and meaningless discussions with a war monger, I suggest you leave me to my opinion and not try to hijack another diary of mine.
Seem you do know what is coming for those remarks, I’m glad to oblige.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
“Probably of more than average intelligence,” eh? Right–the classic “damn with faint praise” ploy. Sure, okay, whatevah. But your claim that I do not adhere to (or “believe in adhering to” is I suppose what you were trying to say) international conventions on treatment of prisoners–that is a damned lie. I condemned Abu Ghraib and other human rights abuses as loudly as anyone, as I said I would all along. Neither did I ever claim Iraq was a threat to the U.S. or that it was involved with Al Qaeda. In fact, unlike most proponents of the war, I never posited any direct benefit to Americans other than pride in having been able to rid the world of a dictatorship.
You’re claiming ownership of this diary now? LOL
Mighty petty and petulant of you. Anyone who looked at my ratings would note that I don’t descend to that level, not even in retaliation.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
What an ignorant post. Sorry, but I call them as I see them.
This has nothing to do with Saddam or the Iraqis. It is about a government propaganda machine that prospers because the media marches in lock-step to their every whim. Even when they occasionally do their jobs, as the LA Times and Seattle Intelligencer did on this story once each, they then put the blinders back on and repeat the government lies that they had earlier exposed.
I’ll bet you have a grand old time bashing the “liberal” media except when they parrot the government (which is most of the time).
I’ve only voted for one Republican in my life, and that was the guy running against the Democratic sheriff against whom I led a march protesting his department’s extreme brutality (leading to weeks of hospitalisation) against a black man who called them.
Check out the “Maverick Leftist” link in my sig for more info, or look at my interview in the Washington Post (I’m the “avowed leftist”, Alan Thomas). I’m sure we’ll still have plenty to disagree about, but it would be helpful if you didn’t start from the assumption that I’m a frickin’ Republican! (Blech.)
Alan
Maverick Leftist
You just had to get in one last plug for that interview before the week was over. š
But seriously, I know it can be annoying, and I apologise. When I feel like everyone knows my place in the political food chain or whatever, I don’t mention it for months at a time. But when I get assumed to be a Republican I’ve got to fight back with everything I’ve got! <g>
Alan
Maverick Leftist
No need to apologize. I was a bit surprised at how quickly you were labeled – but I also view your position on the war as highly atypical for a Dem – well, except for you and Lieberman. (And no matter what that frickin’ article would lead one to believe. š Given your previous comments about blowing your privacy cover, it made me laugh when you referenced the interview once again. I pictured you sitting at your computer, pumping your fist and howling “Woo hoo!! What a great opportunity to link to the interview!!”
Some time ago I asked your position on the war, and once you stated your views I chose not to pursue the discussion. I knew it was pointless, because we both feel so strongly in our views. (I personally don’t subscribe to conversion, nor do I have the energy to engage in arguments on the subject – unless I’m really in the mood or amped up on caffiene.) But hey -as much as I’ve defended you (to some extent) some of your snark has been unnecessarily abrasive. And I think you missed the mark in your attack of this diary and subsequent posts. (Since it was focused on propaganda and not the war.) So my comment above was also a lame attempt to lighten things up.
Just FTR, I can’t stand the guy, regardless of his position on the war. He is a Sharonite on Israel, a captive of the pharmaceutical lobby, and way too conservative on issues like trade and regulation of big business.
And while this is admittedly petty, I hate the way he talks (the tone of his voice and the stupid things he says like “Joementum”), and for that matter his weird skeletal facial features are hard to look at.
Alan
Maverick Leftist
I was just about to send my reply assuring you that I’m well aware you can’t stand Bush. And at the last second I noticed you were talking about Lieberman. The title of your comment should have tipped me off.(Your descriptions aligned with Bush, but you caught my attention with the word “conservative” since Bush conserves nothing.)
Speaking of Bush, I know quite a few Republicans who can’t stand him, but they felt compelled to vote for him because they couldn’t change horses mid stream during a war. (A preemptive, illegal, profiteering, immoral occupation resulting in immeasurable destruction, tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths, and the loss of relationships with long-time allies. Sorry – couldn’t stop my fingers from typing that)
Baghdad has never known freedom.
It went from
the Saddam Hussein regime
to chaos and looting
to fortifications from the Iraqi dissidents.
http://tinyurl.com/4tvt2
You referred to “a small paltry crowd of 100 or so”, implying that the media at the time made it seem as though the crowd was much larger. But this is from CNN live coverage on the day the statue was toppled:
Alan
Maverick Leftist
But the Corporal’s comments would be meaningless to those who feel he’s part of the propaganda machine.
Well, according to BBC there were fewer than 100 people in the square and many of those were journalists. The Reuters photos would appear to show a lot less than 100 Iraqis. Did CNN mention the tanks or the organized nature of the demonstration? Any journalist who was present in Firdos Square or who was watching from the Palestine Hotel had to know that this event was staged. Yet none of the American media reported it that way. By the end of the day that small crowd of Iraqis had morphed into a spontaneous crowd of several hundred, and most of the media still reports it that way.
Challabi’s associates and other Iraqi ex-patriots were recognized in the crowd.
This is one of the four turning points in Iraq.
From my Kos diary:
-The fall of Baghdad when Saddam’s statue is toppled in a town square by an American tank surrounded by a small crew of returned Iraqi exiles.
-The capture of Saddam Hussein expressed by images of the medical examination of Saddam in fine detail.
-Bremer hands documents of “Sovereignty” to Allawi.
-Election Day Happy Iraqis showing their purple fingers.
All of these images were managed and all were an effort to show that American leaders had kept their promises.
The American leaders have not fooled the Iraqis, as you will learn from this article; there were 50 deaths on election day, but none before cameras.
Mark Danner makes sure that we won’t let them fool us either.
Check out Mark Danner’s article:
http://tinyurl.com/4tvt2