U.S. Mustn't Give Media Propaganda

That was the message sent loud and clear to the Bush administration after details began emerging last week about a newly created government agency.

The Office of Strategic Influence, formed shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was designed to be a propaganda agency for the Pentagon in disseminating information about the military overseas.

But according to an article appearing Feb. 19 in The New York Times, the agency also was planning to feed false information to foreign journalists in an effort to throw off U.S. enemies.

After the article appeared, the White House quickly responded, hoping to fend off any speculation that the credibility of the Bush administration might be put into question.

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon would shut down the agency, saying that it "has clearly been so damaged that it is pretty clear to me that it could not function effectively."

When asked if he believed the news reports might have damaged the integrity of the Pentagon, Rumsfeld said: "I doubt it. I hope not. If it has, we'll rebuild it."

But Rumsfeld's declaration might be too little, too late.

The apparent leak about the propaganda office is the latest incident that has raised tension between the U.S. government and journalists during the past few months.

Last week, journalists were forced to report that a deadly U.S. raid on two compounds in Afghanistan had killed supporters of the interim Afghan government and not al-Qaida and Taliban members as was previously reported by the Pentagon.

Now it seems the war on terrorism has become almost a war on knowledge as journalists and politicians battle over just how much information the government should provide on its military strategies.

Those questions resurfaced once again after the tragic death of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl.

Pearl was kidnapped in Pakistan while trying to explore Islamic fundamentalist ties to the infamous "shoe bomber," Richard Reid. The State Department reported Pearl's death on Feb. 21 after receiving a gruesome videotape of the killing.

Many speculated that had the government been more forthcoming with its information about military efforts, journalists like Pearl would not have to put their lives at risk to find the facts for themselves.

But military officials say protecting the security of our defense systems from enemies is crucial. Sending false information about military operations to potential enemies is simply a common military strategy.

They have a point. Covert operations have long been a part of military strategy and are not something that can -- or should -- be changed overnight.

But while it is important to keep certain operations secret, the military shouldn't overlook one important fact:

The growth of technology, especially the Internet, has made it easy to monitor news from across the globe.

So, just as Americans are able to keep track of the foreign press, other groups are able to monitor ours.

And who knows what an enemy group might do should they see that news printed in their newspapers is significantly different than what is printed by U.S. papers.

The government should not try to use the media as a tool to spread obvious lies overseas, no matter how noble their intentions might be.

The strategy might have worked in previous conflicts, but the tables have turned this time around. It is much too easy nowadays to catch mistakes, and the results could be deadly.

Instead, leaders should focus on other ways to distribute information, including dropping leaflets. But stay away from the media.

It that doesn't work, maybe they should take some advice from the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, Victoria Clarke.

"The lesson is what a lot of us have known for a long time, that truth is always the best weapon," Clarke told The Washington Post.

I couldn't have said it any better.

Columnist April Bethea can be reached at adbethea@email.unc.edu.