A few months ago the blog Moon of Alabama posted a genuine-looking news article where a Pentagon spokesman admitted to having financed ESAG's anti-terror ad campaign in Europe. The intention, said "Pentagon", was "to get us at least one division of European troops into Iraq", which "could save us a billion a month". I've followed ESAG's campaign since the beginning, and know this to be preposterous - both that ESAG would be funded by the Pentagon, and that the Pentagon would boast of it.

I confronted the blogger and asked if this was a fake article. He replied that it was. Moon of Alabama is not a satirical website, and nothing about the article gave it away as fake. But when I asked him to mark it as fake so people would not accidentally be fooled by it, the blogger refused with a lame fake but accurate-defense. And besides, if some people did believe in it, that would be a good thing.

So the story's been sitting there ever since, waiting for someone to fall for it. That happened early this month, when it began showing up in Norwegian left-wing circles.

First - I don't buy the popular belief that people on the "other side" don't care about the truth, that when somebody disagrees with you they must have perverse motives for doing so: Money, power, or pure sheer hatred for all things good. It's a sad fact that most people actually believe the dumb things they say. But then there are those who lie deliberately, because it serves their purpose.

How else can we describe the following comments by the blogger behind Moon of Alabama:

The posting is only one quarter fake. ESAG is existing. I did see the TV spots several times myself. That`s why I started researching.

- the TV spots are runnning as are the newspaper adds.
- ESAG has a website but does not name any money source
- VALE International is running the campaign
- Mr. Vale will not say who pays or this multi million $ campaign.
These are facts!

- The "officials" and their cites are made up by me.

Now who is paying multimillion $ to scare Europeans on terror?

..

1. most likely the US government is paying this campaign and I am not aware of any other organisation that
1a. had officially annonced a program of strategic disinformation
1b. could have any interest in spending millions on such a thing

..

I deny any "moral" responsibility to mark what I write to your satisfaction.

If people are mislead by this it's fine with me. Maybe they will ask their government who pays for these aids. That should be helpful to find out who has the moral responsibility for the disinformation terror campaign.

Since Pentagon, in Bernhard's view, could have financed this campaign, it's okay to make up evidence that it has. He doesn't fool his own readers, who know that the reference to a source called RBN marks the entry as fake, but he knows that others may stumble across it and be fooled. And he doesn't care. As commenter CluelessJoe puts it:

Well, anything that can convince people the current US admin at large is a bunch of traitorous scheming scumbags bent on world domination is fine with me. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it helps to bring them down by any means necessary.

Hooray for the good guys. They'll be glad to know that it worked. On March 2, the story was reprinted by Hans Olav Fekjær on a Norwegian anti-NATO mailing list. From there, it made it to indymedia.no, and was then repeated by the Norwegian blogger Norvegia, who went on to spread it in the comment section on Dagbladet's blog.

I quickly replied on Indymedia and Dagbladet, pointing out that this was a deliberate fake story. I also sent a mail about it to Norvegia, (who curiously doesn't allow open comments in his blog). That was a week ago. Norvegia never replied to my mail, and never corrected his story, where he still claims that ESAG is financed by the US government. He did, however, reply to me on indymedia:

Bjørn Stærk is of course entirely right; it is probably no more than 99.9% likely that the DoD (the Pentagon) is behind the financing of ESAG.

So again: fake but accurate. Like Bernhard at Moon of Alabama, Norvegia believes that his own unproven suspicions justify making up an entire news story. Even worse: Moon of Alabama's regular readers know the story is fake, but readers of Norvegia do not.

Again, I'm not posting this to whine about those evil lying leftists who oppress us all. There's nothing leftist about dishonesty. I'd just like to point out, for the record, that the blogger behind Norvegia is a liar, who deliberately employs falsehoods to further his political cause. The currency in the blogosphere is trust. Don't trust this guy.

I'm with you 100%. This one has the potential of growing into an urban legend (or "truth") in leftist circles if it hasn't already. The guy (both actually) should write a new entry and clearly state that the claim was 100% false. If he wants to argue that the Pentagon is likely to be behind ESAG, he is of course free to do that, but at least be honest.

Irresponsible behaviour. I think it is interesting that they are taking the old tenet "only propaganda can counter propaganda" so literally.

Good on you for pointing this out Bjorn. Hopefully anyone who happens across this fraud will read the comments.

That blog seems to consist of a linguistically and logically illiterate cretin being cheered on by his peers.

Bjørn,
I actually did change the ESAG piece in norvegia. As you can see, after being notified by you, there is now a question mark following the suggestion that Pentagon is behind the fearmonger newspaper & TV ads.

One good source for finding out more about Pentagon's [highly likely] sponsorship of ESAG is Sourcewatch.org, a MediaWiki based "Media & Democracy" project:

http://sourcewatch.org/?title=European_Security_Advocacy_Group
http://sourcewatch.org/?title=Talk:European_Security_Advocacy_Group
http://sourcewatch.org/?title=Front_groups

And, if fluent in various Western European languages, you can also check out some of the sites that link to www.esag.info :

http://www.google.com/search?q=link%3Awww.esag.info

And Bjørn, you've even met this fearmonger front group front person face to face at the airport, surely you could help shed some more light on the issue of who they're a front for? Or do you simply regard them as "good", for furthering your us/israeli agenda of "rule by fear" politics?

norvegia: Being one of Bjørns best friends, I'll respond before he does. I know very, very well, and I believe he tells me everything he knows about this subject.

If my memory serves me right, Bjørn met Mr. Vale before the ruckus about the ads really started. He is not a front for anything. Furthermore, Bjørn is not an easily fooled person - as you can perceive by the articles in this blog. I don't believe that he has been 'fooled' into supporting Vale and his fellows.

In short, there is no conspiracy. They're not a front for anybody - but due to the people involved not necessarily wanting a lot of media attention - they choose not to reveal their names.

Oh, by the way, who are you a front for? I mean, it seems you want to focus on all the bad sides of the US. Are you a front for North Korea? ;) Are you a left-over front for the Old Soviet Republic? Or are you quite simply yourself?

.. now consider how idiotic that sounded. Now think about how idiotic it sounds when people scream about ESAG having to be a front for someone.

My problem with the Norvegia blog entry is that it simply is misleading. A question mark? If you can't do better than that, it is obvious that you want people to believe a source that you know for a fact is false. That's dishonest, and you know what the honest thing to do is.

Speculate all you want, but be clear about what is fact and what is speculation. And be the first to correct it and inform when you make a mistake of this magnitude.

Rune,
ya, I agree that your claims of norvegia being a front for North Korea or the CCCP sound utterly idiotic, but when making such a comparison, you need to remember that norvegia doesn't require a budget of several hundred million US dollars.

That's what we're talking about when it comes to the European Security Advocacy Group's expensive and US-centric fearmongering in TV ads, newspaper ads in ten different European countries.

Maybe you need to read up on the nature of Front Groups. From the link above, it says: "A front group is an organization that purports to represent one agenda while in reality it serves some other party or interest whose sponsorship is hidden or rarely mentioned."

Anyway, I think this whole thing raises an interesting debate about political advertising, a debate that is especially hot in Norway at the time, because politicians are now chickening out and will likely allow the political parties and their known or anonymous sponsors to run TV ad campaigns in this Autumn's Norwegian general election.

That will be the end of intelligent Norwegian politics, if indeed there ever was such a thing... :-)

Norvegia: I actually did change the ESAG piece in norvegia. As you can see, after being notified by you, there is now a question mark following the suggestion that Pentagon is behind the fearmonger newspaper & TV ads.

That's the most ridiculous excuse I've heard. You're still quoting - in its entirety - the self-described fake news article from Moon of Alabama. You don't mention that you know that it is fake. All you've done is add a question mark in the header.

Here's part of what your blog still claims, without any updates or corrections:

Of course the Bush administration is behind it. A spokesperson for the Bush administration says that the purpose is to influence opinion in Europe so that Europeans will send another division of soldiers to Iraq. He believes (dreams) that the expenses to the media campaign can be more than outweighed by this - and save the Americans for at least one billion dollars a month.

This is false. You know it is false. It was made up by Moon of Alabama. You know that too. Are you going to correct it or not?

And Bjørn, you've even met this fearmonger front group front person face to face at the airport, surely you could help shed some more light on the issue of who they're a front for?

Yeah, I met Norman Vale last year. Rune-Kristian is mistaken, I got to know him through the articles I wrote about the reception of the ESAG campaign in Norway, not before. I respect what he does, and he respects what I do. Meeting with him confirmed my impression of a man with a long career who now pulls on his network of contacts for idealistic reasons. Someone who was on Manhattan on 9/11, and was compelled by that to use his resources in a way he thought was important. Also, incidentally, very much not a Bush supporter. None of which I find hard to believe is possible, and all of which I judge that he was telling the truth about.

I will add one thing I haven't written about before. You question that ESAG is supposedly "advised by a diverse group of communications professionals and academics from six countries". I know this group exists, because I was asked to join it. I declined, in order to maintain my neutrality. But the advisory council exists, it is made up of Europeans, and it meets regularly to discuss these campaigns.

Also, I note that none of the sites you link to say a word about the US government. (In fact your "front groups" article explicitly says that ESAG is not a front, for whatever that is worth.)

But this is a sidetrack. Your suspicions about ESAG are worth discussing, because they're honest. If you'd written an entry made up of those suspicions, I wouldn't have protested. But you wrote an entry based on a lie, and when notified refused to correct that lie. Do you not see the hypocrisy of using a lie to prove that ESAG is dishonest?

Or is it just that you are too proud to admit publicly that you've made a mistake? If so, get used to it - anyone can get tricked by something like this, that's why I implored Moon of Alabama to mark their entry as fake. And when you do make a mistake, the only smart thing to do is to admit it. "Oops, I goofed up." The longer you wait, the worse it will look when you finally stop pretending.

Bjørn,
what you just quoted there is one man's opinion, namely the judgement of New NATO skeptic Hans Olav Fekjær.

Surely you don't seriously think that I should twist the words of another person, Hans Olav, to make him sound more leaning towards your naive views of who paid millions of dollars for those ads?

It is still the most likely explanation that the ESAG campaign has a .mil sponsor, in my opinion a 99.9 % probability, so I don't see why I should "correct" the quoted words of other people, now that I've even changed the headline in light of the information you've provided.

(In fact your "front groups" article explicitly says that ESAG is not a front, for whatever that is worth.):

This is just plain wrong, and proves that even you don't care to check all the facts very accurately.

Norvegia: what you just quoted there is one man's opinion, namely the judgement of New NATO skeptic Hans Olav Fekjær.

Yes, and you quote both it and Moon of Alabama's fake news article without informing your readers that you know for a fact that the entire article is a fake. If you find yourself wondering how it is possible to correct this without "twisting the words" of Fekjær, I'll be happy to assist. You could, for instance, add a sentence at the top, clearly marked as your own words, something like "Update: It has come to my attention that the Moon of Alabama story is a fake. I still think Pentagon could be behind this, though." Do you want more suggestions? I can think of many ways to correct a false blog story. But I suspect it's the willingness that is lacking here.

"(In fact your "front groups" article explicitly says that ESAG is not a front, for whatever that is worth.)"

This is just plain wrong, and proves that even you don't care to check all the facts very accurately.

You're right - I misread. Oops! As for "even you", this is not about making mistakes, because everyone makes them. It's about correcting them.

Yes, and welcome to the macabre American style of humor! Love us or love us! Try, if you must, to figure out the overall appeal of Howard Stern.

Check out my blog. Any constuctive criticism will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Tom Proebsting

Well done Bjorn.

I do find it very interesting that you appear have goaded (if that is the right word) two bloggers into arguing that fake but useful information is morally equivalent to the truth because it accomplishes a desired political end. One would think that Dan Rather’s ignominious exit from journalism would have flashed across the memory banks before making that kind of argument, but I guess not.

BTW I knew you could be prickly but you are really breaking new ground with this full contact blogging style.

Please let me put another 9 behind norvegia's 99.9%:

Todays New York Times has this extensive piece:
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

And thanks to Bjørn for hyping my blog.

Bernhard: Please let me put another 9 behind norvegia's 99.9%:

You have curious concept of propabilities. (Why 99.99%, and not 99.98% or 99.995% or 0.1%? What's the margin of error?) None of this is relevant, of course. Your blog, like Norvegia, deliberately spreads falsehoods to further a political agenda. That's even worse than the columnists you're referring to.

And thanks to Bjørn for hyping my blog.

No problem, if that's the kind of hype you're interested in.

I can't believe that any US military organisation sponsors anything with such low quality. ESAG-ads makes the norwegian DJuice commercials look good. I would like to see some number on the effect of the commercials compared to price. I suspect it would make most professional marketing people laugh. On the other hand, the DJuice-commercials have been awarded by the industry...

But a fake is a fake. It shouldn't be used in an argument, with or without question mark.

I participated in a lot of discussions during the EU referendum in 1994. People quoted the most preosterous facts that I later discovered was wrong when investigating the source. When something is repeated again and again, it is impossible to convince people that it is wrong. Proof and facts isn't enough.

A question to Bjørn... You would probably be sceptical to anonymous sources in a news story. Wouldn't it be sensible to be even more sceptical to a message in an ad campaign paid by unknown contributors?

So lets play ping pong. Here is my blog piece to this one.

I didn´t had time yet to contact the Senior Administration Official cited in the earlier RBN piece but I am sure he would have something serious to say about Bjørn's claim that I did lie.

I think the ESAG ads are mostly nonsense and a waste of money. They completely fail to discuss anything about the ideological background for the attacks of 9/11 or Madrid.

What is the core of this discussion? A satirical piece appears in a blog and Bjorn objected to it. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with the style and the humor at the blog in question, perhaps there is a linguistic aspect to the way that humor does not always travel or translate very well. Perhaps it is a cultural thing for oddly enough the issue appears to have only raised hackles among Scandinavian readers. Indeed, some considerable time has elapsed since the piece was originally posted and now the issue is resurrected. Remarkably it resurfaces not in the U.S. media but in Scandinavia once more. That one satirical posting failed to arouse anger or generate confusion in the U.S.A. is unsurprising but to see it provoke a mini furore, not once but twice, in Scandinavia is very noteworthy.

And what lay at the heart of the original satirical post? Its inference was that the U.S. administration was possibly behind the manufacture of alarmist commercials in Europe designed to frighten Europeans into embracing a more pro-American approach to the difficulties faced by states the whole world over. Is such an inference wicked, incredible, irresponsible? If we look at the endless stream of polls, surveys and risible news items emanating from media in Iraq, media funded by the U.S. Department of Defense and under the control of Harris Inc. in Florida, and if we assess the figures claimed in such polls and surveys we find them, in almost 100% of cases, to be hopelessly out of step with actual Iraqi opinion as demonstrated by facts on the ground. Clearly then, grounds exist for speculating that the U.S. administration DOES attempt to manipulate perceptions of reality in other parts of the world.

And, as has been noted, it is not only in other parts of the world that the U.S. administation does this......

A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history".

The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration.

Contrast the manipulated 'news' item presented to the American public with the reality, as reported on only last week by the men and women who actually work in the U.S. aviation sector....

U.S. pilots, senators criticize air and rail security.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A pilot group gave the U.S. government failing grades on Thursday on measures from screening airport employees to defending planes from missiles, despite large amounts of money spent after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Coalition of Airline Pilots Association gave "F" grades to the government in screening employees and cargo, high-tech credentialing of crew members, self-defense training for crew and the plan for countering shoulder-fired missiles.

"This is not a very pretty report card and the American public should be very concerned," said Jon Safley, president of the trade group. "Our government has yet to fill gaps we as pilots see as we continue to fly the American public day in and day out.....

The Iraq experience and the lengthy New York Times article suggest that there is nothing dishonest in suggesting that the U.S. administration funds what can only be described as media propaganda operations to the tune of millions upon millions of U.S. dollars. It does this both in America and abroad. The 'news' items generated are inaccurate and dishonest and represent a deliberate attempt to deceive and to manipulate public opinion, both in the U.S.A. and around the world.

This is the core of the issue. Creating a 'false fight' based around a satirical blog piece is to miss the point completely that very real and infinitely more dangerous attempts are being made to misinform, misrepresent and manipulate public perceptions and emotions by the U.S. administration. These attempts are being made in the U.S. and abroad. We are all aware of politics and the by now routine practice of 'spinning' stories to influence opinion. If we fail to become aware that the creation of false fronts, false news organisations, fake or questionably controlled blogs and lobby groups that are nothing but the creation of political parties are means that are used directly and indirectly by the U.S. administration to elicit a Pavlovian response to its every utterance we are very foolish indeed. The propaganda war being waged by the U.S. administration has a multi-million, perhaps billions of dollars budget. Surely it is perfectly legitimate, in these circumstances, to question what ESAG is, who funds it, who is behind it and why? Many people are very aware of the value of real truth as opposed to manufactured manipulation. Fewer, unfortunately, are able to tell the difference given the massive amounts of money being pumped into false media of various kinds.

To criticize one satirical post and ignore the dishonesty that surrounds news management as practised by the U.S. administration, at home and abroad, is less of a crusade for truth than it is a reckless disregard for realities.

"The Iraq experience and the lengthy New York Times article suggest that there is nothing dishonest in suggesting that the U.S. administration funds what can only be described as media propaganda operations to the tune of millions upon millions of U.S. dollars."

Unfortunately, Jeffers, that is not the issue; if someone claimed the US government was funding disinformation, that would be fine. If someone, say the New York Times, outlined actual events of this occuring, then more power to them-- I hope they get a Pulitzer.

What is at issue here is bloggers making knowingly unsubstantiated claims about the independance of an organisation- flat out lying their asses off, to put it plainly- and then admitting their lie, but refusing to correct it by claiming to speak for a "larger truth". A line is cross when an explicit attack is made on a clearly defined target and dressed up to look like a news release.

Exactly. Bernhard can speculate and point fingers all he wants, but making up news is crossing the line. Whatever the humorous intention was, the author of it has the responsibility for clearing things up.

Now, the only honest thing to do for the people who have made reference to the fake article (Norvegia and others), is to notify their readers about it. Just make it clear that it was false, this shouldn't be a big deal unless your ego is completely out of proportion. No one will look down on you for this. It was an honest mistake.

You can continue to argue your theory, but treat your readers with the respect they deserve. I doubt most blog readers, of whatever political conviction, want to be presented with lies just because the lies reinforces the "right" cause.

So an anonymous "Senior Administration Official" against six anonymous wealthy persons on ESAG. Well maybe, just maybe, we shouldn´t trust secret rich and/or powerful sources at all. They could take the fight if they wanted to but chose not to.

Bjorn,
How do we know at all that ESAG are not lying when we have no idea who they are, exept that they are rich?

Do you only have trouble with "Senior Administration Official" and such anonymous sources when the writer in question admits to something being satire? The only difference between this article and other articles based on anonymous sources being said admittance.

This is the "fake but accurate" meme. When one's world view becomes so constricted that a proven lie is preferable to the truth, then there are bigger problems.

If your viewpoints can only be bolstered by lies, propaganda and twisted truths then what does that say about your underlying beliefs?

How can anyone respond to real world events when they insist on "plastic turkeys", and illuminati type plots supposedly carried out by nefarious Chimpy McBusHitlerHalliburton Rove puppets?

CluelessJoe-
"Well, anything that can convince people the current US admin at large is a bunch of traitorous scheming scumbags bent on world domination is fine with me. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, as long as it helps to bring them down by any means necessary. "

And there's the kicker. What if it isn't true? - then what? If such things are not true, then your worldview goes upside down, and you would have to accept that you were mistaken or misinformed. Apparently that admission is unacceptable.

Bernhard, quoting the NYT-
"Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast".

This is contradictory, and quite frankly absolute nonsense. Federal agencies have official spokesmen - and have as long as I can remember- and anyone who thinks that there is some sneaky seamless Rovian insertion into the news has been reading too much Pravda.

Lets say ESAG isn't funded by anyone but European governments. Then apparently they think there may be a problem. But that problem won't be addressed until there is some disasterous event. Even so, I can see Bernhard-types looking for Rovian plots, invisible Mossad agents and everything but the truth.

Simply because it bolsters their world view, true or not.

Bernhard: So lets play ping pong.

Nah, let's not. I'm not very interested in your side of this. Your motives here are strange and questionable, but what really interests me is why Norvegia refuses to correct a story he knows is wrong. Do you approve of that, by the way, of other bloggers reprinting your story as if it were true?

Jeffrey: A satirical piece appears in a blog and Bjorn objected to it. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with the style and the humor at the blog in question, perhaps there is a linguistic aspect to the way that humor does not always travel or translate very well.

Where is the satire in writing something you merely wish is true? At which points in the article Bernhard wrote did you find yourself laughing? But very well, I'll grant that there are differences of opinion on humor. I've been running a satirical blog myself, and some pieces have had people fooled. But I have done what I can to tip off readers with normal intelligence that they're reading satire, and if I discovered that I had given birth to an urban legend I would have done even more. I don't want my satire to trick people into believing what I do.

Indeed, some considerable time has elapsed since the piece was originally posted and now the issue is resurrected. Remarkably it resurfaces not in the U.S. media but in Scandinavia once more.

There is no reason for this to be a story in the US. ESAG operates in Europe, where it is relatively controversial. The reason I knew of the original story was only that it linked to me as a source of information on ESAG. After leaving a few comments there I decided to ignore it, and only picked this up again when I noticed that the disinformation had begun to spread. Hopefully I've prevented it from spreading further.

Sylvia, Denver writes, inter alia;

Bernhard, quoting the NYT-

"Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast".

This is contradictory, and quite frankly absolute nonsense. Federal agencies have official spokesmen - and have as long as I can remember- and anyone who thinks that there is some sneaky seamless Rovian insertion into the news has been reading too much Pravda.

Sylvia's view seems at odds with the evidence cited in the NYT:

A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history".

The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration.

Obviously some duplicity is at work if the insertion of bogus reporters into bogus 'news' items is considered in any way ethical. Transparent such subterfuge certainly is not.

Bjorn:

It seems to be the case that you originally visited the 'Moon of Alabama' as it had linked to you as a source of information about ESAG. Your 'newness' to the blog and its style, et cetera, obviously did not permit you to understand that the post in question was one of a series of satirical pieces and was understood as such by the readers of the blog. You found what you perceived to be 'a lie' but which was perceived by others to be a further piece of satire. As Epictetus once remarked "The thing that upsets people is not what happens but what they think it means."

As for ESAG, its work should be of interest to Americans for the commercials, however they are funded, clearly originate there and the ‘values’ promoted by the commercials are products of American ignorance rather than European debate and enlightenment. Vale's work is somewhat sloppy and not a little inaccurate, seeking to punch emotional buttons rather that draw upon facts. The commercial about madrassas, for example, stands as complete nonsense in light of a recent study, this report on which was published online on February 26th 2005.

The study finds western media reports highly exaggerated in terms of number of student and total religious schools. The study found that most of the assertions were not based on facts The authors noted "It is troubling that none of the reports and articles reviewed based their analysis on publicly available data or established statistical methodologies." Madrassa enrolment figures cited in the popular press are highly inflated, like the Washington Post estimates claim it tripled from 500,000 to 1.5 million; the International Crisis Group (ICG) in 2002 puts madrassa enrolment between 1 and 1.7 million; the report claimed that this number represents 33 per cent of all Pakistani children enrolled in schools, when in fact it is less than 1 per cent; the 9-11 Commission Report and remarks of the US President George W Bush, President General Pervez Musharraf, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton and others were also similar. To that list of misinformed sources can now be added ESAG. Whatever ESAG is and whoever is behind it the fact remains that it appears to be disseminating ‘off the shelf’ American views on Islam, views that are poorly researched and evidently subject to no independent analysis or critical examination. Seen in this light ESAG is merely another disinformation service and one that promotes ignorance and prejudice rather than understanding. ESAG is certainly not disseminating views or facts that are products of European scholarship, research or evaluation, it is parachuting American (mis)analysis into European media. If ESAG is not an American front then perhaps its alleged European members should be explaining why it is merely a vehicle for recycling American disinformation and propaganda.

Hopefully I've prevented it from spreading further.

Bjørn Stærk | 2005-03-14 06:41.

Alas not so, Bjorn. Using 'ESAG+U.S. government' on Google's search engine now brings up the post you found so troubling at number one.

Can I say that I hope the story is true? After all, anything that helps Europeans appreciate the danger they face, I'm all for.

what really interests me is why Norvegia refuses to correct a story he knows is wrong. Do you approve of that, by the way, of other bloggers reprinting your story as if it were true?

Yes I do.

I hope it will further:

- Discussion on the legitimity of misleading advertising from, most probably, a foreign entity in European countries. (More specific, what are we going to do if the CIA starts (again) to put multimillions in advertisements for right wing parties in Europe?)

- Discussion on the use of anonymous sources like "Senior Administration Officials", "Diplomats", "sources" and the like;

- Critical reading of all news

- To get people to laugh about themselfs because the "have been had" by a satirical piece

So basically anything goes.

Jeffrey: You found what you perceived to be 'a lie' but which was perceived by others to be a further piece of satire.

It was obvious that Bernhard wasn't trying to fool his own readers, so no, I didn't at first perceive it as a deliberate lie, only an unmarked fake. This did not offend me. What offended me was Bernhard's refusal to mark it as fake, and his belief that it would be a good thing if people were tricked by it.

Alas not so, Bjorn. Using 'ESAG+U.S. government' on Google's search engine now brings up the post you found so troubling at number one.

Yes, with text from one of my comments shown in the excerpt.. And where there once were several false blog entries floating around the web, there are now several false blog entries plus a thorough rebuttal. By the way, thanks for adding that search phrase to this entry as well.

I find it surprising that Bernhard supports playing around with truth in this way.

Going from satirical fakes and funny quotes to half-truths that people after several repeatings perceive as facts, is how conservatives in USA has established a hegemony in the public debate.

Competing truths is much more effective method for change than competing lies.

OSLO (RBN)

Norwegian activists and bloggers have set up the new website www.stopfakenews.org to allow for complains about the ever increasing number of so called satirical news stories.

The group fears that such unreal news could be taken outside its intended context and be misunderstood by part of the public as real news.

The effort has the support of a diverse group of communications professionals and academics from six countries.

Diplomats in Washington and Bruessel also welcomed the new site. "In the interest of appropriate discussion of policy everybody has the responsibilty to make sure only properly vetted realities are distributed as news", one diplomat said. Another diplomat offered help to find a government sponsor for the site.

A seasoned advertising manager commented: "It is obvious that Ron McDonalds is about the war on obisity and the promotion of sport activities. This is real news and should be distributed appropriately and without any costs to McDonalds.

"Meanwhile any "news" of assumed motives of politians that are not based on their directly authorized statements is highly suspect and should be treated by the proper authorities as misservice to the public".

A spokesman for "Stop Fake News" did not comment on questions to government relations.

Lets say ESAG isn't funded by anyone but European governments.

In that case I guess it would be really interesting for the european taxpayers that their governments are using their money to distribute anonymous messages. Really interesting.

norvegia --

--"Media & Democracy" project--

Have you followed the money trail?

I'd link the US budget - Pentagon area for you, but I don't think anyone could make any sense out of it.

But does ESAG have to publish where it gets their money from?

I will just have to realise I will never really understand the mindset of Bernhard and the people at Norvegia. It's like, when pointing out lies and distortions in Michael Moore's films to his fans, they just shrug and argue there is some deeper truth behind the lies, so it's OK.

True believers of any ideology or religion, in this case socialism, really believe that since the message supports their ideological position, which is unfalsifiable and axiomatically true, then it is by definition "The Truth", even if it is a lie. They don't need evidence, because it is so self-evident in their eyes. Since they don't have evidence, they realise (at least on some level) they need to fabricate some to convince those who are not yet true believers, and reinforce the beliefs of the faithful.

Thus we can read a prime example of Orwellian doublethink in some of the comments above.

Jan Haugland: Are you absolutely sure that Norvegia is socialist? Do you have any proof, whatsoever, of that?

Or are you in fact committing the excact same error as "the socialists" by your stupid assumption?

Regards,
norvegia :-)

Anyone have a tendency to upgrade a story whether it´s true or not, to a piece of fact if it fits their personal set of ideas. That´s of course is if their aspiration is not partly or wholely dedicated to finding the objective fact.

Have we been on the moon, God knows ?

But when something is anonymous and not published it leaves room for speculation, and some find that their speculations atleast ought to border truth, if not completely be so, atleast be about almost 99.99 %, there we go.

But when people assume that ESAG is sponsored by CIA, and some even put some labels as scaremonging campaign on it all.
They do in a way also assume that Europe would not finance such a thing itself, actually that noone at all in Europe would. And actually also Europe would not be able to give the gloomy scaremonging character either, as "CIA" of course beyond any "doubt" must be the only experts in. Of course! That´s just so logic!

So Europe would never do such a thing itself and therefore CIA does it/has to.

It all fit so very nice into the whole idea that Europe lives happily unaware of the threat of terrorism, so actually here is a good story for both sides, both sides in the states that is!

To illuminate, if such a dreadful term does not smell to deep of conspiracy, actually this is not about right or left, since both can actually get theirs from this story.

The leftie + any coloured, or abject to colours, conspiracy sniffer, gets his reality surpasses the thriller or shocker, and if it´s bad the CIA is involved, period!, fix!

The right get affirmed that those sissy, leftish Europeans don´t even think there is a problem with terrorism, they simply don´t understand. And again who is gotta pay the bills ?

Right... But how about this as for scaremonging and as for CIA playing the game ?

In Europe almost immediately after 9/11 new terror laws were imposed, and in the last years several largescale terror attack plots have been foiled by our own intelligence services which suddenly got busy. Is this again CIA and why on earth you forget Mossad ? Anti terror campaign!...CIA!...Mossad!... If you wanna connect the dots do it properly please!

Now so is it really 99.99 % ? Well it´s a secret so speculation is free, that is what it is.

Bernhard wrote:

"- Discussion on the legitimity of misleading advertising from, most probably, a foreign entity in European countries. (More specific, what are we going to do if the CIA starts (again) to put multimillions in advertisements for right wing parties in Europe?)"

My memory might fail me, but there was talk about this at the end of the cold war, I think - was pretty goodlooking and young then. But let me tell you as far as I know KGB was funding "peacemovements", plus of course their communist and socialist friends in Europe, and helping them so many other ways, since the 1950´s. In other words what a bunch of amateurs in the CIA - what took em so long ?. Don´t really think it started to dawn upon them there was a world outside their institutions and Vietnam and the rest of commieland until after 1968 :( Note to American readers - above is sarcasm, thick one )

"- Critical reading of all news

- To get people to laugh about themselfs because the "have been had" by a satirical piece"

Now if people were to become critical readers, they would stop reading your blog so fast if that´s the level you aspire to. Now if you played the game hiding nothing in the sleeve, it would be another story, would not it ? You can be satirical and make people think alternatively, but it works best when people know you are doing it, or atleast at some point get a chance to know something is wrong here. Otherwise they might just go - "OMG - listen! I just heard this about the CIA you know, JUST LISTEN!". And reality supersedes fantasy, "wow, why care about hollywood when life is so ripe with, with, with, you know ?"

Maybe you should hang around here a bit, you might learn something from Bjørn. Not something that keeps you from meaning anything, or flying your political colours, or telling the truth.

Actually about something as, let´s say objective honesty.

Apologies if I have misrepresented your position, norvegian. It is hard to know what you are for just based on what you write against.

Your position on international affairs seems quite Chomskyite, from which it was a not unreasonable conclusion you were a socialist of some kind. And I do note you have not really denied it.

Or are you in fact committing the excact same error as "the socialists" by your stupid assumption?

Not at all, since my characterisation was based on (obviously incomplete) information, and it is subject to change when I receive new evidence. Maybe something to learn from?

Btw, a nice dodge to avoid addressing the real issue.

E.S.A.G. – Who we are and what we do.

No, no! WE’RE the real E.S.A.G.

E.S.A.G. : you'd be surprised at the power we have.

E.S.A.G. mission statement.

Fools! E.S.A.G. is an ARAB organization.

.

E.S.A.G. : Terms of reference.

ESAG : its role in European education.

What ESAG actually does.

There can be nothing more despicable than issuing press statements that render it unclear as to how authentic the statement is, who is really behind it and what the purpose of those issuing it actually is. It is the height of recklessness to put out statements if confusion might arise as a consequence of people mistaking it for that of another source entirely. You wouldn’t catch a team of (with consultancy staff based in or from Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. – eerily identical, if one omits the French born consultant now resident in the U.S.A., to the number of ‘European based personnel’ that E.S.A.G. the possible U.S. front organization claims to have as its core), making such an elementary blunder as to choose an acronym that’s already being used by several other organizations. Clarity, that’s the thing that’s required. The people of Europe deserve transparency and openness – or else how do they know who they’re really dealing with or who is dealing with them?

The jumbled sentence above should read:

You wouldn’t catch a team of world-class marketing and communications professionals.

(with consultancy staff based in or from Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the U.K. etc. etc.

Jan Haugland: Since they don't have evidence, they realise (at least on some level) they need to fabricate some

Hey - were did I fabricate "evidence". There is NO evidence in my story and that is the point.

I did write a satire and did a "publication" in one of some seven million obscure blog of "news" from an unknown "news agency" claiming some anonymous "Senior Admistration Official" said "something".

Blame the schools people attended when they believed such unsourced stuff - don´t blame me. They may also believed Iraq is full of WMD or that Bush wants to spread democracy. Or just say those who copied my piece are amateurs - any professional journalist would have checked that story. One really did. He phoned me up and asked where the story came from. I told him its fake and we had a good laugh.

But then, my fake was obviously too good. Maybe it sounded like a real story like we read in the newspapers every day. "News" from fake agencies like Talon News. "News" citing anonymous "Senior Adminstration Officials". "News" claiming Iran is full of nuclear weapons while it has problems to keep the light blubs glowing.

If people like the smell of shit don´t blame me. I did dump properly.

On socialist - I am a quite capitalistic Chief Technical Officer for a (US subsitiary) European media company. Nothing socialist here - but I am also neither a neoconservative imperialist nor do I think their project has any posive value and therefore I am determined to fight it.

Bernhard, I know satire. That wasn't satire. Your blog is not about satire, it's a leftist moonbat rant platform. You created a fake news report, which you openly stated you hoped would be taken as accurate, which it was by your political allies, not your adversaries.

Yes, Bernhard, "your" fake was "too good". The whole world revolves around you, and aren't you clever. It seems that your focus is on the right place, the manifest magnificance that is yourself, so I won't bother you any longer with silly notions of ethics and good faith.

The real problem here is NOT damn rightists selling off propaganda, EVEN IF THEY DO, The problem is neither leftists shouting out at media control by neocon. groups EVEN IF THEY ARE RIGHT.

The real problem is the failure to correct statements when they are proved to be false, and not make it clear in the first place that stated evidence is a falisfication intendend to prove a point.

In quite a lot of blogs someone would go on ranting about all leftists being unable to tell the truth, even call them psychopaths, and the leftists would reply all rightists are misinformed raving idiots. Apart from this sentence I won't.

The real problem is in fact not politial at all, but rather sadly human. Quite a lot of humanity will only reinforce their statements and views when critisised, and the stronger the critisism, the stronger the reniforcing reply.
It really does take a lot to break out of this downward spiral. It gives your ego a real downer for sure, but it is really quite neccesary for us all to do this, and if you think about it, it is neccesary to do it quite often. (Think of the fights with your brother or sister. Did you win by shouting the same things louder and louder? Did you sometimes know the other was right, but damn if you would give them the satisfaction?)

(...to Norvegia and possibly Bernhard) So, EVEN if it is highly possible that USG forces are paying for the ads, please state CLEARLY that this is speculation, and that the cited article is a satire. You may also add "it is highly possible..."

KEE

http://www.infoguerre.com/article.php?sid=820

Norman Vale was a CIA counter-spying agent in German Democratic Republic, specialized in counter-subversion... As far as i remember he was the "Esag" representative in Europe...

Best regards,
Sensi

Bjørn, it seems the Pentagon is finally admitting their use of expensive ad campaigns to scare foreign populations into submission and a more pro-terrorwar stance.

Maybe even ESAG is a front for the Pentagon?

http://www.propaganda-as.no/php/art.php?id=284025

Torstein Viddal: Maybe even ESAG is a front for the Pentagon?

Anything is possible, but from my own experience with them I doubt it. And do you really find it implausible that they are what they say they are? Strange as it may seem to you, there are many Americans (and Europeans!) who share ESAG's views without being paid by the American government. The view that Islamist terrorism is a real threat to Europe has even become a mainstream view here, it's hard to deny it anymore - what we disagree with the Americans about is mainly Iraq and the way the war on terror is being fought, (none of which I believe ESAG has said anything about).

But I will give you this: With all these propaganda scandals, ESAG should consider dropping its secrecy. The behavior of the US government is making it very difficult to be an organization that tries to change public opinion but does not reveal its donors.

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1549

Stromata Blog: Fake-But-Accurate in Norway, March 17, 2005 04:31 AM

Bjørn Stærk presents a pair of anecdotes that illustrate the virulence and pro-terrorist bias of certain segments of the European Left. The first is “fake but accurate� raised to a more brazen level than even Mary Mapes dared. Several months