Editing Media coverage of the Iraq War (section)

==US mainstream media coverage==
The most popular cable network in the United States for news on the war was [[Fox News]], and had begun influencing other media outlets' coverage.<ref name=Rutenberg20030416 /> At the time, Fox News was owned by [[Rupert Murdoch]], a strong supporter of the war.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/Iraq/Story/0,2763,897015,00.html |title=Their master's voice |last=Greenslade |first=Roy |author-link=Roy Greenslade |date=February 17, 2003 |website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> On-screen during all live war coverage by Fox News was a waving flag animation in the upper left corner and the headline "Operation Iraqi Freedom" along the bottom.<ref name="Nieman Reports">{{cite web|url=http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100831/The-Press-and-Public-Misperceptions-About-the-Iraq-War.aspx|title=The Press and Public Misperceptions About the Iraq War|website=[[Nieman Reports]] |last=Kull |first=Steven |author-link=Steven Kull |date=Summer 2004 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611121300/http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/article/100831/The-Press-and-Public-Misperceptions-About-the-Iraq-War.aspx |archive-date=June 11, 2011 |via=[[Internet Archive]]}}</ref> The network has shown the American flag animation in the upper-left corner since the [[September 11 attacks]].<ref name="Nieman Reports" />{{Update inline|date=December 2021}} A study conducted in 2003 by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) tracking the frequencies of pro-war and antiwar commentators on the major networks found that pro-war views were overwhelmingly more frequent.  The FAIR study found that the two networks notably least likely to present critical commentary were Fox and CBS.<ref name="Nieman Reports" />

Anti-war celebrities appearing frequently on news networks included actors [[Janeane Garofalo]],<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/transcript-janeane-garofalo-on-fox-news-sunday|title=Transcript: Janeane Garofalo on Fox News Sunday|website=[[Fox News]]|access-date=January 29, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130616010231/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,79351,00.html|archive-date=June 16, 2013|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Tim Robbins]], [[Mike Farrell]], [[Rob Reiner]], [[Martin Sheen]], [[Susan Sarandon]] and director [[Michael Moore]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2882645.stm|title=Backlash over anti-war celebrities|date=March 25, 2003|website=[[BBC News]] |last=Schifferes |first=Steve}}</ref> In a widely publicized story, the [[country music]] [[musical band|band]] [[Dixie Chicks]] ignited boycotts and [[Gramophone record|record]] burnings in the [[United States|US]] for their negative remarks about President Bush in a concert in [[London]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://edition.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/Music/03/14/dixie.chicks.apology/|title=Dixie Chicks singer apologizes for Bush comment|access-date=June 10, 2007 | website=[[CNN]] | date=March 13, 2003}}</ref>

[[MSNBC]] also brought the American flag back on screen and regularly ran a tribute called "America's Bravest" which showed photographs sent by family members of troops deployed in Iraq.<ref>{{cite news 
| access-date=January 12, 2008
| title=Who won the US media war?
| url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2959833.stm
| website=[[BBC News]]
| date=April 18, 2003
| first=Steve
| last=Schifferes
}}</ref> MSNBC also fired liberal [[Phil Donahue]], a critic of Bush's Iraq policy,<ref>{{cite news
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| title=The marketing plan for war
| url=http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2004118752_war11.html
| date=January 11, 2008
| publisher=[[Seattle Times]]
| first=Jeff
| last=Shannon
| author-link=Jeff Shannon
| url-status=dead
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080118075011/http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/movies/2004118752_war11.html
| archive-date=January 18, 2008
}}</ref> a month before the invasion began and replaced his show with an expanded ''Countdown: Iraq'', initially hosted by [[Lester Holt]].<ref>{{Cite web |title=Phil Donahue Gets the Ax|url=https://www.cbsnews.com/news/phil-donahue-gets-the-ax/ |date=February 11, 2009 |website=[[CBS News]]}}</ref> Shortly after Donahue's firing, MSNBC hired [[Michael Savage (commentator)|Michael Savage]], a controversial conservative radio talk show host for a Saturday afternoon show.<ref>{{cite web
| access-date=January 1, 2008
| url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/07/Columns/MSNBC_shouldn_t_give_.shtml
| title=MSNBC shouldn't give voice to Savage
| date=March 7, 2003
| website=[[St. Petersburg Times]]
| last=Deggans
| first=Eric
| archive-date=August 5, 2007
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070805044449/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/07/Columns/MSNBC_shouldn_t_give_.shtml
| via=[[Internet Archive]]
}}</ref> Although Donahue's show had lower ratings than several shows on other networks, and most reports on its cancellation blamed poor ratings, it was the highest-rated program on MSNBC's struggling prime time lineup at the time of its cancellation.<ref>{{cite web 
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| url=https://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/too-many-liberals/
| title=Too Many Liberals?
| date=October 27, 2005
| website=[[Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting]]
}}</ref> In September 2002, Donahue's show averaged 365,000 viewers, compared to rival [[Connie Chung]]'s 686,000 on [[CNN]] and [[Bill O'Reilly (commentator)|Bill O'Reilly's]] 2 million on Fox News, according to Nielsen Media Research.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2002-09-05-0209050313-story.html|title=Phil Donahue's show not drawing crowds|first=Stephen|last=Battaglio|website=[[The Baltimore Sun]] |date=September 5, 2002}}</ref>

In overall numbers, Fox News was number one, followed by CNN, and then MSNBC.<ref>{{cite web 
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| url=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/guid/5531ccf2-d364-441a-90fa-027ec0955801
| date=March 1, 2003
| title=Fox tops CNN, MSNBC in war TV ratings
| website=[[MarketWatch]]
| last=Friedman
| first=Jon
}}</ref> It was a major success for Fox News, as many had believed CNN would reclaim the top spot, since it established itself with coverage from the 1990-1991 Gulf War.

In separate incidents, at least three different Western reporters were fired or disciplined due to their actions in covering the war. [[Peter Arnett]], an [[NBC]] and [[National Geographic Society|National Geographic]] correspondent, was fired for giving an interview with Iraqi officials in which he questioned the United States' role and saying the "first war plan had failed."<ref>{{cite news 
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| publisher=[[CNN]]
| url=http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/31/sprj.irq.arnett/
| title=Just fired, Peter Arnett hired by British paper
| date=April 1, 2003
}}</ref> [[Brian Walski]] of the ''[[Los Angeles Times]]'' was fired on March 31 for altering a photo of a British soldier warning Iraqi civilians to take cover from an Iraqi aerial bombing.<ref>{{cite news
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| newspaper=[[The Washington Post]]
| url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/essays/vanRiper/030409.htm
| title=Manipulating Truth, Losing Credibility 
| last=Van Riper
| first=Frank
| date=April 9, 2003
}}</ref> [[Geraldo Rivera]] left Iraq after drawing a crude map in the sand during a live broadcast on Fox News, which raised concerns at the Pentagon that he was possibly revealing vital troop movements on air.<ref>{{cite web
| access-date=January 21, 2008
| url=https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/mar/31/Iraqandthemedia.broadcasting1
| title=Rivera gets army boot out of Iraq
| date=March 21, 2003
| website=[[The Guardian]]
| first=Jason
| last=Deans}}</ref>

One study has compared the number of insurgent attacks in Iraq to the number of "anti-resolve" statements in the US media, the release of public opinion polls, and geographic variations in access to international media by Iraqis.  The purpose was to determine if insurgents responded to information on "casualty sensitivity."  The researchers found that insurgent attacks spiked by 5 to 10% after increases in the number of negative reports of the war in the media.  The authors identified this as an "emboldenment effect" and concluded "insurgent groups respond rationally to expected probability of US withdrawal."<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Radha |last1=Iyengar |first2=Jonathan |last2=Monten |title=Is There an "Emboldenment" Effect? Evidence from the Insurgency in Iraq |journal=NBER Working Paper No. 13839 |date=March 2008 |doi=10.3386/w13839 |doi-access=free }}</ref>

===Criticisms of pro-invasion bias===
{{See also|Media bias}}
[[Image:Iraq War Media Sources Opinion Percentage.svg|300px|thumb|A study found that in the lead up to the Iraq War, most sources were overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.]]

A [[University of Maryland, College Park|University of Maryland]] study on American public opinion found that:
*Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, or was directly involved in the [[September 11 attacks]] (48% after invasion).
*Sixty-nine percent believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the [[September 11 attacks]].
*Twenty-two percent believed that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against US soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
*In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these perceptions, in contrast to 71% for [[CBS]] and 27% who tuned to [[NPR]]/[[Public Broadcasting Service|PBS]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |title=Misperceptions, Media, and the Iraq War |access-date=April 11, 2007 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070403153921/http://65.109.167.118/pipa/pdf/oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |archive-date=April 3, 2007 |date=October 3, 2003 |last1=Kull |first1=Steven |author-link1=Steven Kull |last2=Ramsay |first2=Clay |last3=Subias |first3=Stefan |last4=Lewis |first4=Evan |last5=Warf |first5=Philip |publisher=The PIPA/Knowledge Networks Poll}} See also: {{cite web |url=http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc |title=Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War |access-date=October 2, 2006 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061008020042/http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php?nid=&id=&pnt=102&lb=brusc |archive-date=October 8, 2006 |date=October 2, 2003 |website=www.worldpublicopinion.org}}</ref>

In an investigation of the news coverage of Colin Powell's 2003 UN address, rhetorical scholar John Oddo found that mainstream journalists "strengthened Powell's credibility, predisposed audiences to respond favorably to his discourse, and subtly altered his claims to make them seem more certain and warranted."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Oddo |first=John |title=Intertextuality and the 24-Hour News Cycle: A Day in the Rhetorical Life of Colin Powell's U.N. Address |location=[[East Lansing, Michigan]] |publisher=[[Michigan State University Press]] |year=2014 |page=44}}</ref> In 2003, a study of the mainstream media released by [[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] stated the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources and left out many [[anti-war]] sources. According to the study, 64% of guests on the studied networks were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the guests (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with US guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."<ref>{{cite journal |first1=Steve |last1=Rendall |first2=Tara |last2=Broughel|date=May 1, 2003 |title=Amplifying Officials, Squelching Dissent |journal=[[Extra!]]|publisher=[[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] |url=https://fair.org/extra/amplifying-officials-squelching-dissent/}}</ref>

FAIR also conducted a similar study in February 2004. According to the study, which took place during October 2003, current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq which aired on network news channels.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fair.org/extra/if-news-from-iraq-is-bad-its-coming-from-u-s-officials/ |title=If News From Iraq Is Bad, It's Coming From U.S. Officials |publisher=[[Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting]] |first=Jon |last=Whiten |date=February 1, 2004 |access-date=March 28, 2007}}</ref>

After the invasion, the editors of the ''New York Times'' apologized for its coverage of Hussein's alleged weapons programs, acknowledging that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims (related to Iraqi weapons programs) as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge."<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/world/from-the-editors-the-times-and-iraq.html |title=The Times and Iraq |website=The New York Times |date=May 26, 2004 |access-date=April 11, 2007}} See also {{Cite journal |first=Michael |last=Massing |website=[[The New York Review of Books]] |volume=51 |issue=3 |date=February 26, 2004 |title=Now They Tell Us |author-link=Michael Massing |url=https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2004/02/26/now-they-tell-us/}}</ref>

During the invasion, critics argued that the mainstream media unduly focused on optimistic events, such as the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in [[Firdos Square]], which was staged with the help of the US military forces, thus downplaying more negative news developments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://newstandardnews.net/content/?action=show_item&itemid=641|title=Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling |website=The NewStandard |date=July 3, 2004 |last=Elmer |first=Jon}}</ref> In particular, the mainstream media has been criticized for underreporting news about Iraqi civilian casualties, which are estimated to be anywhere between 100,000 and 650,000.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Burnham|first1=Gilbert|last2=Lafta|first2=Riyadh|last3=Doocy|first3=Shannon|last4=Roberts|first4=Les|date=October 2006|title=Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a cross-sectional cluster sample survey|url=https://usiraq.procon.org/sourcefiles/MortalityCrossSectional.pdf|journal=The Lancet|volume=368|issue=9545|pages=1421–1428|doi=10.1016/s0140-6736(06)69491-9|pmid=17055943|s2cid=23673934}}</ref>

As the security situation in Iraq has worsened since the invasion, many journalists have found it increasingly difficult to report from Iraq without jeopardizing their lives. Some media outlets, unable to afford the cost of additional security, have even abandoned their bureaus in Baghdad. This trend has forced journalists to depend even more heavily on US military sources, which has led some critics to call into question the impartiality of their reports on events such as the [[Iraqi elections]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Schell |first=Orville |title=Baghdad: The Besieged Press |date=April 6, 2006 |url=http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2006/0406besieged.htm |agency=[[The New York Review of Books]] |website=[[Global Policy Forum]] |access-date=April 11, 2007}}</ref>

A post-2008 election poll by [[FactCheck.org]] found that 48% of Americans believe Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks; the group concluded that "voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence."<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.html |title=Our Disinformed Electorate |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090208021648/http://www.factcheck.org/specialreports/our_disinformed_electorate.html |archive-date=February 8, 2009 |first1=Kathleen Hall |last1=Jamieson |author-link1=Kathleen Hall Jamieson |first2=Brooks |last2=Jackson |website=[[FactCheck.org]] |date=December 12, 2008}}</ref>

===Use of propaganda===
{{main|Propaganda model}}

[[File:Kofi Annan.jpg|180px|right|thumb|[[Kofi Annan]] and [[Richard Perle]] have said the [[Iraq War]] is illegal,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3661134.stm|title=Iraq war illegal, says Annan|date=September 16, 2004|website=[[BBC News]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/nov/20/usa.iraq1 |title=War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal |first1=Oliver |last1=Burkeman |author-link1=Oliver Burkeman |first2=Julian |last2=Borger |author-link2=Julian Borger |date=20 November 2003|website=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> but this was never mentioned in the US media aside from Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN.]]

Media critics such as [[Noam Chomsky]], have alleged that the media acted as [[propaganda]] for not questioning the [[legality of the Iraq war]] and thus, took on the fundamental assumptions given by the government.<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/xEvIDiVheys Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20100125232436/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEvIDiVheys Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEvIDiVheys |title=Illegal but Legitimate: a Dubious Doctrine for the Times |publisher=[[The University of Edinburgh]] |date=November 18, 2008 |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |author-link=Noam Chomsky |via=YouTube |type=Video}}{{cbignore}}</ref> This is despite overwhelming public opinion in favor of only invading Iraq with UN authorization.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.gallup.com/poll/7195/support-invasion-iraq-remains-contingent-un-approval.aspx |title=Support for Invasion of Iraq Remains Contingent on U.N. Approval |website=[[Gallup (company)|Gallup]] |date=November 12, 2002 |last=Moore |first=David W.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OAg68_PMDwAC&q=65+percent+%22the+U.S.+should+only+invade+Iraq+with+UN+approval+and+the+support+of+its+allies%22 |title=The Foreign Policy Disconnect |page=109 |last1=Benjamin I. |first1=Page |last2=Bouton |first2=Marshall M. |author-link1=Benjamin I. Page |location=[[Chicago]] |publisher=[[The University of Chicago Press]] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-226-64461-5}}</ref>

In a 2010 interview, Chomsky compared media coverage of the [[Afghan War documents leak|Afghan War Diaries]] and lack of media coverage to a study of [[Fallujah during the Iraq War#Health effects|severe health problems in Fallujah]].<ref>Archived at [https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/WHfYtvYRgdk Ghostarchive]{{cbignore}} and the [https://web.archive.org/web/20100830062035/http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk Wayback Machine]{{cbignore}}: {{Cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfYtvYRgdk |title=Chomsky on the WikiLeaks' Coverage in the Press |publisher=Hoop.mov |date=July 29, 2010 |via=[[YouTube]] |last=Chomsky |first=Noam |author-link=Noam Chomsky |type=Video}}{{cbignore}}</ref> While there was ample coverage of the Afghan War Diaries there was no American coverage of the Fallujah study,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5:beyond-hiroshima-the-non-reporting-of-fallujahs-cancer-catastrophe&catid=1:alerts&Itemid=34|title=Beyond Hiroshima - The non-reporting of Fallujah's cancer catastrophe |website=[[Media Lens]] |date=September 7, 2010 |archive-date=February 19, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110219010045/http://medialens.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5:beyond-hiroshima-the-non-reporting-of-fallujahs-cancer-catastrophe&catid=1:alerts&Itemid=34}}</ref> in which the health situation in Fallujah was described by the British media as "worse than Hiroshima".<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220512/https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-on-fallujah-worse-than-hiroshima-2034065.html |archive-date=2022-05-12 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima'|date=July 24, 2010|website=[[The Independent]] |last=Cockburn |first=Patrick |author-link=Patrick Cockburn}}</ref>

Chomsky also asserts that the media accurately covered events such as the [[Second Battle of Fallujah|Battle of Fallujah]] but because of an ideological bias, it acts as pro-government propaganda. In describing coverage of raid on Fallujah General Hospital he states that ''[[The New York Times]]'', "accurately recorded the battle of Fallujah but it was celebrated...it was celebration of ongoing war crimes".<ref>{{cite news|title=Chomsky: US won't acknowledge Iraq war crimes|author-link=Saba Hamedy |first=Saba |last=Hamedy |url=http://dailyfreepress.com/2010/09/19/chomsky-us-wont-acknowledge-iraq-war-crimes/|newspaper=[[The Daily Free Press]]|date=September 19, 2010|access-date=January 6, 2011}}</ref> The article in question was "[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/08/international/middleeast/08hospital.html Early Target of Offensive Is a Hospital]".

It was revealed on October 2, 2016 that the Pentagon paid British PR firm Bell Pottinger $540mn to create fake terrorist videos, fake news articles for Arab news channels and propaganda videos.<ref name="Rebello-3Oct2016">{{cite news|last1=Rebello|first1=Lara|title=Thatcher PR guru Lord Bell ran a $540m Pentagon false propaganda campaign in Iraq|url=http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/thatcher-pr-guru-lord-bell-ran-540m-pentagon-false-propaganda-campaign-iraq-1584495|access-date=September 8, 2017|work=[[International Business Times]]|date=October 3, 2016}}</ref><ref name="times-20161002">{{cite news |url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/lord-bell-ran-540m-covert-pr-ops-in-iraq-for-pentagon-m5js07xtr |title=Lord Bell ran $540m covert PR ops in Iraq for Pentagon |author1=Crofton Black |author2=Abigail Fielding-Smith |author3=Jon Ungoed-Thomas |newspaper=[[The Times]] |date=October 2, 2016 |access-date=October 12, 2016}}</ref><ref name="thedailybeast-20161002">{{cite news |url=http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/01/pentagon-paid-for-fake-al-qaeda-videos.html |title=Pentagon Paid for Fake 'Al Qaeda' Videos |first1=Crofton |last1=Black |first2=Abigail |last2=Fielding-Smith |newspaper=[[The Daily Beast]] |date=October 2, 2016 |access-date=October 12, 2016}}</ref>

An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed the details of the multi-million pound operation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://labs.thebureauinvestigates.com/fake-news-and-false-flags/|title=Fake News and False Flags|first2=Abigail |last2=Fielding-Smith |first1=Crofton|last1=Black|website=[[The Bureau of Investigative Journalism]] |date=October 2, 2016}}</ref> Bell Pottinger is understood to have been funded some $540million from the US Department of Defence (DoD) for five contracts from May 2007 to December 2011, according to the Times and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.<ref name="thetimes.co.uk">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/soap-operas-and-fakery-selling-peace-in-iraq-h5m5sscr9|title=Soap operas and fakery: selling peace in Iraq|first1=Abigail |last1=Fielding-Smith |first2=Crofton |last2=Black |first3=Jon|last3=Ungoed-Thomas|date=October 2, 2016|website=[[The Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.prweek.com/article/1410858|title=Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq|first=John|last=Harrington |date=October 13, 2016 |website=[[PRWeek]]}}</ref> Lord Tim Bell, the former spin doctor to Margaret Thatcher, confirmed Bell Pottinger reported to the Pentagon, the CIA and the National Security Council on its work in Iraq.{{citation needed|date=June 2020}}

===Pentagon military analyst group===

{{See also|Pentagon military analyst program}}

An investigation by the ''New York Times'' discovered that top [[The Pentagon|Pentagon]] officials met with news analysts where they gave the analysts 'special information' and then tried to convince them to speak favorably about the Iraq war.<ref name="autogenerated1">{{Cite news| url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/20/washington/20generals.html?ref=washington | work=The New York Times | title=Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon's Hidden Hand | first=David | last=Barstow |author-link=David Barstow | date=April 20, 2008 | access-date=May 12, 2010}}</ref> The discovery was based on 8000 pages of secret information that had been revealed to The New York Times through a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act. The article states that top Pentagon officials would invite news analysts to secret meetings, and urge the analysts to speak positively of the war. Often, the US would give "classified information," trips, and contracts to the news analysts.<ref name="autogenerated1" />