Yet more on Paul Moran

Hear, hear! You see: the more truth that comes out, the more interesting the facts become. Truth-seeking is mislabeled as “slander” or “vilification” by folks who do not like all of what the truth exposes when it comes to light; we are in such a spot, historically speaking, that we cannot afford to ignore what little bits of truth we unearth for the sake of each person’s little bouts of whining about the discomfort caused by the truth being heard. Does that make any sense? It does to me.

Jan states :

“They’re trying to discredit your story and you obviously thought that you’re writing and research were so poor that you agreed with them.”

‘They’ did not need to discredit anything. Chris’s research WAS poor and sloppy, emotional, reactive and twinged with an exteme bias.

I think this article is more representative of the truth and comes from an intellectual authority. Why didn’t Chris contact Sheldon before he posted his original story? Why didn’t he defend his original story using this source?

He didn’t because he did not research the story. He responded, used his web-based soap-box and began to spew.

What I do really really appreciate is the fact that Chris stands up and says ‘I am not always correct, here is all the information, you make the decisions and I will continue to post more info as I find it.’

Thats honest and THAT is why I keep coming back. Thanks Chris.

I also applaud Chris’ search for the truth. Any time the CIA gets involved with anything the truth is so obscured and distorted. It is their job to make it that way. If everyone knew what they were doing, they would not be able to do their job. Some people actively help them with full knowledge, some people are duped into helping them, and some just go along with them blindly, not wanting to know anything. Knowing too much about people like that is dangerous to your health. And the CIA is not above pressuring friends and family of a deceased person to not reveal the truth. The CIA rarely wants the real truth to come out. They want their version of it known, certainly not the whole truth. You may have opened a can of worms here, Chris. You may want to listen for funny little clicking sounds on your phone and watch for strange cars parked along your street.

I think we all have to look at the basis for much of this story. Colin James was pointed in a certain direction. By whom? Who were the two friends at the funeral? What are their backgrounds? If Paul Moran was involved with Rendon and possibly other agencies for so many years, might not some of his aquaintences and family members also have some connection?

The real question, of course, is what benifit is there in this information getting out, and to who? Is this truely just an accidential disclosure, or did those four people at the funeral know they were talking to a journalist? Does the CIA want to look like they were working hard in Northern Iraq? Is this a disinformation release, where a little truth just makes things murkier? Or is this an attempt by another agency to discredit Rendon, or Moran?

A very interesting story,in light of the recent allegations that the administration relied almost exclusively on the lies told by Iraqi “defectors” about the WMDs to justify the war.

Me thinks that eric campbell(whom I previously respected)doth protest too much.

“Any time the CIA gets involved with anything the truth is so obscured and distorted.”

I think it is hilarous bording on the obscene that this comment can be repeated ad nauseum while claims from Saddam/Osama/Taliban/Qaeda/Hamas/IJ are printed daily as fact in the media.

Caution and objective examination should be leveled at both sides.

Definitely gasoline, Chris.

Eric Campbell was standing next to Moran when he was blown up.

Next to him.

Notice Eric, like a good Aussie bloke didn’t mention that in either pof his comments on this site.

Sheldon cannot conceive of a world without shadowy companies.

I’d be willing to bet a sixpack of VB no one in Australia, apart from imbecilic conspiracy theorists who buy books called Weapons of Mass Deception, have ever said the word ‘shadowy’ in their lives.

Moran was fine.

That’s right, Eric Campbell was on the scene when Moran was killed by a suicide bomber, and Campbell suffered minor injuries himself. So? I certainly abhor the murder of Moran and and sympathize with his family in its time of sorrow. But that doesn’t mean that Campbell’s statements about Moran were accurate or that it was appropriate for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation to employ a journalist who moonlights at a PR firm that works for the CIA and Pentagon.

Also, I think “N” owes me a sixpack. The person who used the word “shadowy” in the passage which I quoted was a respected reporter from Adelaide who APPROVED of Moran’s work. He wasn’t “imbecilic” or a conspiracy theorist, and he certainly hadn’t bought “Weapons of Mass Deception” because at the time he wrote his story, I hadn’t written it yet.

“N” seems to think that emotionalism and nasty invective is an appropriate substitute for clear thinking and factual accuracy.

Thought - from the ABC promos - that this was going to be an accurate depiction of Moran’s CIA work - however it was nothing of the kind. Just more disinfo…Sethna’s account doesn’t even match his own account on SBS ‘Dateline’ program mentioned by Sheldon Rampton.

re: Paul Moran - First Casualty - 13 October, 2003 ABC’s “Australian Story”

http://www.abc.net.au/austory/

(see links at bottom of page -

3-part interview with Eric Campbell PLUS interview with Zaab Sethna

Dear Chris,

Can you do a new blog entry linking to http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2003/s964135.htm this transcript by the ABC program “Australian Story” on Paul Moran? In it, it is argued that it was appropriate for the ABC to hire Paul Moran, and Gerry Moran says that if Paul Moran were alive, “none of these allegations would be made, because he could just simply strike down every single one of them”.

I know Sheldon isn’t explicitly disputing Paul’s genuine interest in the plight of the Kurds, but could you also provide the link to a “Foreign Correspondent” http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s821936.htm article on Paul as well?

You’re right, I’m not disputing the sincerity of Moran’s concern for the Kurds. I’m also not disputing him being a “nice guy” who “loved life” and was “generous with his friends” (which seemed to be the main point of the “Australian Story” piece).

The specific issue here, however, is whether there was a conflict of interest between Moran’s work for Rendon and the INC on the one hand, and his journalism about Iraq on the other. I’m not aware of anything untoward about Moran’s activities during the four days he spent with Eric Campbell at the time he was killed. What troubles me more is his previous role as one of the journalists who interviewed al Haideri. Should someone who has previously worked for the INC as a “propagandist” (Zaab Sethna’s term, with which Moran himself presumably would agree) recuse himself when offered that sort of interview? I’m sure that from the INC’s point of view, Moran was selected because they knew him and expected him to do a sympathetic interview. From a PR point of view, that makes perfect sense. But if some other person had been offered the same interview, they might have asked tougher questions. And if Moran was going to do the interview for ABC, at the very least the broadcast should have included a disclaimer saying, “Paul Moran has worked previously as a contract employee for the INC, which helped arrange the interview with Al Haideri.”

The issue here is no different, in my opinion, from many of the other issues involving conflict of interest. If a doctor gets funding from Glaxo Wellcome to study a new cancer drug, that funding constitutes a potentional conflict of interest and should be published in the same journal that publishes the doctor’s research findings. When that fails to happen, and the researcher’s funding is publicly criticized, their self-defense inevitably takes the same form as the defense that Moran’s friends and families have offered: “He’s a nice guy with high morals.” “He didn’t know that the funding came from that client.” “Even if he did know, the funding source didn’t affect his methodology or conclusions.” “He was just trying to do some good in the world.” And the thing is, all of these statements may even be TRUE, but none of them changes the fact that a conflict of interest exists.

Sheldon Rampton raises an important issue about media practices generally, where for example political reporters often work as press secretaries then return to cover politics. But a key point to bear in mind about the coverage of al Haideri’s claims is that the ABC did not use Paul as the reporter, nor did Paul have any say in how the interview would be used. Rather, he provided the camera tapes of a straightforward interview with al Haideri which the ABC put to the former UN chief weapons inspector, Richard Butler for reaction. Butler gave strong credence to al Haideri’s claims … something it’s unlikely he would do in retrospect. But he was the appropriate person at the time to respond and it was on that basis that al Haideri’s claims were broadcast.

Paul only ever filed two reports for the ABC, both about the Australian naval blockade of Iraq. Neither was connected to any previous work for the INC or the Rendon Group, nor were they in any way biased. (Unfortunately, the Dateline program muddied the waters by erroneously using shots from those ABC reports with voiceover talking about his earlier work for Rendon.)

It should also be noted that Zaab Sethna’s original comment on “propaganda” related to John Rendon’s description of the earlier project. In the Australian Story interview Sethna made clear Paul’s specific work was not propaganda, but news reports for Kurdish TV and public announcements about the dangers of landmines. People are free to form their own opinions, but in fairness they should take both comments into account.

As someone who knew Paul, I doubt he would have endorsed any description of his own work as propaganda. I know he was particularly careful to be objective in his broadcast journalism, as could be seen from watching any of his reports or documentaries. I remember a conversation during our brief time in Iraq where he was intensely critical of reporters who substituted their opinions for facts. And there was indeed nothing untoward in his work for me there … we were shooting, editing and feeding for 20 hours a day until the moment of Paul’s death.

Over the past seven months there has been an extraordinary amount of speculation about Paul’s background, which was perhaps inevitable considering Paul could not respond and his family felt unable to cope with journalists’ interrogations as well as their loss. But much of it was fuelled by speculative and exaggerated media reports, particularly in the Murdoch press, which among other things included a fanciful article suggesting Paul was the target of the suicide bomb (it was in fact an attack on a Kurdish checkpoint in retaliation for US bombing). That said more about tabloid journalism than anything to do with Iraq.

As I said in my first email, I don’t dispute the legitimacy of questioning the conduct of the INC, the Rendon Group, the Pentagon or indeed of any media groups and this email is not intended as criticism of commentary in general. But I do believe Paul has at times been unfairly caught in the crossfire of debate. I am sure the debate about wider issues will continue, and there is nothing wrong with that. But now everyone has had their say, including at last Paul’s family, perhaps he could be allowed to rest in peace.

Eric Campbell

Reporter

ABC TV

You allege that “As for the complaint that Moran is being villainized, John and I never characterized him as a villain, and neither did you.”

Are you saying that you’ve never accused Paul of bad media ethics?

“You’re right, I’m not disputing the sincerity of Moran’s concern for the Kurds.”

One of the things you imply is that his concern for the Kurds may have resulted from his clients when you said “People who work on public relations campaigns often internalize the beliefs of their clients”. I don’t dispute that this can sometimes happen, but I don’t believe this is the case here, and is not relevant to what you are saying, so I’m puzzled as to why you said it.

“I’m also not disputing him being a “nice guy” who “loved life” and was “generous with his friends” (which seemed to be the main point of the “Australian Story” piece).”

Such statements would indicate that he would not approve of any war lightly.

Yes, the Australian Story article was partially about the person and his family life and all that and only partially about allegations of conflict of interest, but that is a reflection on Australian Story. Australian Story articles are usually about people although they also feature replies to allegations made about them.

It may be argued that the article responded to allegations in general terms (including denying that he was unfit to work for the ABC and saying that the claims wouldn’t be said if Paul were alive) rather than getting down to the nitty-gritty of scrutinising his entire life’s work. If this is true, it is probably a reflection that it wouldn’t be possible to answer everything in part of a 30-minute program with other parts of the program looking at other parts of his life. Heck, even a one-hour program looking at nothing but these allegations probably wouldn’t satisfy the die-hard cynics.

“I’m not aware of anything untoward about Moran’s activities during the four days he spent with Eric Campbell at the time he was killed. What troubles me more is his previous role as one of the journalists who interviewed al Haideri.”

If this is the case (I’m not saying it isn’t the case), then why couldn’t the criticisms of Paul have occurred after that interview, while Paul was still alive? This would have two advantages:

1) Paul would be able to respond to allegations made against him.

2) If allegations of a substantial conflict of interest were true, it would be more useful for this to be revealed before war started.

The only reason I can see for the accusations to be made after he died would be that the allegations are not correct and he would be able to rebut the claims.

Yes, like several other people, my main objection to your allegation is that I perceive you to be criticising Paul and doing so when he was dead and unable to respond to allegations. And you complain friends and relatives “can’t be bothered to publicly correct any errors” yet show no gratitude once they do go on the public record in what must be something very difficult for them.

As far as I can tell, you have never acknowledged that people should be careful about making allegations about dead people as they have no way of responding to said allegations.

As far as I can tell, you also haven’t acknowledged this bit: “We were quite shocked, because nobody had told us. Paul was upset, to be honest. He wasn’t an American and he felt a little bit misled and he was very worried that this might affect his credibility as…as a journalist and as a television professional. And, in fact, shortly after that time, he left. I think within a couple of months he left the project.” This would suggest that Paul does have ethical standards and that even if there may have been some wrong-doing Paul shouldn’t be blamed for it.

“Should someone who has previously worked for the INC as a “propagandist” (Zaab Sethna’s term, with which Moran himself presumably would agree)”

The “Dateline” program has Zaab quoting the Rendon group using the word propaganda, and in Australia story she said that it was “he was unwittingly involved in, I guess, what could be called a propaganda operation … never overtly propaganda”. Or is there some other quote you’re thinking of?

“recuse himself when offered that sort of interview? I’m sure that from the INC’s point of view, Moran was selected because they knew him and expected him to do a sympathetic interview.”

There could be other reasons they chose him. Someone experienced with Iraq, someone who wouldn’t betray Al Haideri or the people who helped defect him or unneccessarily expose how he defected?

“From a PR point of view, that makes perfect sense. But if some other person had been offered the same interview, they might have asked tougher questions.”

I doubt Paul would be that kind of person, though no doubt other journalists could do that kind of thing.

“And if Moran was going to do the interview for ABC, at the very least the broadcast should have included a disclaimer saying, “Paul Moran has worked previously as a contract employee for the INC, which helped arrange the interview with Al Haideri.””

I probably would make such a disclaimer UNLESS mentioning such information could put people in danger.

“The issue here is no different, in my opinion, from many of the other issues involving conflict of interest.”

I have to disagree here.

One difference is that the person being criticised is unable to respond to the allegations. In most cases the person being accused is alive and able to reply.

Another difference is that perhaps media organizations need to have a higher tolerance of conflict of interest than in normal circumstances. People with that much trust of the locals and experience of the region might be too valuable to keep on the sidelines. This’d be different to many other topics of reporting where preparation can be done in the safety of your own home/library. I know this is a somewhat iffy justification but reporting in a hostile environment isn’t the easiest of tasks.

“If a doctor gets funding from Glaxo Wellcome to study a new cancer drug”

That’s a flawed analogy, as the work he was doing in north Iraq just before he was killed wasn’t being funded by the US government or exile groups.

Can I ask some questions about conflict of interest?

If Paul Moran is criticised as having a conflict of interest due to formerly working for various groups, don’t former Iraqi Information Ministry workers have a conflict of interest and therefore shouldn’t work for Western news organizations?

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s956058.htm If UNICEF media officer Geoff Keele issues a press release complaining that the coalition forces haven’t removed all unexploded ordinance, and his wife Gina Wilkinson asks kids to pose near unexploded ordinance for an ABC article on the issue, isn’t that a conflict of interest? http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s960880.htm Gina has since resigned (probably for putting children at risk rather than conflict of interest issues)

Is PRwatch likely or unlikely to feature these conflicts of interest, and if so, why/why not?

(My latter comment was written without me reading Eric’s reply to Sheldon’s reply to my post. I didn’t see it until after I had posted.)

Eric Campbell writes, “Are you saying that you’ve never accused Paul of bad media ethics?”

I think clearly a “conflict of interest” is a form of “bad media ethics.” In the real world, sometimes decent people do unethical things. I know nice, decent, generous individuals who have strayed from their marital vows, cheated on their income taxes and done other things that aren’t right. Sometimes people even do unethical things for reasons that seem entirely justified to them at the time. Eric seems to be demanding that we choose between regarding Paul Moran as either a “saint” or a “villain.” Reality and human nature are more complicated than that. In my opinion, Paul Moran’s relationship with the Rendon Group and the INC conflicted with his role as a journalist, but that doesn’t make him a “villain.”

I think Paul Moran’s defenders have sometimes used straw man argumentation in making their case. For example, they complain about people who have characterized Moran as a “CIA spy,” but John and I have never characterized him in those terms, and I haven’t seen that phrase used by anyone else either. Just now I did a Google search for the phrases “Paul Moran” and “CIA spy,” and the only hits I found were from Moran’s people DENYING this. I can’t find any hits showing that anyone is AFFIRMING it. If this allegation can’t be found anywhere on the Internet, why are they expending so much energy denying it?

On the other hand, Moran’s people have failed to make any specific response to the Colin James story in which he says that one of Moran’s friends told him stories after the funeral about Moran training “Iraqi dissidents in the use of hidden cameras to covertly film military activities.” This is a specific claim that could easily be refuted if it is untrue. Moran’s wife and family certainly know who Colin James interviewed for his story. If none of Moran’s friends or family made any such claim when they spoke to James, why don’t they step forward and say so specifically?

If Eric and the others really wish to defend Paul Moran’s memory, they should respond to the Colin James story with specific corrections of specific errors rather than with sweeping dismissals based on vague characterizations of what James actually wrote.

Eric wrote: “One of the things you imply is that his concern for the Kurds may have resulted from his clients when you said ‘People who work on public relations campaigns often internalize the beliefs of their clients.’ I don’t dispute that this can sometimes happen, but I don’t believe this is the case here, and is not relevant to what you are saying, so I’m puzzled as to why you said it.”

I don’t know whether his concern for the Kurds “resulted” from his clients or was a “prior cause” of his willingness to work for the INC. The reason I made this point is that Paul Moran’s supporters have offered his concern for the Kurds as a sort of emotional proof that his behavior was ethical and that there was no conflict of interest. My point is simply that it is entirely possible to be sincerely concerned for the Kurds AND to have a conflict of interest — just as it is possible for a medical researcher to be sincerely looking for a cancer cure and have an ethical conflict of interest (if, for example, he holds stock in a company whose drug he is promoting). As I stated previously, “sincerity of belief” is not a valid defense against the specific charge of conflict of interest.

Regarding Moran’s role as a journalist who interviewed al Haideri, Eric writes: “why couldn’t the criticisms of Paul have occurred after that interview, while Paul was still alive?”

Here’s my answer: BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PAUL’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INC AND THE RENDON GROUP AT THE TIME THAT THE AL HAIDERI INTERVIEW WAS BROADCAST. The public (myself included) didn’t find out about Paul Moran’s work for the INC and the Rendon Group until after his death. Of course, Eric Campbell certainly knows that this is the case, which is why I find it puzzling for him to write, “The only reason I can see for the accusations to be made after he died would be that the allegations are not correct and he would be able to rebut the claims.”

Eric complains, “As far as I can tell, you also haven’t acknowledged this bit: ‘We were quite shocked, because nobody had told us. Paul was upset, to be honest. He wasn’t an American and he felt a little bit misled and he was very worried that this might affect his credibility as…as a journalist and as a television professional. And, in fact, shortly after that time, he left. I think within a couple of months he left the project.’ This would suggest that Paul does have ethical standards and that even if there may have been some wrong-doing Paul shouldn’t be blamed for it.”

Eric is right that I didn’t discuss that statement previously. I’m happy to discuss it now.

I’m sure that Paul DID have ethical standards, but notwithstanding his qualms and apparent feelings of having been used for propaganda purposes, he continued to work for the Rendon Group on a variety of other projects, even though by then he obviously knew that the Rendon Group frequently operates as a PR adjunct for the U.S. government’s military operations. Moreover, he allowed himself to be used as the INC’s conduit for the al Haideri interview, which now appears to be disinformation. Perhaps he did these things with the best of intentions, but in retrospect his decisions appear naive at best. (Sometimes people enter into conflicts of interest due to naivete rather than “villainy.”)

Finally, someone (either Eric Campbell or Andjam) asked some questions about situations involving possible conflicts of interest on the part of individuals OTHER than Paul Moran. I think the Gina Wilkinson business was clearly poor conduct on her part, and she deserved to be criticized for it. I would be happy to examine the other situations mentioned if you’d care to offer additional specifics.

This is extraordinary. I made no such remarks. The comments you refer to were clearly signed by “Andjam”, whoever that is. I posted the previous comment asking that Paul be allowed to rest in peace.

You cannot even get that simple fact straight but you hold yourself up as a commentator on media standards.

You have shown the same lack of competence throughout this tawdry exercise.

You have called Paul a biased reporter, despite never seeing his reports which were anything but biased.

You have not bothered at any stage to try to check facts about Paul’s work with me, Paul’s family, Zaab Sethna or ABC management.

You have relied solely on Google searches to selectively quote articles that fit your thesis, while belittling first-hand accounts from people who knew and worked with Paul.

You have not done proper research on how the Murdoch press covered Paul’s death, or you would know the Daily Telegraph in Sydney made the outrageous claim Paul was a “ CIA operative” under the lurid headline “Random target or was this man a spy?” … a claim based on nothing but a re-write of the Colin James article which you laud as an authoritative source.

You gloss over Paul’s family’s condemnation of that article and have made no attempt to speak to Rob Buchan who claims he was grossly misquoted. You show no understanding of the trauma Paul’s family is going through, treating their reluctance to go into detail about Paul’s life with journalists they don’t trust as some sort of admission of guilt. That you defend an article in the Murdoch press but treat with skepticism all first-hand accounts of Paul indicates your own bias.

I posted a conciliatory comment in the hope it would draw an end to your attacks. But you seem to see this as some sort of point-scoring parlour game, oblivious to the hurt your sloppy and biased commentary has caused Paul’s family.

I knew Paul for only a short time but he displayed far more integrity and professionalism than you have shown in anything you have written about him.

Write what you wish, Mr Rampton. I do not intend to take any further part in this sad and squalid debate.

Eric Campbell

Reporter

ABC TV

Sheldon Rampton defends his decision not to have questioned Paul Moran’s motives prior to Paul’s death by stating (his capitals): BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PAUL‘S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INC AND THE RENDON GROUP AT THE TIME THAT THE AL HAIDERI INTERVIEW WAS BROADCAST.

Not so. Paul’s work with the Rendon Group in producing a website looking at the problems in post-war Yugoslavia in 1999 was certainly well known, and in the public domain. As Paul was one of only two journalists worldwide to be granted interviews with Al Haideri, I would have thought an investigative reporter (and anti-spin advocate) of Mr Rampton’s calibre might have considered looking into Paul’s background at the time of the interview.

“If this is the case (I’m not saying it isn’t the case), then why couldn’t the criticisms of Paul have occurred after that interview, while Paul was still alive? This would have two advantages:”

In this quote, I didn’t mean to refer to Sheldon, but to Colin James and the like.

Eric is correct that I mistakenly attributed some comments to him which were actually made by Andjam. Somehow I missed a sig line in reading the comments posted first by Eric and then by Andjam. I regret the error, but I think Eric is posturing when he uses this as a pretext to dismiss my competence.

As for Eric’s claim that I “have not bothered at any stage to try to check facts about Paul’s work with me, Paul’s family, Zaab Sethna or ABC management,” this is not true. Prior to publication of my book, I did have my associate, Laura Miller, correspond with individuals at ABC. It is true that I have not contacted Eric or Zaab Sethna or Paul’s family, but my book was written at a time when Paul’s family was refusing to speak with reporters.

I think this was an adequate level of research on my part, since prior to this exchange that we are now having on Back-to-Iraq.com, the only thing I ever published about Paul Moran was a single paragraph in my book, in which I stated: “Rendon’s refusal to discuss his activities makes it difficult to do more than speculate about the full scope and extent of his firm’s involvement in Iraq, but an incident during the war itself provided a rare breach in the wall of secrecy. On March 23, 2003, TV cameraman Paul Moran was killed in northern Iraq by a suicide bomber while on assignment for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. His obituary, published in his home town of Adelaide, Australia, noted that Moran’s activities ‘included working for an American public relations company contracted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency to run propaganda campaigns against the dictatorship. … Company founder John Rendon flew from the US to attend Mr. Moran’s funeral in Adelaide on Wednesday. A close friend, Rob Buchan, said the presence of Mr. Rendon - an adviser to the US National Security Council - illustrated the regard in which Mr. Moran was held in US political circles, including the Congress.’”

In other words, the only facts I ever alleged in print about Paul Moran were that (1) Moran was killed by a suicide bomber; (2) he had worked for the Rendon Group; and (3) John Rendon attended his funeral.

For what it’s worth, I never raised the issue of “conflict of interest” until that issue was raised here by Chris Albritton and Eric then responded. I also never accused Paul of “being a biased reporter,” except in the context of the discussion here, where I have expressed my opinion that his role as a conduit for the Al Haideri interview is troubling. I have expressed my opinions in a forum where Eric is present and is able to respond as he pleases. I’m not talking behind anyone’s back.

In any case, my comments here (like Eric’s or Andjam’s) are opinions, not investigative reporting. I am expressing my opinions about Moran and the Rendon Group based on facts as they have been reported by others. I’m not aware of a journalistic principle which says that I am obligated to attempt to interview Paul Moran’s reluctant family and Zaab Sethna before I have the right to express my opinions in the “comment” section of a weblob.

There is another point on which I think some clarification is in order. Yes, I am aware of the “Daily Telegraph” article to which Eric refers, which ran under the headline, “Random target or was this man a spy?” I agree that this article was an example of tabloid journalism with its speculation that Moran might have been actually targeted for killing because of his work for Rendon. I see no reason to believe that Moran was targeted individually by the terrorist who killed him, and I think Paul Moran’s friends and family are entirely justified in feeling angry about the tone and substance of that article.

It should be noted, however, that the Daily Telegraph article has been largely ignored by everyone since it appeared, which is why a Google search doesn’t even pull up references to it now. Most of the public objections from Moran’s circle have been directed, not at the Daily Telegraph article but at Colin James’ piece in the Adelaide Advertiser. And yet, no one from Moran’s circle has ever contacted the Advertiser to correct any of the statements of fact put forth in that article. In the “Australian Story” transcript, Kathleen Moran and Paul’s wife both complain about the “Advertiser” article, not the “Daily Telegraph.” Ivana Rapajic-Moran complains that the “Advertiser” article is full of “not proven and fabricated information” but once again expressly declines to respond to any of it, saying, ” I didn’t want to make a comment on that because there’s no point of going to that level.”

Well, if there were indeed errors in the Advertiser article, there certainly IS a point in “going to that level” and correcting the errors. Paul’s family ought to know how the media works enough to realize that if they let errors go uncorrected, they will continue to circulate. Eric Campbell certainly must know this. So why do they keep making vague claims about factual flaws in the Advertiser article, without ever giving specifics or contacting the Advertiser to demand corrections? I certainly sympathize with them in their grief over Paul’s death, but even in their grief they bear some responsibility for setting the facts straight if they feel they have been misquoted. The fact is that Colin James’ piece in the Advertiser WAS based on interviews with Moran’s friends and family. (Ivana had the opportunity to be interviewed for the article but declined.) If James misquoted them, they should step forward and say how they were misquoted. I suspect that the reason for their silence is that they actually DID say the things which he quotes them as saying.

Years ago as a newspaper reporter, I did a story about a town meeting in a small town where some local merchants were complaining that business was bad. One local grocer complained that because his store was small, he couldn’t offer prices as low as other grocery stores in a nearby larger city. After my story appeared, the grocer called to complain that he had NEVER said other stores offered lower prices than his own stores. The reality is that he DID say that but just didn’t like the implications of his own words once he saw them in print. I think this is probably similar to the way Paul Moran’s family and friends have responded to the Adelaide Advertiser article. They told Colin James some things that they now regret saying, and since they know they can’t take them back, they are responding with bluff and bluster.

Finally: Andjam has written that he was referring to “Colin James and the like” with his suggestion that “the criticisms of Paul” should have been made while Paul was still alive. Andjam should go back and reread the Colin James article. It was clearly not intended as a “criticism” of Paul Moran but rather as a tribute. Its headline was, “Moran’s Secret Crusade Against the Tyranny of Saddam.” I agree with the family’s objection that “crusade” was not a well-chosen word given the loaded meaning that “crusade” conveys in a Muslim context. However, I strongly doubt that the Adelaide Advertiser meant to insinuate that Paul Moran was a religious crusader. I think what it INTENDED to convey was the idea that Paul was a heroic figure.

Oh, one more thing: Paul Rouse says that Paul’s work with the Rendon group in Yugoslavia was well known and in the public domain. Can he point me to WHERE it was in the public domain where I might have found it? I was certainly unaware personally of Paul’s work for Rendon until the Adelaide Advertiser article appeared.

Sheldon,

Until you acknowledge people should be more careful about making controversial allegations about a dead person than they would about a living person, I won’t be involved in this discussion either.

Andjam,

I disagree with the idea that I have been saying things that are so “controversial” that I should refrain from saying them. Most of the things I’ve said about Paul Moran have actually been positive and in agreement with the points made by Eric Campbell and his family. They say he was a nice guy, generous, had scruples, etc. They say he was not a “CIA spy.” I’ve stated that I see no reason to disagree with any of that, and also that I feel they had a right to be upset with the Daily Telegraph piece, which they correctly regard as tabloid speculation.

The area where we disagree has to do solely with the question of whether Moran’s longstanding relationship with the Rendon Group and the INC constituted a conflict of interest with his work as a journalist. Even here, however, I’m not trying to slam the guy’s basic character. I’ve stated that sometimes people enter into conflicts of interest with the best of intentions.

Bear in mind that we are discussing something very important to the public. Paul Moran played a role in putting information before the public (the Al Haideri interview) that now appears clearly to be disinformation. While doing so, he played multiple roles: He was a former employee of the INC, the organization that supplied Al Haideri and several other defectors whose allegations about Iraqi WMDs have also proven false. He also became an advocate for Al Haideri in his efforts to obtain political asylum. And, he was one of only two journalist who interviewed Al Haideri. (The other journalist was Judith Miller at the New York Times, who also relied heavily on the INC as a source for her own series of stories that created a false picture of Iraqi WMDs.)

The fact that Paul Moran played all these roles is undisputed. It’s not “controversial,” and I don’t think anyone should be surprised that these facts have raised eyebrows.

I think a journalistic organization of the ABC’s caliber ought to engage in some public soul-searching over the role that it played in placing false information before the public, especially when that information played a part in justifying the war in Iraq. ABC ought to try to explain how something like this could happen and what can be done to prevent it from happening in the future. I think that this is an important enough topic to deserve discussion even if some people find it painful.

So I guess you don’t regard claiming Paul Moran as being a propagandist controversial?

On the one hand, you don’t want me to say controversial things. On the other hand, you keep demanding that I defend the points that are bound to make Paul Moran appear in a negative light.

The person who said that Moran worked as a “propagandist” was Zaab Sethna, who said it in two different interviews. In the “Dateline” interview, Sethna stated, “The Rendon group came back to us and said, ‘We now have a contract to bureaucracy, to kind of do anti-Saddam propaganda on behalf of the Iraqi opposition.’” This quote makes it appear that he and Moran were told up front and therefore knew all along that their work was propaganda. Sethna appears to contradict this in later his interview for “The First Casualty,” in which he says that Moran “was unwittingly involved in, I guess, what could be called a propaganda operation in the early ’90s, but people must remember he didn’t know that.” I don’t know how to resolve these apparent contradictions in his statements. In any case, both of Sethna’s statements indicate that Moran worked as a propagandist, whether wittingly or unwittingly.

It’s not at all controversial to say that the Rendon Group, a PR firm that operates as an adjunct to U.S. military actions, does propaganda. In his own words, John Rendon has called himself “an information warrior and a perception manager,” and the Rendon Group website declares that “information” is “an element of power.” Paul Moran eventually must have known this, since according to Zaab Sethna’s statement, he and Moran were “shocked” to discover Rendon’s CIA connection and “worried that this might effect his credibility as a journalist.” Nevertheless, he continued to take assignments from Rendon.

In his “First Casualty” interview, Zaab Sethna tries to minimize the extent of Rendon’s work as a propagandist for U.S. military and foreign policy objectives, and it’s true that the Rendon Group has other clients. However, the U.S. Department of Defense was the client for its work that employed Paul Moran in the Balkans - the “Balkan Information Exchange” (BIA), which has subsequently morphed into the “Balkan Times.” According to the Rendon Group’s own web site, the purpose of the BIA was “to inform audiences in the Balkans/Kosovo region of US government policy with regard to the conflict.” Even if Paul Moran’s part in that project showed no overt bias, the web site as a whole would at least fall into the category of “white propaganda.”

Of course, you might argue, as Paul Moran’s friends and family seem to be arguing, that he maintained an adequate firewall between his specific work for Rendon and its propaganda activities.

Just for the record, I’m just an ordinary Australian Broadcasting Corporation viewer. I have no connection with Paul Moran, Eric Campbell or any other ABC employees, or any PR firms or governmental departments connected with foreign policy.

Andjam, I’ve never suggested otherwise.

” …people should be more careful about making controversial allegations about a dead person than they would about a living person…”

What an odd view.

Howdy,

I’m looking at a technology article in the December 2003 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine.

The article was written by Christopher Allbritton.

I would like to know if this is the same Christopher Allbritton that as associated with this article.