The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.

Less than a week after the attack at magazine Charlie Hebdo, France is still dealing with the aftermath, but Paris has showed that its people are nothing if not resilient. As an act of memorial for the slain Charlie Hebdo staff, as well as the hostages killed at a Kosher market in Paris on Friday, there was a gigantic march in the city yesterday. The rally also served as a show of unity against terrorism. It was a huge, notable world event with a ton of support from around the world. But where was the United States?

Chanting & applause in Paris as huge crowds begin unity march against terror attacks http://t.co/VeXcJu1QK6pic.twitter.com/gC9Ca8HGR0

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) January 11, 2015

It’s estimated that about 1.6 million people took part. To us Americans, that doesn’t sound like that much, but you have to remember that France is roughly one-fifth of the size of the United States. So, comparably, that would mean around 8 million people marching here. That’s massive, and incredibly moving.

It wasn’t just Paris either. Marches took place around the world. In the French city of Lyon, roughly one-fourth of the population marched.

Of course, not everyone involved in the march was French either. Other word leaders, including British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, EU President Donald Tusk, and Jordan’s King Abdullah II, came as well.

Photo shows a very different perspective on world leaders at the #ParisMarchhttp://t.co/pxZoV21ZKCpic.twitter.com/VyJk1iOrxN

— The Independent (@Independent) January 12, 2015

But there was one thing notably missing from the rally: the presence of a high profile official from the United States.

There was no President Barack Obama. No Vice President Joe Biden. No Secretary of State John Kerry. The U.S. was represented by Jane Hartley, the American Ambassador to France, and Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. No offense to Ambassador Hartley or Assistant Secretary of State Nuland, but they’re both a noticeable pay grade below the 40-plus heads of state who attended. Merkel and Cameron are two of the most prominent figures in the Western world. For god’s sake, the respective leaders of Israel and Palestine both showed up in a mini-act of solidarity in their own right, despite reports that they were asked not to. But the United States sent mostly unrecognizable figures, one of whom who was probably there anyway.

If you’re looking for a truly insipid study into the way that conspiracy theorists’ minds work, a look at the hashtag #ReasonsObamaMissedFranceRally might be in order. Theories range from Obama secretly being racist to Obama being Muslim (seriously, we’re still on that?). These are stupid theories.

But the hashtag does get one teeny, tiny thing right. The absence was not only noticeable, it was incredibly embarrassing. The White House is scrambling to come up with reasons why Obama didn’t attend, including citing his participation in a few interviews yesterday, and mentioning concerns that the security at the event would be difficult to manage. Obama has put out statements showing his support for France, but his absence from the event still looks pretty bad. Now there’s news that Secretary of State Kerry will be visiting France this week, possibly in an attempt to placate critics.

Honestly, I highly doubt there was some weird alternative motive here, but mostly just an incredibly bad PR move. Maybe the White House thought that Americans are self-absorbed enough to not really care what was happening in Paris. Or maybe Obama didn’t want to take such an overtly political stance. Or maybe Obama didn’t attend out of fear of drawing attention from ISIS, which still holds some Western hostages like John Cantlie, after all.

I honestly don’t know what it was that motivated not only President Obama to skip the rally, but also not to send a high profile emissary in his place. Sure, he’s made some heartening statements in support of France in the last few days, but he should know by now that actions speak louder than words. His actions yesterday signaled a massive underestimation of the power of solidarity, and a complete lack of foresight.

UPDATE: Press Secretary Admits that Administration should have sent higher ranking official to rally.: The White House clarified Obama’s absence from the rally on Sunday during a press conference this afternoon. White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest admitted, “I think it’s fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile to be there.” He also cited security concerns as the reason that Obama himself didn’t attend.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama’s Absence From France Unity Rally Was a Massive PR Failure appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly referred to as ISIS, has been making some interesting moves lately. Namely it’s gotten into the movie business.

Last night, ISIS released a video “warning” the United States about what would happen if we send troops to Iraq to combat its growing influence. The graphic video is below, should you be inclined to watch it.

For those of you who choose to skip over the video, here’s a brief summary. The beginning features a lot of gratuitous explosions, eventually it shows American soldiers struggling, then we get treated to some fuzzy shots of the White House. Eventually, the “title” of the movie flashes on the screen: “Flames of War: The Fight Has Just Begun” and then the words “Coming Soon.”

This is, of course, just a few weeks after ISIS released videos depicting the slaughters of American journalists, James Foley and Steven Sotloff.

Terrorism is a very difficult thing to define — there are still academic arguments over how exactly to delineate terrorist groups from other actors. But at its most basic form, terrorism does have to include some kind of “terror” — that’s the whole point. It often targets non-combatants, such as civilians. It’s often, but not always, aimed at democracies where the members of the democracy have the ability to appeal to their government. ISIS did not kill James Foley because it wanted him to die, it killed James Foley in an attempt to incite “terror” in the American public. That’s all the intent it needed right there. Again, this is not meant to serve by any means as any sort of dispositive definition, but more as context for my next statement: the video released last night by ISIS was downright brilliant.

The whole point of terror is to scare, intimidate, and coerce. And with that trailer, ISIS was able to do just that, at minimal cost. It didn’t break any laws, it didn’t kill anyone, it didn’t have to go on a violent campaign. ISIS literally had a couple guys with decent computer skills sit there and do that, and then leaked it to the internet. While one could argue that it wasn’t a terroristic act in the strictest sense, it was certainly a facet of a larger campaign. ISIS has figured out how to reach as many people in its goal audience as possible. It’s literally creating clickbait for social media. Not to be glib about the fact that ISIS is one of the largest terrorist threats to the U.S. right now, but it’s literally employing Buzzfeed-like tactics to scare the American populace. And, the scariest part is that it seems to be working.

ISIS hasn’t just mastered social media when it comes to releasing creepy videos, it’s also using it in other ways. It’s created message boards and chat rooms for recruiting purposes, including in the United States. Given that a handful of western-born fighters are known to be among ISIS’ ranks, the kind of access it has is scary. It’s also dipped into other tactics that seem to be more out of a business/PR handbook than a terrorist group’s goals, including an online store that sells clothing and memorabilia.

ISIS knows what it has to work with, and its tactics are scarily modern. The group sort of flies in the face of what I think many people think of when they think of “terrorist.” Many in the U.S. see terrorists as radical, backward people. And don’t get me wrong, ISIS is beyond radicalized. But much more concerning than its radicalization is that it’s alarming modern. As the United States continues to develop its plan to work against ISIS, we need to keep that in mind.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nile Livesey via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Coming Soon to Theaters Near You: ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Urban Outfitters deserves an award for the ballsiest PR stunts of pretty much any clothing company. Forget American Apparel and its usually naked models; forget United Colors of Benetton and its Pope-kissing ads; the award goes to Urban Outfitters.

The reason Urban Outfitters takes the top spot here is because of its most recent transgression — yesterday a particularly tasteless item was discovered on its site. I’ll let this tweet sum it up:

Urban Outfitters are selling a “vintage” Kent State jumper, blood splatters and all. Nothing says “hip” like murder. pic.twitter.com/tq63ONAniq

— cory zanoni (@cjzanoni) September 15, 2014

That’s right, that’s a Kent State sweatshirt that clearly looks pretty blood stained. And what is Kent State most famous for? The May 4, 1970 shootings by members of the National Guard that left four students dead and the campus and nation devastated.

Of course, Urban Outfitters “pretended” to have an answer, releasing a statement that said:

Urban Outfitters sincerely apologizes for any offense our Vintage Kent State Sweatshirt may have caused. It was never our intention to allude to the tragic events that took place at Kent State in 1970 and we are extremely saddened that this item was perceived as such. The one-of-a-kind item was purchased as part of our sun-faded vintage collection. There is no blood on this shirt nor has this item been altered in any way. The red stains are discoloration from the original shade of the shirt and the holes are from natural wear and fray. Again, we deeply regret that this item was perceived negatively and we have removed it immediately from our website to avoid further upset.

Sure, Urban Outfitters. I’m sure that literally no one involved in the production, marketing, or selling of the shirt noticed what every single person who saw a picture of it did — those red spots look remarkably like blood stains.

Listen, Urban Outfitters knows what it’s doing. If this were an isolated incident, maybe I’d give them a pass, but this is just the latest in a long string of PR stunts the company has used. Here are a couple times that the company charmingly attempted to glorify various disorders:

Dear @UrbanOutfitters, Depression and a girl with 2% body fat wearing an Eat Less shirt is not a fashion statement. pic.twitter.com/yEKurbhBwp

— nye (@fooddood_) January 18, 2014

Again, Urban Outfitters followed the exact same path. It received serious amounts of backlash over the shirts, came out with half-assed apologies, and moved on.

Remember that saying, “Any press is good press?” Urban Outfitters really seems to be taking that idea to heart. The more controversy you stir up, the more people talk about your brand. It’s pretty clear that that’s the philosophy that the company is attempting to use to sell clothes right now…but the real question is whether or not this tactic is working.

In 2012, Urban Outfitters hired a new CEO and purportedly tasked him with edging up the brand. There’s a fine line between edgy and offensive though, and Urban Outfitters has stepped way over that line. The fact that sales have been floundering while the other stores under its parent company have been growing, doesn’t bode well for the retailer.

Urban Outfitters has chosen to adopt the hot-mess Miley Cyrus strategy of marketing, and no one can give them any flak for not going all in with it. While this Kent State sweatshirt controversy is truly gross and horrible, I heard more people mention Urban Outfitters yesterday than I have in a very, very long time. That being said, whether or not it actually attracts new people to the brand remains to be seen — all press is not necessarily good press.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Urban Outfitters Forges Ahead With Offensive PR Strategy: Will it Pay Off? appeared first on Law Street.