2 : the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the 
    purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, 
    or a person

    3 : ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to 
    further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; 
    also : a public action having such an effect

    I’m not so sure I see “largely factual” pro-
    American “propaganda” as too much of a problem if it 
    helps to burnish the image of Americans in the eyes of 
    skeptical Iraqis long under the boot heel of a tyranical 
    dictator—and in doing so, helps save soldiers lives and 
    expedites the victory on the ground and the establishment 
    of a strong and viable Iraqi government. 

    Also, it bears noting here the the US military is working 
    with willing Iraqi newspapers in an effort to thwart the 
    insurgency by defeating them not just on the battlefield, 
    but in the sphere of public perception. 

    Questions: have we used these same techniques in other 
    wars? Certainly. Should we? Absolutely—particularly if it 
    could save US soldiers’ lives and help end the 
    insurgency. [READ THE REST]

    Except, of course, the news isn't "fake." Biased? Yes, 
    but it's supposed to be - it's part of the propaganda 
    campaign. Propaganda is important in any war, but it's 
    vital in a media war.

    That's not fascism; that's fighting a battle where no one 
    gets shot at and no one gets killed.