Voices About the Hall
We are losing the infowar. This "wall" between PA and IO is like Gorelick's wall in the FBI. It is not realistic to differentiate between domestic and foreign audiences. Whatever is targeted at one will be seen by the other.
According to Joint Publication 3-13, psychological operations are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign [AND DOMESTIC] audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign [AND OUR OWN] governments, organizations, groups and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign [AND DOMESTIC] attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator's objectives.
Does anybody doubt that the enemy is running PSYOPS on us?
Who does domestic counter-PSYOPS? Hostile media are the enemy's psywar operator's, but the PA side won't engage them as such. The center of gravity of this war is the will of the American people, half of whom are ready to quit right now.
I think that you make some excellent points. The one I am most interested in is the ability to put out what we write to the rest of the world: that is, in langauges other than english.
I have, to some small degree, experimented with this. Our Blog, Tanker Brothers, has a "Sister" mirror-blog in German.
Got a little bit of "pushback", but it's still up and running.
Where I think we need to go from here is better coordination and crosstalk. I'm still relatively new to the blogging game, but I think we're up against a formidable foe. The bad guys don't just have their internal IO and PSYOPS guys writing, but they have a massive amount of material from a Mainstream Media that is hostile to us and what we fight for.
That, in and of itself, is "The long pole in the tent".
Well, where to begin?
Because it's 12:25 a.m. I'm going to start with a little introduction and then tackle the issue of the "Wall between PA and IO".
I'm an Army public affairs officer. I've been in 19 years now, first enlisted in 1984. I've also been a PAO for about eight years now so I was in PA before we really had IO or at least before we called it IO.
My experience is that the "wall" isn't so much an issue of infighting as it is that the military doesn't yet have clearly defined roles and responsibilities for IO/PA. By and large my experience has been that I get along well with the IO guys, we just both agree that the whole process is still vague and underdeveloped.
I feel that the military uses--without calling it this--a model of public relations that James Grunig called the "Public Information Model". Check out http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/...rook/
models.htm for more on this.
I say this because I studied under the Grunig's while getting my master's in PR at the U of MD. (Jim and Laurie Grunig are basically the grandparents of modern public relations and some incredibly smart people).
Basically this model means that the organization in question adopts a "if you knew what we knew, you'd agree with us" attitude. This makes it difficult for the organization to accept that their messages "manipulate" opinion. Of course, we all agree that the whole point of messages is to affect how people think about a given issue.
But back to the point of IO/PA. Yes, in the military the use of disinformation lies well outside the realm of PA. This is because as PA's we understand--or at least feel--that about all we have is our integrity, and if we are involved in a PSYOPS message that lies, we're done for.
IO guys that I've worked with generally get that. What they don't get are the same things I don't get...how all of this can be integrated the most effectively.
Part of the problem stems from the military's (in my opinion) misguided perceptions of what PA does and what it should be doing. The formal army definition of PA says “keeps the American people informed…”. Often times I find myself explaining that 1-PA doesn’t—and can not possibly—keep “bad news” from happening, and 2-we need to be in on the planning side, not the reaction side. Almost every PA briefing I’ve seen has the cartoon of the PAO inside the glass case with a sign that says “break in case of emergency”. It’s a running joke in the PA community.
In the interests of running a marathon rather than a sprint…and committing myself to a long conversation rather one post. I’m going to end with this.
I disagree that it is “infighting” between PA and IO that is a problem. This is different than the types of infighting that goes on between governmental organizations. I think that in the case of CIA vs FBI there are a lot of people that understand each other’s role and want to be in charge of the limited resources and have their hands on the control knob. Okay, there is a limited amount of manhood comparing that goes on, but overall the conflict is because of ill-defined roles and responsibilities and misplaced perceptions about the capabilities of each.
Maybe I’m naïve and I’ll be the first to say that I haven’t been to Iraq. But I was involved in Kosovo in rotations 1A and 1B and just left as the Second Infantry Division PAO in Korea so I have worked with the IO folks before.
Next I promise a post over at my place on what should really be the role of public affairs.
Take care,
Mike Lawhorn
Which side is the national media on?
Not ours. Who is doing anything about it? Who can oppose these people, legally? Do we have the luxury of time to sort out the IO/PA turf war?
Starling David Hunter said, on The Belmont Club...
Wretchard said: "I am somewhat disappointed with Secretary Rumsfeld's response to the subject of the disinformation campaign he himself brings up: "that would be like trying to stop the tide. The last time out he described the enemy as winning the information war. Here he speaks of it again. But what to do about it?"
One thing that can't be done is to openly court bloggers the way Wal-Mart has done. See yesterday's NY Times article entitled Wal-Mart enlists bloggers in PR campaign
What can be done is that individuals can form loose-knit, issue-centric "citizen information militias" as I think I termed it in the comments of a previous thread.
Each CIM would be organized around 1-2 major and a handful of minor issues.
Each CIM would be formed of at least two major departments or functional areas- research and retail and possibly and third operations.
The Research department would work on information gathering and analysis.
The Retail department's basic responsibility would be to identify channels through which, the means by which, and the audience to whom the CIM's messages could delivered. They might also cultivate feeders who could send useful leads to them and/or the research group.
If there is an "Operations" group it's job would be to maintain the critical infrastructure (websites, blog, etc) and to provide technical support and evaluate the cost and feasibility of adopting software applications, adding features (e.g. podcasting, video).
In the CIM's early stages the Operations function could be subordinate to "Retail".
At the top of the food chain would be a farily small cadre of writers whose primary responsibility is to craft compelling content.
If that group has a leader, it would also be his or her job to set the broad agenda for the CIM, in consultation with the other team members, as well as to look for opportunies to collaborate with other CIMs on projects of mutual interest.
The smallest number of people required for a CIM to be effective would probably be 5-6 excluding the occasional feeder. While the structure could theoretically scale up by an order of magnitude, in practical terms it would probably be best to split them at about a size of 12-15. It is my feeling that anything larger than that requires communication and organizational design practices that are overly formal for what should be a rather organic undertaking. Even a CIM of 12-15 should be able to be broken into two if new issue arise that require it.
6:40 PM
OK, I agree with everything already said, but i agree most with Master Gunner: "Where I think we need to go from here is better coordination and crosstalk." But, I'm a process guy.
We may have some of the crosstalk issue PARTIALLY solved with the http://milblogwire.com/ If we start to use it a central posting point, the UPI or AP for bloggers. In my opinion it is here where the DOD funds could be best used.
As to organizing Blogstorms re: issues then something along the lines of Starling David Hunters recommentdation earlier. "What can be done is that individuals can form loose-knit, issue-centric "citizen information militias" as I think I termed it in the comments of a previous thread.
Each CIM would be organized around 1-2 major and a handful of minor issues." Cetainly one of the first CIMs to be formed would have to be "News from the front" and right along with it "News the MSM got wrong!!!"
All during the MilBlog conference these, infrasturcture and coordination, seemed to be issues that kept me on the edge of my chair waiting for an answer, so I am more than pleased to see some discussion and perhaps action.
Sigh me up!
My advice to the PAO's would be that they need to define what pictures need to be painted.
A) Realistic View of levels of violence. I've been gathering every stat I can for 2 years, I still can't form a picture in my mind of what Najaf might be like, or Kirkuk.
B) Progress - not just todays progress but cumulative progress...today mnf-i had a story about Najaf change of command to ISF...but nothing about this is the 5th or 6th province to be turned over out of 18.
C) Arrests - we get the bombings from the MSM, did we catch a guy...how many was the person responsible for. Not just say...detained 4...detained 4 terrorists suspected of carrying out 497 IED attacks. If I read the newspaper, no one ever gets caught
There have been some excellent suggestions.
Mike,
I'd like to agree with you on the importance of credibility. It is the most important thing, except possibly for distribution of message and speed of response. You need to improve the ability to push messages out into the Muslim world's media space, and to respond quicker to hostile messages. The one thing is a PA job, and the blogs can help with the second.
Still, even if you can do that, if you're not credible the message won't be received. That's why I suggested a model whereby we admit to ourselves that we have an ulterior motive, even in PA, and then admit it to the world at the top of each message. Let's be clear about what we want and why we want it -- just as blogs are clear. They don't deny bias and pretend objectivity, but rather admit bias and explain it openly.
However, I would like to clarify something about the disinformation aspects of IO. There are two. The production of military disinformation does indeed need to be kept well clear of what we currently think of as PA. Military disinfo has a legitimate role in certain kinds of cases, but it is limited and has heavy tradeoffs in terms of credibility. I think we agree about that.
However, there's also a role in IO of tracking and predicting enemy disinfo. That's where I think PA could use the expertise that IO officers have to offer.
One of the major places we're getting killed in the information war is the fact that there are all these hostile organizations pushing propaganda/disinformation at us, but we don't track them or respond to them systematically. We used to -- you mention that you've been in PA since before there was something called IO. Fair enough; but before it was called that, it still existed. The USSR fought a heavy propaganda war against the United States throughout the Cold War. They funded hostile political movements and parties in nations across the globe; newspapers and whole news services; NGOs that would tend to be hostile to American interests; and so forth. They invested untold millions in this.
After the USSR closed up shop, a lot of those organizations continued to exist on the infrastructure the USSR had built for them. Many of them are still around today: not just Communist Parties in Europe and Africa, but a lot of NGOs who are thought of as neutral by the general public. Their leadership was selected ten or fifteen years ago for being anti-American, and they are still anti-American.
That White Phosphorous story, for example, started in an Italian Communist organ. It got worldwide distribution fast because it was pushed by this interlaced infrastructure of allied, anti-American groups.
And then it got picked up by the Islamist organizations. That's the new piece in the puzzle, and it shows how dangerous that old, continuing structure of enemy organizations still is.
If you look at websites run by Hizb-ut Tharir (say, 1924.org), you'll see that they have learned that they can draw on and assimiliate these old organizations' messages. There is an effective alliance between these Islamists, who are fighting us in the infowar aspect of the GWOT, and these older hard left groups. It has sometimes advanced beyond the media sphere -- for example, the protests in the UK by the "Stop the War Coalition" of hard left groups and Islamists was a physical world effort to derail an important coalition partner.
Hizb-ut Tahrir, among others, is able to pick up these ready-made propaganda messages, alter them slightly to fit the Islamist ideology instead of the Communist one, and then distribute them worldwide and into many languages. They have a very active presence in the Indonesian media sphere, for example; we don't. All these hostile groups are therefore able to push their messages right into that dangerous space, spurring recruiting to radical Islamist organizations, and we aren't able to respond.
We need to be doing more predictive work. It's possible, once you know who the players are, to recognize that a message that shows up in one of these hostile outlets in Europe will soon be in Indonesia. That predictive knowledge gives you a window to produce a response, before the response is needed. When Hizb-ut Tahrir Indonesia publishes the latest thing it's picked up, you can be ready to go. Maybe you are pulling from MilBlogs, maybe from your internal writing, but you can be ready.
That is not happening now, and it's not happening in large part because we're refusing even to track these hostile groups. I think this is mostly for political reasons -- I don't think the political, civilian leadership much wants to be observed tracking what are thought of as "peace-loving antiwar groups," for fear of looking like Nazis. I understand the political impulse, and the fact that certain leadership figures (e.g., Ted Kennedy, John Kerry) are only too eager to wield such claims as a political weapon.
Nevertheless, we need to be doing more predictive work. IO is where that function is currently located, but I think PA needs it. We need to be honest and credible, absolutely. I think we should, except in a very few and specific cases, always be entirely honest and straightforward -- the most effective way to communicate is to say what you mean, and mean what you say.
Nevertheless, we need to start bringing these things together. We don't have the luxury of time. When there are hostile messages appearing at some radical website in Europe, we need to already be preparing to expose the truth about those messages when they appear in Indonesia. And across Europe in every language. And in Australia, in English but in the Muslim communities there. And Malaysia, and Latin America, and everywhere. We need to be able to play that game, and it's not happening.
OK, but what's the next step?
Well, MilBlogs can do some of this work -- tracking and keeping an eye on organizations and messages. We're free to say some things that the military can't say -- for example, we can track a message in the MSM back to the places where it's been initiated, and make clear that we're looking at an IO against the United States. We're also free to chide any political figures who picks up anti-American IOs and uses them to try to gain electoral or other advantages.
That's one thing we can do.
I like the idea of CIMs, which seems like a model we could use.
Another thing we can do is start educating Congress, and any journalists we encounter as bloggers, as to the existence of these movements and their interoperation. I think the MSM ends up absorbing messages from these groups often because they are themselves not aware of the history. They end up carrying hostile messages that they might be more suspicious of if they understood the agendas behind the messages. The MSM is always ready to distrust a US military message as having an agenda, because the military is open about what its messages are and because the MSM assumes it understands what their agenda is. A lot of these agents in the media space, however, have been successful in not being identified as former-Soviet / Islamist / otherwise anti-American agents.
It also may be that, once the journalist/legislative community begins to understand what's going on, they'll want to consider changes to the laws. We don't want an America in which the government can spread untruths to push the agenda of the administration of the day. We do want an America that is able to point out, correctly and honestly, when an organization founded to be hostile to America is pushing a message into the media space.
As bloggers, we can be vigilant about responding to bad information -- and passing it on to PA, if we're able to get them to engage us. That may help them create messages to push, if they're able to improve their capacity to push messages in target regions/popluations.
All of these things are things we can do.
From Shrinkwrapped:
How is it that so much of the MSM reporting is inaccurate, slanted, partially accurate, and seemingly almost designed to damage our war efforts, not only in Iraq, but throughout the entire sphere of the Information War against Islamic fascism?
For now I would suggest there are four main groups of individuals who are actively involved, often without their conscious knowledge, in the Information War, whose work tends to damage the interests of the West:
1) The Anti-Americans: There is a small cadre of overt Anti-American, far left extremists, who follow an agenda best described as Anti-American; Ward Churchill is an obvious example.
2) The Sympathizers: A larger cohort are active sympathizers with the first group but try to hide their sympathies while finding less overt ways to side with the enemy. These are people who think the use of American military power is never justified, unless it is not in our national interest, ie we should intervene in Darfur but not Iraq.
3) The Opportunists: A somewhat larger group consists of those who appear to have some sympathy for the anti-American position, at least as long as George Bush is President, but seem to be much more opportunistic in their opposition. They often appear to have no idea how their actions damage our country and our war effort.
4) The Useful Idiots: Finally, the largest group consists of those who believe they are serving the public interest as they understand it, but through short-sighted concentration on the immediate and the fuzzy thinking engendered by an adherence to political correctness, tend to frame their perspective in ways that are inimical to Western Civilization; these would be the heirs to Stalin's "useful idiots."
The most valuable and powerful weapon these people have is their authority. By appearing in the pages of the New York Times or interviewed on CBS News, an overt anti-American like Cindy Sheehan is granted a patina of authority ("unquestioned authority" in the immortal phrase of Maureen Dowd, who most likely belongs in the "useful idiot" category).
In 1968, there was no countervailing authority to question Walter Cronkite. Today, there is An Army of Davids; however, lets not forget that David needed some luck and ammunition to vanquish Goliath and at this point Goliath still has a home field advantage.
I think the inertia at higher headquarters will be the most difficult thing to break down. They hate losing control...particularly of information. So as progressive as some General Officers may seem, if they get slammed from within by a blogger telling the truth, they will regret the day that they embraced the medium.
I think, in some regards, that the blogsphere breakout, that was coincident, but not necessarily linked to, our being engaged in combat, has hampered the integration of MilBlogging and IO/PA. Had the blogoshpere exploded in peace time, there may have been more opportunity for blogging to be formally integrated at many levels...bear with me...
1. Information dissemenation/exchange to/from all educational levels within the military. Forums to/from the fleet units to the CSCs, War Colleges...and various Bn unit training institutes.
2. Feedback link for Requirements Officers writing position papers on Service and Joint staffs. Blogs would provide a speedy conduit of information to Program Officers, that would hopefully be free of "command influence."
3. Feedback loop for prototype or newly introduced equipment.
4. Limitless (some unclass, some classified net only) opportunity for tactical dvelopment discussions, and injection of tactical innovations directly to schools or to BnOps O's.
5. Provide that clear messaging to the Chain of Command on what is really happening in the Companies and Platoons with regards to the usual ongoing issues...availability of training ammo, availability of supplies, what training is valuable, what training is a waste of time, etc. Items normally supressed or obfuscated by staff officers hoping to provide "good news" in a staff meeting.
The unfortunate part of the blogosphere and milblogging all ramping up at the same time, is that we are trying to figure out how to get the most difficult part of MilBlogging to function, under the most difficult of circumstances. I think MBC I and beyond are necesary to leverage Milblogging to the greatest extent possible, and to have it fully integrated into all funcitonal areas of MilOps out into the future.
Nice work. MM
What I envision is using a blog storm similar to what we saw with Fran O'Brien. A storm of Mil and Civ Bloggers supported with a specialized targetting group and formal coordinating group. Support infrastructure not available today.
CIM organization with this support would be potentially more powerful than the MSM. More importantly there would be a countervailing info flow counteracting BAD, SLOPPY and DELIBERATELY misleading reporting.
I don't doubt the enemy is running psyche ops war on the American public..I blogged as much about that in "The Art of War: Using The Media Elites"
But they do so ONLY because the media is a willing partner with our enemies.And they are willing partners because the media liberal agenda strongly hates the Bush Admin, hates the evil military machine, and believes our enemies are justifibly lashing out at a power hungry America.
If the media wasn't so hellbent on demonizing and destroying the current Administration....our enemies would be losing the psyche ops game.
It is not the PAO that doesnt reach out the media...its that the media doesnt give a damn about the PAO.
They don't trust the military and any story that doesnt suit their agenda is not likely to be given much of a voice.
Before we can make any effective changes in sharing positive news with the world and reshaping the hearts and minds of the Arab world, Europeans and 50% of the American population, we need to understand the complex nature of our audience, their habits, their needs, and HOW they respond to information delivery systems, let alone information.
I find that the discussions of late on the PAO not getting the message out and blaming the military for not "getting the message out" is unfair and it lacks any real understanding of the above factors. And I know a "PAO" who wasn't happy with the "blame the PA" meme at the Milblog event.
I want to see the Military pour more resources into the blogging community, and even into providing body armour for inde guys like Roggio and Yon. BUT I am concerned that an already distrustful public will assume that once our military works closely with bloggers, be they milbloggers or not, that the perception will be that the bloggers are simply "shills" for the Military.
Its fair to say that liberals rarely believe anything written by milbloggers which contradicts their mindset about the war. Likewise, they consider both Yon and Roggio to be "right wing shills" for the military.
And As we have seen, when Mike Yon spoke his mind on civil war in Iraq, even those who had supported his "truthful" reporting from Iraq now turned against him, because for most people, truth is simply a matter of hearing what they want to hear and seeing what they want to see.
This poses a huge problem in trying to affect the hearts and minds of those in America, let alone Canada & Europe, that already bear emnity distain and distrust of the military, our soldiers, republicans, the latest administration and even the soldiers themselves. Can you imagine how much more challenging that is to do in the arab world?
And as some one who understands the Arabic language, whose parents grew up in Egypt, and who has personally travelled throughout the M.E., and spent years dealing directly with the media, I know how little headway milbloggers and bloggers- who aren't censored- are able to make in the Arab world, how challenging it will be to effectively change the arab mindset towards democracy and the cultural freedoms that democracy tends to invite. When information comes from the Military or milblogs that are not censored, it is for the most part not trusted by the arab man on the street- in truth, news in general that comes out of America is rarely trusted by average arab man on the street either.
But the average arab man on the street would also be the first to admit he would love to live in a democratic arab nation!
It is a complex and challenging area of the world. So it is imperative that we find grassroot ways in Europe and the Arab world to ensure that a different voice about America, democracy, and the war on terror is heard!
Just HOW we do that is something that will be debated by smarter minds than myself but where there is a will there is a way. In the end, Determining the best way may be a matter of trial and error but whatever we do, we must first take into account a realistic understanding and assesment of the audiences we target.
I don't hear much of that realistic understanding being spoken off in these conversations.
Fixing issues within the military between PA and IO is one thing..but will mean little if one doesn't understand the marketplace you aim to "manipulate" ( I prefer "influence" vs. manipulate)
I do agree that it would be nice to dev. a citizery that knows how to think about war...problem is 50% of that citizenry believes they already know exactly how to think about war: they hate it, disagree with it, and see no reason for it. Appeasement, diplomacy, hugs and therapy are they only way these people believe all problems need to be solved.
And I find flaw in the thinking that assumes, mistakenly, that those 50% care to rethink the way they think about war. I'm not so sure that they do..or they would have by now.
So what do you do in order to change the echos of Viet Nam that resonate today?
I agree that ONE of the most important actions we can take is to ensure that CONTEXT is spelled out in detail. It was one of the biggest issues brought up in the Reuters event which I blogged about recently.
I have the benefit of understanding context because I have asked the various LTC's I email to put into context that which is happening and that which I don't understand
It's time consuming on their part to put context in writing, and its time consuming on my part read it. And this from someone who reads as much as I do, speaks multiple languages, has travelled extensively, and studied comparative religion, international relations, quantum physics and whose reading material includes Sun Tzu, Marcus Aurelios, and Thuycides "History of the Peloponnesian Wars" But I WANT to learn. So I take the time..
However, we live in a world where 30sec ads are too long, where we have enough attention ONLY for 10 sec soundbites, and where time is the most precious commodity. Learning requires active participation, willingness and time. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him/her drink it! Those that are happy to believe what they believe continue to believe..its easier than taking the time to learn something new!
The reality is to put something into context cannot be done in 30 secs.
So we are left with the need to find ways to offer big picture context in less time than it takes to sell beer, sex, and reality tv!
Is that possible? Hmmm......
You can deliver a great message but if people tune out after 30 secs...then the great message is lost.
I only point all this out because I think its important to understand how messages are recieved, the mindset of those receiving the messages, and how your target audience functions.
Visual images provide the most visceral impact, words not as much.
Thats why our enemies LOVE showing actual beheadings. It happens quickly and gets the reaction they want.
We need images as much as words...but bear in mind...if we give visual and or written details of schools that have been built and opened...then our enemies know what to target next...and often do! Problematic to say the least.
But we need to be aware of these realities in trying to create ways to counter the negativity prevalent in the MSM. And that awareness is not something I'm not hearing coming from most people who discuss this subject of late.
I very much agree that PAO should be able to pass useful messages from the blogosphere (esp. MilBlogs) through to other populations with the proper credit. and that they MUST engage the blogsphere.
We also need to ensure that the Military from top to bottom and in between understands clearly that THIS New Media, i.e. bloggers, is not a passing fad, and will continue to play an important role in helping to shape public opinion and re- educate the public...but it will not happen overnight. For the most part..bloggers like traditional media are preaching to a like minded audience!
But figuring out the micro details of how to use bloggers to deliver the message is a complex process..and while most peoples intentions and hearts are in the right place..they lack a deep understanding of the complexity of the marketplace they are targeting.
People are emotionally connected to their beliefs....and it is that emotional connection that is the most challenging to change. Reason does not always trump emotion even when reason has its foundation in fact and truth. As I said before when it comes to truth, for most people it is simply a matter of hearing what they want to hear and seeing what they want to see.
I wonder if an effort to delegitimize these vestigal feeder NGO's would help?
Would an effort to reveal the history of some of the more egregious examples of cold war hold over so reduce the credibility of these groups that the MSM would be less likely to take their product at face value?
I recall an example: Rush Limbaugh revealed that one of the organizers of the upcoming pro immigration rallies was international ANSWER. That revelation seemed to change the entire plan.
I also understand the reluctance of the government to "target" these NGO's but what prevents us mere citizens from checking on some web sites on a regular basis? What keeps an interested citizen from questioning the bona fides of a specific group?
We can never overcome the propensity for out right lies. but we could limit the damage, especially domestic damage by attacking the credentials of these virulently anti American NGO's.
Anonymous:
Thanks for those comments, of which there are too many to respond systematically. I will say one thing, though: we don't have to convince the 50% of America, if it is 50% (twenty percent would be my estimate of the hard-core, congential anti-warriors). Another 9/11 will do that. A nuclear 9/11 would do it once and for all.
We need to get our heads right about this. We've been lucky, but hard times are coming. I'm talking about laying groundwork for when they get here. When that day comes, public opinion won't be the problem. The problem will be communicating what that public needs to know. In time, I think it's certain, we will have their attention. Leave it to the enemy to convince them that we're right.
Between now and then, let's hone our skills at getting the message out in a useful way. That way, when we do have their attention, we'll be putting out the tools to help them climb the learning curve.
Marine Dad:
I do think that's an absolutely necessary aspect of this war. I think a lot of journalists are fundamentally ignorant about it, and some of the MSM's credulity arises from the fact that they don't recognize when they're being fed a line by a hostile group. If it comes from the US Military, they automatically put on filters because they think they know what we want and how we think. If it comes from a group with a name like "Coalition to Stop War and Help All People Achieve An End to Racism and Promote Understanding," well, it's a smokescreen.
That's a real challenge, and one of the ways the blogs can punch above their weight. We don't have the kind of funding these groups have had -- in fact, we have almost no funding at all. But we can help expose, and collapse, this superstructure. So doing, we can deny it to the enemy -- the Islamists, who are using it as a weapon against us.
Great comments. We started a similar conversation over at John Donavan's Castle
http://www.thedonovan.com/archiv...ves/
005664.html
I have a few points and several people have made comments here that go right into the problems that the military has with the media (and we too).
The first problem: media bad, media bias, media the enemy. In this world, the media is the middleman, the major distributor of information. The media must be viewed as a strategic partner, not the enemy. For the most part, this partner has limitations on time, space, knowledge/expertise, and people. This has resulted in what we think is "bias" wherein I believe that it is largely "ignorance" plus their own need to compete or "sell" to the audience. This means that they shape or focus the story on specific aspects. There is scandal, drama, excitement, anger (full range human emotions), significant impact, current world changing events, etc. There is a whole gamut of things that the media is trying to shape their story around in order to get interest from the viewing public.
Based on the type of story and its impact, it gets placed in the network news cycle or page placement in print or internet. For instance, some stories you may only see at noon time, but other stories that get repeated with additional information at the most viewed periods of time can be seen in the 6 AM to 8:00 AM, noon, 6:30pm and then 9:00 to 10:30 pm time slots. The military needs to figure out what kind of stories get seen in these time periods and how the media presents the "evolving story" and then needs to figure out how to work inside these cycles.
Instead, what happens is that centcom puts out a press release stating "2 soldiers wounded, three insurgents killed during operations in Anbar". That's the first one, then it gets picked up by the AP which cuts and pastes it almost exactly word for word. Later the military may update it, but they are not working within the press's time cycle. The updated info may not come until the next day or 12 hours later, or even further along. By then, its too late and its out of the cycle. They missed their opportunity to shape the story.
These stories must be more complete from the start and updated info must made available within the news cycles. Its even more tight for printed press because they must have all the stories written and edited, ready to go to print by a specific time.
Speaking of that, the "updates" are never separate issues. For instance, I was looking at Centcom the other day and I had seen a press release about an operation in Husbyah the previous day. I was looking for an update. I couldn't remember if I had looked at that press release on the site before, so I clicked on it. Sure enough, it was the same press release, just with additional information. The original press release had been taken down and this one put in its place.
It had the same title and the first paragraphs started out the same. If I hadn't noted the additional paragraphs, I would have closed it imagining I had already looked at it. I think this is a problem with military press releases. They are not issuing "updates" separate from the original press release. So, when they are being aggregated and sent out via the auto mill that pushes them to media outlets, some schmuck in the media room simply sees that this "latest" press release has the same name and the little "excerpt" that accompanies it looks like the first one, so they discard it, don't even take it off the wire.
The military needs to issue "new information" press releases not reissue the old one with new info. The "new information" needs to reference back to the original story and contain all its elements, but should start out with the opening paragraph giving different info or stating it is an update on a specific operation. This will help the media folks know that this is more info, not the same story being regurgitated to be dismissed.
Second of all, the military press releases are often as dry and exciting as a saltine cracker. It doesn't evoke emotions; it doesn't "connect" with people; it doesn't feel "personal". Reporters who embed or report from theater and report first person make it "personal" when they write, that's why they are so great (like Roggio or Yon). "I was there, this is what happened".
People respond very much to the personal "first person". They don't respond to dry pieces that are like reading the baseball stats for the day. It's just numbers. Even though WE know it is people, we know because we spend time talking and thinking about the war and we know people there or who came back. Not everybody does, thus, since it isn't "personal" for personal reasons, the story has to evoke the "personal" (like emotions) for other reasons, mostly to do with human nature and purient interest, but whatever to float the story.
Now, we need to understand the media as a business and who ITS customers are. It also has "strategic business partners" like people who buy ads in certain time slots or on certain pages. These people want their ads viewed so they have studied what time slots during the news gets the most viewing and they pay top money for it. THe media knows that so they arrange stories they are telling in an order that will most likely "hook" viewers and keep them watching the channel.
You ever notice that early in the news, they will give you a "hook" about a story and then, all through the news they give you little snippets with interesting words letting you know that this story is a "must see" and they will cover it later? That's so you will stay on their channel and keep watching so you will see all their ads. Also to boost their ratings so that the folks who buy their ads will pay more money for their spaces.
Its a business and as soon as we look at it as a business and figure out how to operate within its requirements, helping them to take care of THEIR customers, instead of looking at them as some giant, hostile entity that should be just happy the military talks to them, the better we will be able to present "the story".
That's a couple of issues with press releases, working inside news cycles and understanding the business in relationship to the "information war".
I have no idea why my name, and other details didn't show up on my post...but I am SOOO not the anonymous type:>)
as Kat will lend testimony too since she and I inadvertantly engaged in this same discussion over at The Castle.
Nothing prevents any of us from checking in on websites and questioning the bonafides of any specific group.
Many of us have questioned Juan Cole. and we know the truth of who he isn't but that doesnt stop others who CHOOSE to believe Juans bogus insights..while denouncing any one who exposes him as a right wing Bushitler groupie.
The blogsphere brought down Eason Jordan....and Dan Rather.
Code Pink(o) has been exposed for what it truly is...doesnt stop libs from embracing this traiterous organization.
Should we stop doing it, hell no, but will it in the end reshape the way the Left views our enemies, this War on Terror, and will it help us to achieve our goals?
Kat:
Its all very fine and good to claim that the media needs to be viewed as a strategic partner...and to blame the military for not viewing them in that way..and with all due respect but its naive to assume that what we KNOW IS media bias and not just on the war but on all major issues such as abortion, secularism is simply "ignorance" plus their need to sell.
If it bleeds it leads is the oldest business model in news. It still applies today. Do you hear about all the planes that land safely...no you hear about the ones that crash.
The only shaping the media does is to shape a story to suits is liberal secular anti Bush, anti military agenda. PERIOD. The drama, scandel, excitement, anger that you think they are trying to shape their story around...is not at the heart of their editorial decisions...unless it can be used to further their above cited agenda.
Im not making this statement out of ignorance, Kat, Im making it out of full inside knowledge and experience in the media and in dealing with the media.
News is no longer fragmented into time cycles....not since the advent of 24 hour news networks and with the mainstream use of the internet.
The military has a PAO that understands the media better than you give them credit for....and they constantly feed them great positive insightful stories filled with drama, pathos, human heros, sacrifices, and not just the DOD press release of body counts you keep referring too.
These body count stories are what the media themselves put forth based on info they receive from stringers, embeds and assorted other sources, not just the PAO.
It is not the military that fails to shape the story...its the media you seem to be so enamoured with that chooses WHAT to report and what NOT to report. And the choices they make completely reflect their agenda.
As for what some schmuck does or doesnt do in the media room....it doesnt matter whether you position something clearly as an update or merely re edit it and then send it out...that same schmuck could care less..at the end of the day..he makes his decision based on directives he receives from his editor.
Ive sent out many press releases with the word UPDATE clearly written...made no difference unless the UPDATE was crucial.
I don't disagree that it might be helpful to label something as new information..but in the end...it won't matter 90% of the time for the reasons I keep stating over and over and over.
Read Bernie Goldbergs two brilliant books on the Media: "Bias" and "Arrogance" will provide you with an honest look an the inside workings of this media you seem to want to believe is simply misunderstood!
Ads are purchased on tv and in print by MEDIA BUYING COMPANIES who make their decisions based on readership,page number, and in the case of tv news, based on Neilsen ratings.
The snippets of teasers that you speak about are done ONLY to keep you from switching channels. Its an old trick..and it doesn't always work!
Ratings are boosted because of teasers. Ratings are taken four times during the year...and during those times...depending on the numbers ...the cost of the ad for the upcoming quarter is determined. That is the ONLY deciding factor in ad rates!
Both FOX and NBC know exactly what THEIR "customers" want...thats why each of them skew the news they deliver to SUIT THEIR AGENDA which is what attracts their viewership. I watch Fox news not because its really more fair and balanced...it isn't all that fair and balanced but for the most part I connect with the way they skew the news...with their more conservative slant...I still watch CNN...but I do so only to watch how much they skew the news LEFT and frame the same stories differently..usually in the opposite way.
I don't know where you get the impression that the military views the media as a hostile entity that should just be happy the military talks to them.
Ive spoke to PA guys from years..and none of them EVER felt that way.
Does the Military as an entity feel frustrated by the Media...absolutely.
With good reason..they saw the horrendous effect embeds had during the Viet Nam war. And sadly the echos of that war have remained firmly embedded in the media elites who grew up during the vietnam era watching those images..and were left with distain for the military.
That is the reason the media agenda reflects this distain. The military relunctantly allowed embeds during the first Gulf War. There has always been mixed feelings with regards to embeds and the challenges they pose.
We all remember what happened with Kevin Sites released footage of a Marine killing someone he believed posed a deadly threat....
The Marine and our military was SKEWERED in the court of public opinion on the "left".
What some of us understood was a normal reaction under the fog of war...the left saw as validation that our military breeds murderers...and as such the story was framed that way.
It was a story filled with drama, excitement and anger..... The left wing media shaped that story around its agenda to get interest from its viewing public, alright...but it wasn't interest favorable to the military and to our troops!
This is but ONE example out of 1000s in which this same situation has occured.
You really should listen in its entirety to the Reuters event "Is the Media Telling The Truth About Iraq".which you can access on my blog.
I really believe you have a very naive understanding of the Media and of what our Military PAO has done in order to provide The Complete Picture to the Media.
Grim - When another attack occurs on our soil...you can bet that the left will blame the attack on Pres Bush decision to liberate Iraq, and remove Saddam.
Today, liberals are still blaming American Foreign Policy as the reason for 9/11...of course ask any of them to identify WHICH aspect of American Foreign Policy is responsible...ask them about the complexity of a Post Cold War world...and they are unable to answer your questions.
So I don't want to wait until another attack happens in the hope that it will unite Americans...it likely won't.
It is imperative we find ways to educate, interact, and influence those who see the American gov't, instead of bin laden, al zarquawi, the Mullahs of Iran, assorted communist dictators, and fanatical Islam, as a source of evil, and who are afraid to admit what the truth of what Michael Yon said
"these people, whether we call them freedom fighters, insurgents, thugs, or terrorists, have a stated mission to attack anyone who is not like them, wherever they can. They are not bluffing. They cannot be appeased."
This is the message we need to ensure is understood, and by fiat, we need to strengthen our military, support their endeavers to protect us and defend democracy, libery and freedom, and that a strong Military force from the world's largest most successful democracy, serves us well in promoting human rights, democracy, and ending genocide on a global scale..and that even if we don't always suceed at completely fulfilling our role as a moral force, we have NO CHOICE but to try.
How we spread this message requires alot more than evocative press releases by the Military to an MSM unwilling to understand this basic truth. The liberal agenda is stuck in the past...not unlike the agenda of our enemies...and we need to use many resources....evocative milblogs, blogs turned into books with heartwarming stories from the frontlines, documentaries by soldiers shot during their deployment, Podcasts of deployed soldiers that share their stories, their musical tastes,their dreams....there is much we can working with the military PAO.
I d rather they spend less time on creating press releases for the Media..and far more time building relationships with key influential bloggers like Blackfive, and finding ways to help get the stories that milbloggers are writing, out to a larger audience.
I agree with Huntress. Waiting is the wrong approach. We must be proactive and not wait to be reactive. I propose we create a CIM to watch the MSM and begin debunking whenever and wherever possible. Using the PA/IO and MilBlogs if possible to confirm the alternative info.
I propose we don't call ourselves CIM. How 'bout CIIDG (see-EED-gee) Civilian Irregular Information Defense Group?
If you remember your military history, there was a Montagnard militia called the CIDG. Some people don't like analogies, but bear with me here. Visualize an IO battle space sorta/kinda like this:
The Islamic jihad = world communism
MSM = Viet Cong
CENTCOM PAO = 5th SF Group
The blogosphere = Montagnards
Active duty milbloggers = guys who spend their R&R in country
Veteran milbloggers = guys who took in country discharge and went Asiatic
Us 'yards don't look like much, but we're highly mobile, flexible, running the jungle in nothing but a loin cloth carrying a crossbow. Charlie fears us. If the long noses would give us guns, we kill beaucoup VC.
Huntress, I am coming back to you with some comments, but I would say that I do not totally disagree with your comments. I have thought about some of these myself and that is why I have talked about the media as an international distributor of information and a conduit to these different areas, cultures and social constructs.
In order to stay in business in these areas, the media must know what its audience wants and it gives it to them.
I believe that, by using the same marketing tools that the media uses to identify its customers and determine the presentation, content and response to their stories, the military may be able to use that information to better use the massive distribution tool that is the media.
I would like to stress that my fondness for the media is a fondness for their distribution capabilities, their millions (should I say "billions") of viewers/readers, their ability to disiminate messages almost instantaneously. My thoughts are that I would like the military or, more appropriately our "information operations" to be able to take full advantage of that tool. That includes identifying where the military, DoD, or any other participant in the information war can improve their operations to do so.
Even if we do an end run on the media and try to determine the make up of the audience and how to present information, we still need the media to distribute so we still need to know how they work, how they determine what to cover, how they shape stories and how it makes it into their cycle so that we can better use that tool.
With all due respect to bloggers, we do not match the distribution capabilities of the media. We can attempt to move them on certain stories one way or the other, correct misinformation or disinformation, but we do not have the current capacity to counter every story that is put out. In this, we would have to be selective.
In any case, this concept of civilian information operations through the blog and other experts is not a replacement for the capabilities of the international media to distribute information but an enhancement to current operations. I believe that to ignore the media or discard any ideas of reshaping the military/media relationship is less than strategically sound.
It would simply leave them in charge of distributing the story to millions of people without input or with limited input from the military. That seems catastrophic to me and in fact implies a garrison defense.
I would like to agree with anonymous (huntress) that information war today is largely a visual war. Pictures do speak a thousand words. Since the media is unable or unwilling to put forth the effort, time and money to embed camera crews to the degree we would like and the military must compete with highly questionable, highly edited video from "stringers", I believe that it may behoove the military to put more "combat journalists" out in the field.
Of course, there are opsec issues, such as you mention with the Reuters conference and the stories about openings of clinics reported resulting in attacks.
What I keep thinking about are those mini movie tone news reels from WWII. Much of that film was shot by the military, not free lance or "embedded" reporters. Mini documentaries are becoming underground hits. Mini documentaries on efforts in the war, from Dijbouti to Indonesia, from combat to civil affairs (construction, building democracy, etc), might be well received.
I also think about the mini documentary on Iraq on fox news that basically gave a snippet of life throughout Iraq from economic to religious to rebuilding to war. I believe it was one of the highest rated segments on the days it was aired.
Obviously, its a lot of money, people and danger for the media to invest in those kinds of efforts on a routine basis. Not to mention, the scope of things that they cover on a daily basis forces a competition for money and resources. It may have more benefit to cost ratio for the military to produce these documentaries or find more civilian organizations willing to foot some of the expenses, resources and time.
That may mean that the military gives up some of its editing rights, but, with the right company and cultivation of attitude, it could produce something viable like the "war tapes" project.
The only thing is, this has to be more timely. Reporting on something that happened last year may be interesting and exciting, but it may not resemble the current status of the war.
As far as opsec issues with reporting clinic openings and such, it may be a matter of restructuring the release time of such a document. It would have to be more timely due to the needs of the news cycle and the need to influence the situation/opinions more immediately, but it could also be done say in a thirty day time cycle where the political/military importance of the development is less important so it attracts less attention of the enemy who is looking for the biggest bang out of their low budget propaganda bucks.
Office of War Information
Amazing what can be done during a declared war. The people and the economy are not mobilized for this counter-Jihad, and neither are the media.
We do have to remember that the military is limited by the fact that it is not partisan. I think it's important to be strongly critical of politicians who slander the US military in order to make way -- Ted Kennedy's invocation that Abu Ghraib showed that the military had 'reopened Saddam's torture rooms under US management' being a clear example. But the military is not free to criticize a Senator.
Nor, really, can it become free to criticize "the left" more broadly. For one thing, the left elects a certain number of political officials, whose assertions hem in what the military can say. For another, even our hard leftists -- as much as it sometimes seems to gall them -- are American citizens, and the US military serves them too. It has no business attacking citizens.
When I say, therefore, that PA's mission shouldn't worry about convincing people of the rightness of the military mission, partially that's what I mean. It's not the military's job to get into the policy arguments or the politics.
I also do believe that, even though the left probably will blame future attacks on Bush and his policies, America will stand up. 9/11 was blamed by the left on past policies, and it made no difference; look at the support Bush enjoyed after the attacks, and in the initial invasion of Iraq. What we see now is the effect of years of chipping away at that support, but the basic American instinct to defend the country remains.
"The Military Scares Me"
A matter of life and death
DoD cannot legally address much that needs to be countered, debunked, discredited, and ridiculed out of serious consideration. Who can? Who will? Somebody better, soon.
Intersting. Based on the conversation here I looked into a few NGO's. I found the Nuclear Age Foundation. It had some pretty famous names on its board. Michael Douglas and Daniel Elsberg for example.
No financial data was posted so I have no Idea how the funded themselves.
but I looked at the articles posted on their home page. One was by the NGO's president and the other was by a fellow named Zinn.
I checked out Zinn and within two mouse clicks I was at the socialist Worker web site.
So the theory, it seems, is valid. some of these NGO's have very interesting roots.
I'll keep a watch on this, just to see how they behave. I'm a big believer in "know thy enemy".
It isn't a theory, it's history. If you're looking for a starting point, try looking into Global Exchange, or the Inter Press Service.
Okay,
Let me agree on some points. There is a precedent in business for establishing direct relations from the "manufacturer" to the "end user". Typically, the manufacturer develops information on a new product and provide something like a website or an 800 number for potential customers to call if they are interested in a product. The manufacturer would have made strategic partnerships with specific distributors where that distributor foots some, or all of the advertisement bill, the manufacturer, knowing its product, creates the sales pitch, images and video (all billed to the strategic partners who accept it as part of their cost of doing business). Then, when a customer calls the 800 number the customer service people can answer questions, explain limitations of use or necessary processes to obtain the product and direct the customer/end user to a distributor. The phones are manned by people who have either worked for the manufacturer or are selected and trained by the manufacturer, who are familiar with the product, its capabilities, trouble shooting, etc but whose salaries are again paid for under the organization formed for strategic partnership, not current employees of the manufacturer.
This happens quite a bit in home health care and is designed to develop interest in the product and a loyal customer base, which is the mainstay of any business. One time only customers are simply "gravy" as we used to say. Home health agencies and manufacturers of product are restricted by many laws governing "cold sales" to medicare beneficiaries in order to reduce non-essential use, over billing to Medicare and reduce conflict of interest by recommending a service that is rightfully prescribed by a physician.
I think that this sort of organization could take place in the internet community with a strategic partnership to an organization, something like the milblog wire with additional partnerships with sponsors who buy ads and groups like the one that did the "war tapes" videos.
something like Pajamas Media but specifically an aggregator of military/war related news.
These groups can be formal organizations with informal associations. It can organize experts in military affairs, but they may have to be capable of almost instantaneous response to certain stories, like the willie pete story. Or, the organization can be formed on loose networks where the organization actively looks for already prepared works that coincide with the objective of countering or presenting specific information.
It would also depend on receiving "completed works" such as that on the DIVIDs. I think it would be important that the military be ready and willing to receive feedback on what they are producing and what is of interest to these groups.
In this case, because smith-mundt and various other acts that prohibit certain financial tractions in regards to releasing certain information used for "foreign target audiences" to the American public without a specific request for "review", the military could not pay directly for any operational costs of the organization. At most, it could buy advertisement with the organization to be placed on all manner of product like websites, t-shirts, pens, pencils, etc.
This separation of finances would be very important for two reasons: first, to satisfy legal considerations; second, to insure that it is not seen as a direct propaganda effort by the military to the public which could erode public trust. Some overflow of this attitude will be expected anyway, but it is best to limit it as much as possible.
And, you are right on one aspect, such an organization would have the reach in terms of "expert journalists in the field", unpaid people who write their stories because they want them heard. These could be military, civilian contractors, locals to the combat area (like ITM brothers, who are with PJ media but we could find others who are equally capable; I just saw Zeyad from the Messopotamian picked up in the WaPo, etc). Bring in the Yon's, Roggios, and guys like security watchtower or counterterrorism blog as "strategic partners" and you may have a product that the media cannot resist.
Particularly if this organization does part of the media's job for it. That is in fact, what strategic partners often do and I believe that this organization, besides pushing the stories out to the "end user" without the middle man, can, as we have in many respects under informal processes, push stories to the media in a non passive manner which is, as I point out in my criticism of the military endeavor, one of the problems with the current system. It is certain that PAOs create and "put out" stories every day, but it is certainly a passive distribution which leaves the selection or non-selection of stories and content to the media.
The other important factor, which you noted, is that the blog world has a lot of informal relations with people who know people and could help get things distributed or people interested in stories.
Another great idea was definitely the ability for soldiers to do podcasts or provide pictures or video directly. this information organization would have to be willing to do some self policing and work with the military on opsec issues, but would probably be less restricted in what it could or would show. It would also need some people who would be willing to interact with commanders and such, going to bat for some milbloggers if that bloggers commander has not bought into the "insurgent information war" program. We would need some contacts high up to help if it became to difficult. Some gentlemen and ladies in uniform or DOD that we can sell on the importance.
In fact, this reminds me of somethings I just read:
What is the organization for guerrilla warfare? Though all guerrilla bands that spring from the masses of the people suffer from lack of organization at the time of their formation, they all have in common a basic quality that makes organization possibleAll guerrilla units must have political and military leadership. This is true regardless of the source or size of such units. Such units may originate locally, in the masses of the people; they may be formed from an admixture of regular troops with groups of the people, or they may consist of regular army units intact. And mere quantity does not affect this matter. Such units may consist of a squad of a few men, a battalion of several hundred men, or a regiment of several thousand men.
All these must have leaders who are unyielding in their policies—resolute, loyal, sincere, and robust. These men must be well-educated in revolutionary technique, self confident, able to establish severe discipline, and able to cope with counter-propaganda.
During the progress of hostilities, guerrillas gradually develop into orthodox forces that operate in conjunction with other units of the regular army. Thus the regularly organized troops, those guerrillas who have attained that status, and those who have not reached that level of development combine to form the military power of a national revolutionary war. There can be no doubt that the ultimate result of this will be victory.
Unorganized guerrilla warfare cannot contribute to victory...Mao Tse Tung On Guerilla War.
This is what we are suggesting. Guerilla Warfare against a large organized, standing army of "mainstream media". In order to replace them as arbiters of the "war" news, we have to become at least organized Guerillas. Right now, we are "bandits and anarchists".
Then there is the subject of mibloggers in this "insurgent operation". This organization can become the conduit through which the milblogger becomes:
2. Combatant-Propagandist Guerrillas
In order to obtain the maximum results from the psychological operations in guerrilla warfare, every combatant should be as highly
motivated to carry out propaganda face to face as he is a combatant. - Tayac n Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare
In other words, every milblogger is not just some guy or girl serving in their MOS and writing about it. Every soldier, from commander to lowest enlisted man becomes an information operations operative or, according to the last document, a combat propagandist guerilla. He's doing the hard work and spreading the message.
Or, as David Kilcullen wrote in his 28 articles on company level counterinsurgency: Armed Civil Affairs.
I still have thoughts on military to media relations that I am sorting out. I also believe that such an organization as we are speaking of would, in the end, either have to mirror the media with their distribution abilities to overtake them, or would have to swallow their angst and view the media as a "strategic partner" that they would work with once the organization has developed "end user" interest.
Such partners wouldn't have to be CNN (though, if you could cultivate them, it would be a nice coup). They could be fox, or A&E, or the military channel, or the history channel, Ollie North's War Stories, Sgt Ermey's Mail call, etc, etc, etc. Independent Channels.
There are plenty of ways to work it, but work it we would have to.
I'm with you Kat. I definitely agree with: "Or, the organization can be formed on loose networks where the organization actively looks for already prepared works that coincide with the objective of countering or presenting specific information."
To me that's probably all we will be able to do for the short term.
I wonder if we can contact the Free Republic management staff to make use of one of a forum, existing or special purpose, to share articles/info. Their infrastructure is in place already and they have a large community.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1620963/
posts
Already being done. No special permission required.
Soldiers Cannot Fight Against Backstabbing from Home
If I may be so bold as to propose an intial target, how about targetting the CIA leaks? Treason, sedition, nihilisn, narcissism,undeserved pulitzers, etc. There is a wealth of info in the current MSM to mine and attack.
Comments? Recommendations?
Join The 101st Fighting Keyboardists
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/
006857.php
Captain's Quarters is recruiting.
Kar Wrote:
"Even if we do an end run on the media and try to determine the make up of the audience and how to present information, we still need the media to distribute so we still need to know how they work, how they determine what to cover, how they shape stories and how it makes it into their cycle so that we can better use that tool."
My reply" I did not suggest doing an end run around the media and I can tell you withut error exactly the make up of any media ( be it NBC, CBS, FOX, print media, etc) the details of the viewership /readership..and what they cover, and HOW they shape their stories. I have already answered all of that in this thread and on others.
This whole concept of cycles doesn't exist as much as you seem to believe it does...deadlines for print and broadcast exist.
For you to assume our Military PAO and IO are not aware of the same information is incorrect.They are.
You keep coming from this place, which I might ad as really angered a former PAO whose a good friend of mine, that implies the military/pao has NO idea of these essentials, and has no desire to work with the military. That is wrong.
Kat wrote:"With all due respect to bloggers, we do not match the distribution capabilities of the media. We can attempt to move them on certain stories one way or the other, correct misinformation or disinformation, but we do not have the current capacity to counter every story that is put out. In this, we would have to be selective."
My reply: With all due respect to the media and KAT, but we MOST CERTAINLY DO come very close to matching the distribution capacity of the MSM. '
We are an Army of Davids: WE brought down Eason Jordon, WE exposed the lie that Dan Rather upheld and brought his career to an end. WE are a worldwide on demand 24/7 ARMY OF DAVIDS.
Stop being so myopic about the collective distribution, and strength of bloggers, milbloggers, and blogs!
You forget about simple math: the multiplier effect of blogs is HUGE.
re: "We can attempt to move them on certain stories one way or the other, correct misinformation or disinformation, but we do not have the current capacity to counter every story that is put out. "
My reply: We Do not NEED to counter every story.
We need to spread the stories we want to spread, we need to do it via blogs diligently..proactively, and aggressively.
Stop focusing on the MSM so much Kat..you are giving them waaaay to much power and giving the existing Army Of Davids which is growing too little credit!
Kat wrote: "In any case, this concept of civilian information operations through the blog and other experts is not a replacement for the capabilities of the international media to distribute information but an enhancement to current operations. I believe that to ignore the media or discard any ideas of reshaping the military/media relationship is less than strategically sound"
MY reply: You start off with a false premise of the relationship between the Military and the Media laying blame on the military. AND..you fail to acknowledge that it is the MEDIA that is not interested in reshaping their relationship with the military.
i.e. keeping their personal agendas and partisanship OUT of the way they report the news, shape the news, discuss the news, present the news, and choose the news. THEY DON'T.
Losing large numbers of their readership and viewership hasn't been the motivation to change.. and it should be since it affects their financial bottom line, neither has the increase in popularity of bloggers helped the MSM to recognize a powerful source of news stories available for them to use and how using these stories would be beneficial in order to help mitigate further loss of their audiences.
You don't need to ignore the media certainly the Military isn't...but you have to accept that the media,Kat, is ignoring "you" and for the most part is ignoring the Military unless its to report news that puts our enemies in a much better light.
Instead of trying to get the MSM to distribute stories they simply WON'T..focus your attention and energy on growing an already powerful Army of Davids into a more powerful one!
THEN the media will PAY ATTENTION.
Look Kat, the New York Times Select which meant you had to pay to read this online, has been running Stories from the Frontlines for 8 weeks... four milbloggers writing UNEDITED stories as they would on their blogs, but instead, they write them for the NYTIMES.
If the NY Times was really serious about wanting to get these stories out they would have made them available to their ENTIRE on line readership for free.
AND since every newspapers only prints news that the NY Times prints...why haven't THEY picked up on this idea!
That is a great example of what Im trying to teach you.
Instead of trying to use them for their distribution...start focusing on creating a more powerful Army of Davids.
The Stars and Stripes publication, an independant publication approved by gthe DOD, has a global reach and features heartwarming stories of our heros in the sandbox, a section called GROUND TRUTH, sections on Iraq and Afghanistan...all of which are available for the MSM to use as well as bloggers. WHY isn't the MSM using those stories. Because,Kat, they just don't care too! PERIOD. FULL STOP.
It would be far better for the Military to throw some collective energy to developing and bettering their relationship with bloggers like Blackfive and starting UNIT blogs for those in the sandbox.
Global Voice has a HUGE global reach...PAOS need to work with them!
I encourage everyone to listen to the Global Voice/Reuters event on media coverage in Iraq which you can access through google, global voice, or my blog AND also read this piece I've linked below involving a panel discussion with some of the top Iraq war correspodants
This quote lends weight to what I've been trying to get you to wrap your head around when it comes to the media and to their audiences!
"Spinner defended her coverage, even in the face of e-mails like one she recalled receiving that told her she should have died that day in Fallujah, instead of the marine whose death she reported. "The Iraq war has so polarized this country. That's why you hear hisses and boos and claps, depending on what you're saying — people want to hear journalists reaffirm their previously held beliefs about the war," Spinner said. "And I don't do that. I simply speak what I see. And I'm sorry if that's offensive to people, but I'm a journalist."
Not just a journalist but an "old-school journalist," she clarified in response to Schell's first question about the evolutions of the panelists' views of the war. "I went to Iraq not because I was for or against it, but because there was a war," Spinner said, adding she believes it is inappropriate for journalists to take sides publicly, as they are supposed to write from a neutral stance."
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/med...3/
14_iraq.shtml.
We have an Army of Davids available today..its growing. That's where the best resources of the Military IO and PAO need to be focused on.
IF YOU BUILD IT....THEY WILL COME!
Grim wrote: When I say, therefore, that PA's mission shouldn't worry about convincing people of the rightness of the military mission, partially that's what I mean. It's not the military's job to get into the policy arguments or the politics.
AGREED!
Kat wrote:
As far as opsec issues with reporting clinic openings and such, it may be a matter of restructuring the release time of such a document. It would have to be more timely due to the needs of the news cycle and the need to influence the situation/opinions more immediately, but it could also be done say in a thirty day time cycle where the political/military importance of the development is less important so it attracts less attention of the enemy who is looking for the biggest bang out of their low budget propaganda bucks.
My response: The media isn't that stuipd - and thats hard for me to admit LOL - the stories were written up weeks later...and the attacks happened nonetheless. Our enemy doesn't care about news " time cycles"
Countering the Cyber Jihad
Anybody know any hackers?
I will be blogging about this in a few hours but I wanted to mention it here in light of this conversation:
Earlier on I mentioned that we need to use the "new media" in much better ways i.e. making use of podcasts.
But we also need to find other ways to help people look at the war differently..to grab their attention....and give them reason to try to understand this war DIFFERENTLY.
The written word works for many but for some it remains unevocative, cold, and distant.
Visuals impact on us differently.
They are evocative, more powerful, and their visceral impact runs deeper and remains with us much longer than the written word.
But what of words put to music with visuals??
Apart from blogs, and podcasts, I love some of the many combat videos being made by soldiers in Iraq.
I blogged about one video in a post called "Marines Don't F*ck Around".
Titled "Iraq 1" the video is brought to us by Doc Matey and The India Company Marines of the 3/6 who deployed during OIF 3.
With it's blend of combat imagery juxtapositioned against the evocative lyrics and haunting melody of "Jesus Walks" , this video leaves a powerful impact.
We need to see more of these and we need to blog about, talk about them, link to them, interview those who create them.
An entire culture of youth who are not in combat,who come from the same generation as those fighting this war, need to be re-educated in how they come to understand war...and this is one of the best "tools" do use.
Rather than focus on the military attempting to build a relationship with the MSM who 1) aren't interested and 2) are comprised of aging baby boomers who will not be easily swayed into letting go of their Viet Nam era angst - it is far more vital that our military and we bloggers understand the culture from which our troops now come...and begin to deliver the message to their cultural peers in the same way THEY( the troops) love to receive messages.
First we need to understand our audience...and for that I turn to what Evan Wright says about them in his searing portrait of the young men fighting this war called "Generation Kill"
"they are kids raised on hip hop, Marilyn Manson, Jerry Springer, Video games and reality tv. Motherf**ker is a term of endearment!
Tupac is an American patriot whose writings are better known that Lincoln's speeches. More than half the guys in some platoons came from broken homes, raised by single parents or absentee dual working parents, and they are far more "intimate" with video games, realtity TV shows and internet porn than their own parents... some are former gangbangers, some born again Christians, some pray to Buddha, quote eastern philosophies, some smoked dope daily before entering the Military..and almost all of them learned of the significance of the Presidency through what became a national obsession with semen stains and a certain white house blow job!"
It is this generation that is fighting our war on terror...and it is their peers who either support this war..or despise it. Either way...they all share a cultural commonality.
Therefore it is our soldiers that are the best people to speak to their cultural brothers and sisters!
I am not surprised that these music driven combat videos are being created by our deployed men and women but I am surprised FEW people including those in this discussion are even aware they exist, nor understand their importance: THIS is the means by which to speak to those to whom we want to deliver our messages about this war!
On April 4th, 2006 Crosscheck Records annouced the release of "Voices From the Frontline" , a CD of all original material from US military personnel currently serving in Iraq.
Featuring twelve musical tracks and twelve spoken word vignettes recorded by men and women on active duty, the CD offers an insiders view into the often difficult, emotional, and unblinking reality of life for American troops stationed in Iraq.
Crosscheck Records has teamed up with the non-profit organization Operation AC to donate a portion of the proceeds from Voices From The Frontline in order to supply soldiers with non-combat supplies.
Voices From the Frontline tells the stories of several soldiers in their own words.
In the opening track, First Time, rappers Mike Watts and Quentin Givens matter-of-factly ask the question at the core of every soldier facing deployment: Will I come back alive or will I come back dead?
The soldiers speak about keeping it together to get the job done, letters home to loved ones, saluting those who lost their lives, the close calls dealing with IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), the support of their families, the fight to stay alive, the guilt of not seeing a child grow up, the inner conflict and loyalty they feel.
In Condolence, a performer who goes by the name Amp writes a letter to a woman apologizing for his role in her loss he asks God if theres a spot for me in heaven, could you give it to her?
The females perspective from the frontline comes from Kisha Pollard and Mischelle Johnston. In Girl at War, Kisha speaks about what its like to be a woman doing her military job and earning the respect of her fellow soldiers. And you look at me up in down cause youre thinking Im weak, til you see me in Iraq and Im patrolling the streets. She brings up the fact that she can get shot just as well as a boy. Desert Vacation is one of two R&B songs on the album, written and sung by Mischelle Johnston who finds herself a bird in a cage waiting for my ticket out. She sings about the frustration of events turning out differently than she expected.
Overall, the men and women on Voices From the Frontline arent using their art to make a statement for or against the war. They just want to be heard, their experiences shared. These are their stories and their expression of what it is like to fight, to work, to live, and to cope with life on the frontlines in Iraq. It is clear that they appreciate life despite their daily struggles, the overwhelming challenges, and the loss of fellow soldiers. Through it all, they manage to find the strength and courage that it takes to do what they do.
This is why I am far more interested in podcasts...don't get me wrong...the written blogs are great...but
"Blogcasts" can include original music, stories, interviews, "the actual voices" of this generation speaking to THEIR peers...and we have the technology and the critical blogmass to ensure they get exposure throughout the blogsphere...AND
Blogcasts (podcasts) can be downloaded onto hand held devices...listened to at home, in the car, on the subway, while walking, while doing homework
( yes this generation multi tasks)AND they can be aired on radio, and on tv.
If you include "combat videos" which can also be distributed through "You Tube" and can also be televised on MTV, or better yet, INTERNET tv, and throughout the internet in general, and you've got two culturally effective ways to get across the messages WE want to send about this war, our soldiers, and our military.
I encourage, I beg, I implore, each of you to click on the link I will provide on my blog, and listen to some of the songs mentioned...and then SPREAD THE WORD...to your friends, other bloggers and milbloggers, your local radio stations, your local news papers, your local TV stations about this CD.
And let's encourage milbloggers to start creating podcasts or blogcasts as I like to call them.
If there is a way to get the PAO to create UNIT blogs...then podcasts should also be encouraged!
The MSM elites grew up in the 60's and 70's when MUSIC defined that generation with protest songs from Crosby Stills Nash and Young ( Four Dead in Ohio), Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, even "Hair", and WOODSTOCK.
Music combined with visuals from Nam, impacted on boomers so deeply that they resonate just as strongly today and have shaped the way that generation thinks about all wars!
We can impact on today's generation in the same way - help to reshape how they view war, and deliver a far more balanced message about our troops, our military and not just the war in Iraq and Afghanistan but also about counterinsurgency and "fourth generation warfare" .
I'd much rather see the PAO resources work towards this..than wasting anymore time trying to win over an unwilling MSM.
Are milbloggers players on the media battlefield?
If I may recommend even another target/strategy.
"How about a blogswarm reminder every 15 days? A pulse of e-mail nasty-grams to keep stinging Hilton execs with the consequences of their folly."
This was recommended by CPT J over at Lex's house.
http://www.neptunuslex.com/2006/...he-blogosphere/
"The lie's been around the world 15 times by the time we even get our boots on"
The enemy is inside our IO OODA loop.
Soldiers' online journals come under increased scrutiny
Congratulations to the Poser Police for debunking what could have become a nasty piece of anti-American propaganda.
Not so kind words for those who blog:
Don't tread on my blog: a study of military weblogs (.pdf)
We are losing the Public Affairs battle
adece7 932954c095
Commenting by HaloScan
