US Military Explored Hiring Bloggers As Propagandists 355
Zeinfeld writes "Wired reports that one time Clipper Chip supporter Dorothy Denning wrote a report on using blogs for information warfare in 2006 (a report available from cryptome). Amongst the proposals were hiring bloggers directly as propaganda agents and using military media resources to 'make' a blogger posting favorable material. Notably, and most unfortunately absent from the report, is the very real question of whether the military should be manipulating domestic media." Is meme warfare just another battleground, or is this dirty pool?
The Future of Warfare (Score:2, Interesting)
If Anti-Military Orgs Use Bloggers (Score:3, Interesting)
. . . to place their propaganda on the internet (ahem, Huffington Post [huffingtonpost.com], DailyKos [dailykos.com], etc, ad nauseum), then why can't the military use bloggers to post its point of view?
Seems like another double-standard to me.
Military propoganda directed domestically (Score:3, Interesting)
Is, to some extant, against the tenants of democracy. My reading on democracy is that there are rules about what people are allowed to do to eachother physically, but no rules about memes. I think it's questionable as to whether using physically coercive means such as taxes to further memetic warfare directed at our own citizens is at all valid within this framework. The government here is trying to enforce rules about memes on its own citizens.
Isn't that illegal? (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that legality has ever stopped the government. Especially this one.
But they have killed Reporters (Score:4, Interesting)
During the Kosovo crisis Serbian State TV (equivalent to the BBC) was showing the effects of NATO bombing on civilians. To stop this NATO bombed the Serbian State TV station killing 15 civilians. NATO justified this by saying that the station was a tool of propaganda. By this rational, if the US/UK go to war with Iran, the BBC and many American news outlets will be viable targets. General Wesley Clark was confronted with this war crime during a conference and he seemed very sheepish about it and resorted to saying that his orders had come from the top.
Big difference. (Score:3, Interesting)
The tactics are not the same.
Bloggers who are anti-fascist aren't airing their opinions for a paycheck, nor are they pretending that they are broadcasting their opinions of their own volition when really there is a man behind the curtain giving direction. One system is honest while the other is structured on an attempt to deceive. There's a big difference. If you align yourself with falsehoods, then that is the kind of world you will inherit.
It would be different if members of the military were blogging their opinions and were open about their affiliations. --Of course, that actually does happen; there are certainly military professionals who post their opinions on line, but while many disagree with those opinions, nobody is accusing them of propaganda since they are not being dishonest about who they really are.
-FL
Re:Just another form of media... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Politicizing the military is a real problem in a democratic society. During the 1930s through 70s a whole succession of army generals and colonels decided that they could do a better job than the democratic governments of their countries. Thats how Hitler tried to come to power the first time (the beer hall putsch) and how Franco came to power.
The people who complain about the 'liberal media' seem to believe that anything that does not toe the GOP party line as Hanity, Limbaugh etc. do must be biased.
The establishment media in the US is all biased towards the right. Every Sunday the network news shows feature talk show guest lists where Republicans outnumber Democrats by two to one. And when a Democrat does appear, Lieberman is far more likely to appear than Ted Kennedy. Not one of the panels reviewing the first five years of Bush's war in Iraq had a commentator who had been publicly opposed to the war at the start. That is a pretty clear pro-GOP bias. One would expect that a Kos or a Josh Marshall would have earned a slot or Juan Cole who actually can claim to be an expert on the politics of the region. Instead we saw the same myopic pundits who were dead wrong at the start of the war and have learned nothing since.
You can be pretty certain that something similar will happen when they have panels discussing the sub-prime meltdown. Krugman, Atrios have been predicting that it would occur for years now.
Re:Cool (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not the point. You don't give people money, you help them. Thats why systems are there for drug-rehab, health care, psychiatry, child services... People don't usually rob for the hell of it and people are not just criminals. They rob because they feel they have to. All the services i listed are valid reasons to rob a place. By that i mean, it is understandable people stealing if they need it to live or for kids, or they are having mental difficulties/drug problem. In these situations you can't help yourself usually, you need someone else to help you. The question that needs to be asked is 'does everyone deserve this service'. If you truly think that people don't deserve rehab programs then ok, otherwise put your wallet behind your moral code and chip in. Its easier to have hope for a future when you are clothed, sheltered drug free and healthy. Also wealth inequality is a contributor...
Life-expectancy in sweden is 3yrs more, Infant mortality rate is 1/2, gov pays for 88.5% vs 44% of costs AND they spend less! $3,149 per capita vs $5,711 in the US (9.4% vs 15.2%). The US is the worst 1st world country in the world for health-care, precisely BECAUSE of the everyone for themselves sentiment. The 'profit' motive you mention motivates companies to release lifetime use drugs not cures. Government can pay for drugs that need be created rather than ones they can profit off the most. The motivation is anything but helpful.
Agreed, the comment was uncalled for. I'll take it as a poorly thought out joke.