To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Paul Street's Blog » "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Paul Street's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/paulstreet
Bio:         Paul Street is an independent radical-democratic policy researcher, journalist, historian, and speaker based in Iowa City, Iowa, and Chicago, Illinois.&nbs... (More)

All Street Blogs

Recent Street Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zbook_icon Books

"To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Paul Street at Dec 14, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
Today's prize for bad Orwellian prose goes to chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita. "In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public," Di Rita says in today's New York Times, "our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception management." Note the absurd sense of defensive entitlement in this sentence. We are in "a battle of perception management" that we we have not initiated. "The enemy" started it. Right: there's no remarkable history and science of such management here in the United States, home to the most massively advertised and propagandized population and the greatest public relations ("perception management" if you like) industry known to humanity since at least the 1910s. No, we're just trying to do what we can in the face of the awesome thought-controlling capacities of .....Osama in his cave, the global media corporations owned by the Iraqi resistance forces, and the supposedly insidious anti-American Arab network Al-Jazeera. Yes, these powerful "perception managers" tell Arabs to hate us. It isn't the countless number of Arabs we kill, the resources we steal, the infrastructure we destroy, and the hateful regimes we support that elicit anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Note also the implicit suggestion that the US empire isn't "using the media" to influence mass opinion at home and abroad. Yes, it's about time that the Pentagon looked into trying to work with the media to influence mass perceptions. According to the Times, Bush "administration officials say they are increasingly troubled that a nation that can so successfully market its cars and colas around the world, even to foreigners hostile to American policies, is failing to sell its democratic ideals, even as the insurgents they are battling are spreading falsehoods over mass media outlets like the Arab news satellite channel Al Jazeera." "Falsehoods" like the accurate claim that the world's most powerful military has murdered tens of thousands of Iraqis, including a large number of noncombatants, in pursuit of unchallenged control over Arab oil resources. Sorry, but I can buy a German beer in 1939 and still reject the Nazi regime's claim to be liberating Poland. Di Rita was trying to put a noble and friendly face on the latest revelations about the corporatefascist Rumsfeld Pentagon's assault on the line between deceptive military psych-ops and normal public relations even with media and citizens in allied states. Under Defense Department directive 3600.1: Information Operations, aggressive Pentagon information/deception campaigns are supposed to "affect enemy leaders, but not allied or neutral states." Now, however, key Pentagon players want to amend the directive to legitimize the use of such efforts in places like France and Germany, where large number of Islamic enemies can be found. The 'war on terror' calls for "widen[ing] the target for such missions." That's what Rumsfeld thought three years ago when he set up the Pentagon's "Office of Strategic Influence," designed to "provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion." That's pretty much an old US tactic going back at least to the Cold War, when CIA agents posed as foreign journalists to write articles on behalf of "the free world." The despicable Rumsfeld had to quickly close the OSI down in face of mass public ridicule. Now the issue is back on the front burner, the Times reports today, thanks in large measure to a "74-page directive, which remains classified" and calls for the development of an "Information Operations Roadmap..a plan to advance the goal of information operations as a core military competency." The directive is signed by Donny Pentagon, who "ordered studies to clarify the appropriate relationship between Pentagon and military public affairs --- whose job is to educate and inform the public with accurate and timely information --- and the practitioners of secret psychological operations and information campaigns to influence, deter or confuse adversaries." So that's our dichotomy: (1) the purely "educational" and "informational" role of normal military public affairs (no lying and manipulation of opinion in that noble sphere) versus (2) the scary and not-so new world of deceptive psy-ops and confusion cultivation. Give me a break. It seems likely to me that that they're already doing whatever blurring they feel entitled to do under the cover of "classified operations." it's comforting to read, at the end of today's Times write-up, that "Mr. Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, says that even though the government is wrestling with these issues, the standard is still to tell to the truth." The Pentagon is lying about that. Here's the full Times article on this... December 13, 2004 HEARTS AND MINDS Pentagon Weighs Use of Deception in a Broad Arena By THOM SHANKER and ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 - The Pentagon is engaged in bitter, high-level debate over how far it can and should go in managing or manipulating information to influence opinion abroad, senior Defense Department civilians and military officers say. Such missions, if approved, could take the deceptive techniques endorsed for use on the battlefield to confuse an adversary and adopt them for covert propaganda campaigns aimed at neutral and even allied nations. Critics of the proposals say such deceptive missions could shatter the Pentagon's credibility, leaving the American public and a world audience skeptical of anything the Defense Department and military say - a repeat of the credibility gap that roiled America during the Vietnam War. The efforts under consideration risk blurring the traditional lines between public affairs programs in the Pentagon and military branches - whose charters call for giving truthful information to the media and the public - and the world of combat information campaigns or psychological operations. The question is whether the Pentagon and military should undertake an official program that uses disinformation to shape perceptions abroad. But in a modern world wired by satellite television and the Internet, any misleading information and falsehoods could easily be repeated by American news outlets. The military has faced these tough issues before. Nearly three years ago, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, under intense criticism, closed the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence, a short-lived operation to provide news items, possibly including false ones, to foreign journalists in an effort to influence overseas opinion. Now, critics say, some of the proposals of that discredited office are quietly being resurrected elsewhere in the military and in the Pentagon. Pentagon and military officials directly involved in the debate say that such a secret propaganda program, for example, could include planting news stories in the foreign press or creating false documents and Web sites translated into Arabic as an effort to discredit and undermine the influence of mosques and religious schools that preach anti-American principles. Some of those are in the Middle Eastern and South Asian countries like Pakistan, still considered a haven for operatives of Al Qaeda. But such a campaign could reach even to allied countries like Germany, for example, where some mosques have become crucibles for Islamic militancy and anti-Americanism. Before the invasion of Iraq, the military's vast electronic-warfare arsenal was used to single out certain members of Saddam Hussein's inner circle with e-mail messages and cellphone calls in an effort to sway them to the American cause. Arguments have been made for similar efforts to be mounted at leadership circles in other nations where the United States is not at war. During the cold war, American intelligence agencies had journalists on their payrolls or operatives posing as journalists, particularly in Western Europe, with the aim of producing pro-American articles to influence the populations of those countries. But officials say that no one is considering using such tactics now. Suspicions about disinformation programs also arose in the 1980's when the White House was accused of using such a campaign to destabilize Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya. In the current debate, it is unclear how far along the other programs are or to what extent they are being carried out because of their largely classified nature. Within the Pentagon, some of the military's most powerful figures have expressed concerns at some of the steps taken that risk blurring the traditional lines between public affairs and the world of combat information operations. These tensions were cast into stark relief this summer in Iraq when Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, approved the combining of the command's day-to-day public affairs operations with combat psychological and information operations into a single "strategic communications office." In a rare expression of senior-level questions about such decisions, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued a memorandum warning the military's regional combat commanders about the risks of mingling the military public affairs too closely with information operations. "While organizations may be inclined to create physically integrated P.A./I.O. offices, such organizational constructs have the potential to compromise the commander's credibility with the media and the public," it said. But General Myers's memorandum is not being followed, according to officers in Iraq, largely because commanders there believe they are safely separating the two operations and say they need all the flexibility possible to combat the insurgency. Indeed, senior military officials in Washington say public affairs officers in war zones might, by choice or under pressure, issue statements to world news media that, while having elements of truth, are clearly devised primarily to provoke a response from the enemy. Administration officials say they are increasingly troubled that a nation that can so successfully market its cars and colas around the world, even to foreigners hostile to American policies, is failing to sell its democratic ideals, even as the insurgents they are battling are spreading falsehoods over mass media outlets like the Arab news satellite channel Al Jazeera. "In the battle of perception management, where the enemy is clearly using the media to help manage perceptions of the general public, our job is not perception management but to counter the enemy's perception management," said the chief Pentagon spokesman, Lawrence Di Rita. The battle lines in this debate have been drawn in a flurry of classified studies, secret operational guidance statements and internal requests from Mr. Rumsfeld. Some go to the concepts of information warfare, and some complain about how the government's communications are organized. The fervent debate today is focused most directly on a secret order signed by Mr. Rumsfeld late last year and called "Information Operations Roadmap." The 74-page directive, which remains classified but was described by officials who had read it, accelerated "a plan to advance the goal of information operations as a core military competency." Noting the complexities and risks, Mr. Rumsfeld ordered studies to clarify the appropriate relationship between Pentagon and military public affairs - whose job is to educate and inform the public with accurate and timely information - and the practitioners of secret psychological operations and information campaigns to influence, deter or confuse adversaries. In response, one far-reaching study conducted at the request of the strategic plans and policy branch of the military's Joint Staff recently produced a proposal to create a "director of central information." The director would have responsibility for budgeting and "authoritative control of messages" - whether public or covert - across all the government operations that deal with national security and foreign policy. The study, conducted by the National Defense University, was presented Oct. 20 to a panel of senior Pentagon officials and military officers, including Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, whose organization set up the original Office of Strategic Influence. No senior officer today better represents the debate over a changing world of military information than Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, an operational commander chosen to be the military's senior spokesman in Iraq after major combat operations shifted to counterinsurgency operations in the spring of 2003. His role rankled many in the military's public affairs community who contend that the job should have gone to someone trained in the doctrine of Army communications and public affairs, rather than to an officer who had spent his career in combat arms. "This is tough business," said General Kimmitt, who now serves as deputy director of plans for the American military command in the Middle East. "Are we trying to inform? Yes. Do we offer perspective? Yes. Do we offer military judgment? Yes. Must we tell the truth to stay credible? Yes. Is there a battlefield value in deceiving the enemy? Yes. Do we intentionally deceive the American people? No." The rub, General Kimmitt said, is operating among those sometimes conflicting principles. "There is a gray area," he said. "Tactical and operational deception are proper and legal on the battlefield." But "in a worldwide media environment," he asked, "how do you prevent that deception from spilling out from the battlefield and inadvertently deceiving the American people?" Mr. Di Rita said the scope of the issue had changed in recent years. "We have a unique challenge in this department," he said, "because four-star military officers are the face of the United States abroad in ways that are almost unprecedented since the end of World War II." He added, "Communication is becoming a capability that combatant commanders have to factor in to the kinds of operations they are doing." Much of the Pentagon's work in this new area falls under a relatively unknown field called Defense Support for Public Diplomacy. This new phrase is used to describe the Pentagon's work in governmentwide efforts to communicate with foreign audiences but that is separate from support for generals in the field. At the Pentagon, that effort is managed by Ryan Henry, Mr. Feith's principal deputy for policy. "With the pace of technology and such, and with the nature of the global war on terrorism, information has become much more a part of strategic victory, and to a certain extent tactical victory, than it ever was in the past," Mr. Henry said. However, a senior military officer said that without clear guidance from the Pentagon, the military's psychological operations, information operations and public affairs programs are "coming together on the battlefield like never before, and as such, the lines are blurred." This has led to a situation where "proponents of these elements jockey for position to lead the overall communication effort," the officer said. Debate also continues over proposed amendments to a classified Defense Department directive, titled "3600.1: Information Operations," which would lay down Pentagon policy in coming years. Previous versions of the directive allow aggressive information campaigns to affect enemy leaders, but not those of allies or even neutral states. The current debate is over proposed revisions that would widen the target audience for such missions. Mr. Di Rita, the Pentagon spokesman, says that even though the government is wrestling with these issues, the standard is still to tell to the truth. "Our job is to put out information to the public that is accurate," he said, "and to put it out as quickly as we can."

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Street, Paul at Dec 17, 2004 05:08 AM
PNAG (great alias BTW) yes I think it's old stuff, not new. Police state is moving ahead in my city. We've got roving police eyes up on telephone poles all over Chicago, the ghettoes especially. Right now there's a big flashing blue light and a Chicago Police shield marking each camera location. I suppose someday those will be removed. All the cameras feed into a central permanent emergency crisis and command center. Invest in social justice and economic equality to create more safety in these neighborhoods? That's considered beyond the pale. Chicago wants to be a world city like London where I am told they have every square inch of open terrain under surveillance (Orwell would like that). And where are cameras to monitor the top 2 percent that owns (stole and inherited) one half of the nation's wealth....the real criminals of true society-distorting significance. I look forward to the transcendence of commodity exchange.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By For, Project at Dec 17, 2004 01:42 AM
Ok, first of all does anyone actually think this (disinformation) hasnt been used before? Obviously. The aggrivating thing is most Regimes have remained somewhat lo-key in their work, at least until their ready to strike. The thing that scares me about King George is that this is an in your face fascist takeover unlike any before. Cheney and his puppies set up Pentagon outsourcing of all non combat positions. Bush Sr. "Advisor" to Carlyle, and on and on. Then with ties to these corperations, they start wars for profit. Remember when Reagan was almost assasinated by John Hinckley Jr.? The Bush and Hinkly families were longtime friends. Maybe John was the "Black Sheep" of the family like Osama. Sure. Talking about this gets the word out slowly, and thats a fabulous thing. We need to collectively figure out the solution. Until then my predictions are Police State of total enslavement by the 2%ers, or more blog, blog, blog. My first strike at the machine was to pull as much of my cash out of their system. Im voting with my dollars, because I refuse to pay for my enslavement.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Hesed00, Hesed at Dec 16, 2004 06:24 AM
Aww, who are we kidding? We're all on "The List" by now. Maybe we'll all meet someday in our political re-education class. Paul, now write on the board: "I will not challenge the assumed legitimacy of state power" ...one hundred times.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Child, Wandering at Dec 16, 2004 01:34 AM
A brief "curriculum" of the School of Americas: http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/soa.htm http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Terrorism/SOA.html

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Street, Paul at Dec 16, 2004 01:09 AM
...People may have noticed past bloody US hijinks in the southern cone almost getting some brief mainstream US media attention yesterday as the big newtorks reported the indictment (or whatever) of our onetime friend the fascist Augusto Pinochet, who murdered the Chilean left as economists from my home neighborhood (Hyde Park, on the South Side of Chicago) dazzled the dictatorship's hopeful bourgeoisie and terrorized populace with the wondrous promises of neoliberal doctrine. I saw Operation Condor (a US-sponsored southern cone hit-squad free to assassinate dissidents around the world, even in Washington DC) mentioned but the US/Kissinger connections somehow escaped serious discussion in the admitterdly brief account I saw. Today of course the IMF and World Bank make Latin-American economies and populations scream without good old Uncle Sam having to make quite the same investment in direct bloodshed and force-of-arms murder. Wasn't it a Brazilian General (quoted somewhere in Chomsky) who said "the economy is doing fine, it's JUST the people who aren't"? It's amazing how totally invisble Latin-America is in the United States. I don't know if it received a single mention in the pathetic 2004 presidential "debates."

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Street, Paul at Dec 16, 2004 01:07 AM
Sigma-6 speaking of the Lat.American southern cone, specifically Argentina, see (if you have not already), G. Robles, "Kirchner's Hoax" at http://www.zmag.org/ content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=42&ItemID=6855. An informant of mine just finished his fall semester in Buenos Aires and reports something very much like what this piece describes: a government and populace that talks anti-imperialism and even socialism but a regime that displays abject subordination to the running dog yanqui imperialists (apparently even sending troops to support the US repression in Haiti)and their neoliberal agenda at home and abroad. The gap between rhetoric and reality is (I am told) stunning even as much the of populace continues to be mired in abject, significantly US-imposed socioeconomic immiseration....ctd

Reply this comment

Person

By Child, Wandering at Dec 15, 2004 22:22 PM
joeblogs56, Thanks for the response. I was curious because during the 3/11-14 the media issue was (and still is) very serious here: all the Gov´t media arsenal created a total "communication breakdown" in order to win the election; the manipulation was so serious that the only professional information we could get was from the BBC (especially), Reuters, France Press and ,ironically, US media (which from the first day did not believe the official song of the "friendly" spanish Gov´t).

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Child, Wandering at Dec 15, 2004 20:20 PM
joeblogs56, has the BBC "point of view" changed since the purge?. The "45 minute risk" and the Hutton Report were very commented here when "we" sent the troops because "our" ex goverment control over the public TV and Radio was total(the purges were common) and the BBC approach to the Hutton/45-minute issue was a big contrast for us.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Apocalypse, Unfolding at Dec 15, 2004 09:29 AM
Paul, if they want you and you're a convenient target and you prove to cause more harm than the harm incurred in removing you, they'll show up sooner or later. So make it inconvenient, just so I can read your news and analysis, if for nothing else. It inspires. Dark Matter, I totally agree that the Left should seek more unity and should specifically seek to pool skills and resources with a shared website/blog. In fact, I think we should create a forum dedicated to presenting, analyzing, and commenting on strategies and tactics for progressive reform (or is there already one?) We could focus on gaining information on and understanding various demographics in the US, and aim for developing accompanying optimal strategies (that evolve with practice and analysis of that practice) for educating or radicalizing those demographic sectors. We might even want to collect psychological data on these sectors and tailor our proselytizing/educating/radicalizing to this data. In other words, do exactly what corporate marketers have done for who knows how long. What do you guys think? Or are we already doing this? concerned, well trained animal

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Street, Paul at Dec 15, 2004 07:03 AM
jokerman, was that U.S. post-WWII? Did you serve in Armed Forces and have initials JH? ID yourself to me offline (doesn't take much military intelligence to find my e-mail address). It's an order. Those evening classes I used to teach for peanuts (people who want to see labor exploitation up close should work as an adjunct instructor for the modern corporate university) were training for blogs. Usually I'd walk in with contemporary press clippings and we'd just go off on where the latest authoritarian madness came from...how to wrap our minds around all the bullshit. That class was weird and uptight though: too many high school history teachers as I recall. Some kids don't have to be sold too hard on the "war": just heard from a mother who is catatonic because all her 18-year-old son can talk about it wanting to "kill Arabs." This really freaks her out: her darling young son is all geeked up about murdering Muslims. There's a lovely ambition for the Christmas season. He's signing up for the New Crusade. Good call on Scott Peterson trumping 7 dead GIs and however many Arabs who died that day. Media chieftans are the first ones I'd lead to the guillotine. I can't even get outraged at Peterson's likely crime as I have to look at the jurors smiling as they enjoy their 15 minutes of grisly fame and learn that Amber what's her name has a book contract to tell her story. She will outsell my recent brilliant book EMPIRE and INEQUALITY in what...about one day? Wandering Child its too late for me to go with an alias. They've got me if they want me, but I don't think they care about the like of me. cryofan good documentary topic. FYI your note came with a bunch of formatting problems...think I deleted them.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Dec 15, 2004 06:38 AM
jokerman326 wrote: "it seems to me that this year the only thing getting more attention than santa during the holidays has been..... the military...the only way these cowards can sell their war is to hide behind the troops... " Oh, yeah! I have definitely noticed that CorpGovMedia is running full speed with the military-patriotism-sentimentality gambit. And of course the public really is crying out for this kind of TV programming....yeah, right. We are all clamoring for news featuring the military in Iraq and dripping with syrup.....

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Dec 15, 2004 06:22 AM
Yes, Paul, the media is an old hand at the propaganda game. I really think it is one of the major driving forces in making America what it is today. I am working on collecting public domain still and moving images for a video documentary I am planning to make. One of the first major forays into media propaganda was the Red Scare from about 1920 or so. You can see some of the anti-labor propaganda cartoons here Also, Here is an article called The Origins of the Overclass By Steve Kangas that goes on in great detail about the connection between the CIA and the media and the military, but it seems a bit over the top. I wish I could find a good critique of that article somewhere. The media is getting a lot more subtle with their propaganda these days. Here is a recent and rather subtle piece from the LA Times where they paint South American leftism as bad and American style neoliberalism as good.

Reply this comment

4101

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Servo, Tom at Dec 15, 2004 04:43 AM
it seems to me that this year the only thing getting more attention than santa during the holidays has been..... the military...the only way these cowards can sell their war is to hide behind the troops... at the same time they are doin it doggy style to the troops families back home (food stamps, no insurance, forclosures).i heard last night on wttw that the budget for recruiting is 3 billion. now, they need new blood.... they are not meeting quotas... but remember: those commercials are used to establish sympathy for troops... and thereby sell the war. the army has to sell the war, right now, to 18 year olds. but everyone sees teh commercizals. the nation is collateral damage in their war for the minds of our children. btw, i was your attack dog back at CoD history 468. and ps.... the day scott peterson got the death sentence... 7 marines died. what was the dominant story in the news?

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Noir, Mat at Dec 15, 2004 02:26 AM
Perhaps Z-net should establish a website to develop, design, and coin apt phrases to discredit, denigrate, scorn, disparage, and ridicule the religious, the government, and the corporate institutions, ideas, and personalities. Invite all the like-minded organizations to join in, solicit entries from the public, run polls to select the best, develop an official list from the best, invite all like-minded organizations and reporters to use the selected descriptors in all “funny” and “serious” programs and events and use them incessantly on air and in print.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Noir, Mat at Dec 15, 2004 02:25 AM
“Howard Stern, the ribald radio host who had become a poster boy for bad behavior…” (Reuters, 2004) What would be wrong if it said: “Howard Stern, massively vulgar radio host who continues to ridicule the right-wing conspirators that now control the US Government…” Is Sterm as vulgar as the drug-addict Rush Limbaugh? When a change-nik show host says the mainstream media will never air this or print that, he or she might as well be conceding the argument. The Joe Blow tuning in knows right off the bat you are a special interest and probably up to no good stirring up the pot with bad news. So how about: ·Religious Freak Rev. Moon… ·Corporate mouth-piece NBC, ·Mainstream Indy media ·Drug-addict Host Rush Limbaugh ·Wrongly biased Encyclopedia Britannica dark matter digital.skunk@gmail.com http://www.digitalskunk.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Child, Wandering at Dec 14, 2004 23:10 PM
Now that the CIA is trying to develop a better Internet control system (Forums,Blogs,Chats,Email), maybe it is time to take care of what we say (Paul, you should get an alias as soon as possible).

Reply this comment

Occupy_iowa_city_rally

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Street, Paul at Dec 14, 2004 22:41 PM
JDCasten I wish it really was just "farting in the wind" and that the powerful propaganda emissions of Rummy et al. and their corporate-state media pals were properly dissipated by the supposedly decentralzed media winds of the Internet era (see Robert McChesney's book Rich Media, Poor Democracy, for a critique of your approach). Still, I agree on the totality of the consent-manufacture process. Hesed I agree..how much thought control do they want? Wandering child I think the enemy is everyone including their own populace. They seem to be emphasizing growing Islamic population within Europe...I don't know. On domestic ("homeland" US) thought control, it's just constant as it is, even without new Orwellian state offices. Two nights ago the anchor woman on my local 10 O'Clock News showed a picture of Saddam and then segued to a story about occupation resisters who are "fighting." she said "on his [Saddam's] behalf." The notion that they might be fighting in defense of their country and/or the Muslim world and against an illegal occupation is simply beyond the pale in these newsrooms.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Casten, J.d. at Dec 14, 2004 16:33 PM
From the questionably entitled "clear skies initiative" to military perception management-- I wonder why propaganda could be effective in today's highly robust and decentralized media world (esp. w/ the internet). Specific examples of what measures of deception are taken would be helpfull for discussion-- but in general I think the over all "manufacture of consent" takes individuals' entire lifetimes to construct, with over-determined sources such as the various mass-media, family history, personal history, rumors and gossip, etc. Here in the U.S. we have PR wars that can spin out of control: I think many people do know that counter-views exist, and simply hold on to their status quo opinions that are heavily stratified in their belief systems. An attempt at military deception of an entire culture (other than about specific facts) seems like an attempt to fart in the wind... But what about organized honest attempts to use the media to seduce other peoples into respecting human rights? Hard to do if you appear the hypocrite!

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Child, Wandering at Dec 14, 2004 12:47 PM
Paul, I don´t know if you agree with this but It seems to me that when Di Rita and Ryan Henry say " the enemy" and "Information has become much more a part of strategic victory" they are in fact referring not to the "outside enemy" but to the inside one,i.e, the citizens of US and the west countries in general who are not Bush believers; they want to evangelize via media in a more intense way , now that the battlefield is not a good source of "good news" for the Pentagon. At least this is the only "rational" theory that comes to mind because the Counter-Al Jazeera/Mosques program is another "pearl" from the Pentagon.

Reply this comment

Person

Re: "To Counter the Enemy's Perception Management"

By Hesed00, Hesed at Dec 14, 2004 12:20 PM
Does anyone else feel like the shit just keeps getting deeper and deeper in this country? Do we really need more people inside the government trying to shape perceptions? The press in this country isn't complicitous enough for them? It's already to the point where I have to go to several translation sites to get even a semblance of reliable understanding of the truth in the news. I guess it hasn't occurred Rumsfeld that if he and his office weren't such a bunch of screw-ups to begin with that they wouldn't have to spend so much energy trying to convince everyone otherwise.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (20)

Loading_border