Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Plan To Fight The Internet Revealed
geniese writes "The BBC is reporting on a recently declassified document that details the U.S. Military's intentions regarding warfare and the Internet." From the article: "Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. 'Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience,' it reads."
CNN had until 2000 played host to members of Psyops who helped in the presentation of news for the U.S. Public. This has been characterized as a training program for Psyops and no more. While it is unclear whether they actually directed CNN to report the news in one way or another. Their role in "packaging" the news is. As such it represents a long history of such biasing work. See articles here and here.
What anti-American slant?
Here is some numerical evidence the media is slanted against the U.S. in the Iraq war from: here
Friday, 21 January [2005] (Australian time) is an average day as far as Iraq is concerned. Google news indexes the following negative stories concerning Iraq:
2,642 stories about Condi Rice's confirmation hearings, in the context of grilling she has received over the Administration's Iraq policy
1,992 stories about suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks
887 stories about prisoner abuse by British soldiers
2,345 stories about President Bush's inauguration, in the context of the President failing to mention the word "Iraq" in his speech, or indeed discuss the war
216 stories about hostages currently being held in Iraq
761 stories reporting on activities and public statements of insurgents
357 stories about the anti-war movement and the dropping public support for involvement in Iraq
182 stories about American servicemen killed and wounded in operations
217 stories about concerns for fairness and validity of Iraqi election (low security, low turnout, etc.)
107 stories about civilian deaths in Iraq
123 stories noting Vice President Cheney's admission that he had underestimated the task of reconstruction
219 stories about possible military action against Iran
24 stories about tense relations with Syria
118 stories about complicated and strained relations between the US and Europe
121 stories discussing the possibility of American pullout
27 stories about sabotage of Iraqi oil infrastructure
660 stories about prosecutions in the Oil for Food scandal
Then we have 123 stories - ostensibly neutral - about details of current troop deployments and movements. I write "ostensibly" because among that number there are numerous stories about deserters or soldiers refusing orders.
Finally we come to positive news:
311 stories about voter registration for Iraqis overseas. Even here we have to be cautious as significant number of these stories comment on "disappointingly" low numbers registering.
16 stories about security successes in the fight against insurgents
7 stories about positive developments relating to elections
73 stories about the return to Iraq of stolen antiques.
If the media coverage was war, the good guys would be getting slaughtered.
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." -- Max Planck
From a secular, liberal Arabic point of view Al Jazeera kicks much ass. This is what we are saying we'd like to encourage over there, and I'm totally baffled that people over here dislike it. The alternative is state-run religious content, and I'm sure they'd totally leave the US out of their commentary (he said sarcastically).
Check out their web site sometime, instead of taking FOX's word for everything.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
For a long time I had dismissed the idea of the military-industrial complex as being a mythology of overly paranoid conspiracy theorists.
After all, the term was introduced by well known paranoid conspiracy theorist, one Dwight D. Eisenhower in his famous speech of 1961:
: This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
Honestly, 45 years later reading this is giving me creeps. Isn't the Cold War and its aftermath just the Eisenhower's dark scenario embodied?
See here how CNN sold biased coverage to Saddam in order to keep their newsmen in Baghdad.
Geez, I guess that's what passes for balanced "news" today.
Take bribes from both sides.
"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."
George W. Bush
June 18, 2002
a) Al Jazeera.net is not the same as Al Jazeera broadcast.
Aljazeera.net is the online version of the same Aljazeera.
That's a quote from their "About" page.
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Thank you.
The BBC is also a psy-ops tool, so this article has a purpose and a design beyond telling the truth. --Because one of THE most important targets of a psyops war is your own population. It is essential to control the thinking of the masses if you want to keep those tax dollars flowing and your heads of state off the gallows.
-FL
A nit:
It wasn't so long ago in the US that newspapers and radio were radically and obviously partisan (W R Hearst anyone? How about Rupert Murdoch?).
Papers were partisan then. Papers are still partisan. Papers were partisan centuries ago. Papers have been partisan since there were papers.
The constitutional mandate for a free press was installed by a group that included (at least) one publisher of a very partisan paper.
The benefit of a free press is that ANY partisin viewpoint can get published, rather than ONLY those that agree with the partisan position of a limited number of powerful people.
= = = =
As you point out, a free press isn't shortcircuited by buying placement for a story. (That actually increases it, both by getting another viewpoint out and supporting the publishers operation, reducing the risk it will fold.)
What WOULD shortcircuit the free press would be to pay (or intimidate) publishers to NOT run a competing story - or do it to enough of them that the story gets suppressed.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way