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."

Comments

Psyops and CNN.

[Irvu]

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.

Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea

[tsm_sf]

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.

Re:Scarier and scarier

[Trurl's Machine]

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?

And we know CNN colored their news to favor Saddam

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Overdone, but never more applicable

[qwyeth]

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

George W. Bush
June 18, 2002

Re:Wow, and update of the leaflet idea

[tsm_sf]

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.

Ugh. And the BBC isn't propaganda. . ?

[Fantastic Lad]

Would somebody please name the other powerful military nation which was involved in recently pouring thousands of troops into the invasion of Iraq?

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.

"If the heads of state don't all hang together, they'll all hang separately."
                    --Yes Prime Minister

-FL

Still are, and always were, biased.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

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.