Slashdot Mirror
Rumsfeld Requests 24-hour Propaganda Machine
jasonditz writes "The BBC is reporting that US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is unhappy with the existing propaganda systems in place and insists that the US must create a 'more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine' or risk losing the battle for the minds of Muslims. In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
They need to install mind probes in the brain of every one of us. As well as receiving suggestive messages they also act as a tracking device. People will accept it because they get 2% off gasoline when they fill up and there's a shorter line at the airport for people who have been chipped.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Why exactly is this on Slashdot? Doesn't necessarily fit the "news for nerds" mantra...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Don't use cartoons.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
I think that it is double plus good!
- Tempestdata
Thanks god for the BBc, AlJazeera, Slashdot and other less biased media.
Res publica non dominetur
Story submitter is complaining about US propaganda and then links to an article on Al Jazeera?
Yeah, that's an unbiased source.
Go look it up and learn something new.
~ Brave New World
It is not as bad as it could be...
......
However, he also used his speech in Florida to claim progress in the war on al-Qaeda
So, who is flip-flop again?
For the last time, that's NOT what "begging the question" means. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-t he-question.html
Propaganda comes in 3 flavours:
White - factual.
Grey - some facts, some half-truths and a little bit of lying.
Black - all lies.
Just for the benefit of a doubt, I'm going to guess that he wants to focus on distributing more white propaganda.
That means that he seriously believes that the people opposing us would stop if they just heard how nice we are.
That boggles the mind.
I think that the US Government is past the point of no return on the propaganda thing. It depends on two concepts: that the rest of the world trusts the good things that they hear about America, and that the rest of the world isn't smart enough to find out the truth themselves.
I'd wager a guess that most of the people who care enough to pay attention to the propaganda war have probably figured out its rigged. In fact, since this is so well known (Hell, the government is even *admitting* it these days?!), it can only be serving to darken and discolour any actual real positive information that may be out there.
What they really need to do is start using truth. There *are* still enough good things about the United States to be proud of. Unfortunately, our arrogance tends to obscure that. We're like the mean guy at the party that won't shut up.
On the other hand, when you're a force that's saving lives and making things better- as the U.S. military was in Indonesia- our popularity goes up. The problem isn't the perception of our foreign policy, the problem IS our foreign policy. The neocons need to get out of their little alternate universe of spin and start dealing in the real world, like the old-school Republicans of Bush H. W. Bush's administration.
The history of government propaganda is long and diverse, and includes successes as well as failures. Effective propaganda does not need to be evil. During WWII, Allied propagandists printed newspapers for Axis soldiers, and they were much appreciated by their recipients for being rather more reliable than the official German news sources.
Rule 1 of effective propaganda is telling the truth. At least most of the time. There is nothing that really beats that, when it comes to convincing people.
24 hour propaganda machine
sulli
RTFJ.
You want to know why people listen to Bin Ladan and his ilk? Because there are a lot of poor, miserable, hungry people over there whose lives suck, and he (and Zarquai and all the rest) are managing to successfully convince them to blame an innocent third party. Ok, not ENTIRELY innocent *cough*assassinations*cough* but still, the theocrats and fascists sitting in power are FAR more to blame than the US.
And when people are hungry enough, and desperate enough, and you tell them, "THAT guy! HE'S to blame!" They'll believe you.
Especially if That Guy has never done a damn thing they've ever seen to help them.
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
It begs the question, how much more SHOULD they do? Should we, western society, have to do propaganda to win the hearts of Muslims? Or should we simply rely on saying the truth, including the ugly side?
I would like to see a 24/7 channel established which would be objective. Propaganda channels can only go so far, because people eventually realise that the picture shown by them is too rosy, and when this happens, the channels loose all credibility. I do understand the need to have a western channel in Iraq, because I suspect that Iraqi channels might not be objective either. I know that in Canada our national television channels are not always objectives. So if I cannot trust my own country channels, I guess I cannot trust those of Iraq.
But for a 24/7 channel to be objective, it should be established by an international organisation and have muslisms on its board and production staff. Editorials from both camps should be allowed. Of course, who is to say that it will be totally objective? But it would be a start.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
As it stands, I have to post this as anonymous because I am realizing that the current witch hunt against Muslims is such that anything we say can be turned against us so hopefully the mods will forgive me.
As a Muslim and as an American I totally agree with you. Most people living in those countries just have to step outside to see the ravages of the United States foreign policy. If going outside isn't cutting it, they can always call a friend or relative in another country. Foreign policy must change to win the minds of Muslims not putting out more propaganda. Once the Bush Administration learns this, we'll be up for the next presidential election. At that time, I hope my fellow Americans see the last 8 years for what it was: a dismal failure. It's time to vote in new leadership or, at the very least, split the legislative and executive branches such that no one party controls both.
What the US needs is to act with caution and responsability and be a good world citizen. Stop using torture and avoid collateral damage in foreign countries. Demand the same things from both friends and foes (like, why let Israel have illegal nuclear weapons but bash Iran wich has none nor the ability to develop them).
et rid of the need to alter the reality and the problem is solved.
HTTP/1.1 400
Is this the same Rumsfeld that doesn't use email?
When we helped arm and train the Afghan Muslims (including Saudi Muslims like bin Ladin) to fight the Soviet Union, we promised to help them rebuild their country after. Instead, we left Afghanistan to their warlords, and eventually the Taliban.
We did not aid them in rebuilding their country. Once they accomplished our common aim (displacing the soviets), we left them to their own poorly-funded devices.
Yeah. Not keeping promises is part of what got us into this mess.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Once regular sources of information have become tainted with disinformation, people will turn away to what they feel are more "trustworthy" outlets.
If you destroy TV, radio, newspapers and even the internet with lies, people in need of the truth will turn back to the pulpit, to obtain comfort and security from the man who spits bile at infidels, women and modernity, and who tells them that masturbation is wrong and menstruation is unclean and that we're all tainted by some sin that someone who never even existed committed.
I live in a country that was like this not too long ago. I'd rather not have to go back to it, or see anyone else forced to either.
May the Maths Be with you!
Its been my experience in talking to friends who are not US citizens and do not live here that the quickest way to get them to distrust any information source is for them to find out it is backed officially by the US government.
An even more sad fact is that speaking for myself as a US citizen and a US resident, that also makes me distrust the information source too. And I have found that to be true regardless of which party is in power.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Rumsfeld should try the new strategy of doing something right, then telling the truth to independent reporters. Then "the good news" will "be believed".
--
make install -not war
That is exactly what Rumsfeld wants. White propaganda. I mean, the Pentagon defended the Iraqi story plant thing by saying "everything we say is true".
... unless I was involved in some kind of weird human pyramid shit while I was there and came back home packed in ice.
So another words, say me and a bunch of troops brake down your door at 2am, shoot your father, tear up the place and take you to a horrible prison for six months and later releace you. You learn that they were looking for terrorists and real sorry for your father and gave your children some rations before they left, then Rumsfeld could say:
"We are helping the Iraqi people by fighting terrorists and feeding the Iraqi children."
Nothing he said was untrue, but your father is dead, you were in prison for six months and someone came into your house and busted the place up.
If some Iraqis came and busted up my house in the middle of the night and took me to prison, I know I'd have an IED with their name on it. Once I got out of prison that is....
Some say he is made with ascii, others that he is eyeballed daily by millions. All we know is, he is known as the Sig
Anti-Americanism != reporting the revolting things perpetrated by the US military and/or government in the name of the US.
In 2004, the US government launched Alhurra, a 24-hour propaganda news network that was created to counter Aljazeera.
Maybe Rumsfeld didn't get the memo, but that's not surprising considering that he doesn't even use e-mail.
"Our enemies have skilfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but... our country has not," he said. Mr Rumsfeld said al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists were bombarding Muslims with negative images of the West, which had poisoned the public view of the US.
How is it possible for al-Qaeda to be so far ahead of us in PR when we have entire industries built on PR and marketing??? Or is it because we are in fact doing a shitty job? Pictures from Abu Ghraib weren't simply made up by the media. Someone in our leadership screwed up (notice how they sacked the soldiers but few officers) and the TRUTH go out. The truth will get out eventually.
The US must fight back by operating a more effective, 24-hour propaganda machine, or risk a "dangerous deficiency," he said.
No, the US must fight back by doing a better job instead of trying to distort the truth. We've already lost a ton of credibility when no WMDs were found. A propaganda machine isn't going to help. It's make people believe us even less and then we'll truly be in a "world of shit". Rumsfeld and our leadership need to get it through their heads that saying "2 + 2 = 5" a million times isn't going to change the fact. Face it, we're a foreign country in someone else's land. That's not going to make people happy. When things don't improve like we've promised and car bombs start going off, they're going to be pissed. Remember how ridiculous the Iraqi PR minister was when he try to tell everyone that Americans are being defeated as our tanks moved into Baghdad? That's how Rumsfeld is going to look when he get this PR machine going.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Because while all that is said can be considered "factual" (to certain people), not all that occured was said.
So, a different source could publish more factual information on the event and your propaganda drive would fail.
And THAT is the core problem when dealing with propaganda. It only really works when YOU are the one seen as providing the most accurate information.
Even if you're lying, the lies have to be perceived as factual.
Right now, Al Jazeera is perceived as providing more facts and fewer distortions ("lies") by the Iraqi people (and others).
Unless they buy all international news outlets and impose strict control on them, find a way to ban reporting of their attrocities altogether (persecute underground/independent reporting), filter out or censor internet communications, and crash dissent on an international scale, they might as well try to empty the sea with a tea spoon.
American hubris at a grandiose scale. The informed citizen will read a report about another massacre perpetrated by the american arrogance and then a report of how an american hero saved a dairy cow from certain death in the killing fields of iraq and somehow the latter will weigh over the former? Sure if your name is Joe Sixpack and you live around 38 00 N, 97 00 W...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
The final irony is, of course, that the real place where government funding WOULD be appropriate when it comes to media, namely the Public Broadcasting System is being cut in the current budget, by the tune of 64 million. Public media systems like that (think BBC, CBC, etc.) actually might benefit the citizenry by giving an alternative and less sensationalist based viewpoint. But no, we don't want to fund those, let's get it on with the propaganda instead ! Man, America, your priorities are so messed up.
To compare what other nations spend on their public media systems compared to Americans check this out.
After reading the headline I immediately had the thought 1984 pass through my mind. Slashdot is good at promoting that kind of thought. Then I went and read the article. And you know what? Rumsfeld is right. In many respects we in the west are losing the war of ideas with facist islam. I think it is very cynical and one-sided to call what Rumsfeld is talking about "propaganda" while conveniently neglecting to recognize that these islamofacists such as Al Qeada and similar groups in Iraq are already recognizing the tremendous power of propaganda and are using it on us. Do we recognize this? If we truly value our western society, free and open as it is, patriot act notwithstanding, then we should be very alarmed that somehow more and more people are becoming convinced of these other points of view that directly threaten our very way of life. If anything the cartoon stuff should illustrate that clearly. While I think the cartoons were in very poor taste, the fact that a few radical imams and clerics have managed to stir up a couple hundred million people over a simple drawing should be setting off some huge warning bells in our minds.
So how do we convince others that our way is better? We're going to have to talk to them. And that is the very definition of propaganda. Even Slashdot is really propaganda. It's not a bad thing; it's just the free expression of ideas with the intent to convince others of these ideas' legitimacy (trolls and OS religious zealots notwithstanding). I'm surprised that people on slashdot would bash Rumsfeld for saying these things since ensuring a free expression of all ideas is supported by almost all slashdotters!
So For those that don't care to read the article, Rumsfeld is merely saying that these people, who have sworn to destroy the west if they can, are using propaganda much more effectively than we are. We need to be better arguers (hint to all americans: western-style logic does not apply to the Middle East), and come up with better ways to help people see that having a totalitarian, facist, Islamic state is *not* going to bring about any benefit to them in terms of people or religion.
While I have huge problems with our current administration, I do understand the Middle East, and I recognize that some things have to be done. I greatly fear what will happen as these aberations of Islam continue to spread. As we can see from the Denmark fiasco, it's not just America that is being targeted. Islam is at a cross-roads. Maybe we can influence the cooler Islamic heads to bring back the original, peaceful meaning of Islam. That is what Rumsfeld is talking about.
Did you actually read what Rummy is proposing?
From the end of TFA:That sounds really freakin' nerdy to me.
They're talking about creating a radio, tv and print framework in whatever country he has a problem with.
It's relatively easy for the U.S. to blast propaganda into Cuba, since they aren't that far away, but it is a completely different story when you're trying to push information into countries like Iran or Syria.
Think about the technical side of deploying his 'framework'. I bet that would be News for Nerds
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
A Russian and an American meet over a round of drinks, and start talking about freedoms in their countries. The American begins by saying: We have the absolute freedom of speech. I can stand in front of the White House, and say "Bush Sucks", and nobody can touch me! They will even show me on the TV!
Well, says the Russian, we got that too! I can stand in the Red Square and say "Bush Sucks", and nobody will touch me either.
What is the bottom line of this joke? Well, saying that Fox News is fair and balanced because they bash Arabs is like saying Russians are free because they bash Americans.
Use your brain, its a bit hard to grasp right away.
The only thing that would make a difference would be to actually change their foreign policy to be less aggressive and unilateral, and to treat the rest of the world as partners to be co-operated with in good faith, rather than as marks to be subjugated/exploited/suppressed. Trying to solve the problems by propaganda alone is merely putting lipstick on a pig, and won't fool anyone.
Of course, the above won't happen any time soon, because it would involve sacrificing much of the profit that our current policies squeeze out of the third world.
(disclaimer: this isn't meant to be flamebait or a troll, it is merely my honest appraisal of the situation)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Just broadcast Fox News over there.
That is all.
Well, that and they'd like to categorize the people who criticize them as "terrorists."
Once the public accepts that "propaganda is necessary" and "this is a war of ideas," they'll see that as a mandate to crack down on the "enemy ideas."
Under this government's preferred reading of current law, you are technically providing support to terrorists by criticizing American leaders. All they need is a slightly more scared public; then they can get down to the important business of arresting political prisoners. (Not that they aren't doing this already to a degree; they've just so far limited it to Arabs because it's more acceptable to the xenophobic masses.)
Let's face it. The value of propaganda lies in its credibility. Or rather, the readiness of people to believe it.
To convince your own population is easy. That's how the nazi propaganda managed to keep the Germans in line even when it should've been obvious that the war is lost. They've been brainwashed for so long, and it WAS actually more or less true what they heard until about 1941, so they believed it.
When you try to convince your opponent, or at least an "undecided" person, you can't start with lies. You have to use truth, in other words, you have to first of all put some action before your words. Promises won't work. They've heard promises before, from Al Quaida and their former government. They have heard lies before. And people who have been subject to heavy propaganda only to have it revealed as lies are very resilent against this kind of tactic.
Ask anyone in eastern Europe.
So first of all, you have to put some "good" actions into place, then you can use your media to stress their existance and use this in the war for the minds. And I hope Rummy has this in mind, not some half-assed promises and long-term goals that nobody cares about.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Saddam was secular. He did not enforce Islamic law (Sharia).A third time. Under Saddam, women could work. Under the new government, this is not always allowed.You might want to take a look at the fundamentalist Taliban and their implementation of Sharia.
Seriously, do some research. It's not like it's that difficult.
What? FOX News went off the air?
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
... is needed is HONESTY?
Oh wait... that would fuck up 98% of the worlds beliefs.
Hmmm... maybe its time for that.
At one time Islam was the strongest force behind human advancement, gathering knowledge of all kinds and developing it further as well as being productive with such knowledge. Islam was considered of the highest quality products and education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Islam
then an ottoman feeling the pressure to go to war in his royal ?(or whatever you want to call it) position, though there wasn't a real cause for it, started the downfall of islam in going to war.
Knowledge begets knowledge... and specific knowledge, such a war knowlegde, begets its own kind.
War is destructive and the opposite of productive....
Just ask father physics and mother nature. They are very persistant in telling you, no matter how much you don't listen.
what happens if all muslims are like the Wahabi?
What happens if all Christians are like Pat Robertson?
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
"The only thing the Danes ever killed anyone with was delicious confectionaries."
They were Vikings you goose!
http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm
Actually, Wessex was not able to absorb all of England, for as it began to do this, the Vikings arrived. This started with the sacking of the Monastery at Lindisfarne, in Bernicia, in 793. Eventually, Northumbria, East Anglia, Essex, and about the north-eastern half of Mercia were overrun and became part of the Danelaw. At first the Vikings raided, sacked, and carried off slaves, or were bought off with "protection" money -- "Danegelt" -- but then Danes and Norwegians began to establish their own Kingdoms. They also passed around to Ireland and the Isle of Man and began encroaching from the west on Wales and England. This finally led to the outright annexation of England to Denmark by King Canute in 1016, though the Danish Kings only lasted until 1042. A fair number of Danish words ended up in English, like "skiff," which is simply the Danish cognate of the English word "ship."
We must replace google, yahoo, msn et cetera with a Patriot Search Engine to ensure that Government-Approved Information is delivered to your desktop!
It can also that your search terms are automatically submitted to the government for analysis, without the risk of judicial oversight, congressional enactments, or probable cause. This will make your even more secure from terror, terrorism and terrorists!
Surely if you are a true patriot with nothing to hide and interested only in The Truth As Patriots Know It To Be, you will use Patriot Search today. If you don't, then surely in the interests of security someone will have to find out why.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Come on now. There's plenty of reason to jump on the present administration but this isn't one of them. Every company, every public figure, every organization with an ounce of good sense takes a bit of care with public relations. They have to do so, otherwise folks, organizations and other countries who mean them harm and no good will own the field. If you are the United States military and you only let the liberal pressdanistas define what is reported and said and discussed about you then you're going to have major public relations problems. In other words, if that next door neighbor of yours who doesn't like you is the only one who speaks about you to anyone and everyone guess what everyone is going to think about you? It would be a good idea for you to be able to speak for yourself about who you are and the military in the United States, run by elected civilians, should be able to do the same thing. The very fact that so many of you automatically run to the 'propaganda' tag instead of the 'public relations' tag goes to show that the effort at public relations is needed.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8FIG FB00.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db has a story about Overstock.com.
==Begin quote==
In its most recent quarterly filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said its net loss for the 12 months ended Sept. 30, 2005, widened to $18.41 million, up from a loss of $10.63 million during the same period the previous year. Net cash provided by operations was negative $28.15 million for the recent period, a sharp turn from $9.53 million cash generated the previous year.
An upgrade of the company's information technology system that Byrne said was "the equivalent of a heart, lung and kidney transplant" didn't go smoothly. In September, the company said it hadn't loaded new products onto its Web site in five weeks.
==End quote==
So rather than admitting that they screwed up...
==Begin quote==
Patrick Byrne, the Internet retailer's chief executive officer, has called short selling of his company's shares -- essentially a bet their price will fall -- a conspiracy orchestrated by a "Sith Lord." He later likened the conspiracy to an organization structured like al-Qaida and said his stock has been targeted by "naked short-sellers," a practice he said has ties to Italian, Russian and Israeli mafia.
==End quote==
If Overstock ran their operation properly and showed a profit next quarter, the naked short-sellers would be in for a world of hurt, financially. Instead, Mr. Byrne is whining about web boards just like Darl McBride whines about Groklaw and Rumsfeld whines about Al Jazeera.
The USA seems to have the same mentality. The Bush administration doesn't admit that they earned their bad reputation by invading a country that they knew didn't have WMD, and holding prisoners incommunicado and torturing them. Rather than actually acting kinder-and-gentler, the US wants propaganda to show that it's kinder and gentler.
That mentailty seems to be pervasive in the USA. Overstock and SCOX have had bad financial results. But they blame their falling stock prices on web boards and short sellers. If a company is found to be distributing spyware, they'll SLAPP the anti-spyware companies that fingered them. And let's not forget how spam^H^H^H^H ethikul email marketeers SLAPPed the MAPS RBL into uselessness.
Corporate USA, and its puppet administration, seem to believe that rather than acting nicer, they merely have to spend money on propaganda, and lawyers for injunctions to shut down websites that expose their misdeeds. They're acting uncannily like Soviet Russia, which spent 10 times as much money trying to jam BBC broadcasts as the BBC spent on broadcasting to the Soviets. Remember what happened to the USSR.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
"But I see the reaction by other muslims to be more cultural than religious."
Sorry, but I'm not buying that one anymore. That argument just doesn't hold water when Muslims are rioting from Nigeria to Indonesia. Futhermore, isn't the culture in these countries defined, to a great extent, by Islam?
I think many in the West are finnaly getting wise to what the "religion of peace" is all about. After the Van Gogh murder, the subway attacks, the French riots, and now the "cartoon riots", I think many of use who once felt that islam was being portrayed unfairly are reconsidering our position.
It's so nice to see them recognizing that public opinion is such an important battle field.
But are they really doing all that they can do win this battle? No. Take, for example, the prison torture scandal. I don't care whether or not the response to the scandal was appropriate or not; that is totally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the world thinks the scandal is relevant. Pulling a Clinton by trying to play technicalities with the definition of torture does not help. Duking it out with McCain on the issue does not help. Forget propaganda! If you can't make the right gestures, you won't be going anywhere.
In many societies (particularly in Japan), it is considered the honorable thing for the guy on top to publicly apologize, accept responsibility, and/or resign even if something was totally the fault of some underling. Did Rummy do any of that? Nope.
1: Put properly trained people in charge of prisoners (no more pictures of naked prisoners and killings/beatings) 2: Stop encarcerating people without a proper trial and without being judged by a jury of their peers 3: Follow the Geneva Convetions completely and unequivocally instead of "for the most part" as Rumsfeld famously stated
Islamo-Fascist countries in the Middle East have government-run media that portrays western culture negatively. Regardless how you feel about the US, we are a free country in fact the majority of the media is liberal and anti-establishment. In these countries both sides are never reported and the government engages in one-sided anti-Western journalism. Rumsfield is simply talking about the US Govt responding to OTHERS propoganda, and you can add BBC to that list.
I thought you went to war with the propaganda machine you have, not the propaganda machine you'd like to have. . .
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
This video will freak you out!. google "rumsfeld disease".
How about actually reporting ALL the news that's going on there.
Not just the bad things.
The American people have such a screwed up idea of what that whole country is like... You'd think that ever square inch of that place was ready to explode, rather than what's happening in a relatively small area where Saddam loyalists and jihadists (who came over the border) are right now.
Doesn't Fox News run 24/7?
why not arm Parliament and Clinton and send 'em out into the Bush.
Damn, that would freak the funk!
Did it ever occur to you that if your troops, not mine even though I live here, I disown them, they can be all yours, WEREN'T over there they wouldn't be getting shot at? Huh? Huh? Ever think of that? Have you noticed THEY invaded Iraq, and Iraq had NOTHING to do with any attacks on the US? Saddam was a medium level bad guy as middle eastern leaders go, why not invade all of the above? How about in Africa, south america, asia? You planning on invading everywhere there's a bad guy? That's THE BULK OF THE PLANET.
So far, US forces have killed more innocent civilians than saddam did, by the year. You got any excuses for that besides just mumbling "unfortunate collateral damage"? What would YOU do if some nation decided they were going to "regime change" and invaded the US, even if the current president du juor wasn't to your liking? Would you cooperate with them and be a quisling traitor, or fight them? And since when is it a legit war when there are no PRISONERS OF WAR? Just "detainees" with hoods over their heads, including women and children. How would YOU like your neighborhood invaded by people from another nation, using high tech killing methods including air strikes? And just kidnapping people and disappearing them? Would you think that was so cool you would go join up with them?
You can't have it both ways. You can't contend some other people are badguys when you are doing exactly the same thing. Give it up, the US government and military and it's leadership are AT BEST moronic, and worst, outright murdering thieving invaders who are ONCE AGAIN installing some puppet government, same thing they have been doing for over 100 years all over. Do you need a list? The difference is now we have the internet, so it's harder to lie to people. Before, they only had to control a few domestic media outlets to brainwash the population, now they have to contend with people having access to many and diverse news sources, and it gets so embarrassing for them to keep this up they need even more "official propoganda" outlets. If all those Iraqis really wanted us there, the so called "resistance" would be a pitiful few, as it is, the BULK of the Iraqi people want us out, and the resistance has been gaining strength in numbers, DESPITE all the murdering going down by US troops, who have shown they are perfectly willing to engage in murder, theft, and mass genocide like in Fallulah. You want to know WHY they got some many to join up the puppet iraqi police force? it's because WE DESTROYED THEIR ECONOMY and there's pitiful few jobs. And coincidently that's the ONLY way they are maintaining a pitiful recruitment goal in the US, where MOST of the "volunteers" are coming from destroyed manufacturing areas where entry level jobs that pay anything or have any benefits are few and far between because the same billionaire globalist idiots in charge decided it was a good idea to kill off the manufacturing base.
ARE YOU SEEING A PATTERN YET?
WAKE UP, you really DON'T have to be a tool of those idiots. They are playing both sides against the middle with this scam, to keep the civilian populations in iraq and the US dumbed down and defensive and under one or the other kind of terror in order to maintain their fatcat leadership poisitions. And they off people to do this! That makes them murdering thugs, so please don't support them. Egads man, read between the lines a little! This is not that hard to see!
He lamented that the Pentagon was losing the Information War; abroad in getting it's point of view across (Al Qaeda and bin Laden are losers, don't join Jihad essentially) and at home (the US is beating Al Qaeda).
In that he's right because the media by and large has actively taken sides with Al Qaeda. Regardless of how you feel about the decision to invade Iraq, we are fighting Al Qaeda there (and in Yemen and the Horn of Africa and Pakistan and Afghanistan and many other places). Without exception the Media in the US and the WEst has not been much distinguished from propaganda places like Al Jazeera.
During WWII Edward R. Murrow openly took sides with the British People; and helped American officials rewrite press releases for better efficiency. THAT sort of pro-US and pro-Allied attitude would get him drummed out of journalism today. Mike Wallace in a symposium decades ago browbeat the late Peter Jennings into admitting he'd not warn US forces of an ambush so he could get the story and that journalists were not supposed to take the side of the US.
When Muslim fanatics of Al Qaeda behead hostages, the media will not show it. When the Muslim fanatics bring down the towers and people jump from them holding hands, the Media won't show it. When Muslim fanatics hold up signs saying "Freedom go to hell" or "God Bless Hitler" the media won't show it (only the Web will).
Part of it is abject fear and submission by the media, acting essentially as Al Qaeda's press agent because they fear being murdered (as Tom Friedman and Jordan Eason of CNN admitted). Relaying blatant propaganda against the US brings zero retaliation from the US.
Rumsfeld was merely being honest in saying that the Pentagon can't get it's message out that it does have successes in killing or degrading the Al Qaeda leadership and command. Instead the media runs phony stories of Korans flushed down toilets or various propaganda allegations of "Torture" at Guantanamo.
Rumsfeld advocates using the Web and the internet to get the Pentagon message out since the Media is either abjectly afraid or on the other side in the fantasy of "journalism as citizen of the world." In this I think he's right, communication wise.
It's a lot better to make Al Qaeda seem the loser than encourage more terrorism when Iran likely already has nukes, and the danger is losing a couple of our cities and ALL of theirs. Getting the message out that we won, so stop fighting can save a lot of lives.
Should read: "Rumsfeld Requests Another 24-hour Propaganda Machine"
Because, really, when the administration can spin "We leaked the identity of an active CIA agent, which is tantamount to treason" into "It's the fault of the media for publishing the leak we gave them," along with, "Oh yeah, it's no problem that there are warrantless wiretaps going on; the real problem is that someone spilled the beans," and who can forget "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" -- dammit, the whole government is already a 24-hour propaganda machine, and its target audience is the American citizen.
If they want to add another audience, they're going to need another machine.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not wearing a tinfoil hat, and I am generally prepared to give the bemefit of the doubt. But I have to call shenanigans on this administration.
Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
Slashdot rarely covers "technical articles". It covers lots of technical issues, but rarely links to an actual scientific paper or engineering report. Rumsfeld's policy statement talks about communications technology, a huge new expenditure on American communications technology. That's news for nerds. Even if Rumsfeld's words could have come out of a Gestapo officer's mouth. Or maybe especially if so.
--
make install -not war
In an era where we've already got government-created and funded media outlets and the Pentagon bribing Iraqi journalists to run favorable war stories, not to mention other departments paying journalists to endorse their positions, it begs the question, how much more can they possibly do?"
I think this is simply disingenuous. The United States certainly has propoganda organs, but I think it's indisputable that it also has the most free and open media community (circus) in the world.
I think Rumsfeld's point is more that, Fox news aside, every other media outlet in this country seems dedicated to 'taking down' the president in any way that they possibly can. In an era where a higher percentage of Washington reporters voted Democrat than REGISTERED Democrats, and where media networks formerly of some standing don't hesitate to run stories without research, plaigarize from web blogs, and outright fabricate evidence (Courier Font for the win, Dan) out of their irrational hatred of George Bush, I don't think it's suprising for a senior member of the administration to say that it would behoove the government to act more aggressively to get GOOD news about US efforts out and AROUND the anti-US media conglomerates.
-Styopa
After all, the Islamofascists have ABC, NBC, CBS, the BBC, CBC, Der Speigiel, Le Monde, etc etc etc working for them.
Why can't those of us who would rather not submit and become dhimmis use the media to get our message out?
You know, it's all fun and self-pleasing to pose as "enlightened progressives" but at the end of the day do we really want to return to the 14th Century?
What?
I support the Administration. I think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job. No, I'm not joking. I don't think he's Mt. Rushmore material, but I do think the majority opinion of him here is paranoid idiocy tempered only by urban liberal orthodoxy.
As for Slashdot, all opinions are tolerated except those that are conservative, americentric or at odds with the popularly accepted view in a given scientific field.
In other words, if you believe as you suggest that Slashdot is tolerant of all well-expressed views, you may be suffering from craniorectal inversion.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Check out government newscasts from the Middle East (translated to English). It's like watching the other side's version of Fox News. al-Jazeera is way ahead.
The US should be encouraging al-Jazeera, not complaining about it. The US has little to fear from an honest press. (Bush may, but that's a personal problem.)
Shrug. Read 1984. It's all there, with slight changes in terminology and technology. But not much. What comes pretty soon is imprisonment for those who dispute the propaganda.
What kind of propaganda system do they want? Are they talking about a news service like Voice of America used to be for Eastern Europe during the Cold War? Basically an unbiased news service that brought the same news found in USA newspapers to people who had no access to non-Communist news sources? That service is already provided by CNN and, to a certain extent, the newer-more open Arab news services like al-Jazira.
Or do they want a focused pro-American pro-West service to counter the incessant anti-American message coming from Iran?
Perhaps they are talking about a 'black' propaganda service, where stories that may or may not be true are introduced into the 'Arab street' for the sole purpose of provoking an extreme reaction. The Arabs and the Pakistanis will go into violent riot mode on just rumors now. For example, I doubt that anyone rioting in Libya, Syria, or Pakistan has actually seen any of these editorial cartoons that have whipped them into a frenzy. It is also doubtful that anyone in the west would have started massive street riots without actually seeing the provocative images themselves. It's unlikely that provocative images or unproven news rumors would cause riots in the west anyway.
Having a 'black' propaganda service that could introduce false rumors would allow the controllers of this service to have a 'light switch' to start violent street riots in the Islamic world at any time that is convenient for them.
I think Mr Bush is doing a fine job.
Let's see, we have two major terrorist attacks on the United States, where neither Bin Laden nor the anonymous anthrax mailer were ever caught. We have the completely failure of our intelligence and defense forces on 9/11 with no explanation and no plan to fix. We have a trillion -- a *trillion* dollars, do you have the slightest idea how much that is? -- pissed away in a war in a country most Americans couldn't identify on a map, for *nothing*.
We have double-digit increases in the military's main budget every year *on top of* this crazy war; and as a result we have cutbacks in all the services that might make life worthwhile if you weren't crazy rich.
We all watched over *days* while the government sat there and did nothing and we lost New Orleans. George Bush lost New Orleans. He didn't even *pretend to try* to save it. He didn't act concerned, he didn't do anything, and the city was destroyed.
But the worst part is all the dead. There are the thousands of American dead in the ruins of the World Trade Center, the thousands dead in the rubble of New Orleans, the thousands of young American men and women finding miserable and painful deaths in Iraq for nothing (not to mention the tens of thousands of young people returning multilated and crippled) -- and there are the tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghanis killed by Americans, very many of whom were women, children, or simply people who were trying to mind their own business when an American bomb went off in their vicinity.
You think Mr. Bush is doing a fine job, do you?
On the contrary, even if Bush were impeached this very moment, based on the results of the first five years he'd still be by far the worst President the United States ever had.
Fairly organized groups of people who support violent acts - check.
Leading to death - check.
Almost winked at - check.
Look, I've spent time with people who did abortion clinic defense. Let me tell you, our own radical religious minority is just as dangerous, and they operate with a lot of people saying "well, I don't agree with their tactics, but they're defending children, so I won't stand in their way".
How come we don't see news coverage of the preachers that condemn abortion clinic bombings? Because that's not news. Nutjobs on a high-caliber Mission from God - now that's great television.
Why can't I mod "-1 Idiot"?
If you want to get down to it, Israel is at the foundation a bunch of 1st, 2nd and 3rd generation European squatters occupying land belonging to others. That and a recent enormous infusion of Africans to boost the population.
According to my history teacher, jews have been living in that land since at least 1000 bc until the muslims declared them unislamic and kicked them out. The land that they occupied early the previous century was afaik bought and paid for; the rest wass assigned by the UN. If muslim countries do not agree they are free to leave the UN.
As to wiping them off the map. Maybe that's a good idea at this point. They've made their bed since 1947 and now complain about having to sleep in it. If the US stopped pumping public and private funding into that territory, they'd have to change their tune quickly and arrive at a peacable solution instead of constantly provocing violence.
While we're wiping nations off the earth, let's wipe the following nations off the map as well:
Iran, Yemen, Syria, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and the UAE. Especially the last one. How would you feel about that?
And while on the subject of "constantly provoking violence" hmmmm did you see the video of the israeli kids beheading a muslim? burning the muslim flag? calling out for global warfare against non-israeli's? burn embassies? dress their kids up with explosives? glorify the ak-47? could go on and on.
Now there's no reason why all those people can't live in peace and work towards eachother's benefit, but in order to do that the, state sanctioned racism, apartheid, genocide and terrorism on Israel's side and the racism and terrorism on the other side have to stop.
hmmm why do you think israel is an apartheid state. afaik there is even a jihadist in the knesset. israel makes it hard for non-citizens though. what a load of crap in one sentence without proof to support it.
damn, you must either be very ignorant or trying to obscure the stuation in favor of the jihadists.
Voice of America was established in 1942, and, as far as I know, has operated since then. It's not like their webpages go down half the time.
Of course, it may be not be obvious that it's a government mouthpiece; like the Department of War effectively becoming the Department of Defense after World War II, the United States Information Agency (the US propaganda division) was renamed to the Bureau of Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in 1999.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Yes & Unfortonally it's called fox news
The justification for Israel is that England was in charge and they decided to draw the lines that way. The jewish zionists convinced England to do it with a number of lines of argument including that they had a multi-thousand year attachment to the place but the reason the lines were drawn as they were in 1947 was strictly colonial whim. Israel's 1948 and subsequent borders were established conventionally, by force of arms and treaty brokered territory concessions.
The millenia of occupation and connection is a very nice national myth but it wasn't the reason the lines were drawn that way. Jewish majority neighborhoods got included in Israel. The rest was supposed to be arab Palestine. Then there was a war...
Why don't you go do that?
You think there's stories to be told out there besides what we hear (mostly from inside the green zone), why don't you go over there and report them?
Part of the problem is it is unsafe for our reporters to leave this area (as ABC's Bob Woodruff so well illustrated) and Americans don't seem to want to listen to any reporters from other countries. It's kind of ironic on that 2nd part, because back before the election the Bush administration was saying everything was hunky-dory, that the insurgence was just a bunch of "dead-enders", most reporters couldn't safely leave the Green Zone to report the real story without being embedded, in which case the military could not only lead them where they wanted, but also censored their reports. One major new reporting agency was sending reporters outside the Green Zone and they were saying that the citizens were not greeting us as heroes and the insurgents were making major inroads. That agency was Al-Jazeera. In response, the Bush administration demonized them, closed down their offices until after the (US) Presidential election and eventually ended up bombing their location in Baghdad (and claiming it was a mistake).
Meanwhile, all the American news sources were just reporting wine and roses. But now that the American news sources finally did their jobs and actually report what is going on instead of what the Bush administration told them is going on, you say the "real" story would get out better if we had other news sources that could get out into the countryside.
I'd love to think that manipulating the media came back to hurt the Bush administration. I'd love to think that the media kowtowing to the Bush administration and showing an inaccurate picture of the situation came back to hurt the media too. But honestly, I just don't see it. The Bush administration is merely reaping what they sowed, and yes, things are very bad over there. Yes, things are least bad in places that we meddled the least in.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95