Slashdot Mirror
US Journalists Targeted By Pentagon Propaganda Contractors
Jeremiah Cornelius writes "While conducting investigative reporting on civilian contractors in the Pentagon's "InfoOps" Internet propaganda operations, two reporters found themselves the subject of a highly targeted, professional media manipulation effort. Reporter Tom Vanden Brook and Editor Ray Locker found that Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog comments. Websites were registered in their names. Some postings merely copied Vanden Brook's and Locker's previous reporting. Others accused them of being sponsored by the Taliban. 'I find it creepy and cowardly that somebody would hide behind my name and presumably make up other names in an attempt to undermine my credibility,' Vanden Brook said. If these websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption."
Not when there is contract money and/or professional reputation at stake.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government?
The Constitution has become a piece of paper that the government uses to wipe the asses of the corporations. All of our laws supposedly spring from this document, so why would they feel any different about these 'lesser' laws?
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Tfs: US Journalists Targeted By Pentagon Propaganda Contractors
Tfa: says that they appear to have been targeted by a misinformation campaign. TFA makes no mention of a connection between the actions and propaganda contractors.
Might be that they are connected - but nowhere is there proof or even a suggestion of proof for the statement.
WTF slashdot...
Just like forcing banks to take on loans from people who cannot pay them back,
Which would be a major problem if it had ever happened outside of Wall Street propaganda. Do you really think that the government has the power to do that to banks? Or that banks (who have almost limitless lobbying pockets) would allow it? If only.
Insurance companies only care about your revenue/cost ratio. They only care about pre-existing conditions because they are a good predictor of a poor ratio. Anything else which indicates a poor ratio is just as bad. If they were allowed, insurance companies would drop everyone the second they got a serious illness.
Given a choice between an insurance company (where the cost of my illness subtracts from their profit and their officers' yearly bonuses) and a government (which I can occasionally influence by voting), there ain't no comparison.
And this is precisely the reason I'm glad I left the US a few years ago, likely for good. The government there is no longer in the hands of the people, and likely never will be again.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"