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."

29 of 232 comments (clear)

  1. It could violate federal law by ATMAvatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government? With the wiretapping of people without a warrant, search and seizure of anyone unfortunate enough to require air travel or border crossing, detainment of individuals without due process, to instigating of torture of war prisoners, I'm somewhat surprised we don't hear more stories like this.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    1. Re:It could violate federal law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate. Whether that is true or not is a different story - and I won't presume to guess if it was actually done with government knowledge or not. We'll need a lot more facts before that could be determined. However the odds that anyone directly employed by the government will take a fall for it are pretty low.

    2. Re:It could violate federal law by pitchpipe · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
    3. Re:It could violate federal law by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a case like this though, even if it was government funds used to do the work, it will probably come out that it was done by "overly aggressive independent contractors" who "overstepped their bounds" and not by government mandate. ...

      Methinks this would be what some call plausible deniability.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    4. Re:It could violate federal law by mounthood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Since when has violating the law deterred the actions of our government? With the wiretapping of people without a warrant, search and seizure of anyone unfortunate enough to require air travel or border crossing, detainment of individuals without due process, to instigating of torture of war prisoners, I'm somewhat surprised we don't hear more stories like this.

      Don't forget Asset Forfeiture -- you don't even have to be charged with a crime, much less convicted.

      --
      tomorrow who's gonna fuss
    5. Re:It could violate federal law by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While the corporations are probobly getting treated better than your average citizen, I doubt they really enjoy the way our political environment exists today any more than we do. The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties. The left blame the rich, the right blame the media. None of it is true. The laws are passed by 2 political parties that have the same goal: Power

    6. Re:It could violate federal law by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem isn't the rich, or corporations, that's just a red herring thrown at you by the REAL problem: The Democrat and Republican parties. The left blame the rich, the right blame the media. None of it is true. The laws are passed by 2 political parties that have the same goal: Power

      Which party is trying to enact consumer protection laws, regulations to protect home buyers, regulations to reign in bank fraud?
      Which party passes laws protecting the rights of women and minorities or makes environmental protection a priority?
      I could go on and on, listing substantial policy differences between the Democratic and Republican parties.

      I accept that both parties want power, but it seems like only one party even pretends to have a token interest in using the least bit of that power to protect my interests in even the most minimal of ways.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    7. Re:It could violate federal law by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those aren't your interests. All you are seeing is the futures of Orwell and Huxley fighting it out in real time.

      One comes via fear, force and ignorance, the other comes with a spoonful of sugar and ignorance. The problem is, they are both well on their way to becoming real.

      Liberty will be just as dead if killed through violent oppression (Orwell) or diabetic shock (Huxley).

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  2. Re:How Silly by smittyoneeach · · Score: 4, Informative

    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
  3. Is it real at all? by russotto · · Score: 3, Interesting

    My suspicious side wonders if these reporters created the fake sites themselves to stir up controversy.

    My other suspicious side wonders if it was just spammers copying a bunch of real and popular content to a website in order to do black hat SEO. Even the part about them being "sponsored by the Taliban" could have been stolen from some real comment on their articles.

    1. Re:Is it real at all? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The simpler is the lie, the more people believe it. The net result of faking the libel than debunking it is always negative.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  4. Seems every day I'm reading another shocker by rbrander · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Tim Weiner, who did a great book on the CIA, was on Jon Stewart the other day, touting his new book on the FBI. Seems the beginning of the plumbers was when J. Edgar Hoover refused to start tapping the phones of all the friends and relatives of groups like The Weathermen. And now the FBI is being asked to tap even more widely and without warrants. The new Surveillance State is, get this, worse than J.Edgar Hoover would tolerate, because it was so blatantly unconstitutional.

    But the FBI tapping is small potatoes. Hit Glenn Greenwald's column at Salon.com for the other day's article on "surveillance state evils"....the NSA, always forbidden to tap Americans, is now tapping, well, everything. Suspicions no longer seem paranoid that the "Total Information Awareness" is indeed being pursued: a new NSA data centre is just hoovering up (pardon the expression) every byte.

    The article goes on to detail a great deal more journalist and activist intimidation than this /. item: people who've spoken out for Wikileaks, done journalism, whatever, getting up against the wall every time they pass through customs, lawyer Jesslyn Radack searched EVERY TIME she goes through TSA even domestically, people threatened with jail and jailhouse-rape.

    It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

    1. Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker by Sancho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

      I don't have time to get mad. American Idol's on.

    2. Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker by theNAM666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >It's just bewildering. Is this really the USA? And are it's citizens just taking it? Some freedom-loving people.

      Congratulations. You've just discovered the difference between public ideology ("greatest country on earth," "home of freedom and democracy") and actual reality ("bow down to your corporate overlords").

      P.S. The journalists' claims are overblown, in the sense that reporting on Apple's manufacturing was overblown. I get interviewed every time I enter the US (because of "leftist affiliations" shall we say). The interrogations are, in the end, professionally and not over the top in a sort of bureaucratically chilling way. If I don't make a fuss or trouble, it's just a series of questions and answers, and they're not going to do an unnecessary invasive search because they're no point / it's inefficient. If you scream and holler and break protocol on your side, I'm sure, you've just set off all the alarm bells and they have to search you, but because you screamed and hollered and they have to search everyone who screams and hollers-- because that's what the bureaucratic playbook says they have to do-- not because you're a journalist who wrote about this or that, but because, in the end, you're making extra trouble.

      In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences.

    3. Re:Seems every day I'm reading another shocker by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, because ONLY terrorists scream and holler about their rights -- and GOOD CITIZENS capitulate.

      What you've just described is a situation where the TSA security theater is merely there to make sure you bend over and say; "thank you sir."

      Security doesn't have shit to do with people making jokes, or making a fuss. The guy who want's to mess you up will stay under the radar and be the most polite person up until the moment of truth.

      In short, don't argue with the cop unless you're prepared for the consequences. -- Right, because we should all have consequences because we demand a Government and Security system that respects us.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
  5. Sockpuppets for hire by EnergyScholar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I hope all readers of Slashdot are already aware of the many 'boutique' consulting firms exist that provide this kind of service. For a fee, they will sell you anything from a single one-topic sock puppet appearance, to an entire social media campaign. I am personally familiar with organizations that provide this service. They definitely operate on Slashdot, and I have been seeing more and more probable sockpuppet appearances here. I strongly encourage all readers to increase personal awareness of this phenomenon. New media, and the shenanigans it makes possible, now requires a new type of media awareness, if one wishes to not be fooled and manipulated.

    1. Re:Sockpuppets for hire by MountainLogic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out. I would welcome a corporate flack who shows up and articulately say, "I'm VP at company X and here is what I want to tell you about our product..." Instead all we get is 3rd rate sub-contractor who just copies and paste, perhaps with bad edits, some anti-science drivel. I guess if you have a loosing argument the only choice is to give up on making your case and muddy the waters. Now that I've entered all those keywords, just watch how many sock puppets come out and respond out of context. So welcome shills, but just for kicks please list your employer this time. Any ex-shills out there?

    2. Re:Sockpuppets for hire by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are they hiring? Sounds like fascinating work for a misanthrope like me.

    3. Re:Sockpuppets for hire by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anytime energy, climate, guns, oil, taxes, nuclear, smoking, pesticides, pharmaceuticals or evolution gets mentioned you can expect to see the sock puppets come out.

      From both sides.

  6. Does not scan by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Informative

    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...

  7. Re:How Silly by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole thing has gotten batshit thanks to the insane amount of money flowing through the pentagon and military industrial complex. Have you seen the F35 rock video? look it up and LYAO because, yeah, a project that so badly over budget it will be the most expensive weapon system in the history of the planet needs...a rock video.

    We need to trash the entire system and start over if bullshit like rock videos and "InfoOps" actually gets paid for with tax dollars. The whole system has gotten so spoiled from drowning in cash that any lame ass idea gets green lighted, what we need is to go back to the way it was pre WWII, where we simply put out a spec and don't buy shit until someone brings a product that meets the spec.

    But the reason we see contractors pulling shit like this is the simple fact the only thing our MIC knows how to do anymore is pad expense accounts. if they were coming in on time and on budget frankly they wouldn't have any need to cover up their dirty dealing with horseshit like this.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  8. Re:How Silly by fortfive · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yvan Eht Nioj . . .

  9. See it all the time on Wikipedia by br00tus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I did some work on the No Gun Ri article on Wikipedia, which is an incident of Americans massacring Korean civilians during the US war in Korea. It was whitewashed by someone, whose DNS PTR records at the time were 214.13.196.180 host196-180.iraq.centcom.mil . CENTCOM by the way is the organization highlighted in the documentary "Control Room".

    Or we have Fort Benning whitewashing all the Latin American death squads that were trained there, that IP's DNS PTR back then was doim1-358.benning.army.mil - it whitewashed the WHISC article as well. Of course, with September 11th, we now have death squads and terrorists trained by the US government now not just killing indigenous farmers in El Salvador, but killing Americans in the US as well. Good going, guys!

    It's basically like Orwell's Ministry of Truth in 1984. Well not like it, it is exactly that. My tax dollars go to pay the commissars of the US empire to erase the evidence of their massacres from history. Of course, the purpose of making this stuff disappear from history, like the US soldier who went into a village in Afghanistan recently and murdered many civilians, is so that they can portray the US and its military and its multinational corporations as shining white knights out saving the world, not raping and pillaging for plunder, empire and profit.

  10. Re:How Silly by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have gravely underestimated the stakes here. This is not a matter of a practical joke played on a buddy or coworker. Not be a long shot. If true, it is, to say the least, criminal. Then again, the federal government's standard MO these days is to break the law and mutter something about terrorists if they get caught at it. In any case, the Orwellian shadow cast by this is chilling. If it's all true, we are well past the point where those who control the levers of power clearly see the public as "them".

  11. Gawker.com says its Leonie Industries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    USAToday didn't name the people they believe are responsible because they don't have any hard proof linking the smear campaign to them.

    Gawker.com, though, is seemingly not burdened by any such journalistic standards :)

    Meet the Pentagon Contractor That Ran a Disinformation Campaign Against Two USA Today Reporters

    Last night USA Today reported that two of its staffers, Tom Vanden Brook and Ray Locker, were the targets of a smear campaign, including fake Twitter accounts and web sites established in their names, launched by a Pentagon contractor specializing in "information operations." For some reason, the paper declined to name the perpetrator:Leonie Industries

    ...

    Oddly, the USA Today story on the mischief names only "Pentagon contractors" as likely culprits.
    But a source familiar with the story confirms that the contractor responsible is Leonie Industries, an information operations company with more than $90 million in Army contracts in Afghanistan. It's doubly odd that USA Today didn't at least seek comment from Leonie on the disinformation, since Leonie was the primary target of the investigation that apparently sparked the sculduggery, and would be the inescapable suspect to anyone who put two and two together.

    More on Leonie Industries here:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leonie_Industries

  12. Re:How Silly by DesScorp · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole thing has gotten batshit thanks to the insane amount of money flowing through the pentagon and military industrial complex.

    I'm pretty right wing, at least compared to most posters on Slashdot, but there's one thing I'm pretty much in agreement with liberals on: our military industrial complex is out of control. We can't seem to make a weapons system without breaking the bank, and I'm pretty firmly convinced it's because of our MIC tainted procurement process. Unlike the private sector, where I'm a free market guy, I'd like to see the military return to the military owned-system of production we used partially in the 20's and 30's. Many of the Navy's ships were built by the Navy itself in Navy-owned shipyards. Before the naval aviation industry really took off, the Navy made its own airplanes in their own factory. The Army had various plants producing armor and guns. The military began phasing these systems out in the mid-30's (kind of surprising that this would happen under FDR, but it did), and by the early 60's, almost all military production was done by contractors. Some studies showed that the mix of Navy-owned and private shipyards helped keep the contractors honest and prices down.

    Basically, I think that since weapons procurement really isn't a "market" in the US, that they military should simply come up with a requirement for what they need, and then build it themselves with a fixed budget from Congress. Get someone like Lockheed involved, and the price always shoots up stratospherically with all of the subcontractors they bring along.

    --
    Life is hard, and the world is cruel
  13. Re:That is not what they do by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The insurance system is still superior though because you are allowed to choose your level of risk, and there will always be a public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance.

    Bzzzzzzt! Wrong. There is no "public system to fall back on for last resort for those that did not chose insurance". Read that again. There is no such thing. There is only a subset of medical services that are required, by law, to treat certain conditions regardless of the patient's ability to pay. In other words, emergency rooms, ths single most expensive place to deliver health care. Dude, your understanding of the health care system, and the insurance industry that leaches huge profit from it is badly flawed.

  14. Re:How Silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll just add to this a little story I heard. A certain military base did electronics work for a large section of the US. A different branch of the military was paying a private contractor almost 100 grand a pop to repair modules they were sold for a vehicle. Said modules almost never worked. A maintenance tech at the base was asked by this other branch to look into it, since they'd worked on similiar parts in the past. Long story short, he was able to do the same repair for 1/20th the cost, and after being returned to the other branch it managed to work for multiple times as long as the 'manufacturer repaired' modules.

    How did this get handled by the military? The base in question was shut down during the cutbacks 10ish years ago, and turned into a bunch of commercial buildings. The equipment in question got stuck being sent back to the manufacturer under their repair prices which cost 100 grand and often didn't return repaired.

    While I agree we wouldn't want the military side of things to rest on their laurels, they *USED* to have a *LOT* of brilliant personnel, lifers willing to work day in and day out to make stuff work and make the repair of it an artform. And you know what we've done? 'Retired' them, outsourced the work to the 'lowest common denominator', who due to their quest for maximum profitability are fully inclined to overcharge and underperform, and thanks to the ever dwindling supply of highly technical maintenance engineers and the common knowledgebase among them, the commercial sector has more and more power in contract negotiations because they don't have competition (Honestly given the consolidation in military suppliers, combined with reduction in military maintenance facilities) they can charge what they want and if there's not someone else you can take it to when it breaks, you're pretty much stuck paying what they'll offer.

  15. Re:That is not what they do by Fallingcow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Besides, what the "any of the universal coverage systems used in all the other OECD nations would reduce our freedom!" arguments all seem to ignore is that most people aren't especially free to pick their health insurance or much of anything else about their health care experience. Most get nothing, awful catastrophic-only insurance (and you better believe they'll fight tooth and nail not to pay for anything at all if something bad does happen, leaving you to duke it out with both them and the hospitals, who don't give a shit and will gladly go after you if the insurance companies drag their feet, all while you're sick), or, in the best case, whatever insurance that their job supplies.

    There really aren't enough people getting meaningful choices out of our system for it to be a sensible argument against single-payer or, say, a Swiss-style system, especially considering that most who do have choices under the US system would still have choices under most others--even in the UK with its more-nationalized-than-most health care system you can pay for private care and insurance, on top of the basic care that everyone gets.

    A slim minority of edge cases might get left out, but almost everyone would see no effective decrease in "freedom" under most UHC systems. It's a 100% bullshit argument but, in my experience, is the one that's gotten the most traction, alongside general (and also bullshit) fear mongering about waiting lists and such. I really don't understand what's going on in people's heads when they throw this out, and they're on their employer's insurance--in those cases they don't seem to me to have a dog in the "freedom" fight, except in some hypothetical abstract way that will never have any practical meaning to them.

    Most people don't have any more say in their health care now than they would under a universal system, and we pay more, and we leave lots of people without coverage, and our system is a huge burden on small businesses, entrepreneurs, and independent contractors. What the goddamn hell is worth defending about it?