Public Documents Reveal How the Branches of the US Military Are Instructed To Harness Internet Culture To Advance Their Own Messaging (theoutline.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: It's common practice for brands or government agencies to use social media marketing tactics -- such as recognizing internet holidays like #WorldEmojiDay, #NationalDogDay, or #HumpDay using emojis, or generally speaking in a more conversational, down-to-earth tone -- in order to spread their messaging and communicate with the public. However, the stakes behind military Twitter accounts are fundamentally different than that of, say, the Department of the Interior. These accounts aren't just encouraging people to go to national parks; they're propagandizing and idealizing military valor in order to normalize their actions, elicit acceptance from the public, and recruit new members. The report adds that the government organizations maintain social media handbooks to encourage curators to "create a voice and be authentic." In the recent months, many branches of the military have been criticized for insensitive tweets.

Comments

Marketing

[110010001000]

So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

Re:Marketing

[Dread_ed]

Exactly my binary friend. This blurb reads like a hit piece on a product that some people feel would be better put out of the market, like cigarettes or Coke. Going to a second meta-level you can see the writer took particular care in choosing words that are intended to incite anger, fear, resentment, and mistrust while alluding to nefarious intentions and predatory motivation on the part of the military.

Sure, the US military has issues, but that's no reason to bash the shit out of them for advertising.

One thing to always remember, especially on Hiroshima day, or as I like to call it "Don't fuck with US day": if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

Re:Marketing

[djembe2k]

Only because he was addressing his binary friend.

Re:Marketing

[penandpaper]

I would rather the military have marketing like this than the draft.

It's a volunteer army. Why is it a problem to sell themselves like any other group looking to increase recruitment?

If you don't like war then don't enlist. Simple. Others are free to make that decision for themselves.

Re:Marketing

[Ungrounded Lightning]

So does every Marketing department on the planet. Welcome to Earth.

Agreed.

Governments, especially their subdivisions, have been doing propaganda since the historical record started. The archeological record suggests they have been doing it since there were governments - and before that, tribes, and before that, hunting and gathering bands, probably back as far as people have been able to talk, or apes to make signaling sounds and gestures.

Whats's special about the US is that everybody can play.

Or at least they could, before the consolidation of the media into a handful of corporate owners (most with a consistent agenda) and the recent suppression of some political opinons - on large social media (again with a handful of corporate owners with a consistent agenda), campuses (by "antifacist" masked thugs and others equating unpopular speech with violence), and now even in the streets.

Hint: Suppression of political opinion leads to further division (because it can't be talked out and defused), and civil war (as it did once before in the US, where it was one significant step.) Further: Like war itself, it only takes one side to start it.

Re:Marketing

[swillden]

if we didn't have the US military we would certainly have another country's military.

I don't think this is as true as you think it is. Consider the apocryphal quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto: "You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." While it's unlikely that Yamamoto ever said it, it was also very true in the middle of the 20th century (modulo the hyperbole, obviously). The notion that a heavily-armed populace was the best deterrent to invasion was the Founders' primary strategy for national defense.

It's debatable whether a purely volunteer militia-based defense (plus a navy) would be sufficient to prevent invasion. But even if it isn't (and I think it isn't), the US military is clearly not a defensive force. The goal and focus of the modern US armed forces is force projection, not defense. In fact, the primary US military doctrine for decades has been that the US military should be capable of conducting two full-scale foreign wars simultaneously.

So while it's probably true that without any US federal armed forces the US might be or have been at risk of invasion, it's clearly not true that the current US military is actually necessary to prevent invasion. Something much smaller would also do that job.

Of course, you can argue that America actually wants to be able to project its military power around the globe. There are, in fact, lots of good arguments for that. Many -- even outside of the US -- argue that US military power has been a tremendously beneficial stabilizing force in the world that contributed to our current unprecedented global peace and prosperity. But that's not the argument you made.

Re:Marketing

[Dread_ed]

I agree that in world war II the character of the citizenry and their access to armament would have been sufficient to repel any invasive force, especially considering the munitions available to the enemy, the cohesiveness of the society, etc.

If we were invaded today I believe a majority of the American populace that would be completely combat ineffective. In addition, there would be a large percentage of the population that would attempt to join the invaders. There would be another group that would surrender immediately, spewing tactical and strategic information to the enemy like a caught cokehead looking at 20 years.

There would be additional groups that would take the opportunity to attack and interdict our own government's buildings and assets, like in Oregon right now, only way worse. There would be race riots, rape gangs, attacks on corporations, banks, churches, food stores, and public facilities, all done by dissatisfied and self justified Americans. Ex military Americans would be attacked in their sleep by their neighbors, their hides, supplies, and armaments traded to the enemy in hopes of favorable treatment.

Toss in "just in time" inventories and people living paycheck to paycheck...well lets just say that you filthy humans would start acting like the animals I know you to be a lot sooner than you think you would.

So yeah, that famous assessment of America is not only apocryphal, its 80 years out of date and long expired. You can't expect Texas to pick up the slack for the rest of the country and I don't expect the forces of the populace straining to repeal the second amendment to understand what war is, especially one on their own soil. They would be the worst kind of citizens in a crisis like that: unregimented, hysterical, self destructive, lawless, easily panicked, lacking any kind of self sufficiency and therefore completely incapable of being anything better than a burden.

For if they do these things in the green tree...

Outraged!

[Kohath]

Organizations that interact with people try to be appealing in public, so it's easier to succeed in interacting with people. Mind blowing, I know.

Re:Outraged!

[Anubis IV]

Allow me to distract you from your opinions with a link to the U.S. Department of the Interior Instagram page.

In all seriousness, they post some amazing pictures. If that's what government propaganda looks like, I want to see more of it.

Re:Outraged!

[hey!]

It's not so surprising that they tried. What's surprising is that they failed so miserably. Maybe it's not such a good idea to market the defense of the nation like it was soda pop. Maybe it's not such a great idea to position the Army in the public consciousness as "edgy".

If you look at successful social media campaigns, they don't look alike, because the organizations behind them have different needs; it's not enough to get attention, it's what you *do* with that attention that matters. You wouldn't use the same campaign for a financial management firm that you would for Mountain Dew; or promote the Make-a-wish foundation the way would Kentucky Fried Chicken.

The military needs to inspire confidence, trust, and respect. This kind of thing is great for them when it is genuinely viral, but it's stupid to push it from an official channel.

"Edginess" is just a kind of disguised condescension. People behind "edgy" media don't really respect the people they're pitching to. So who are they trying to connect with? Potential recruits? For decades now the military's biggest recruiting problem isn't warm bodies, it's getting volunteers with the brains needed to do the demanding things that will be asked of them. This kind of thing would appeal to kids who are too dumb to realize they're being disrespected.

Re:This is new?

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> I've known people in the military, and believe me, they didn't get some great job out of it.

Four exceptions for you: IT work (seen a lot of security folks come from the military lately), medical work, pilots/ground crew and anyone who uses the "free college" programs to pick up their bachelors and/or masters. I also had a relative who picked up their law degree for free prosecuting or defending base hellraisers. Maybe we run in different crowds...or maybe your friends self-select for potato-peeling (KP).

Selective outrage

[MikeRT]

According to TFA, it's disturbing and outrageous that the military makes "dark jokes." This coming from the same "woke" camp that has had a spate of people making jokes about raping and murdering children. In the case of Rick and Morty, the creators are beyond sick to the point where their side projects should get them locked up on obscenity charges for a very long time.

But if you follow the outrage logic of the woke it makes sense:

* US military = white male patriarchy.
* Most of our wars are against countries full of People of Color.

Ergo, it's racist white men killing aspiring People of Color thus evil on its face.

But when we make "jokes" about raping little boys or carving their faces off, then murdering them... that's just "dark humor."

This sort of hypocrisy will not be sustainable for long going forward. You want to know why the center-right increasingly takes a reflexive "fuck you and fuck the horse you rode in on" attitude toward the left? This is why. Even most of the mainstream liberals I know refuse to call this out and try to suck the oxygen out of the room rather than admit most of the people to their left are grade A assholes.

Why is this here

[oldgraybeard]

Gotta love this
"anonymous reader shares"

So who is theoutline.com
The Outline is a New York-based digital media company focused on power, culture and the future. It was founded by Joshua Topolsky in 2016 who raised $5 million from several venture capitalists to start the company. wikipedia
Who is Joshua Topolsky
The Verge Co-Founder Calls Ben Shapiro "The Jew Who Helps Other Jews Onto the Train" says a lot about who Joshua Topolsky is. But that might just be me.

Just click bait don't waste your time.

Just my 2 cents ;)

Re:Too bad they missed the new emoji train

[Archangel Michael]

(US Flag)(airplane)(airplane)(airplane) -> (enemy flag)(mushroom)(mushroom)

I feel like there is a missing snake and a few badgers in there.

Re:This is new?

[ShanghaiBill]

It's not some magical way to gain skills or potential you don't already have to some extent.

Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

For many young Americans, the military is a very good deal. It was for me. Semper fi.

Re: This is new?

[c6gunner]

How many aircraft mechanics are there compared to grunts trained to shoot people, or drive a truck? I'm sure it was great for you, but for the majority it's not a great career path.

I started off as a "grunt trained to shoot people" because it seemed like the most interesting thing when I was 18. After a number of years I got tired of it and switched trades. There's always mobility within the military for those with talent and interest. During my career in the military I ended up doing three completely different types of jobs, two of them technical and with direct applicability in the civilian sector. But even just being a grunt taught me important values, and all sorts of useful skills.

It may not be a great career path for some, but those people are likely the type who, absent a military career, would end up running a deep-fryer their whole lives.

Re: This is new?

[c6gunner]

However, the recruiter could not guarantee that I would "get" what I "picked", so I declined any further engagement and did not sign up for the Army. This was the only stumbling block I had. Is what the below posters are saying accurate? How does it work when you want to a particular "job" (I think they call it MOS?).

Jobs are offered based on availability and aptitude. You should have at least tried; what he was saying was that you could try for a specific job, but if your testing showed you didn't have the aptitude for it you wouldn't get it, or if there weren't any positions open then they wouldn't be able to offer you a spot. That doesn't mean you would be stuck having to do something else though; if you go through the selection process and they're unable to offer you the position you want, you can always decline.

It's different when there is a draft on - typically draftees are all put through basic training first and then assigned an MOS later. But during peacetime you're offered a specific MOS before you sign on the dotted line.

Re:This is new?

[Wrath0fb0b]

Actually it is. Where else can an 18 year old kid with no experience, who has never had a job before, walk in and say "I want to be an aircraft mechanic. I want you to train me at your expense, and I want to be paid while I learn. I also demand free food and housing, and 30 days of vacation every year. Also, I plan to quit after 4 years, and then I want you to then pay my college tuition."

I don't know about you, but as a private employer I would gladly hire a ton of 18 year old kids for this deal, provided you also include the all important and the kid cannot quit until your 4 year term is up or else you will go to prison. Even with free food, housing and vacation, this is still an absolutely excellent deal for the employer, since training costs ebb out after 12-18 months (or, more likely, if you can't be even sort of useful after 18 months of training, it's not gonna happen). More generally, it's a well-known coordination/defection problem with employers in a free market offering training programs -- which is that there is no credible way to guarantee that the trainee will not quit and join a competitor before the investment is repaid. There are a number of workarounds and other bad solutions to this problem:

1. ** Make the trainee pay for the training up front (perhaps with loans) so the employer isn't in the red. Instead, pay increased wages to those with the training to compensate. This is most colleges, but also the civilian aviation industry, food industry and lots of other places where an employer-run-training program would just lead to poaching. Of course, this leads to massive advantages for family wealth and the profusion of expensive student loans. Also, there is a weaker feedback link, since students are getting loans to study what they think employers want, but often there is a mismatch. Certainly far more kids study video game design than could possibly be employed in that field.
2. ** Make the trainee join an apprenticeship program as a condition for some kind of exclusionary credential. It's understood that the program is longer than educationally necessary and during the latter part of the apprenticeship, the trainee is already generating a surplus which pays back the training put into in the beginning. The trainee cannot leave halfway because they cannot practice the trade without the credential. Common in some technical European fields and in US medicine. This solves some problems, but often leaves an exclusionary cartel in charge of the credential and tends to under-produce it to extract higher rents. It can also lead to 'good-ole-boy' networks in which limited apprenticeship slots are allocated subjectively to those with political connections.
3. ** Make the trainee sign a contract to fork over X% of wages for Y years up to $Z. This is a variant of the loan concept where repayment is scaled to success, newly popular in the Bay Area. It does lead to higher accessibility of the training at lower economic scales, but is quite expensive (there is an implicit interest rate here and it's high, very high). It's also questionable how enforceable these contracts are, and whether they are dischargeable in bankruptcy.
4. ** The government directly pays for the training, not expecting an immediate return through labor but rather through lifetime taxes. This can work well, but often doesn't pay for itself. It also suffers the mismatch problem and cost inflation problem (public universities have ballooning per-student costs for no appreciable gain in output).

All in all, it's a gnarly problem without any clear and good solutions. More likely, we'll muddle along with some combination of mandatory-apprenticeship in areas where it makes sense and trainee-pays for the rest. Better solutions always welcome, but do keep the constraints in mind :-P

Re:This is new?

[ShanghaiBill]

Well, I was a grunt. I joined for adventure rather than tech. I wanted to travel the world and jump out of helicopters. The Marines turned out to be a good choice. In the Army and Air Force you can spend your entire enlistment sitting on one base. But Marines deploy. I traveled to nearly a dozen countries, although some just for a 4 day port call.

I got a global perspective, and realized that people are basically the same wherever you go. I also learned to speak basic Japanese and Tagalog (Filipino), and started learning Chinese. I grew up in a small town in Tennessee, and I don't know what I would have done if I had stayed there. My military experience put my life on a completely different track.

As a grunt, you learn people skills, how to talk with confidence, and how to organize, train, and motivate people. Those are valuable skills. When co-workers talk about the "stress" of dealing with a software deadline, I just smile. They have obviously never done a night insertion off an LHA in heavy seas and driving rain. If you don't have to worry about people dying, then it is not "stressful".

Re:If you like your freedom you can keep your free

[frozencesium]

There is no "valor" in modern warfare. That is long past. But it is no surprise that people like you have not gotten that message...

Says the person who's never been in combat. Only those who haven't served and/or haven't been in combat make comments like that. Is it your lack of first hand experience in matter, or a lack of comprehension of the English language?

Right out of the Google machine:

valor
noun: valour; noun: valor
great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle.
"the medals are awarded for acts of valor"
synonyms: bravery, courage, pluck, nerve, daring, fearlessness, audacity, boldness, dauntlessness, stout-heartedness, heroism, backbone, spirit; More
antonyms: cowardice


I'm sorry I don't see anything about whether or not you feel a particular military action was justified or any kind moral acceptance. Acts of bravery happen in combat whether or not you agree with the justification for military action or what side you are on.

Yeah, yeah...I know, don't feed the trolls. Sometimes I can't help myself.