"To the Army's 1st Information Operations Command, the 'media' is just another threat -- along with 'al Qaeda,' 'hackers,' and 'drug cartels.' Military bloggers are even lower than that: just poor saps looking for a 'therapeutic' way to get out their feelings. No wonder the Army has put out new rules that could very well kill the sites off."Here is the visual that Noah Schactman refers to:
I'm not going to comment in detail on the "blog" part of this. From a media theory perpsective, milblogs were an interesting phenomenon, but it was inevitable that sooner or later it would run into the same concerns of information security that have existed since the days of organized conflict. I'm just interested in the idea, as demonstrated by the chart, that the media is a "threat" akin to drug cartels.
I think it reflects a basic misunderstanding of the role of media in conflict. The brass (and quite a few right-wing bloggers ) sees negative Iraq stories in the press (and a lack of "good news") and naturally concludes that the media, for whatever reason (anti-military beliefs, liberal bias etc) is out to get them or it is being manipulated by the enemy. Therefore, it is a "threat," an enemy that is to be stonewalled, avoided, and controlled at every point.
However, the media is really only a technological tool. As Neil Postmann noted in Amusing Ourselves to Death, every technology does promote certain social values--for example, he makes a valid case that the social values one sees on television are consumerism, hyper-individualism, and triviality. Jean Baudrillard also wrote brilliantly in Simulacra and Simulations (and to a lesser extent, in The Spirit of Terrorism and The Gulf War Did Not Take Place), about media forming a sphere of "hyperreality" that is more vivid and desirable than the "real."
But in the end, the political ideologies reflected in media coverage depend entirely on how successful competing parties are in manipulating it--whether through direct ownership of the means of production or the sophistication, flair, and empirical accuracy of the claims being advanced. If the Army is upset because no "good news" is being reported from Iraq, they might want to consider the following:
- There is little "good news." Iraq is a dysfunctional, bloody mess that easily could trigger a wider regional war. There are, of course, isolated pockets of brilliant commanders making the best of a poor situation with superior networking and COIN skills, but tactical success does not translate into something that will fix the greater strategic problems that have been inherent in the Bush administration's management of the conflict from the beginning.
- Because President Bush has made a great show of being a "war president," complete with copious photo ops in military settings, the military has unfortunately become linked in the public eye with an extremely unpopular president who has squandered most of his credibility. Additionally, many members of the establishment media are realizing that they performed a very poor job of honestly evaluating the administration's war claims in 2002-2003. Therefore, skepticism is greater.
- Insurgent viral media operations are vastly more sophisticated and responsive than that of the Pentagon. See Mountainrunner for a painful breakdown of exactly how bad we are coming up in this area.
- Most importantly, how can you expect (or deserve) favorable coverage if you view the media as the enemy?
Part of the problem with new theories of asymmetric conflict is that they are so easily misunderstood by those accustomed to viewing everything through a binary good/evil focus. Media can be (and often is) used as an asymmetric weapon by smaller opponents to offset the advantage of larger conventional opponents. However, that doesn't mean that the media itself is acting as an extension of the insurgents. Likewise, the theoretical possibility of "lawfare" as a means of "unrestricted warfare" does not mean that the court system would be acting as liasons to the opponent. Both, rather, are tools that can be used by an actor against against another actor. And until the security establishment realizes this, they're always going to have PR problems.
Some have also made the mistake of assuming that this means that the media can be easily employed as a conduit for blatant propaganda. Wrong again. When one puts out information that is not empirically valid, the dangers and cost of being caught outweigh the marginal benefit gained. As everyone from Enron to the President has found out, a loss of credibility can be devastating. And a well-crafted PR campaign will not succeed if the actor in question's actions don't correspond with the image constructed by his media team.
The growth of the Internet and cheap social-media platforms also means that attempts by central authorities to control information have a high chance of backfiring. For example, check out this Forbes story about a user revolt on Digg.com:
"Digg.com has become one of the Web's top news portals by putting the power to choose the news in the hands of its users. Just how much power they wield, however, only became clear Tuesday night, when Digg turned into what one user called a 'digital Boston Tea Party.'
When the site's administrators attempted to prevent users from posting links to pages revealing the copyright encryption key for HD-DVD discs, Digg's users rebelled. Hundreds of references to the code flooded the site's submissions, filling its main pages and overwhelming the administrators' attempts to control the site's content. Tuesday afternoon, Digg CEO Jay Adelson had posted a message on his blog explaining that the site was removing links to articles that featured the newly cracked HD-DVD encryption key, which can be used to decrypt the high-definition discs and copy their content. "In order for Digg to survive, it must abide by the law," he wrote. 'Our goal is always to maintain a purely democratic system for the submission and sharing of information. ... In order for that to happen, we all need to work together to protect Digg from exposure to lawsuits that could very quickly shut us down. Thanks for your understanding.'
But Digg's users were not understanding. Instead, they covered the site's main pages with links to blogs that revealed the HD-DVD code and criticized the site's decision to censor content. Because Digg gives users the ability to rate news stories, pushing their favorites to the site's most visible positions, thousands voted to bring links to the top of the site with titles like 'Revolt at Digg?' and 'Digg Punched me in the Face for Posting This.' By midnight, the site's entire homepage was covered with links to the HD-DVD code or anti-Digg references."
15 comments:
I have to wonder if the Army's concern is the overwhelming "negative reporting" or the simple transparency that post Cold War conflict has come to entail.
Imagine if live, embedded journalists had captured the carnage of Normandy. Instead of the effective propaganda American citizens saw raw live footage of the mass casualties being suffered. How would popular support be effected?
I suspect simple transparency is more a concern of the Army. Because with mass media coverage comes a good degree of politicizing the decisions made on the battlefield. This throws a wrench into the works of strategy in that commanders have to add a new element to their consideration. Yes, it works on paper but how will the media consider it? Or, better yet, in terms of COIN, how will our enemy exploit the media coverage?
I don't think popular support would have been affected in WWII. The public believed (correctly) that we were engaged in an existential conflict and were willing to accept high losses and home-front hardships to win. The coverage no doubt would be gruesome, but it might have had the opposite effect of galvanizing public will.
You're right to point out transparency as an major issue, and a disconcerting one as well. But radical transparency in all fields is the way of the future. If they try to fight it, they'll lose.
Lastly, in terms of politics, it's hard to separate war from it (Clausewitz said so famously), and a major theme of Schelling's Arms and Influence (1966) is about how conflict in the postwar age uses the military as a means of telegraphing various messages to an opponent.
The most brilliant PA effort by the Pentagon under Spokeswoman Victoria "Tori" Clarke was to embed reporters with troops, at the outset of occupation of Iraq. The journalists, being human, obviously bonded with the soldiers and Marines with whom they lived. Hence, as we learn in Psychology 101, they became emotionally attached and loyal to those wonderful young men and women. It's human nature, and Ms. Clarke understood this. So, much of the reporting was sympathetic and tilted towards a sympathetic and congratulatory of events unfolding in Iraq, out of a genuine sense of admiration and loyalty to these units in which they had been embedded. Sheer genious. Whether you agree or not, Ms. Clarke more than earned her salary and consequent six figure (or more) salaries in subsequent positions for her brilliance in devising this scheme. Credit where credit is due. She was a Bush political appointee who actually succeeded immensely in her assigned task. Food for thought.
Blogs as conversational exchanges:
a.e.
May I boldly suggest that you address comments, either agreeing wtih or challenging comments left on you blog to make it more of a forum to flesh out ideas and to more deeply explore the nuance of ideas your present? You have the option of no comments, which is fine, but when you allow comments, with your sharp mind and approach, perhaps you should weigh in on issues that arise based on ideas which you postulate... I offer this as a constructive criticism on how you might improve on the mechanics of your site. You posit interesting and compelling themes, then seem to disappear in the aftermath. You're more than qualified to follow up on the polemics, and I think you'd do yourself and your blog a service by engaging those who comment and sometimes challenges your premises. Just my 2 cents, amigo. :)
d.k,
The "embed" program was a stroke of genius, but it was only sustainable during the larger campaign, when the soldiers (and journalists) weren't at risk from the Iraqi army. Insurgents can strike anywhere and at any time. Part of the reason the coverage is so negative now is that a lot of journalists have been killed or captured in Iraq in the line of work.
Point taken on responses. I usually end up replying eventually, but much of the time it's not fast enough. I do have a sort of "sink into the background" tendency that's evident in the offline world as well. Will try to be more conversational.
Expecting the military (Army in this discrete case) to understand that the “media” only reports what it sees is to forget that the Army is actually two different organizations. The Combat Arms soldiers (point of the spear) are distinct from the bureaucrats who cause vast amounts of dust to be launched as paper is shuffled from one tray to another. This decision emanated from some hyper-political functionary in the “D” ring.
As you conclude, the primary deciding factor was that something uncontrolled might escape and cause inconvenience for the present political masters, who are reality-challenged, but there you go. That’s what you get when you select leaders based upon whom you’d like to have over for a Saturday barbeque.
I might point out that the 21st century Armed Forces choose their leaders the same way: who has done the most noticeable staff time and been to the most important cocktail parties.
Perhaps some – a very few – of the individual media personalities might have realized just how much they failed during 2000-2003, but they know that if they discuss it publicly the corporate media heads will just cut them loose. People don’t rise to the top of the corporate ladder by making bold and distasteful decisions; they are extremely conservative in outlook and horizon.
Why would we expect the corporatized military to be any different?
I disagree with your conclusions about decisions to deploy propaganda, and that doing so will lead to a loss of credibility. The empirical evidence, as I see it, shows that no matter how many times the Bu$h malAdminisatration is show to be a pack of lying mendacious dogs the media gets back up the next morning, wipes its lips, and goes right back into stenographer mode.
The Digg story, while epochal on May 2nd, will be a historic footnote on May 22nd, when the SLAPP lawsuits begin.
As for DK's proposal about dialog, I see that as one of the greatest strengths of "liberal" and "progressive" blogs, as opposed to authoritarian rightie blogs, which are published purely as "top down" information systems. Dialog and compromise are essential to a free society. But sometimes a blog owner may actually have a "real life" and can't give his respondents the attention their views deserve. You do what you can. I can't catalog the knowledge I've gained here in two weeks of daily reading.
Lurch,
On the subject of SLAPP, you might want to google "JL Kirk and Associates + SLAPP" to see about that.
As for propaganda, it works in the short run, but with this administration, it just accumulated and snowballed until they could no longer hide it. It's true that the media still gives the administration an unfair advantage, but we have a scrutiny of administration claims that was unprecedented even one year ago.
Part of it is the netroots too, and Media Matters. David Brock has redeemed himself.
I'm sort of familiar with the Kirk/Coble episode and its resultant SLAPP threat. I understand that an unanticipated public response has caused Kirk to swiftly pull in its horns. That's umm... employment law, right?
The Digg story, as I see it, involves publication of DVD-HD codecs which would put it squarely in the realm of proprietary information, intellectual rights and all that chazerai.
Perhaps you remember the ferocity with which RIAA and Sony/BMI went after parents because their pre-teen children downloaded songs without paying royalties? People were looking at losing their homes.
You can do a lot of evil things in this country - out secret agents, deny citizens their civil rights, torture them illegally, and you can do all of this with relative impunity. But don't try and skim thirty cents out of the pockets of the entertainment giants; that'll get you twenty lawyers at your front door at 5 AM.
There may or may not be a deity, but David Brock has redefined redemption on Earth in a way that could help believers.
Brock's gone a long way from the "nutty slutty" days, but he still has more to go.
Regardless, I think that the evidence more or less shows that though the entertainment lawyers succeeded in beating up on a few kids, they failed to staunch the larger download culture--it continues through non-p2p networks like mp3 blogs, warez, and darknets. If anything, all the suits brought was bad publicity and a renewed dedication.
Also, something I want to point out vis a vis propaganda is that even if it fools the US media, it will not fool the Iraqis---it never really did. And, of course, we need their assistance to carry out our stated objectives.
So you think there's as much (or more) music ripping than before? I really had the idea it had been severely curtailed.
As for propaganda, you're right. Even though generalizations are always suspect, The Iraqi public, unlike the American public and media, are rather sophisticated and discerning.
There's sort of an analogy to Al Qaeda here with the ripping.
P2P ripping, which involved a centralized company that could be used and users that could be tracked, was curtailed.
But other methods, like BitTorrent, mp3 blogging, darknets, KaZa and LimeWire, some of which are more difficult to stop, boomed.
The record industry did not face the underlying problem (their lack of an effective digital distribution network) and used punitive tactics. But that only made the users try harder. If it weren't for Apple iTunes, they'd really be fucked right now.
(earlier comment deleted to correct a typo - "threat" to "thread" -- a substantive difference :-))
Lurch,
As a.e. knows, I offered my suggestion because some time back, perhaps before you were a regular reader, he asked about things like writing longer, more thoughtful pieces vs. shorter, on the spot posts, and even hamster blogging. He wondered about ways to improve the appeal of his blog. I agree completely, I've learned tons here, which is why I return regularly. I offered the opinion in this thread as an afterthought to a question he posited some time back - so that's the context. It was constructive advice.
And I'm personally hurt that you imply that you (and especially I) have no life. That may be true, but geez, go easy amigo :)
Thanks for the clarification, DK. I do remember your excellent advice that A.E. expand his writing, and try to induce more dialog within comments. I've stated my preference for that sort of format within blogging and in fact believe that, properly facilitated, it is one strong example of the differences between the way the right and left deal with blogging communication - which are valid information systems.
I know I have no life, but I do have this here thing, and make the best. Maybe because of my gray hair I'm not aware of having indicated I consider you in that category.
Sounds a lot like officer schemes to me. ;)
Post a Comment