Media

On War, Comprehension and Persuasion

by

There must be something in the water lately as I have been getting an upsurge of inquiries and public comments regarding information operations, public diplomacy, “soft power” agents of influence, 5GW and similar matters. There are other blogs I can recommend as being better on this score – Beacon, MountainRunner, Kent’s Imperative, Swedish Meatballs Confidential and Whirledview to name but a few. Also, I would suggest that interested readers search the archives of Studies in Intelligence, PARAMETERS, The Strategic Studies Institute, Combined Arms Research Library and the threads at The Small Wars Council. Genuine expertise may be found there and for discussions of theory and emerging trends, I recommend Dreaming 5GW.

That being said, I will offer my two cents anyway.

One point of agreement across the political spectrum and that of informed opinion is that the USG has not done a particularly good job of managing “the war of ideas” in the conflict with Islamist terrorism. Or against state adversaries. Or with persuading neutrals and even our own allies to our point of view. When you are having difficulty drawing even in global popularity contest with a crowd of bearded fanatics who put beheading videos on the internet, it’s time to admit there’s a problem.

Read more

Who Attacked Us?

by

I find it revealing how we project our own prejudices on others, assuming that they think the way we do. From the Washington Post:

“They attacked us,” he says as the screen turns to an image of the second hijacked airplane heading toward the smoking World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. “And they will again. They won’t stop in Iraq.”

Every investigation has shown that Iraq did not, in fact, have anything to do with the Sept. 11 attacks.

Of course, the WP assumes that the solider used Iraqis as the unstated antecedent of “they” when, in context, a soldier fighting in Anbar almost certainly intended Al-Qaeda as the antecedent.

Read more

NY Times Fact Checkers Take a Nap, Incident#23,436

by

In an article on international productivity, the New York Times describes France’s reformist president Nicolas Sarkozy thusly:

France, where President Nicolas Sarkozy has pushed for a reduction in the workweek to an average of 35 hours…

Every other news story on the subject describes Sarkozy as a critic of the 35-hour work week who seeks to provide loopholes to allow workers to evade the work cap.

Even the NY Times’s own reports say so:

Although he provided few details, Mr. Sarkozy indicated that he would push for additional cuts in payroll taxes and ways to encourage people to work beyond the statutory 35-hour workweek.

This is a minor error. Yet, when you think of the sheer volume of the NYT’s reporting and its disproportionate impact on public debate, a minor error every story or two really adds up.

Blogs Keeping Check on Stupid Newspaper Tricks

by

This happens a lot. Someone writes a letter to the editor of a MSM publication. The letter is published — but with so many edits and deletions as to change substantially its meaning.

The old excuse for this kind of tendentious editing was, “space considerations.” That was an obvious lie in some specific cases, but there was enough general truth in the phrase to maintain the plausible deniability of editorial bias.

But now, with zero-marginal-cost Internet publishing, there is no excuse for editing on-topic, clearly written, non-abusive reader comments or letters. Yet some MSM editors still do it.

Here’s a recent example (with additional commentary here).

Read more