Spin off War with Islam - the media
 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by 2VP
From a northern perspective it doesn't appear that anyone anywhere is posing the result of losing. The general populace are generally a bunch of automatons and if the majority of the news agencies started doing stories on how their way of existing will be altered for the worse then I think the people would get on board for the long haul. The education of the masses about their enemy should be orchestrated without haste to the extent that draconian measures can be exacted on the enemy without little disapproval from the people. In the Untouchables Sean Connery said to the effect "they put 2 of your men in the hospital you put 2 of theirs in the morgue." I think serious consideration should be asked as to whether winning hearts and minds is even possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think 2VP brings up an interesting idea for a spin off. Since terrorism is about affecting the mental state, perhaps it would be useful to discuss the media in the GWOT context.

Are they helping or hindering the effort as they are now?

If they are hindering, what can be done?

Is the enemy better at message than we are?

Keeping in mind that I usually don't know what I'm talking about, this is just opinion:

Hindering, simply because they don't get the complete behind-the-sceens picture since they don't get classified info from the gvt. they can't present the govts' side. Too much conjecture. News organizations don't have the financial will to present a complete, unedited story that defines the entire picture, their existance depends on advertisers so they must sensationalize in order to rev up the viewership.

Without breaking laws or changing the constitution, it's up to the American public to let them know that they need to change their way of doing things. I prefer to have the facts, I'm a big boy, I can make my own decisions based on facts.

So far, yes. That doesn't mean their message is effective, it's just getting out better. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain by making statements and doing what they are doing. If they convince one person to see things their way they've won a small battle.

News organizations would better serve the public if they would stop and think, check facts, weigh consequences of their actions, before reporting. Point in fact, Jeraldo Revera in Iraq. He just ran his mouth about where he was and what he was doing because he had a scoop. He didn't consider the effects of his actions on the troops he was there to report on or even what the effect could be on the entire operation. There's almost always a story that is rushed to broadcast for the scoop factor and later is found to be unfactual.

I think we are marketing terror for them. All they do is act. We talk it up.

Media and the GWOT

From my limited view point, I think that you have summed up the entire crux of the matter with the media in general. It is not the media but the education level of the target audience and the access that they either have or are limited to when it comes to from where they obtain their information/news/propaganda/education or however you want to charactierize the role of media. Frame of reference is very important. Just read a newspaper from another country and you will see entirely different views of the same subject.

While the following example is humorous, it really isn't when it you consider that this topic was considered as gosphel by the readers. Every year the palm pollen in this particular country covers everything with a layer of golden dust. The news paper invariably blames the event on the " moon landing and that this yellow "moon" dust, known as "a pollo" is the result". Witch doctors make potions out of it and cast spells and the United States is blamed for causing the moon to shed its dust. Now if you can have folks believe that you sure as hell can have folks with limited, or controlled understanding, believe anything you wish them to.

So, then, in a society free to make its own choices and obtain information it should follow then that the media can educate. But does it? When we become apathetic and self-absorbed with our own little corner of the world and limit ourselves to what we allow ourselves to take in the media can, and does, manipulate us. Technology is a great thing, but information overload without the ability to sort the wheat from the chaf can be just as limiting as state controlled or culturally controlled media provided information. So, from my limited observation, the problem is how do you educate folks to make those informed decisions when their frames of reference have been programmed from birth and are further guided by "the word of god" manipulated by continuous updated "holy messages" and controlled by the state.

Jack Moroney-believing that sometimes it might be acceptable to shoot the messenger

COL M - Are you sure you didn't mean "pine" pollen? I've seen the same thing around here. Seems to get worse every time they break out the tin foil hats and six packs. My opinions:

1. The media is hindering the war on terrorism. Personally I think they're "aiding and abetting". They are most definitely not helping combat the Islamists. I doubt it's a "policy"; it's most likely a side-effect of ego, greed and stupidity. Who was it that said "don't blame conspiracy when stupidity will serve?" (Horrible paraphrase - I'll have to research the quote, it's a fundamental truth/observation of human nature and worth knowing.)

2. The article Sigi links is worth the read. It also lends weight to my argument in #1 above.

3. The objective of all conflict is to force the "enemy" population to capitulate. This is accomplished by breaking its will. Sun Tzu, Clausowitz, Mao, "pick your favorite", everybody understands the importance of psyop against the opponent population. The media is the critical component in the assault on the will of the non-Islamic (world) populace. It's the force multiplier that magnifies the effects of the most insignificant act into a groundswell of public sentiment that influences decision makers. Examples pro and con include the "yellow journalism"" of the Spanish American War and the drumbeat of negative reporting from Somalia (thought I was going for the RVN example didn't you). The sophistication of the target population (COL M's comments) dictates the method and predicts the efficacy.

4. Another mangled quote - "If you're not for us, you're agin us!" Our own UW doctrine lists phase one as "creating the climate" for resistance. The communists have always had a more pragmatic view of what that really means but everybody agrees it includes psyop against the target population. By their choices of reportage and the bias present in it, the media has shown itself to be the willing dupes of the Islamists. The terrorists have an active program of influencing the media - they ensure that every atrocity gets adequate coverage. When we screw up (Abu Graib) they ride the wave, working to destroy our credibility. The Islamists have actively incorporated the media into their campaign plan - and they don't even have to expend resources on it.

5. The media are prostitutes. They will publish anything. Look at reportage out of Iraq between D1 and D2. They were Sadam's uncritical mouthpieces, trumpeting his propaganda (which was crafted to influence primarily the Europeans and leftist Americans), all in the name of preserving access. Similar examples can be found throughout the world over the last 50 years. Back to arqument #1.

BTW - I use Islamist and terrorist interchangeably. That's actually pretty sloppy of me. We should be concentrating on the big picture - the Islamists. The terrorists are just the overt visible, military/paramilitary component. By not accepting that this is a war of cultures and focusing only on the terrorism, the media furthers the Islamist cause.

Enough rambling (ranting) - Time to let somebody else stir the pot. :munchin Peregrino

IMHO, the media does not make money from presenting good news. They either have to show tabloid type stories, ie Wacko-Jacko and the never ending coverage of Natalie Holloway, or have to show a story simply for shock value. That's where the money is. Showing Soldiers on humanitarian missions every day would not get the ratings they need. Terror alert 5 or a story on how the terrorists could poison our water, or our food, or our air, or create a dirty bomb.... etc create more revenue.

What is the Center of Gravity of the Islamic terrorists/extremists?

TR

Ooooooh! Outstanding question! Schwerpunkt of the Global Salafi Jihad! Be careful neophytes...I've been reading Qutb

Well? ANSWER THE FOOKING QUESTION!!!

Damn, hadn't even turned on the computer and I heard you all the way up here. My answer is the fundamentalist movement and aspect of Islam is the center of gravity.

LOL - not you Sir.

I was talking to...uh..ummm....THE LAWYER!!! Yeah, that's the ticket! Sir..

Clear NDD, Airborne!!!

Jack Moroney-snapping to attention, slapping my hands to my side and getting ready to about face and head back to the sawdust pit.

No Sir, I'm being misunderstood!!! :boohoo

I would never post big bold letters at you Sir. Please, by all means, at your leisure. By your leave Sir, I shall withdraw and hide in the...never mind.

Ahh shucks, just having a little fun. Slow night up here in the woods, even the critters are quiter than normal.

you can't tap dance for beans...

in a war for hearts and minds, the center of gravity becomes the key communicators...in this case, the Islamic clergy...it is a disjointed target with internal struggles and suspicions of any one, any thing, any idea from the outside...they tend to speak for a people still hacked off by the Crusades... (and i thought my grandmother was a bit extreme for still carrying a grudge over the War of Northern Aggression), harkening back to an era when Saladin was running roughshod over infidels and when people not of the book were kept in their place by taxes and restrictions....