Why the Pentagon is losing an informational war in Iraq?

Why the Pentagon is losing an informational war in Iraq?

  • Insufficient spendings

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Poor organisation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Western mass-media is pro-insurgent

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The war is unjust and/or based on lies.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Because of freedom of speech.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Another cause (comment please)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6103056.stm

Mr Rumsfeld signalled the Pentagon move in a speech to the Foreign Relations Council in New York in February. He said: "Our enemies have skilfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we, our country, our government, have not adapted.
 
#2
You can't polish a turd. Next question.
 
#3
crabtastic said:
You can't polish a turd. Next question.
You are not right. Ban freedom of speech and the Pentagon would no doubt win propaganda war.
 
#5
KGB_resident said:
crabtastic said:
You can't polish a turd. Next question.
You are not right. Ban freedom of speech and the Pentagon would no doubt win propaganda war.
Very unlikely, in the US, UK and most of Europe you couldn’t ban Freedom of speech these days without enforcing it with en masse corporal punishment there would be to much of a backlash.

And if they are going to go down that route they are already a Dictatorship and don’t really give a crap about what their populace thinks/wants in any case.
 
#6
PassingBells said:
KGB_resident said:
crabtastic said:
You can't polish a turd. Next question.
You are not right. Ban freedom of speech and the Pentagon would no doubt win propaganda war.
What makes you think that?

Prohibition has never solved anything - especially in America
I don't propose a solution. I pointed out that the only effective measure is an unthinkable one.

Btw, there is no 100% freedom of speech anywhere. For example, can you watch al-Jazeera in USA?
 
#7
I don't see why not. It's on the Internet/Satellite.

The Pentagon could try telling the truth. It seemed to work for the BBC in the last big one.
 
#9
The Military in IRQ has the same problem the Septics had in 'Nam, and UNPROFOR had in Bosnia.

That is, that the information they are presenting (which in all fairness they have probably chosen to believe) does not closely resemble the picture being painted in the public domain (whether or not that picture is accurate or 'truthful' is irrelevant).

What is really interesting is the YouTube/ARRSE phenomenon - these kind of channels mean that even the media have lost the advantage of being able to reach a mass audience more quickly than anybody else.

Anyone with a laptop and interweb access can be 'out there' in no time flat.

How the f*ck d'you 'win' that battle?

I'd say the only way to look good is to be more honest: the bigger the mismatch between the "correct" version of events, and the version people assemble from popular, 'independent' sources - the bigger the problem for the military.
 
#10
PassingBells said:
I don't see why not. It's on the Internet/Satellite.

The Pentagon could try telling the truth. It seemed to work for the BBC in the last big one.
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/10/03/ret.us.qatar/index.html

The Bush administration is pressuring Qatar to restrain the al-Jazeera cable TV network...
...within a conception of freedom of speech of course.

Asking about Al-Jazeera in USA I meant that unlike CNN it hasn't an ability to develop own cable network. Again probably within a conception of freedom of speech.
 
#11
Sergey, Sergey, Sergey, that article is 5 years old! There was a perception at the time that al-Jazeera was a propaganda tool for anti-American forces and that closing it down would help them win the propaganda war. I heard of any other threats recently.

Why would al-Jazeera set up a cable network in the US? Given the likely take-up in that market, they would never make money. That's an economic decision, rather than censorship. I don't believe that Pravda has a very wide circulation in the US either, it doesn't mean that it's been banned.

PB
 
#12
PassingBells said:
Sergey, Sergey, Sergey, that article is 5 years old!There was a perception at the time that al-Jazeera was a propaganda tool for anti-American forces and that closing it down would help them win the propaganda war. I heard of any other threats recently.
Maybe anything has been changed?

Highly esteemed mr.Bush said (quite recently)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/10/20061021.html

Another reason for the recent increase in attacks is that the terrorists are trying to influence public opinion here in the United States. They have a sophisticated propaganda strategy. They know they cannot defeat us in the battle, so they conduct high-profile attacks, hoping that the images of violence will demoralize our country and force us to retreat. They carry video cameras and film their atrocities, and broadcast them on the Internet. They e-mail images and video clips to Middle Eastern cable networks like al-Jazeera, and instruct their followers to send the same material to American journalists, authors, and opinion leaders. They operate websites, where they post messages for their followers and readers across the world.
What in fact learned mr.Bush has said? He copmlained about 'wrongly used' freedom of speech. He liked Al-Jazeera (TV funded by US-friendly government) to terrorists. It is nothing but threat.

PassingBells said:
Why would al-Jazeera set up a cable network in the US? Given the likely take-up in that market, they would never make money. That's an economic decision, rather than censorship. I don't believe that Pravda has a very wide circulation in the US either, it doesn't mean that it's been banned.
Do you meen that Al-Jazeera itself doesn't wish to establish own cable network in USA? If yes then you are not right.

Al-Jazeera International, an English-language sister network to the Arabic Al-Jazeera has hired well-known media figures such as David Frost and Dave Marash.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/23/AR2006062301367.html

In a country's hinterlands, a distant region seldom visited by outsiders, a television crew investigates why so many residents are fleeing the area. When local officials catch wind of the crew's presence, they begin interrogating people the journalists interviewed, and pressure others not to talk.

Russia? Uzbekistan? China? No. This incident took place in North Dakota, in the heart of the United States.
 
#14

Similar threads

Latest Threads