# Propaganda and the need for Control.



## Pistolman 71 (21 Aug 2006)

A very interesting program on 20/20 dealing with how the military controls (or the lack thereof) its media through the years. As a case study it mainly concentrated on the American model at the moment. It has been said that the Vietnam war was lost in the living rooms at home. The military planners would not make that same mistake again - or so it was said. The media "pooling" technique that was employed in Gulf War l , created a lot of backlash that the planners could not ignore. Hence, when it came time to deal with the media for Gulf War ll , the "embedded" technique was used , however this was a very eschewed view of the actions. So, the questions remain, when is control considered censorship ? When is "escorted" media considered manipulation of the free press ? When is controlled content at briefings considered propaganda ? I fully realize that if I'am in command of a military action being planned , I would want control of as many facets of the action that I could get ! 
   With that said - what are your feelings on this ?


----------



## TCBF (21 Aug 2006)

In any other occupation, media are escorted around the site or premises.  Employees are sacked for talking to the press - and their company can lose the government/industry contract.  With DND, the media has it aced.  Think OGD are as open as we are?

Nope.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2006)

Media in Lebanon were escorted everywhere by Hezbollah "representatives", filmed what they were told to film, spoke to the people Hezbollah presented them, and veiwed scenes which on examination, were often staged for the purpose. Anyone who tried to go outside the boundaries Hezbollah laid could imagine their fate; anthing from being escorted out of the zone to becoming yet another casualty of "Zionist agression".

Considering the sorts of stories Canadian media (particularly the CBC and Toronto Star, but there are examples everywhere), concentrating on the ghoulish "death watch" of Canadian soldiers to playing up Taliban exploits as major setbacks for the NATO coalition, I would submit "we" don't have the media under any sort of "control" at all.


----------



## warspite (29 Aug 2006)

the Canadian free press is still very very free, providing "excellent" and "acurate" information that is not manipulated in any way :brickwall:


----------



## probum non poenitet (29 Aug 2006)

I think an interesting change is the media themselves.

In the World Wars, reporters attached to the Armed Forces were unashamedly pro-military and pro-victory. If there are exceptions, I would be glad to see them.

I know there was a media storm in 1915 due to the 'shell scandal' -- pre-war ammunition stocks had been too low, and the British Army had to cut back its artillery usage by 1915.
There was a big row in the British House of Commons and the press jumped on board.
But the theme was always, "How can we hurt the Germans _*more*_?"

Changed days indeed.
Count me as one of those who trusts most politicians (of all parties) about as much as I trust infomercials ... and count me of one of those who has noticed governments have told huge, history-changing lies to start or spin modern wars. Not all wars and not all governments, but there has been a lot of 'creative truth' bandied about in the last 50 years.
So the media's skepticism is not unwarranted ... but skepticism and cynicism are dangerous cousins.

Therefore, I do like to see a _healthy _ media, because they are one of the checks against a government growing too large or powerful, frankly a threat I fear more than terrorism, as an out-of-control government is a far greater threat to freedom (in my opinion) than even the most vile terrorists (who, are themselves, a considerable threat).

But that's the theory ... as has been pointed out on this site many times, our media is by and large interested in shiny things that can be explained in a two minute segment.
A military funeral or an upset Afghan railing at a camera (out of context) for seven seconds is far more 'punchy' than a dry explanation of reconstruction, or the slow measure of success.

The media seems all to ready to take the government to task over relatively small soap operas like the flag-flap or G-Wagons, but rarely explores tough questions. And _*that*_, my friends, is what they should be doing. 

What do Canadians have a right to know? The long term plan. The overall military and political objectives. The measures for success. The history of the conflict. The obstacles. The shortfalls of the strategies as they unfold, and the steps being taken to correct them.
Those are tough questions, and the government, DND, and the CF all have answers for them, mostly available on the web. They are dry, long, and complex, and make for bad TV.
And because the answers are unpredictable and may change with time, as a politician, it is dangerous to 'tie up your boat' to closely to one position. So by and large the Commons debates stick to the dramas of 'media allowed to film coffins at Trenton' and the like.

So: politicians are often reticent, the media is generally lazy, and the viewing audience is happy but misses hockey. And soldiers soldier on.

It still strikes me as bizarre that we have to 'sell' our cause to the public. Is that what we are doing? In modern times, I suppose so.
Blind patriotism is gone, which is a good thing, I believe.
But did patriotism go with it? Tragic and costly if it did.

The media do not want to be the cheerleaders of the military or the government. (though some are)
Naturally, we in the military wish the media had our backs 100% of the time.
But they don't. That's their perogative. 
It sucks for us, but that's democracy. Pray the media exercise that perogative responsibly.

Having said that, if the media is going to advocate their independent agenda, then so should the military, unashamedly.
And the military agenda is success of the mission, with an emphasis on security and safety of the personnel. So any reporter who threatens that, in any way, should be (temporarily) silenced, as regards the present circumstances of the mission.
They have their job, we have ours. Where they rub up against each other, you eke out a compromise.
Lives trump ratings.

The zillion dollar question is what is the difference between OPSEC and CARSEC (career security - a word I made up) - is the media being locked down to preserve a mission's integrity, or to cover the behind of someone who screwed the pooch or a politician who wants no 'drama'? It's happened before.
The other zillion dollar question is when does the media's 'quest for truth' become a reckless 'race for ratings', at the expense of all things, including the safety and dignity of the soldiers.

I think the key is that the media and the military be prepared to work with each other, and to adapt as the situation unfolds.
I have noticed an alarming trend in the U.S. that those who challenge the government are often called unpatriotic. I would hate to see the same zeitgeist take root here.
I hope the military, the government, the media, and the public, can maintain a respect for each other, even when they disagree.
It's an evolving process.


----------



## Dare (31 Aug 2006)

probum non poenitet said:
			
		

> I think an interesting change is the media themselves.
> The media do not want to be the cheerleaders of the military or the government. (though some are)


This about sums up the reason I believe we're still fighting this war. The media keeps propping up the losing side in the name of balance. I don't think it hurts journalistic integrity (ones ability to report facts) by supporting your country. Leaving the pro-west advocacy to the US administration has been one of the biggest errors, I do believe, we've made. Current US policy is leaps and bounds beyond what Reagan had developed, but Reagan could sell it. Perhaps it's time for Canada to step up to the plate and fill the void. Canada needs cheerleaders in this fight, not just warriors. It's not prissy or being a sell-out. It's fighting for the good of man-kind. Not a lot of people can stand by that statement, especially in journalistic circles, as much as in the earlier world wars. As I've said before, things aren't close enough to home for a lot of people for people to understand who or what we are fighting, and even what we are defending. I'm sure many are still content to believe our soldiers are out there stealing oil or whatever Evil Scheme we can come up with. Then there are also scattered enemies within the press, who for ideological reasons distort the news entering the echo chamber. Repeating and creating easily digestible memes for anyone who happens upon them. Where indeed are our patriotic reporters? Who corrects and challenges the press? I'd say the internet has been a boon for the patriotic reporter, and their numbers are growing as the old guard dies out.The ability for any institution to control the media has been made more difficult, but this has left open infinite ways for any institution to manipulate it. It really is a digital war now, moving at the speed of light. Using current strategies I don't see how it can end so long as Osama can broadcast his message or the Taliban can rekindle support through the media. It's mass psychology. We have to turn the terror he wants the west to feel into a spirit of resistance against his ilk, including mockery of their very nature. Was there a thing about the Nazis, themselves, we did not make fun of? It all goes back to lending credence where it is not due. If we put them on our level, they'll stay there and grow until they suit their projected image. We have to knock down the enemy in every way. Full spectrum.

I'd say that starts with education about what truely is under short and long term threat.

It reminds me of a verse in a poem I happen to like:

The nations, not so blest as thee, Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall:
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.


----------



## DBA (1 Sep 2006)

I think a large part of the problem is Liberals (using the term in the current US meaning) are too focused on perceived local foes and ignore the greater enemy. Part of it is a fear of letting Conservatives (again in the current US meaning) advance their agenda to the detriment of Liberal ideals to counter the greater foe. Another part is the enemy of my enemy is my friend type thinking without realizing the horrible consequences that entails for large numbers of people in the world. It's sad to see lack of unity in fighting the greater enemy. Differences in how the US should function and evolve should not weaken the resolve in a fight against totalitarian and fascist regimes or ideologies.

Google books has started to make available complete books that are out of copyright. A book on Aesop's Fables which I have been reading has a fable I think is a good warning to Liberals:

The Lion and the Bulls

Three Bulls fed in a field together in the greatest of peace and amity. A Lion had long watched them in the hope of making a prize of them, but found that there was little chance for him so long as they kept all together. He therefore began to secretly spread evil and slanderous reports of one against the other, till he had fomented a jealousy and distrust amongst them. No sooner did the Lion see they avoided one another, and fed each by himself apart, than he fell upon them singly, and so made an east prey of them all.

The quarrels of friends are the opportunities of foes.


----------



## TCBF (1 Sep 2006)

"It reminds me of a verse in a poem I happen to like:

"The nations, not so blest as thee, Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall:
While thou shalt flourish great and free, The dread and envy of them all.' "

- "Rule Britannia" :  Poem by James Thompson (1700-1748), a Scottish poet and playright.

Put to music by  Thomas Augustine Arne (a Londoner) around 1740.


----------

