Skip to comments.INFORMATION WARFARE: Winning the Media Battle
Posted on 03/11/2004 1:36:07 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
March 11, 2004: Events on the battlefield alone do not always dictate the course of the war. The reports of the battle given by the media will have an effect, too, particularly in the age of twenty-four hour news networks like CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. These, as well as newspapers, pretty much function as intelligence agencies, albeit they are in it to make a profit, not to protect a country. [emphasis cannoneer's]
The media front is one not often discussed. It is there, nonetheless, and it often has a decisive effect on a war. The 1993 firefight in Mogadishu was, in fact, a tactical victory for the United States. The raid achieved its objectives, the capture of some high-ranking members of Mohammed Farah Aidids militia, and in the resulting firefight, Aidids militia suffered hundreds of casualties.
The problem, though, was in the media presentation. The sight of dead American soldiers being dragged through the streets created such an outcry that the Clinton Administration ordered a pullout. This was not the first time the media had created the impression of defeat. Another big example was the 1968 Tet Offensive, which was remarkably similar the Viet Cong was defeated on the battlefield and finished as a fighting force, but the American media portrayed the battle as a major setback. The result was to turn popular opinion against the Vietnam War.
A battle can turn the entire tide of the war. In this day and age, it is possible for the media to turn a victory into a bloody defeat. That resulted in the Tomahawk diplomacy in several actions in the 1990s and the high-altitude attacks that were used over Kosovo in 1999, intended to minimize the chance of losing aircraft and having aircrew taken prisoner.
The media has become another front in war or operations short of war. Often, it can be used to justify starting a war (either international or civil). The recent claims by Hugo Chavez that the United States is funding his opposition in the upcoming referendum may be an example of this. The claim of outside interference could be used to either not hold the referendum or to nullify the results by imposing martial law.
Other times, the media can be used to let people know that America is viewing developments with interest. The British used this front prior to the 1982 Falklands War to keep tensions around the disputed islands from exploding. The announcement would be made that submarines were being deployed to the area. The Argentineans decided not to call the bluff. When the bluff was finally called in the form of the 1982 invasion, the cruiser General Belgrano was sent to the bottom of the South Atlantic.
The medias attention is a double-edged sword. Often, the price of letting someone know you are concerned is a loss of strategic surprise. Also, if things do turn into a battle, the medias portrayal may create an image at odds with the actual results. The British have less trouble with this due to the famous D notice which keeps a newspaper from publishing anything that the government doesnt want published, usually involving secrets. No such mechanism exists in America, and thus, secrets are sometimes revealed in news articles much to the chagrin of the military and intelligence establishments.
Winning the media battle is as important as winning on the battlefield. Information has long been the most valuable commodity in warfare its value is not only applicable to the battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of those on all sides. Harold C. Hutchison (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thanks Ragtime Cowgirl and calpernia. Ya'll are heroines of the info wars, fighting the good fight and countering propaganda and disinformation with truth. Free Republic is part of the media, and every time a Freeper posts a new thread or comments on one, we are part of the media, too. We can be a force multiplier for the defenders of Western Civilization. Ragtime Cowgirl and calpernia are showing us the way.
This author really hits a good point.
It seems we're getting quicker all the time however. Bottom line, we do seem to be breaking the mediot lock a lot more often.
Everyone putting out the good news, going against this mainstream newsmedia requires a strong support group, and at least a few good prayer warriors.
We can use as many volunteers as are willing...even just to ping and promote the primary source threads.
You'll notice, there isn't much interest. Even on the day Iraq's constitution was signed, over a hundred Freepers on my ping list since last Sept. multi-pinged daily with good news about the troops (Calpernia and xzins ping list, too), and few comments (but much patience re. multi-pings, lol).
The good news does lift the spirits of a few Soldiers, civilians in the war zone, family members and others who love the troops and believe the fight is noble...and that's worth everything, imho.
Good thing most of us are both stubborn and inspired. (^:
. . . much information of legitimate use to people in, and out, of the government, has been removed from the internet.
We are in a situation where big broadcasting, plus AP, UPI, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, USA Today ... make up stuff to push their agenda and we are SILENT.
BUY at least one of the three networks and let the news return to being the news. If we were to control even one of the network news organizations and just tell it straight the Demoncrats would soon be just a bad memory.
And the revenue from the entertainment programming would pay for it all. And, it would provide a means of countering the total monopoly the media will have in Sept/Oct created by the so-called "Campaign Finance" legislation.
IMHO, until the conservatives have a constant, un-filtered platform to tell it straight to the average citizen day-in and day-out our cause it fatally penalized.
We need to take the battle to the Dims in Mr. & Mrs. America's living room EVERY evening!
With whose money do you propose do do this?
I said "...the conservative "fat cats" if you recall. (I said it even if you don't recall.)
Point is, if we don't win in the battle of ideas, then the dem/socialists will prevail, and there won't be any wealth accumulation, nor much of an economy. Then a number of investors will wish they had heeded my advice vs putting their money where it does no political good. And, these multi-media conglomerates make enormous profits so I ain't asking them to piss their money away, I'm just asking them to put it where it can do the maximum good.
And notice that only the DNC talking points are getting the notice of today's crop of fifth columnists that pretend to be journalists.
If you don't believe me, just ask Brent Bozell.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.