John Kerry's measure to end wartime propaganda becomes law

[ArcturusMengsk]

Link

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. John Kerry today announced that President Bush signed into law Kerry’s legislation to prohibit the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) from funding propaganda. The measure was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009.

“With confidence in Washington at an all-time low, the American people should not have to wonder whether the ‘non-partisan, expert’ analysis they see on television might have been shaped by a government propaganda campaign,” said Sen. Kerry. “It’s essential to make sure the public’s money isn’t used for propaganda campaigns that undermine the public trust.”

In April, Sen. Kerry called for an investigation by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) into the DOD’s covert efforts to cultivate military analysts with distinguished service records to produce favorable press coverage of the Bush Administration’s wartime policies in Iraq and elsewhere.

Good on him. I've been mightily impressed with Kerry as of late.

[chr335]

Good I prefer the truth to someone's political agenda. Do you have any links to what this legislation actually does.

[Kanastrous]

I hope this includes a ban on funding propaganda on foreign territory, too.

[Metatwaddle]

Here is a link to the text of the law. It's only 2 pages long. (I think this is the right one, anyway.)

[chr335]

I hope this includes a ban on funding propaganda on foreign territory, too.

I have mixed feelings about that as propaganda in war time is a good way to make new friends and thus reduce the length of the war.

Oh and metawaddle thanks for the link

[Kanastrous]

I hope this includes a ban on funding propaganda on foreign territory, too.

I have mixed feelings about that as propaganda in war time is a good way to make new friends and thus reduce the length of the war.

Oh and metawaddle thanks for the link

If I believed that our propaganda for foreign consumption was effective, I might be more supportive. I believe that it does more harm, than good.

[Ender]

If I believed that our propaganda for foreign consumption was effective, I might be more supportive. I believe that it does more harm, than good.

Yeah, the massive amount of people surrendering without a fight in accordance with the air dropped directions sure is ineffective. Having more people surrender then we can process sure hurts us a lot more then them shooting at us does. Hell, if it gets one guy to surrender without a fight it did its job, because that's one less guy trying to kill us that we have to try to kill. More to the point, even if you want to challenge the effectiveness of current propaganda campaigns, barring an effective and useful tactic because it is poorly utilized is the height of idiocy. The Monitor and Merrimack battle was a draw, clearly metal ships should be banned, right? Picket's charge was a disaster, therefore heavy high speed units shouldn't be used, right? The USS Turtle failed its mission, we should ban submarines. M-16s jam, so we should not use rifles. Do you get how foolish your assertion is yet?

[Sidewinder]

This idiot's got his priorities wrong. The main reason the US fucked itself in OIF was because of FAULTY INTELLIGENCE and INADEQUATE PLANNING. Propaganda is important in raising public support for the government's decision to go to war (and spend their tax dollars on this instead of social programs like education and welfare), but NOT before the government makes the decision, a decision based on INTELLIGENCE and THREAT ANALYSIS.

Basically, when you're served a shitty meal, your main gripes should be against the chef, the recipe, and/or the ingredients used; it's pointless to rant against the pretty pictures you see advertising the meal, or against the menu.

[Stormbringer]

Good on him. I've been mightily impressed with Kerry as of late.

Why? This bill is moronically superficial and has absolutely no teeth. It's all about projecting a good front while being utterly hollow. Which appropriately enough is much like the man.

You don't make a sweeping reform to national policy with a bill shorter than a fourth grade book report. The most damning thing about it is that it sets up no actual methods of enforcement or oversight. There's no intention of actually enforcing anything and one only need look at the definition to tell that. It's not a very solid bill at all.

[Kanastrous]

If I believed that our propaganda for foreign consumption was effective, I might be more supportive. I believe that it does more harm, than good.

Yeah, the massive amount of people surrendering without a fight in accordance with the air dropped directions sure is ineffective.

Leaflets saying 'you can surrender or be vaporized by the heavy bombers on their way to the target box you occupy' don't really impress me as propaganda so much as warning.

Having more people surrender then we can process sure hurts us a lot more then them shooting at us does.

To what degree were those surrenders motivated by the above-described sort of leafletting, vs. motivated by television/radio/newspaper propaganda?

Hell, if it gets one guy to surrender without a fight it did its job, because that's one less guy trying to kill us that we have to try to kill.

The expense in money and resources and personnel, to run a propaganda campaign mean that "getting one guy to surrender" is spectacularly wasteful, compared to the armor/ammo/training/reconstruction that could be funded with the same $$$.

More to the point, even if you want to challenge the effectiveness of current propaganda campaigns, barring an effective and useful tactic because it is poorly utilized is the height of idiocy.

It might be, if I shared your conviction that propaganda campaigns are 'effective and useful.'

The Monitor and Merrimack battle was a draw, clearly metal ships should be banned, right? Picket's charge was a disaster, therefore heavy high speed units shouldn't be used, right? The USS Turtle failed its mission, we should ban submarines. M-16s jam, so we should not use rifles. Do you get how foolish your assertion is yet?

I see that you chose to string together a bunch of business irrelevant to the discussion, at hand.

[Sidewinder]

Kanastrous, you work in the film industry, right? Let me use metaphors you can understand regarding the stupidity of Kerry's proposed ban.

A studio spends $250 million to make a movie that, it hopes, will be a blockbuster. However, the cast and crew are caught griping that being in the movie is as fun as being in a train wreck; the critics unanimously give it a thumbs down; and theater patrons have such a negative opinion of the movie, they walk out of the theaters before the film reaches its climax, denying the studio the repeat viewings necessary to make a profit.

Are the marketing and advertising entirely to blame for the bomb? No, the blame falls upon the people responsible for the film itself, i.e., the scriptwriter(s); the director(s); the producers (or whoever's responsible for the budget); the studio execs who demanded "happy endings" and other revisions, resulting in delays, the film going over budget, that are critically panned...

Wartime propaganda is like marketing and advertising. The scriptwriter is the intelligence agency responsible for threat analysis. The directors are the generals who have to fight the war. The producers and the studio execs are the politicians who make the decision to go to war. Kerry stupidly blames the propagandists for the fuckup that is OIF, when the responsibility falls upon the CIA, the yes men in uniform who carried out Rumsfeld's wishes, and politicians like himself (and George W. Bush).

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Yeah, Kanastrous, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. PSYOPS is an important component to any military campaign. It is critically paramount to counter-insurgency operations such as the ones that are going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. You need to be able to deploy propaganda to be able to effectively fight an enemy that uses propaganda as one of its main weapons. That said, my impression of this bill is that it doesn't outlaw PSYOPS but it outlaws propaganda at home. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kanastrous]

Yes, it's a specific ban on propagandizing, 'at home.'

Are there some good sources anyone would recommend, on well-crafted and successful PSYOPS campaigns directed by the USA at civilian populations?

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

First gulf war.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 93/WPA.htm
http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm? ... &paper=358
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 93/WPA.htm

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Meant to add this as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_PSYOP_Group

[Ender]

If I believed that our propaganda for foreign consumption was effective, I might be more supportive. I believe that it does more harm, than good.

Yeah, the massive amount of people surrendering without a fight in accordance with the air dropped directions sure is ineffective.

Leaflets saying 'you can surrender or be vaporized by the heavy bombers on their way to the target box you occupy' don't really impress me as propaganda so much as warning.

To what degree were those surrenders motivated by the above-described sort of leafletting, vs. motivated by television/radio/newspaper propaganda?

Oh, so you get to pick and choose what we count and what we don't, because... well because you say so. No. Enemy Pysops cover a broad range of topics and methods, many of which are highly effective. The fact that you want to discount those out of hand so that you can insist that they don't work doesn't fly.

The expense in money and resources and personnel, to run a propaganda campaign mean that "getting one guy to surrender" is spectacularly wasteful, compared to the armor/ammo/training/reconstruction that could be funded with the same $$$.

And of course, you have some numbers to back this up, right?

It might be, if I shared your conviction that propaganda campaigns are 'effective and useful.'

Oh, so you have evidence that it is impossible for a propaganda campaign to ever be at all effective now? I didn't realize that. You should present that, because otherwise we get into you declaring it doesn't work as a tautology.

The Monitor and Merrimack battle was a draw, clearly metal ships should be banned, right? Picket's charge was a disaster, therefore heavy high speed units shouldn't be used, right? The USS Turtle failed its mission, we should ban submarines. M-16s jam, so we should not use rifles. Do you get how foolish your assertion is yet?

I see that you chose to string together a bunch of business irrelevant to the discussion, at hand.

So no, you don't have a counter for the fact that your idea of "legislate away a tactic" is utterly insipid, but you are gonna insist you are right regardless. Gotcha.