Military Efforts To Influence Foreign Media Wasted Says Washington Post

The April 25, 2011 Washington Post Slams DOD for “influencing media in a foreign country – particularly those where U.S. troops have fought – is not very good, and recent attempts by US military units have been even worse” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/for-us-managing-foreign-media-is-a-no-win-proposition/2011/04/23/AFhTRlkE_story.html) Also the photo source.

Walter Pincus essentially feels DOD is wasting tax paper money with extensive contractor and military efforts to impact foreign media especially in areas where the US has extensive combat forces He blasts activities in Iraq and quotes a source (a writer from the New Yorker) describing how US efforts have established Afghanistani media moguls (Saad Mohseni, chairman of the Moby Group and his brothers).

According to the New Yorker source (Kenneth Auletta) a USAID (State Department Agency) grant jump started their business which has blossomed to produce a variety of “reality” TV programs. Auletta wrote that the programming has a more profound impact on the Afghan people then would a newscast.

Much of this is of course déjà doo – doo meaning I’ve seen this sh*t before. First of all TV is entertainment even the news is entertainment. Most TV, reality shows in particular are not intended to appeal to the Harvard Business School (or Yale as in the case of Mr. Pincus) crowd. In some countries TV is among the few escape vehicles that the people have. For example in Bosnia during my 1997-98 tour there Venezuelan soap operas were among the most popular shows.

I guess I didn’t get what problem Mr. Pincus was trying to highlight. There are certainly quite a few: contractors and media enterprises require heavy funding that could perhaps be used elsewhere; citizens are naturally pre-disposed to regard foreign troops on their soil as a bad thing; should governments have the power to influence media in the first place?

All of those seem to be profound topics worthy of discussion, but to me, throwing the military under the bus in a couple of dismissive sentences is shoddy journalism. Did Mr. Pincus mean ISAF? Did he mean DOD or did he mean the actions of PSYOP/MISO teams on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan. Perhaps he was actually criticizing President Obama for the lack of an overarching information engagement strategy. No matter, the opinion piece falls short on several counts.

Unfortunately PSYOP lacks the clout to counter this rhetoric as it bounces around Capitol Hill. Our challenge is to insure that the accomplishments of our PSYOP forces receives at least as much ink as their alleged failures.

Rolling Stone As A Military Authority

I must confess that I don’t think of Rolling Stone Magazine as an authority on military matters. True, while in college I did regard Playboy as a source of good interviews, but that was a long time ago. The February 23, 2011 Rolling Stone article, “Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators” (see http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/another-runaway-general-army-deploys-psy-ops-on-u-s-senators-20110223?page=1)

Unlike Michael Hastings, the author of the article, I am an attorney and I don’t agree with his characterization of “illegal”. While it is indeed true that PSYOP (now Military Information Support Operations or MISO) cannot be employed against US forces, the incidents portrayed in the article don’t even come close to being illegal. They may seem inappropriate – but implying that a group of soldiers could “manipulate visiting American senators” is nonsense.

Information Operations (IO) teams are often multi-disciplined, but they are certainly not endowed with mystical powers that give the ability to control people’s minds. LTC Holmes, the IO officer quoted in the article is either confused, misquoted, unaware of what PSYOP should or should not do, incapable of dealing with the media or all of the above.

Labeling all PSYOP personnel as “propaganda people” is not only unfair and untruthful but also borders on slander. This type of quote surely reveals how little the Rolling Stone really knows about PSYOP in the first place and that they are more interested in readership and web clicks (which of course lead to more advertising money – duh) than in reporting actual news.

In the commercial sector many companies employ government relations as an information conduit between the company and the government. They may also employ lobbyists, who are paid and generally must register themselves to influence legislation. These two functions are related but different. The military possesses no such stated capability.

In my view, LTG Caldwell was only being prudent by preparing for a visit by a senior Congressional Delegation (CODEL). Executives prepare for visits by elected officials all the time and elected officials go out of their way to provide bios and other information through their web sites and other means.

Notwithstanding the fact that Caldwell is a 3 star LTG, he doesn’t have a government relations staff. People with the skills to prepare him for the visit would like sit in a number of places throughout his HQ such as Public Affairs, PSYOP (MISO), Intelligence and perhaps even Personnel or Operations. He could conceivably turn to any or all of these sections to provide people for this additional duty.

Clearly LTC Homes was a poor choice. To imply that PSYOP is the Voldemort of the military able to apply magical powers is, in the words of BG Anthony McAuliffe: “Nuts!”

Military Media Analysts – What’s The Beef?

Today’s Defense News ran a story indicating that the Pentagon has suspended its “Media Analyst” program pending an internal review and no doubt based on the hullabaloo created by the story the New York Times ran on April 20.

For those of you unaware of what’s going in – in brief retired military officers have been given ‘special briefings’ by the Pentagon. During these briefings the Pentagon offered up some of their views (let’s call them messages). Interestingly enough these messages reappeared in the statements offered by the ‘analysts’ to the media.

Let’s take a moment to examine the issues:
1. Military analysts received special treatment.
2. The Military analysts were retired military who offered themselves up as experts.
3. The analysts were often defense contractors.
4. The analysts didn’t disclose whether they were speaking on behalf of themselves or the Pentagon.
5. Is it clear that the analysts were in agreement or believed the Pentagon messages or were they just parroting what they heard because of the briefings they received?

1. Special Treatment

The Public Affairs Office (PAO) provides routine and frequent briefings to the media. Since these analysts were regarded as ‘friendly’ they might have great access than media representatives whose past coverage has been less than positive.

However, there is no rule that all media people have to be treated alike. Having worked in the commercial sector, I can assure you that friendly media get more access than unfriendly media. Cause for concern? Maybe, but not as great as it is being played up to be.

2. Retired Military As Experts

Not every retired person is an expert. Rank and past achievements do not necessarily mean expertise – it’s up to the reader or viewer to assess the Expert’s worth just like the jury judges the facts.

3. Disclosure of Nature of Expert’s Business

The media running the ‘expert’ should have disclosed the expert’s affiliation. If the expert was a consultant, then it is up to the media to determine if the consultant has business ties that might impair their impartial judgment. It is not necessarily up to a consultant to disclose each and every client. After all, it was the media that desired to air or print the story – they need to assess the credibility of their sources, not blame the source for any misperceptions.

4. Disclosure of who is really speaking

Clearly the expert has to state that this is their own opinion or it’s the Pentagon’s view. They could also state their source was a Pentagon briefing and let the viewer/reader decide the level of credibility.

5. Belief or Parrot?

If one holds themselves out to be an expert, it is their ethical duty to express only those views and opinions that they feel are justified. It would be unethical to parrot a message that the expert knew or believed was false.

Bottom Line: The Media Analyst program may have a few warts, but it is not much different from the aggressive Press Relations and Analyst Relations programs carried out by many commercial enterprises. The real difference is that PR and AR actions in the commercial sector don’t translate to TV ratings or print readers.