Does FaceBook Read The PSYOP Regiment Blog?

I posted on Fake news yesterday, 14 December 16. Today I received a summary from Wired Magazine which featured: Facebook Finally Gets Real About Fighting Fake News (see: https://www.wired.com/2016/12/facebook-gets-real-fighting-fake-news/?mbid=nl_121516_p3&CNDID=38062549; which is also the photo source).

Highlights of the article are:

·      A Flood of Fact Checking

·      Eyeballs and Ad Dollars (they are re-evaluating which publishers may violate their Audience Network ad policies and (along with Google) punish fake news sites.

While I’m pretty sure FB is not one of my loyal readers, I did find the timing a bit more than coincidental. I guess this comes with being long time military, competitive and legal analyst.

Does The Fake News Phenomenon Ruin PSYOP/MISO?

There has been a barrage of media efforts to explain and analyze the Fake News Phenomenon.  One such article was “How to report fake news to social media” (see: http://www.bbc.com/news/38053324 ) which is also the photo source. Another is “The Cynical Gambit to Make ‘Fake News’ Meaningless (see: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/12/the-fight-to-make-fake-news-meaningless/509888/).

Social Media such as FaceBook is considered the major home for fake news. Perhaps the most recent notorious example of fake news was the stories claiming that a pizzeria was a child slavery hideout (see: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/technology/fact-check-this-pizzeria-is-not-a-child-trafficking-site.html?_r=0).

What does this all mean?

Well, first of all, anyone that takes on the Internet at face value is probably in for a rude awakening sooner or later. The ubiquitous availability of social media makes anyone into a journalist. While some ersatz reporters are earnest in their efforts, others are not so scrupulous nor do they consider the unintended impact of their work.

PSYOP has been classified as white, gray and black depending on its source. (You can see Appendix A in FM-3-05.30, 15 April 2005: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-05-30.pdf; which is an older, Army Field Manual, but necessarily the latest one). While it may not be the latest manual the definitions are still relevant.

·      A-2 White products are over products. DOD forces use overt products in support of their operations.

·      A-6 Products that conceal and/or do not identify a source are known as gray products. Gray products are best used to support operational plans.

·      A-9 Products that purport to emanate from a source other than the true one are known as black products. Black products are best used to support strategic plans.

One can argue that these definitions don’t apply to Fake News or that it is impossible to neatly classify social media postings in 2016. As the definitions imply, each of the classes have their advantages and uses.

Fake news on the other hand, cannot be used to inform, because it’s fake! Fake news can be employed in MISO to influence or to cast doubts on the credibility of other news and/or other sources.

In any event, today’s PSYOP/MISO practitioner needs to add an understand and appreciation of fake news to their skill set.

Let me take this opportunity to wish my readers the Best for the Holidays.

I have good intentions of trying to take two weeks off from Blogging. So, don’t be disappointed if you don’t see any new postings until the New Year. Of course, with the approaching inauguration of the Tweeter-n-Chief, this could change.

Can hacking be the ultimate Cyber-PSYOP?

The latest outcry about hackers comes from a country long suspected of using cyber means for a variety of nefarious reasons – Russia. On December 2, 2016 CNN published a story: Russia: “Foreign hackers are trying to take down our banks” (see: http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/02/technology/russia-hack-banks-foreign/). In October 2016 Sputnik news proclaimed “Russian Foreign Ministry Confirms site Hacked, US ‘Jester Claims Responsibility” (see: https://sputniknews.com/science/201610231046639282-russian-foreign-ministry-hack/; which is also the photo source).

Whether or not either or both of these articles are correct may not be as important as the possibilities the two articles raise.

On one hand, these alleged acts could be the work of US or allied hackers seeking to give Russia a taste of its own cyber medicine. It could also mean that yesterday’s loudspeaker is today’s internet hack so that tactical PSYOP/MISO organizations need to be able to perform some level of cyber PSYOP through Computer Network Attack (CNA).

This would also seem to signal that new forms of Special Operations training for UW should include giving insurgents some cyber capabilities just as SOF trainers have taught UW techniques in the past.

While this is certainly feasible since the nature of internet based attacks is to lower the skill level of the attacker, is it a good idea to spread cyber attack knowledge around? The unintended consequences of sharing knowledge and broadening the skill set of insurgents should be obvious. There is no guarantee that the new cyber warrior wouldn’t turn his or her newly acquired cyber ‘gun’ at you.

We’ve seen how SIGINT made its way out from behind the ‘green door’ and into the planning of tactical units. It’s only a matter of time until some variation of this evolutionary path is taken by cyber as well.

Shifting PSYOP Emphasis from Asymmetric Threats to Peers

 While the threat from terrorists and other asymmetric enemies remains real and potent – there is great concern about historic and new peer-sized threats. The maturation of the cyber domain as a battlefield has brought with it a resurgence of nation-state enemies and adversaries.

Chief among them is Russia. On November 1, 2016 Reuters reported “UK spy chief sees growing threats from Russian cyber- attacks, espionage” (see: http://www.reuters.com/article/britain-security-russia-idUSL8N1D22K7)

In the days of the Cold War it was relatively easy to stereotype the Russians as illustrated by my friends to the right: Boris Badenov, Natasha Fatale and Fearless Leader; characters in the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon series.

The Russians have always understood the need to control information that has also become a strategic imperative that they have passed along to other countries within their political umbrella. The article notes that cyber attacks and espionage are increasingly being used to advance Russian foreign policy goals.

There were a number of media reports indicating that the Russians had the capability to hack voting systems and thereby impact the US Presidential election.

The PRC has also been reportedly active in cyber attacks, while perhaps not as subtle as their Russian counterparts, PRC hackers also represent a state sponsored well-resourced and sophisticated threat.

The implications for US political and military strategies are profound and the election of an avid Tweeter as President may actually be a positive sign for PSYOP. President-elect Trump, for all is other characteristics, is far more aware of the power of mass media and the importance of Social Media.

Perhaps his new cabinet will be directed to formulate an influence strategy that will meld all of government’s influence resources – military and otherwise – as well as dedicate the cyber resources necessary to support such a strategy.

Photo source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Badenov

PSYOP Comes To The Presidency

It is pretty clear that the President Elect understands the principles of PSYOP and marketing. Simple, direct messages targeted at a clearly defined audience combined with concentrating your efforts where they will do the most good appear to have been keys to his unexpected success.

Task and Purpose a military oriented site published an article (see: http://taskandpurpose.com/donald-trump-won-white-house-stunned-world/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tp-today; which is also the photo source) which, in my view sums up how the President Elect defeated the ‘establishment’.

The article and the campaign contain great lessons for PSYOP, but the end results and the new Administration’s ability to craft a cohesive and workable political strategy and the military strategy behind it remain to be seen.

The article summed up Mr. Trump’s success in one sentence: ““He benefited from a very easy to understand and appreciate message: ‘Make America great again,’ ... That’s not about Donald Trump; that’s about the American worker who used to be punching in at the textile plant.”

Voters, especially those whose manufacturing jobs, and the economy surrounding them understood the Message, agreed with it and voted for the Messenger.

We also learned that celebrity is perhaps more important in the U.S. than any sort of qualifications or experience. To be fair, Mr. Trump is a showman, and he may stand for the proposition that there are limits to political correctness.

Mr. Trump also knew his target. While the media proclaimed that his sweet spot was “non-college-educated white voters”, anecdotally I know quite a few ardent Trump supporters who are indeed college educated and the numbers are far too big to include only this group.

Trump targeted the voters who make up the majority of the electorate and according to the article, Secretary Clinton was not able to garner the kind of support that President Obama did either in the black or Latino community.

Mr. Trump also did very well in the ‘up for grabs’ states. I’ve often posted about needing to concentrate on those on the fence rather than trying to move those on either end of your message’s spectrum.

The Clinton campaign also had some PSYOP examples, unfortunately, not many of them are good ones. Her campaign seemed to appeal to educate elites and was more often focused on Secretary Clinton herself. The “I’m with her.” didn’t resonate because, only a few wanted to be and they were concentrated in the liberal blue states.

The next test for Mr. Trump will be to appoint competent and experienced people to help him guide the nation and to control his mercurial nature. He may surprise us all, or in 2020 the US will tell him “You’re fired!”

The PSYOP of Elections

With the 2016 US Presidential election only 5 days away and media of all sorts bombarding us with exhortations to vote their way, I thought it appropriate to make a few comments about PSYOP in the context of political influence.

Rather than descend into the cesspool like depths of the media barrage in the Presidential race, I felt it more instructive to look at a particular piece. There are 17 Propositions on the California ballot this year – not counting local ones. They range from repealing the death penalty to deciding whether starts in porn flicks should wear condoms.

Behind every proposition there are people with an agenda. While some propositions are clearly worded, others are not. Wording can obfuscate the true purpose of the proposition or can be a legislative hodgepodge of sentences thrown together.

To the right is a typical direct mail piece. The focus is on personalizing the proposition in a way

that the voter identifies the picture with the proposition. In this case we have a likeable enough looking family. Since there is no Dad in the picture we could also jump to the conclusion that this is a single Mom raising three young children. The child on the right is missing her front teeth possibly indicating that she is a second grader or in need of some dental help.

Proposition E is a San Jose Measure that would require businesses with over 35 employees to offer extra hours to part-time workers before hiring new ones.  While the motivation behind the measure might be to give a break to those part time workers who work multiple jobs and don’t have benefits, this is not the case according to the major local newspaper, the San Jose Mercury News which said “Voters are likely to approve this feel-good measure, but it would be a mistake. It adds record-keeping burdens and lawsuit risks no other city in this county places on industry — at a time when San Jose is already is struggling to attract business and build its tax base. Vote no.”  (See: http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/10/24/editorial-san-jose-measure-e-a-good-idea-badly-implemented/)

In addition to personifying the message, the direct mail piece offers some general innuendos at the top right. By agreeing with these oversimplified statements the reader/voter might very well want to ‘help out’ by voting yes, which, according to the facts (or the newspaper) would be a mistake.

Hopefully the election will be over soon to clean up the airwaves.

How do you influence the PAO?

The October 17, 2016 Defense News ran an article “DoD is Losing the Online  Fight to Win Hearts & Minds” (see: http://www.defensenews.com/articles/dod-is-losing-online-fight-to-win-hearts-and-minds; which is also the photo source).

I was attracted to the article because of the title and expected to see yet one more treatise on how the overpaid contractors charged with executing the DOD on-line influence war  were not doing their job. Interestingly, the article makes the case that a major problem with the US on-line influence programs is the resistance from Public Affairs.

The article describes how NATO is trying to recognize the significance of the influence issue by forming a strategic communications directorate and that the US is the only holdout. The article’s author, Robert T. Hastings should know about Public Affairs because among other assignments he served as acting secretary of defense for public affairs from 2008 to 2009.

PAO has generally taken the view that they must remain and chaste and pure, avoiding any taint of ‘influence’. Having had the opportunity to work Joint Exercises at DINFOS, the DOD school that trains Public Affairs Officers, I’m of the opinion that the ‘new generation’ of PAOs has a much more profound appreciation for social media and the on-line world than their top brass.

The inability to integrate PAO efforts into the influence fight dilutes our influence efforts and has to stop, the sooner the better. While I’m generally not one to editorialize, the DOD is a pretty simple organization; it works from the top down. SECDEF needs to bring MG Malcolm B. Frost, Chief of Public Affairs (see: https://www.army.mil/info/institution/publicAffairs/chief/)  into his office along with General Raymond A. Thomas III, CDR, USSOCOM (see: http://www.socom.mil/Documents/Command_Bios/Gen%20Thomas%20Official%20Bio.pdf) and have an open discussion about DOD’s need for unity of effort with regard to Public Affairs.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and it looks like it needs to be at the top or we will continue to lose influence ground to our enemies and adversaries.