The military plan to 'clandestinely' put bloggers on the payroll
By Steve Benen Tuesday Apr 01, 2008 7:30amFor quite a while, the debate over blogs in the Defense Department was over whether U.S. troops should be allowed to have them at all. On the one hand, some officials were concerned about security breaches, with troops inadvertently sharing compromising information online. On the other, some saw blogs as a morale-boosting outlet for the troops.
But as Noah Shachtman explained in an interesting report, a study was written for U.S. Special Operations Command that took an entirely different approach to online communication, which included the suggestion of possibly “clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers.”
“Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering,” write the report’s co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.... Denning, a professor at Naval Postgraduate School, adds in an e-mail, “I got some positive feedback from people who read the article, but I don’t know if it led to anything.”
The report introduces the military audience to the “blogging phenomenon,” and lays out a number of ways in which the armed forces — specifically, the military’s public affairs, information operations, and psychological operations units — might use the sites to their advantage.
The Kinniburgh/Denning report was quite provocative, suggesting paying prominent bloggers to address “entrenched inequalities,” presumably in the media. The study did, however, note the downsides of such a plan: “People do not like to be deceived, and the price of being exposed is lost credibility and trust.” You don't say.
Now, it’s worth emphasizing that there’s no apparent evidence that the Pentagon actually put any prominent bloggers on the payroll. A spokesperson for U.S. Special Operations Command told Shachtman that the Kinniburgh/Denning report was merely an academic exercise: “The comments are not ‘actionable’, merely thought provoking.”
As far as I know, prominent bloggers who toe the administration’s line on Iraq policy are doing so for misguided ideological reasons, not unethical financial ones.
Login or Register to post comments.
Oh man, how can I get one of those SWEET government blogging contracts? 'Course, I'll probably post the OPPOSITE of what they want, but given the way the Bush Administration wastes cash, I suspect that I'll be able to tuck away quite a nest egg before they notice...
well damn, you're already busted and out of credibility...
impeach now!
Special Ops?
As in short bus ops?
No wonder our intelligence community is retarded. They have no idea what our aims are or who our enemies really are.
So who hired you, John, this guy?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0vrynvZNE4
Help me out here, that would be illegal right? The gov't secretly propagandizing its own people is against the law right?
Mistitled.....
Shitbird civilians at the NPGS and the pentagon are not the military. These are theassholes the military has been saddled with.
They are no more military than Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld or Perle.
"...As far as I know, prominent bloggers who toe the administration’s line on Iraq policy are doing so for misguided ideological reasons, not unethical financial ones..."
But nobody really knows for sure, do they? I mean, we have already had all manner of disinformation techniques coming from this administration, overt and covert, in all the media, which have been done both for for misguided ideological reasons, as well as unethical financial ones.
I certainly would not be surprised if this sort of thing has been in operation for some time now, paying people to spew the talking points, not just on blogs, but on prominent message boards such as on Yahoo and elsewhere. I wouldn't put it past these guys at all.
You might consider adding the additional tag "Propaganda" to this story.
What's the pay? If it's bigger than $2K weekly, sign me up.
Okay, pay me, Mr. Occifer, and I'll write all about how idiotic the WaPo editorial staff is. Oh, right.
Morris B. @ 7:
Absolutely! I think it would be naive to think that the administration has propagandized things like Education (remember that turd Armstrong Williams) but not its favorite child the Iraq War
Blogaganda?
Are you kidding me? Of COURSE they don't need to pay these guys--they give them special access and then the "milblogger" turns around and publishes the info on their blog--which then runs ads and solicits donations. The question shouldn't be about who's on their payroll--it should be a matter of why certain bloggers are given "embeds" and special access.
If they actually paid them with taxpayer dollars, they'd have to account for it. So they figured out that if, for example, they allowed Bill Roggio to embed with a unit, that would give him exclusive material to blog about. Roggio, in turn, forms a non-profit company and builds himself a platform from which to speak about these matters.
That allows him to get special access to DoD material while soliciting "donations" that help him "keep blogging."
Someone could file a FOIA memo and get any payments to bloggers, but I doubt whether this kind of special arrangement is really documented. It's not illegal, but it damned sure doesn't serve the public interest to spread propaganda in this manner.
I think it's cute that they even added the part about exposure causing backlash. You couldn't see what's left of shrub co.'s credibility with an electron microscope.
It's a Bee-Yootiful Spring Day in Iraq!
The children are skipping about happily, their tummies full of sugary breakfast cereal, while their teachers (the highest-paid educators in the world) await the new day on sparkling schoolhouse steps.
The daffodils are blooming, and the country's 17 warring factions have just delivered hand-picked bouquets to America's troops.
Oil is flowing so well that the price per barrel has dropped back to its pre-war level of $50.
Okay, where do I pick up my forty pieces of silver? I'll take payment in Euros, please.
It's interesting to note that the piece that WTOP Radio in D.C. (a Bonneville station, BTW) did on this yesterday also mentioned that they considered the possiblility of hacking in to blogsites to subtly (or not so subtly) change the content in order to kill the credibility of the blogsite and bloggers.
I wonder was that part of the report omitted later?
FWIW, those of us who blog for the Aristocrats have been blogging for the FBI for years. You think our annual Frank Zappa tribute isn't clandestine government propaganda?
Honestly these guys have no clue who bloggers are, who they are, or what the hell is goin' on.
they have the MSM on the payroll and have cointelpro sneaking around all the blogs already, If they are admitting it they have already done it.
“Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering,”
They don't really think this could work, do they? I mean, what's next. Buying up all the major news media so they can pump out reich wing propaganda 24/7?
Oh, wait. Never mind....
Send Crooksandliars some money!
Are we sure these conservative bloggers are doing it for "misguided ideological reasons"?
I mean at least if they were just doing it for monetary gain I might be able to understand how they can write the crap that they write. That would mean they are just right wing whores, and not right wing lemmings.
Gryphen @ 20:
I suspect the root of their 'misguided ideology' is monetary gain followed closely in some by religious zealotry.
I'm pretty sure this shit already happens. I remember during the 2004 election running into several single-post accounts on blogs/news-sites such as Slashdot and Plastic. They would appear in a thread, post a single comment in a prominent story that cast aspersions on John Kerry, then never ever post again. I followed one for almost six months afterwards just out of curiosity and challenged him several times in reply to his ONE comment. He never posted again as far as I know.
And during GE season the blogs seem to swarm with a bunch of userID's that just appeared out of nowhere and have all sorts of interesting, coordinated "facts" that they use to muddy up the debate. Day after the election, they're gone again.
That the govermnent under Bush is corruptly and probably illegally funding this is just the latest twist. Probably the NRCC is running out of cash to pay these losers.
Pale Rider @ 12:
Is Roggio still blogging for Raw Story?
Damn, what a joke THAT was!
I am a Republican who opposes (and has opposed for some time) our continued presence in Iraq. After supporting Ron Paul (and realizing, of course, he has no chance of winning the G.O.P.'s nomination), I have now become - much to the chagrin of my Republican friends - an Obamacan.
I am also one of the scores of people who have been banned from RedState.com for submitting comments that were critical of our "staying the course," the surge, torture, etc. I even posted some of General Odom's testimony and Zbignew Brazinski's op-eds to make my points. (NOTE: The banning occurred in April of 2007, well before I became a supporter of Ron Paul and in the absence of any suggestion that I would support him, so RedState's later-announced policy of expelling contributors favorable to Ron Paul does not come into play here. I would also add that I posted a number of unmistakably conservative comments on the size of the federal government, tax simplification, and the debt, so they probably put up with me longer than they would have normally.)
I don't know how many of you have visited RedState, but the pro-military tenor and dogma of that site are truly remarkable. I know that a couple of their editors have been embedded in the fighting units in Iraq and that they regularly attend both White House and Pentagon briefings for right-wing bloggers. That may be enough to explain things. But it has always struck me that RedState's support for the war exceeds all reasonable bounds.
Just throwing out a possible recipient of the Pentagon's largess . . .
slippy hussein toad @ 22:
I noticed that phenomenon also. On one site I frequent a lot of them stuck around for multiple posts but the day after the election they were gone, never to be seen again.
It seems natural the chickenhawks would want to pick up on something the RNC has been using for a while now.
Pale Rider @ 12:
Indeed. Imagine the sense of authority and power imparted by posessing special knowledge and the thrill of being given a 'secret mission'--it's every keyboard kommandos wildest dream. No direct payment necessary at all. but the prospect of fame and fortune would be real enough:
Blogger gets exclusive info, blogs, Pentagon directs Sean Hannity to blogger, blogger appears on show, blogger gets recongition, blogger gets repeat businees, blogger gets a column in Washington Times, blogger gets Regenry book deal.
This explains Michelle Malkin
Filthy Harry @ 5:
This reminds me of when all the major labels bought out all the little indy fanzines, distro houses, & small punk venues to give themselves 'street cred'.
rhatican @ 24:
I guess you and I are the same in many ways. I've never ventured to Redstate.com but I have heard from several people that post there that hold the same position on Iraq like we do that they to where expelled from the site. It seems that if a person does not conform to their idealogy on a given topic then they are given the boot. How very "Stalinist' of them. Its fitting that they have the site name "redstate.com" because it fits them very well.
Well, C&L, it looks like time for more Site-Monitors to keep the trash out. If we stay aware and keep our heads. We also have to keep the tenor of our comments correct. Those who come on and just call people names and use constant obscenities don't do our cause any good. The use of expletives only shows that a person doesn't have enough words in his personal vocabulary.
I read #24 rhatican with interest. His story is that of many who have visited a lot of the Red Blogosphere.
We have to be vigilant, this fight is worth it if we want our country back from the usurpers.
Oh yeah, we're gonna get out share.But I kinda feel sorry for them,cause they don't stand a chance here. We've got to many vets for them to deal with.
mudshark hussein @ 31:
(did you ever figure out the Alt key Num Pad thing?)
mudshark hussein @ 31:
Ain't that the truth. There are a lot of vets commenting on C&L and I'm one of them (USMC 89-93).
Joe O. @ 33:
Me also, USN Flight Captain, USS Lake Champlain 55-59
♣Bangkok Bob♠ @ 34:
Spec four US Army,75-78
They'll have to find some RW trolls than can do more than just play Clinton reruns, express their sexual frustration against Al Gore, and call liberals commies.
mudshark hussein @ 35:
(do you use AIM Instant messaging?)
Joe and Bangkok Bob......The last 6 months of my time,They really tried to get me to quit. Just so they wouldn't have to give me my bennies. Boy, did I piss them off.
♣Bangkok Bob♠ @ 37:
no ,But I'm thinking about it.
ditto here,
BTW god analysis by pale rider and 22 above.
mudshark @ 38:
The Armed forces started to decay from the inside out after '68
♣Bangkok Bob♠ @ 37:
I've got AIM but I haven't used it forever though. lol
Joe O. @ 42:
(BB is tiposaggio on aim if you ever want to conspire)
Of course the DoD and their bloggers stand a chance,of losing their bloggers.And I'll bet the people on the darkside will come up with more excuses as to why they can't serve.. I look forward to this engagement.
mudshark @ 44:
can't serve because they are too necessary to their church group
Hmm, is Bill'O on the payroll?
US Army 1996-2004
This is their best idea yet for nailing bin Laden and winning the Iraq war!
Keyboard Kommandos, Attack!!
Anyway, keep in mind that government propaganda is all fine and legal, but covert government propaganda is not.
That's what got Armstrong Williams in trouble.
USN ET(R) 74-78. Plankowner, USS Bohica, Our screws never stopped.
Ever read the Stars & Stripes? Same message control, different medium.
Within the military there would be hundreds of willing recruits for this kind of paid blogging: soldiers who would prefer to write for a fake blog than be sent to Iraq. It's all war work of a sort. Propaganda.
50 blue balls
Try wearing boxers.
ysbaddaden @ 52:
you've got 50 blue balls? And here I thought 2 were enough.
Where do I sign up? I'm tired of fighting the reich wing machine - it's time for me to get mine - screw everybody else.
I've over 40, so I should be worth more than double that 20-y.o. who got millions for supplying lame ammunition. And I can pretty much guarantee that my posts will be just as lame!
But seriously... 293 days of this BS remaining. That's 293 more than I'd like, but so much better than yesterday.
Oh, and kudos to the report writer who did note the possibility of losing credibility when covert actions like this are brought to light.
47 Pale Rider
US Air Force 1978-1982, Top Secret Clearance, stationed at a classified base, Edwards AFB, 1925 Comm Sq.
mudshark @ 53:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2b5eM7lrDw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsdTeCnnRO4
ysbaddaden @ 55:
Hey man, tell us about Area 51. We promise to keep it a secret!
ysbaddaden @ 56:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g23GiivXC78
ysbaddaden @ 56:
nicely done
mudshark all respect due, lets not ruin your rep. I shall take the low road for us all...
HAHAHAHAH, PLEASE! Commanders couldn't use Psychological Operations properly in Iraq, so what makes you think they'll get a coersive-subversive message right in America.
Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations are two VITAL ( see the emphasis!!!) occupations in winning over the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Unfortunately, the hostile atmosphere is counter-productive to Civil-Military Operations ( also known as CMO) and Psychological Operations is a misused and abused asset. Just another example of how wonderful assets are being used by people that spent their whole lives trying to RUN from wars.
Andy Fig @ 61:
Dude, they put a cock in a camel's nose!
As far as I know, prominent bloggers who repeat the distorted liberal canard of John McCain's '100 year War' statement are doing so for misguided ideological reasons, not unethical ones.
Could you imagine this guy as a member of the Keyboard Kommando Korp?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by0jNezYEGc
As far as I know, prominent bloggers who toe the administration’s line on Iraq policy are doing so for misguided ideological reasons, not unethical financial ones.
I disagree. You show me somebody who can still defend Bush's War after all this evidence that it is a collossal failure, and I'll show you somebody who's getting paid
1) Are they being paid, covertly, by the US government for that, and
2) Why would Senator John Sydney McCain want to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years?
2b) McCain would be about 200 years old by then!
dennis @ 63:
McCain is still talking about the Hundred Years War? Wow, he really is old.
M. Kulper @ 66:
Read, learn, enlighten yourself.
THE COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW corrects Barack Obama's deceptive references to McCain's "100 years" remark and wonders why the press lets him get away with this. Me too.--- Glenn Reynolds
Or The 100 Year Lie.
dennis @ 68:
It's fun watching you cons try to dance your way away from what McCain clearly said. Please, please keep trying to "correct" us on it. It just keeps the old man's words in the spotlight.
So that's got nothing to do with the topic of covert government propaganda then.
Thanks.
#70 is for Dennis at #68 regarding my comment #66 as it relates to Dennis' off-topic whining in message #63.
FYI.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUE-QmH-n4Q&feature=related
Right from the horse's ass.
Re: McCain's suggestion that American stay in Iraq for 100 years.
The fact is McCain said it and it's an outrageous statement. No American has voted to donate their tax dollars to Iraq's 100 year occupation.
Rusty America Shackleford @ 67:
What's odd is the McCain's lack of history or taste.
The 100 Year War was a "religious" war
Between Roman Catholics and Protestants.
Our present nation-state configuration in Europe is based on the Treaty of Westphalia that ended it
Some would argue we're in another religious war now
Will we start monkeying around with borders like the Brits when the created Iraq in the first place after WWI?
Afterall we do have a chimperor-in-chief right now.
Barbara in BC @ 74:
I think the true meaning of McCain's words should be trumpeted from the rooftops, like dennis suggests. I think all Americans should know that McCain thinks it would be great if they sent not only their children to Iraq, but also their grand-children and maybe even their great-grandchildren.
That's a message that really should be front and center in his campaign, since it seems to be his only strong conviction.
Why is it conservatives only use the cost/benefit ratio for domestic policy and not foreign?
Okay, Steve, I don't know if you're being naive or not, but for the right price, a blogger can be corrupted to serve the cause of advocating for war. It doesn't have to be ideological.
It's the same reason Bush still can count 25% of Americans among his supporters; of that 25%, 75% have gotten fat paid and the other 25% are ideologically stupid.
“People do not like to be deceived, and the price of being exposed is lost credibility and trust.”
That sentence alone smacks of a credibility issue, not to mention the fact that they should be fired for such, all this even before the issue of bloggers on pentagon payroll ever reared its ugly mug. This will remain a credibility issue.
As for covert operations, has anyone ever wondered about how they choose those "Featured Videos" on YouTube? The ones that have an attractive and extroverted person (of military age) running a fake news show, who yaks on and on about Lindsay Lohan and other trivial matters. Often they throw in a casual comment that makes a Republican look good or a Democrat look bad, while at the same time they have a big photo of Obama in the background just to confuse the issue. If anyone ever watches these it would be a problem, but I suspect they are too lame for most.
Wouldn't that be illegal? I thought this sort of paid government propaganda was illegal inside the US.
Of course, law seems meaningless anymore.
You do have to wonder when OPINION and THOUGHT is censored in spaced like this.
I think the normal interests in ADVERTISING REVINUE create some centrist censorship with out any payment needed from the fources of evil.
But I would bet this plan has been a foot a long time.
this topic makes me lol. theres a big annual "hacker" convention in Vegas every year called DefCon. one of their traditions is to play a game called "spot the feddy" where they interrupt the speaker at some big meeting and basically point their fingers at various folks who are probably undercover cops/FBI agents.
if the military actually follows thru on this, in an internet ruled by playground tactics advocated by people who enjoy lolcats and PWND! type mockery, I could totally see a similar game taking place in all kinds of games.
I've already seen "spot the rightwing shill" type games taking place on craigslist. say a liberal is arguing with a right winger on a craigslist of Austin, TX message board. that liberal does a google search, and sees the exact same poster typing the exact same stuff on craigslist of Cleveland OH, Portland OR, etc, etc - and all of a sudden its like "lol, fuck you, you're not local, you work for Karl Rove don't you..."
I bet I could totally spot a Navy SEAL commenter. ;-)
This is what happens when a criminal government has access to the counterfeiting Fed's money printing press.
This government spending is getting worse every day, wow...
But you what? I am not afraid, and neither should anybody else. Want to know why?
Because the internet is the domain of truth and impartiality. That's why I almost worship it....almost.
Blogs and the average web surfer can smell a rat a MILE AWAY. The people on the net are on the net primarily because they smell the shit in MSM and want to steer clear of it. Don't worry everybody, these arrogant fucks don't stand a chance. They may think they are almighty gods, with infinite wisdom and foresight, but they are just losers who couldn't find real jobs in the market.
I say to those asshole bloggers who take the bait, sell their soul to the devil and accept government paid junkets:
YOU HAVE JUST SIGNED YOUR OWN DEATH CERTIFICATE. YOU MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH THAT SHIT ON TV, BUT IT WILL NEVER FLY IN THE MOST FREE FORM OF EXPRESSION, THE ONE TRUE FORM OF REASON, THE INVINCIBLE INTER-FUCKING-NET!!!
Paid government propaganda is legal when it's clearly identified as coming from the government.
Secretly funded government propaganda is not legal.
After Democrats are back in the Whitehouse, Republicans will once again care about The Rule O'Law.
PS- Did you hear the thing Senator John Sydney McCain III said about keeping American troops in Iraq for 100 years?
From some of the utterly assinine posts I read on my favorite sites, my guess is that this program has already been implemented. How else to explain some of the pro-Bush, pro-war, everything is going well drivel on the more progressive and liberal blogs?
the govt have control of what the soldiers can receive and send is wrong.
they are not prisoners or second citizens and should not be treated as such.
the govt can not be trusted to be fair and unbiased, look at the current
group of bastards in the bushco. did they ever lie? yes, continually and
without any regard for honesty.
I am not a DoD contractor. Am NOT!
Never received one red cent... except maybe access to high profile "interviews" on "background". Is that what they mean by "consideration" in contract law?
But, I don't blog. Never, ever.