Anatomy of a typical US military propaganda campaign.

[JohnyCanuck]

The ever changing story: Anatomy of a typical US military propaganda campaign.

This is a well worn pattern for our federal military. A sizable clump of peasants with unpronounceable names from an equally unpronounceable village on the other side of the globe are slaughtered by a drone, air strike, or troops on the ground. The initial story appears complete with quotes from locals, local officials, and aid workers- many if not all going on the record and giving their names- on or near the scene that lay out the basic facts of the story- that the US killed a bunch of civilians. And within hours of this come the denials from the US military. And not just any denials but creative ones. If not denying outright that anyone was killed at all (which is sometimes their first reaction) the US military will then offer up their own story in which the evil "Taliban" or "Al Qaeda in Iraq" killed the civilians in question. The sources for the military's side of the story are almost never named, were no where near the incident, and have no first hand knowledge of the event in question at all.

This doesn't stop our "liberal" media from giving the stories from anonymous military sources far removed from the atrocity equal if not more weight than the named local sources on the ground.

This recent bombing is unusual in one respect however, the speed in which their story has changed. Usually the US military staggers out their changing story lines on events like these over a period of months if not years . . . . long past the time that anyone remembers or cares and long after the headline has faded. The text book case for this propaganda technique is the Pat Tillman episode in which the truth was kept from emerging by the military (and some say it still hasn't emerged) for literally years. The Jessica Lynch propaganda campaign is another example of this technique. The Lynch campaign was an even more successful campaign than the Tillman one. At least we were spared a movie of the week that put the deliberate lies of the US military about Tillman's death on the boob tube for millions to suck up without question. We were not so lucky when it came to the Lynch fairy tale which was put on the silver screen by NBC in a matter of only a few months (don't hold your breath for that filthy lie of a movie to be rerun anytime soon.)

What these stories all have in common is that they involved deliberate lies on the part of the US military. Not lies of omission. Not "mistakes". Not "misquotes". Not "confusion". Lies. These were stories that were invented out of whole cloth when the truth was known and knowingly fed to an unquestioning semi government controlled and highly consolidated corporate media for them to disperse to an equally unquestioning (and uncaring) American public.


http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-3665-Boston-Libertarian-Examiner~y2009m6d5-The-ever-changing-story--Anatomy-of-a-typical-US-military-propaganda-campaign

[anonymous171]

1. The US military is not to blame.

The Rich are. They are the ones who are profiting from these misadventures after all. Hating on the military will not stop the MIC. Eating the rich will.

[leftstreet]

2. Somebody needs to write a cookbook n/t

[Captain Hilts]

3. No one feel worse about it than the troops involved. nt

[JackRiddler]

6. Which you know how?

And the troops aren't really the point. Generals, colonels, Pentagon officials and think-tank contractors run the propaganda. They're all "military" too.

[Captain Hilts]

7. A lot of the above, actually. nt

[EFerrari]

8. Remember Victoria Clarke? What a piece of work she was.

I think Rumsfeld spent more on PR than he did on the invasion.

[JackRiddler]

14. Unfortunately the PR comes relatively cheap.

Maybe you'd be surprised how many do it for free!

[EFerrari]

4. Great article and this graph, esp:

"It doesn't matter if this first initial "Big Lie" won't hold up. It doesn't have to. It just has to float around for the first few days along with the initial story and facts. A good third of Americans will believe the "Big Lie" without question. Another third will believe some of it. And any critics will be put on the defensive. Most impressions of the event were formed in the first week of reporting. As time goes on the story fades and few minds will be changed and the "Big Lie" will have done its job even if exposed as not being the truth a month later by one or two media stories."

[jody]

5. The article like most examiner.com opinions takes a few facts packages them in bull shit then posts

links on web forums hoping people will click on the link and earn a few pennies for the author.

As David Hannum said, "There's a sucker born every minute."

[sarge43]

9. Well, nothing like being called a peasant to win me over to his POV.

Thanks heaps.

[EFerrari]

10. He's talking about actual peasants of the type getting killed by drones

on the Pakistan border. Sheesh.

[sarge43]

11. I sit corrected.

Jeessss.

[EFerrari]

12. LOL! Both of us probably need more coffee.

:)

[sarge43]

13. Overreacted. My bad.

:dunce:

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Our military? With their long history of factual, unbiased, reporting and humanitarianism??

I'm ever so shocked.