The military plan to ‘clandestinely’ put bloggers on the payroll

For 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 yesterday, 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.”

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 ideological reasons, not financial ones.

But having said all of that, is it really that surprising officials would consider a proposal to put bloggers on the Pentagon’s payroll?

Sure, it’s offensive on a certain level to imagine the Defense Department using our tax dollars to co-opt bloggers for propaganda purposes. But given the Bush administration’s track record, I’d almost be surprised if officials didn’t consider a proposal to put bloggers on the Pentagon’s payroll.

After all, the administration’s track record is quite breathtaking. We’ve seen propagandistic efforts over

Titled “The Sands Are Blowing Toward a Democratic Iraq,” an article written this week for publication in the Iraqi press was scornful of outsiders’ pessimism about the country’s future.

“Western press and frequently those self-styled ‘objective’ observers of Iraq are often critics of how we, the people of Iraq, are proceeding down the path in determining what is best for our nation,” the article began. Quoting the Prophet Muhammad, it pleaded for unity and nonviolence.

But far from being the heartfelt opinion of an Iraqi writer, as its language implied, the article was prepared by the United States military as part of a multimillion-dollar covert campaign to plant paid propaganda in the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly stipends, military contractors and officials said.

and over

Federal investigators probing the Education Department’s public relations contracts have found a pattern of deals in which advocacy organizations received grants totaling nearly $4.7 million to promote Bush administration education priorities in newspaper columns and brochures, but didn’t disclose that they received taxpayer funds, as required by law.

and over again.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration’s efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

The Pentagon considered a plan to pay bloggers to get the administration’s message out? Of course it did.

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.”

Yeah, and these are not your father’s downsides anymore. Blogging is not like the traditional media, where talkers like Rush can choose the politics they sow because the soundbytes pay them better; a bloggers’ paychecks are intimately tied to their credibility, and their cred is tied to their listeners, not to a third party funding the program via laundry soap commercials.

  • HA!

    I saw an item on TeeVee that Clinton was paying her bills as a result of the attention the vendors have gotten.

    So I wanted to post a link.

    “Clinton pays bills” and “Clinton pays her bills” got no hits on Google.
    Soon, perhaps.

  • I think that the corporate and governmental types need to open their eyes and minds for once. Seeing the success of bloggers who provide us with all this stuff for free every day, corporate types who work for money (and government types who work for power) want that same kind of audience without knowing how to get it.

    Obama rakes in the dough. Hillary would like some, too. But the netfreaks and geeks who make Obama’s net presence work do so out of enthusiam, love even. Hillary’s people just don’t get it. You can’t stamp your feet or shriek and order somebody to be creative. Not for long.

    Paid advertising, commercial or political, is just that. I read the TCR articles and comments because they’re heartfelt and well thought out. As soon as I spot someone with another purpose (e.g., our trolls), I turn off and tune out. It’s the same reason I never watch live TeeVee (except for baseball games, and even then I’d rather listen on the radio while doing something real). I tape the few programs I like and zap the commercials. Can’t imagine why anybody would do anything else.

    Corporations, governments, churches and the GOP hate the internet because they can’t generate the kind of **inspiration** which drives it. And all their money, power and threats do them no good because the internet is essentially free to anyone of any status. All it requires is talent. It’s reward is the sense of a job well done. None of this means anything in the corporate, government or religious-organization worlds.

  • episty (1) a bloggers’ paychecks are intimately tied to their credibility, and their cred is tied to their listeners.

    True, but sometimes credibility comes down to what people want to believe. And the function of these bloggers is to give them permission to believe, and to give them talking points to use.

  • Just stay away from the prostitutes and the swinger clubs. It may feel good momentarily but you’ll get a doozy of a blackmail call in the morning.

  • Well everyone knows that George Soros pays all the liberal bloggers to say all those mean things about Bush, so I guess it evens out.

    /snark

  • Imagine, our government using clandestine communication and PsyOps against their own people. How very quaint; Nazi-like. I get such a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that you can’t believe anything on the TeeVee (short of DemocracyNow, INN, and the like) and that the masses don’t have a clue.

    All together boys and girls: We. Are. Screwed.

    I know I am eagerly awaiting the next catastrophe of biblical proportions to befall us so we can then attack yet another country that had nothing to do with it. And all with the TeeVee stenographers Rah-Rahing all the way to the bank.

    I am waiting for new laws to come out labeling and banning the DemocracyNow organizations as incendiary operators against the government. Then it’s Fox for one and all!

  • So, basically, a Media Matters for America, paid for by the Pentagon instead of George Soros. That shouldn’t be terribly controversial. It makes pretty good sense for them. It’s been working for Soros.

  • Why would they want to pay someone when the half-wits, I mean brain trust, over at Red State will do it for free? It’s not like they are going to pay respected people on the left or even middle, they would turn to the known figures on the right.

  • This really comes as no surprise. Bush called for the “milbloggers” to meet at the White House last fall, and, famously, at the suggestion of “Captain” Special Ed, held a telephone conference with rightie bloggers to discuss different administration defenses of the refusal to answer subpoenas by Harriet M and Josh Bolton.

    This ALSO explains why General Petraeus’ Information Officer released the conclusion of the Army investigation into Private Beauchamp through blogger (and chickenhawk) Confederate Wankee.

    There is a Pentagon document, declassified as part of an FOIA request that talks about an “information war” including why the blogosphere had to be taken seriously.

    Is there now any doubt that they did just that?

    The only real revelation here is confirmation of long-held suspicions that weren’t quite nailed down, except through observation. And, yes: our government has been engaging in psy-ops and disinformation warfare against … US, to defend their unholy war.

    Gee. I wonder how Confederate Wanker afforded that new laptop he was bragging that “readers” contributed funds to his blog for? And how he “knew” about the New York Times advertising flap at just the time of Petraeus’ testimony last fall, and MoveOn’s ad?

    Hmmmm.

  • So, basically, a Media Matters for America, paid for by the Pentagon instead of George Soros. That shouldn’t be terribly controversial. It makes pretty good sense for them. It’s been working for Soros.

    Three cheers for federally funded wingnut affirmative action! Hip, Hip, Horray!

  • I was thinking the same thing as Ms Joanne. Why is our military thinking of ways to use its psy ops against the same citizens it’s supposed to be protecting? And the people who are the victim of this offensive get to pay for it to. That’s like Mao charging the family of an executed prisoner for the bullets used to kill them. I can’t believe what this country has become.

    But maybe the military is paying troll commenters to post BS comments on blogs like the Carpetbagger Report instead. Who else would repeat the debunked claims about Soros and Media Matters? Only someone paid to lie.

  • “Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering…”

    The government is pondering to do what individuals, campaigns, and corporations are already doing. Astroturfing has entered the hyperbolic jet age.

    As an example, consider comment threads:

    Are Team Hillary trolls on someone’s payroll? Or is it a social networking phenomenon? Hate and racism are arguably as effective a motivator as money. So maybe all the “copy and paste bombs” are derived from a couple of angry white males? Or perhaps not:

    Get paid to post positive comments about Hillary

  • Let me be the first to say that I welcome our new alien masters, and perhaps I could be useful rounding up some of my fellow citizens – Kent Brockman

  • Amy Goodman covered this in the report I saw this morning and the thing that seems to be left out of what CB wrote was their desire to change a word or two here or there specifically to put the credibility of bloggers into question. I think Fox does that well; there is enough news which is accurate, there is news which is accurate enough, and then there is complete fabrications. You blur the line slowly and it all becomes reality. Many right wing blogs do that as well.

    I think this much worse than simply entering into a PsyOps operation to have their own bloggers, it is a grander plan to make bloggers in general look less credible and thusly less believable.

    Since blogs are, along with the few reputable jounalists who still have any journalistic integrity (DemocracyNow.org and INN World Report) are the only way that real news gets disseminated, this is yet another propagandistic effort limit and distort the truth.

  • The fatal flaw in this plan is that when soldiers recite a prescribed party line they sound as stiff and rehearsed and artificial as — as — well, they guys who took part in that “candid” Q and A teleconference with President Bush a few years ago. Even if the rehearsal hadn’t inadvertently been broadcast along with the final production, would it have fooled anyone with an IQ over 60?

  • As a DoD employee, I can’t access website (or YouTube) at work. Who is their audience?

  • As a former liberal blogger and a military PR-type, let me say that these sorts of ideas don’t actually go very far, but they pop up all the time. I was in Afghanistan when the story broke about PR contractors using “pay-for-play” placement in Iraqi newspapers and no one was as pissed off as the PAOs and their enlisted counterparts. Credibility is key to what we do and that (and, frankly, much of what the Bush administration has done) damaged it severely.

    There are many of us who want to rebuild that public trust, though, and anyone who has a current, reasonably well-viewed blog, though, can get involved in the DoD Bloggers Roundtable. I won’t say that you’ll get completely unbiased views (these are, after all, discussions with individuals), but you’ll also get a chance to challenge them.

  • I’ve seen suggestions in the comments section of this blog that some of the commenters (e.g. Truthsquad, Comeback Bill, Greg, …) are suspected of actually being paid hacks for a particular campaign or organizations supporting a particular campaign or ideology.

    Does that happen? Do campaigns and other political organizations actually hire and pay people to troll on blogs such as this one? If so, how common is this?

  • Hey, if they go to Free Republic, or Little Green Footballs, or Townhall, they should be able to find “prominent bloggers” who will work for free as their patriotic duty. Stupid Pentagon, always thinking they have to pay for everything when there are public blowjobbers available for free.

  • A better idea would be for the Public Affairs Office to do what it’s supposed to do: contact members of the media (including bloggers) in order to get their story out. Much like the DoD doesn’t need to be paying the NYT or ABC to get their stories out through those media, they don’t need too be co-opting a blog in order to get their stories out through this media. All they have to do is e-mail a popular blogger(s) and build up a relationship with them where the blogger knows he or she can trust what he or she is being told. I’d suggest starting with left-leaning blogs, since the righty blogs don’t really need to be convinced of anything. Just show them a big explosion and they’ll be happy.

  • I would think that the revelation of being paid by the Pentagon to run their “stories” would render the recipient a worthy propagandist label for a good portion of internet readers. And, it would be yet another stupid waste of the taxpayers money. But, this is the outfit that paid several hundred dollars for hand tools and toilets…

  • Hiring shills is not new or particularly troubling. The scary part of the report is that which suggests hacking into postings by critical bloggers. Their are plenty of nuts with blogs and a few more military employees blogging is no big deal BUT to mess with others words in order to subvert their credibility is sickening.

  • Comments are closed.