Military Takes Aim at U.S. Propaganda Ban

Submitted by Bob Burton on

In preparing its marketing study commissioned by the U.S. military, the RAND Corporation sought the advice of PR advisers including Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, J.D. Power, the Rendon Group, and the Lincoln Group. The report called for a review of the Smith-Mundt Act, which bans government propaganda aimed at U.S. audiences, claiming that it put the military at a "competitive disadvantage". Paige Craig, from the Lincoln Group, told PR Week that "it's almost embarrassing to sit here and realize we've got the talent and ability to counter what the adversary makes; it's simply a matter of policy."

Main Source: 
PR Week, July 30, 2007
Topics: 
Issue Management
Terrorism
Public Diplomacy
Democracy
Marketing
Propaganda
Public Relations
U.S. Government
War / Peace

Comments

frank67 replied on

As General McCauliff was purported to have said: NUTS! Military Propaganda here at home has to be the craziest idea by the craziest administration ever. I'm a 69 year old veteran of 28 years active duty in the Air Force. I have met my share of wacky military nuts. But this is the wackiest idea yet!

The Walsh Wire replied on

Two most important elements of a fascist state are an all-controlling wealthy/corporate class working in concert with a permanent political class and a sophisticated public brainwashing mechanism. We now have the former,if we are not careful,we soon have the latter.

The fact that the military would be so confident as to even consider such a path should be evidence enough to show how far along we have come in throwing away our liberty.

We can clean up the mess in Washington if we individually take action to limit congressional terms. The most skillful of the wealthy minority and the most unethical of the political class can not stop action taken by the One Term and Out movement.

The abilities that are required to be a competent legislator are not rare; there is no dearth of talented people who are willing to serve one term in public office and then return to their professions. It is well known that it is the staffs of congressman and senators who actually do the work. The elected officials are needed basically to set policy. It is unimaginable that one-term members of congress can be any more destructive to the democratic process and to our treasury then the career politicians have proven to be.

If one believes in participatory democracy, it follows that they must also believe that as many citizens as possible should have the opportunity to serve in public office. The One Term and Out movement requires no time or resources. There are no financial contributions to be made no meetings to attend no speeches to endure. A citizen need only make the following pledge to himself then herald what he has done to others. If you are fed up with pay-to-play government
and the duopoly party rule, you can take the pledge.

The Pledge:

With the recognition that there are huge numbers of intelligent, talented and qualified citizens who are prepared to limit their public service to one term, I hereby pledge that I will not vote a second term for any United States Senator or United States Congressman.

paigecraig replied on

Did anyone notice that PRWatch decided to SPIN PRWeek's article? (slick move guys - how about a little honesty in your reporting?). For the real story visit PRWeek's story at Comms pros consult on US military report

There was no "complaining" as reported by PRWatch - I do not believe DoD should ever target US Citizens with propaganda; I'll leave that ground to our politicians and the media. The actual point here, which was extracted from a much longer conversation, is that we have the capabilities in place to counter the lies and propaganda coming from our adversaries. The larger challenge is for our country and our leaders to decide how and when to use these capabilities in the most appropriate manner.

A very sticky problem at the moment is the use of the internet and mobile communication platforms (from cell phones, blogs, myspace, Second Life...) Our adversaries use these capabilities to recruit, organize, plan and spread their propaganda. We now have to decide how we'll engage in this "virtual battlespace" without crossing the line.

The actual paragraph from the story reads:
Paige Craig, ex-president and now a board member of the Lincoln Group, which is conducting polls in Iraq to study the attitudes and perceptions of Iraqis on rule of law, support for violent groups, and other issues, said US military adversaries have great propaganda.

"It doesn't look as flashy as something you'd find on Madison Avenue, but it's very effective," he said. "It's almost embarrassing to sit here and realize we've got the talent and ability to counter what the adversary makes; it's simply a matter of policy."

Bob Burton replied on

OK, for the sake of the argument I have changed the "complained" to "told". But the point remains, that online propaganda operations such as blogs and websites etc can't avoid affecting US citizens.

The Walsh Wire replied on

Wednesday, August 08, 2007

After much soul searching and consultation, The Walsh Wire has determined that one term for US Congressmen is not a workable design for citizen imposed term limits. It lacks a period in office sufficient enough to be effective and fair. We remain convinced that one six year term for US Senators is the fair and the correct approach.

Henceforth, we shall encourage all of those who are considering taking The Pledge to examine our revised pledge of Six Years and Out; one term for US Senators and three terms for US Congressmen.

Six Years and Out, The Pledge:

With the recognition that there are huge numbers of intelligent, talented and qualified citizens who are prepared to limit their public service. I hereby pledge that I will not vote a second term for any United States Senator and no more three terms for any United States Congressman.