

U.S. Military Goes Online to Rebut Extremists’ Messages - agconway
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/18/world/us-military-goes-online-to-rebut-extremists.html

======
click170
On one hand it's nice to see them using words instead of guns.

On the other hand I agree with the other concerned comments about the
militarization of fact checking. However, until they cross the line and
actually shutdown a website for being "untruthful" I'm going to hold off on
the public flogging.

"the fact they engage with us indicated we've hit a nerve" Um.. No, to me that
means they're willing to engage in conversation with you, likely because they
presume you're wrong and feel they can fend you off in an honest argument.
This is no indication of "hitting a nerve" but nice try.

------
kevinalexbrown
It's the combination of things like this, and SOPA that get me worried.
They're well intentioned, and I agree with those intentions. But when the US
government is simultaneously fact-checking, and website-regulating, it's not
too much of a stretch to require US websites which are "confusing or harmful
to consumers" to provide "correct facts" about the US government, instead of
just posting online in forums.

------
mattdeboard
Maj. Nevers was my OIC for several weeks in 2005 during the Marine Corps
response to Katrina. He's a stand-up guy, honest, all that good stuff. But
let's not kid ourselves. Though you may have guys like Maj. Nevers who are
interested in being even-handed and honest, the generals and politicians who
oversee these activities are less interested in such things. They have
interests to pursue and protect (and rightly so). Those of you saying this
isn't US propaganda are wrong; those of you who are saying this isn't an
appropriate action are wrong.

It is propaganda, but it is appropriate.

------
hugh3
The militarization of fact-checking. I like it.

Of course, facts alone can't talk anyone out of being a nutty extremist, as
anyone who has browsed reddit will attest.

~~~
rdtsc
This is not about fact checking this is about propaganda and anti-propaganda.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Besides there being no such thing as anti-propaganda, sure, this is Americans
promoting the American interest - through open exchanges and posting of
factual material.

~~~
rdtsc
> there being no such thing as anti-propaganda

(from Wikipedia) Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at
influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position so as to
benefit oneself or one's group.

So anti-propaganda is propaganda aimed at countering the message and effects
of an opponent's propaganda

> through open exchanges and posting of factual material.

Please... Your only excuses is if you are being sarcastic or are actually
getting paid to say that.

But ok, I'll bite. So which one of these is a factual statement?:

* Yesterday an American CIA drone killed Ahmed Behjzad, a 13 year old goat herder from Ungkmar village. His death left behind a grieving mother, father & sister.

* A group of militants have reportedly been killed by a US drone strike yesterday.

Oh look, they both contain factual information. Which one do you think US Air
Force is going to blog about?

~~~
JonnieCache
He is simply saying that there's no such thing as anti-propaganda by
definition, there can only be propaganda from opposing viewpoints. It's mainly
a linguistic distinction. Chill out. He's almost agreeing with you.

 _> Please... Your only excuses is if you are being sarcastic or are actually
getting paid to say that._

Nobody has to provide you with an "excuse" for their views.

~~~
rdtsc
I got that, however he followed it by the statement that US posts factual
information, implying that only other side is somehow trying to influence
public opinion but US is posting just facts. Making it seem as it is
"propaganda" vs "facts".

So I made up a stupid example to show how even presenting facts in a certain
way is enough to completely skew the type & tone of the message.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
There are surely many govt agencies spreading misinformation - no argument.

But the article is about a group trying to support open communication,
dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric. It exists, its the
army(!) doing it, and its newsworthy. Calling it 'propaganda' doesn't make it
false or wrong.

Btw just say what you want to say. No need to play 'he meant/she meant'.

~~~
danssig
>But the article is about a group trying to support open communication,
dispelling rumors and trying to tone down the rhetoric.

The implication is that the communication is not open, but propaganda. This is
almost certainly the case and even if it isn't at this second it will be. How
can we assume the people "dispelling rumors" even know the truth?

------
DavidAdams
Reminds me of that famous XKCD comic, only someone is doing it as a job:
<http://xkcd.com/386/>. "Duty Calls" indeed. I wonder however whether we
should be heeding that great and wise axiom, which I believe it was Sun Tzu
who originally said: "don't feed the trolls." Nobody has been able to talk
Glenn Beck out of his idiotic ideas, and the fact that there are people out
there "engaging" with his fans with true facts doesn't seem to do anything but
feed their persecution complex. This could very possible be a waste of time at
best, and fanning the flames at worst.

