
Winning the Information War - brakmic
http://cepa.org/reports/winning-the-Information-War
======
rosalinekarr
Maybe the first step in fighting against disinformation is to stop calling it
and thinking of it as an, "Information War," as if it's something with sides
that's meant to be won.

The news these days is all about "fake news" and how we need stop it, but none
of those information outlets seem to acknowledge the bias and falsehood in
their own reporting. That's not to say there isn't terrible misinformation on
the internet, but all this media buzz regard it seems like an overreaction
which could lead down a dangerous road of censorship itself. If the goal
really is to advance the truth, then shouldn't the best way of doing that be
to focus on telling the truth rather than on silencing those not?

When ever I hear journalists saying we can stop misinformation by quashing all
those other journalists telling lies, all I can think of is soldiers insisting
we can reach world peace if only we could just kill all our "war-mongering"
enemies.

~~~
mythrwy
There has been misinformation on the internet ever since the internet first
started. And before that National Enquirer at check out stands throughout
America.

It's a problem now why? Maybe because people didn't do what major media wanted
and this is alarming?

The fact there is a such an outcry about "fake news" lately bothers me a lot
more than the existence of fake news.

~~~
Retra
It's a problem because "major media says X" doesn't imply that there's some
big corrupt cabal of conspirators that would unfairly benefit from X, but a
huge number of people seem to think that's exactly what it means.

~~~
lj3
That's the weakest argument in favor of censorship I've ever seen.

~~~
Retra
It's not an argument for anything.

------
kurthr
If the commons of national agreement on truth, reality, and facts can be
disrupted then democracy, as an effective tool of government, is largely over.

 _If there is one common thread in the Kremlin’s many narratives it is the use
of conspiratorial discourse and a strategic use of disinformation to trash the
information space, break trust, increase polarization and undermine the public
space for democratic debate: This is a war on information rather than an
“information war.”_

~~~
mythrwy
This is why it's important to be able to trust the government. For this to
happen, the government (and government friendly media) must not be in the
habit of breaking trust.

Anne Applebaum and the other contributes to this piece blame the Russians for
fracturing the agreement on truth in the West but I feel it much more likely
that the Washington Post (for whom Applebaum writes) and the State Department
(among others) have a much greater share of the blame in the mistrust. Case in
point, the huge number of stories in Washington Post promoting the second Iraq
war. Or more recently, the Hillary promotion and Trump slamming campaign. I
saw a very apt name for Washington Post in a comment section "Pravda on the
Potomac".

They really should clean up their act and stop the (obviously not working at
this point) propaganda before pointing fingers.

~~~
woodandsteel
Putin would like it if everyone thought his government is just great, but he
knows he can't get that to happen. So what he is doing instead is having his
internet propaganda organization push the line that you can't trust any
information source. That has the added benefit that if citizens give up
deciding what to believe, then they will become apathetic and democracies will
collapse, which would be very useful for his goals.

As for the Washington Post, I don't think it is always correct, but I do
believe that it usually is sincerely trying to get at the truth.

~~~
mncharity
> usually is sincerely trying to get at the truth

Good intentions are neither good outcomes nor good conduct. Incentives seem to
trump intentions, and seem poorly aligned with the public interest.

Is this WP version[1] less bad than the LA Times version[2]? Yes. And it's in
the entertainment, not the business section. But they still published it. And
to be fair to the author, "Hollywood" is good at this game, and regularly
suckers some journalist, sometimes quite senior ones, into doing one of these.
But they still published it. And to be fair to Hollywood, a former Obama White
House official described them as "extremists are people who talk only among
themselves". But they still published it.

"Pravda on the Potomac" and "it usually is sincerely trying to get at the
truth", do not seem necessarily inconsistent observations.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/with-
chan...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/with-change-at-
the-top-of-copyright-office-a-battle-brews-over-free-
content/2016/11/07/a8c0b140-a4ea-11e6-8042-f4d111c862d1_story.html) [2]
[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-copyright-
office-20161...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-copyright-
office-20161109-story.html)

------
xnull2guest
The article is so heavily handed in its one-sided condemnation of adversary
nations, and the author refuses to look at the disinformation activities of
his fatherland (besides saying it isn't doing enough and needs to "up its
game").

Being candid about the abuse of information on all sides is a REQUIRED first
step to discussing Information Warfare in a sensible way. Not doing it
immediately introduces cherrypicking, and gives the impression to readership
that there is one-sided activity that requires a one-sided response. This
itself is disinformation.

I'm not sure we could expect anything else from a career propagandist (Peter
Pomerantsev, the author) and think trying to start conceptualizing the
propaganda war by reading in some serious way such particularly strategized
output from a propagandist is a poor manner to start.

~~~
kurthr
I'm confused by the mention of "refuses to look at the disinformation
activities of his fatherland"... Peter Pomerantsev was born in Russia so I
think you mean that he is too critical of their nouveau-agitprop techniques.

I don't love all the author's work, but it's hard to claim he doesn't know
about modern disinformation or hasn't suggested that both sides do it.

[https://pando.com/2015/05/17/neocons-2-0-the-problem-with-
pe...](https://pando.com/2015/05/17/neocons-2-0-the-problem-with-peter-
pomerantsev/)

------
squozzer
All of this Putin-phobia -- maybe justified -- is giving me a 1984 moment.
He's starting to take on an Emmanuel Goldstein aura in the US.

Disinformation exposes weaknesses in trust, it does not create them.

Keep in mind the phrase, "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you
read", was popular before I was excreted from the bowels of the mid-20th
century.

The term "yellow journalism" pre-dates the 20th century.

And while we can find some admirable examples where journalism discarded its
proclaimed "focus on facts" to support a noble cause, and accelerate progress,
a price had to be paid sometime down the road.

Because once you break trust on the facts, people will naturally question when
you will break trust on intent.

------
SRSposter
Cant really complain about exposing corruption

~~~
kurthr
If the goal of exposing corruption is only to bring down one government and
replace it with a kleptocracy defined by corruption... then yes, you can
complain about asymmetric unproven claims of corruption.

For example the criminal next door who has evaded $100k in fines for dangerous
antisocial activities (ie drove above the speed limit to work for the last 10
years) can't be trusted!

