It’s a given that the current conflict is above all a media war. We’re fighting to change people’s perceptions and behavior, and attempting to do so without the level of violence that someone like Clauswitz was talking about when he said that “the object of war is to bend the enemy to your will”.
There are two debates going on right now around this. One involves media manipulation on both sides; one involves attempts to understand and ‘calibrate’ the level of violence we’d accept in the course of the combat in Iraq and Lebanon. I’ll talk about the latter in a bit.
In the first, there’s clear evidence that folks on the other side are managing the flow of information.
Start with this account from Anderson Cooper:
“This is a heavily orchestrated Hizbollah media event. When we got here, all the ambulances were lined up. We were allowed a few minutes to talk to the ambulance drivers. Then one by one, they’ve been told to turn on their sirens and zoom off so that all the photographers here can get shots of ambulances rushing off to treat civilians. That’s the story that Hizbollah wants people to know about.
These ambulances aren’t responding to any new bombings. The sirens are strictly for effect.”
Note the picture associated with the story:
Go read the story – it’s what a good journalist would be reporting along with the direct reporting of what’s being shown him or her.
Now go to the ‘Drinking From Home‘ blog, and note the two pictures – of the same woman, bewailing the destruction of two different buildings on two different days.
For grins, I’d love to get a better picture of the similarly-dressed (yes, I know many religious Muslim women wear similar garb) woman in the CNN picture above…wouldn’t it be interesting to see if she’s the same woman?
Rusty Shackelford goes on to show that the Reuters photographer Adnan Hajj manipulated photos of Israeli fighters (captioned as firing missiles when actually shooting off an antimissile flare), as well as Photoshopped pictures of the bombed Lebanese landscape.
It’s clear that Hizbollah – like Al Quieda in general, including the forces we’re fighting in Iraq – are fighting an information war, and do so consciously.
And, I’ll argue, it has an impact.
The perception in the media is, variously, that they are implacable fighters while our soldiers are brutal killers and our efforts harm mostly civilians.
This perception is powerful both in its impact on us and our perception of – and so decisions about – the war, and on their own population who are being asked to decide whether their reaction to Israeli bombs is rage at Hizbollah or Israel.
So how do we react?
Interestingly, it seems that we tried to, at least in Iraq.
Marc Lynch, blogging at Abu Aardvark, has a post reviewing a new U.S. Army monograph on “Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom — What Went Wrong?”
The root paper is interesting (and deserves a post of it’s own), but I want to focus on one of Marc’s conclusions (the second conclusion is also important, and I even agree – if we were funding the blossoming of news outlets in Iraq and then using it as a metric of success there are some possible serious problems there…):
First, if you recall the Lincoln Group fiasco, the problem there wasn’t that “good news” articles were being placed in the Iraqi press, or even that they were paying for play – it was that the origin of those articles was concealed to make it look like they came from Iraqis rather than from Americans. That’s a big no no. If the PSYOPS newspapers, radio and television stations were not clearly identified as American military outlets, and were presented as genuine Iraqi outlets, then it would be the Lincoln Group fiasco on a much larger scale… and carried out by the military itself and not by an amateurish, unqualified contractor. That’s a big “if”, and it is not clear from the report.
I’d wonder why, exactly, it’s such a big ‘no-no’, and welcome comments from Marc or others on that. My recollection is that it was a big ‘no-no’ because folks who were opposed to the war seized on it as evidence of American duplicity. I’m not sure how different the outcome would have been if the news had gone out under American bylines; they claim of duplicity would have simply been moved from the source to the content.
So on one hand, we’re getting rolled in the media by the oter side, and on the other, we seem to be precluded from managing newsflow because when we’re caught, it will be so embarassing that we’ll lose all credibility.
A challenging conundrum.
Why is it so challenging?
Well, I’ll go back to my earlier writing about the role of media and the citizenship obligations of journalists.
On one hand, their role is to see things and share them.
On the other, they are members of a polity who – to some extent – share the interests and goals of the polity.
As I’ve discussed, it’s not so clear that goal #1 – the search for the great image, soundbite, or lede – hasn’t completely eclipsed goal #2.
Edward R. Murrow seemed to do a pretty good job at seeing things and telling stories about them. He also didn’t seem to have a lot of trouble remembering which side he was on.
How do you think he’d have reacted when Hizbollah tried to stage-manage the news in front of him?
Why is it that so far, only one mainstream journalist has stood up on the issue? Maybe I’m undercounting – and God, I’d love to be wrong on this.
But if we allow the media to be managed against us – and here I’m not suggesting that the media are traitors, just that their perception of their job – as Mike Wallace put it – wasn’t to say “No,” Wallace said flatly and immediately. “You don’t have a higher duty. No. No. You’re a reporter!”.
Journalists whoring themselves to the Hezbo’s to gain brownie points from their bosses back home, and to keep on the good side of the jihadi’s?????
I’m shocked! Shocked I say!
NOT.
[See Eason Jordan for further details…]
The media war will not be decisive. Things are going to start moving faster:
I discuss the coming fall of the Syrian regime at:
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/08/syria-has-problem.html
Syria Has a Problem Its days are numbered.
There was a media expert on cable news this afternoon talking about this.
He pointed out that people should take a look at the headlines of the news stories today. From the Hezbollah side, we have the title “death of more innocents.” From the Israeli side, we have the title “Shoot down of a drone”
Hezbollah wins on days like this.
I would suggest that the Israelis need to come up with some way to pre-package this “death of the innocent” story in such a fashion that it has more impact than the Hezbollah story, and do this as soon as possible. Gun footage cameras are no match for dead babies.
Israel has a great number of military and diplomatic options to it, as I pointed out in the earlier post. If they could only manage their messages better, their position would be much improved. In America we have more sympathy for the Israelis because of 9-11, but the rest of the world has already bought into a Israelis=Nazis and Terrorists=Freedom Fighters narrative. It’s going to be hard work to change that. If Israel can just get people to _doubt_ that narrative, that would be progress.
This war is about to be won on the ground. From now on the media will be strictly a side show.
You have lost the thread.
Some decent points, but also a lot of mushy similes – “A is like B therefore…” when you don’t have the data to back it up.
Mushy, in other words.
a. “It’s given that the current conflict is above all a media war…”
Yes and no. Yes, certainly Hezbollah is attempting to control the media environment – that’s a given.
No, it is NOT “above all” a media war. A “media war” is a ratings war. A “media war” doesn’t leave over 1000 killed over the last month. That is an ACTUAL war, and it would behoove you not to abstract from that.
“one involves attempts to understand and ‘calibrate’ the level of violence we’d accept in the course of the combat in Iraq and Lebanon”.
These DIFFERENT COUNTRIES should not be mentioned together – while there may be some similarities, the people, the level of insurgencies, the populations, the foes – pretty much all relevant data about the two conflicts in Iraq and Lebanon are different, with different motivations and different justifications.
I’m seeing this on both the left and right regarding Lebanon, and both sides piss me off to no end right now.
Lebanon is NOT Palestine is NOT Iraq, is NOT Iran, etc.
I’ve been arguing in other leftie places how – in the Lebanese situation especially – there is a very clear threat to Israel, and how Hezbollah brought this on, by their aggression – without there being ANY type of actual reason for Hezbollah’s actions.
It isn’t a matter of land – Israel’s withdrawn.
It isn’t a matter of resources – Lebanon is a port country and has full access to the sea.
It’s pure bullshit, really, and a lot of people keep ignoring the crap that Hezbollah pulls, while concentrating only on the overreaction of Israel (of which there has been some, but not nearly enough to justify the EU or the some on the left’s vicious condemnation of Israel.)
The double standard is f$cked.
On the OTHER HAND – the right-tards group all of these conflicts together in the other direction – MORE WAR! MORE WAR! Israel is the United States! Iran is Iraq is Palestine is Syria is Lebanon!
And all there is, is getting their rocks off imaging WW3, fantasizing with the Weekly Standard in the bathroom, instead of doing the decent thing, and fantasizing with a Playboy or Penthouse.
“The perception in the media is, variously, that they are implacable fighters while our soldiers are brutal killers and our efforts harm mostly civilians.”
Examples, examples, examples.
Not that I’m disagreeing, mind you. But again, there is this ABSTRACTION WITHOUT FACTUAL PRESENTATION – that is such an IDIOCY – and right now, an idiocy on the right and the left. (I keep arguing from the REALITY-BASED community – but on Israel, that doesn’t seem to friggin’ exist, on either side…)
“This war is about to be won on the ground. From now on the media will be strictly a side show.”
Well, THAT statement is true. Don’t know if I agree with anything else M. Simon would ever say, but yes, definitely that.
Apologies for losing it in previous comment. People seem to have gone batsh1t insane, leading with CERTAINTIES they have no business holding.
HR said: “No, it is NOT “above all” a media war. A “media war” is a ratings war. A “media war” doesn’t leave over 1000 killed over the last month. That is an ACTUAL war, and it would behoove you not to abstract from that.”
Cigarettes are legal. Due to mass marketing and addiction, 1200 people died TODAY from smoking cigarettes. AQ and other terrorist organizations use the web, TV, and other media to recruit people every day. The United States is a democracy. Due to mass marketing, polls, and various message-manipulation tools, the voters of the last election brought GW back into office. Many have died as a result of this.
Media wars are REAL wars. There is no “declaring war” and fighting some other country into total victory. It’s all messages. If I could fashion a message that would send a million people rioting into the streets of Iran tomorrow and cause dozens of deaths, I would be launching an attack. Only it would be legal. Get used to it.
It’s amazing in a world where billions are spent on TV to get people to buy stuff that folks don’t think the media matters for much.
The purpose of the media war is to get a cease fire on Hizbollah terms. Another small slice of Israel.
Not going to happen.
#7 Daniel,
It only matters if you are in the market. Bush and Israel are not in a buying mood. Thus the media war is a side show.
I disagree (#9). If you think that Bush and Isreal do not care what their messages are, then why the UN resolution? Surely it is at least a misdirection. That’s manipulating the message.
Bush and the Israeli leader are also not the target market. Gee. That would be stupid. The word “marketing” and a market of 2 doesn’t work out. The primary target market is probably the Arab street. Arab government are scared to death of the street and will do anything to stop the coverage and instability. Another market is European voters, which will pressure European politicians to pressure leaders to get some sort of perceived progress taking place. Get the killings off of TV. A secondary market would be the American population, although it is admittedly a tougher bunch. But you can still pull 20 percent of the peaceniks and such that will be willing to create enough friction to at least make the Americans look confused and disorganized. Perhaps even uncaring, if you are lucky.
It’s also never just one thing. It’s not just Israel and Hezbollah: it’s how we work with other UN members, it’s how voters are going to respond moving up to the November elections, it’s how seriously Iran is going to take threats of sanctions. Manipulating the message is uber-important (and I can say this since I am a uber-commenter. I hope I get a free hat.)
Point 1: Most of the network news “Media” are forced into superficiality by the economic model of their business. They can’t present any news in-depth within their 2-minute-maximum spiel-span. I doubt if any of these people are even trained to think any deeper than the most convenient video bite. Edward R. Murrows these people are not. For network news reporters, the people who give them a tasty video bites reap the rewards of getting their view presented.
Don’t expect anything better from any of the major networks. Period.
Point 2: The Israelis have never really been all that concerned about world opinion (good for them!). They know where their (self-)interests lie, and it doesn’t include kowtowing to UN Security Council. But that lack of concern shows in their handling of the media. They’re losing the media war because they’re not media savy. Buzzzzzzt. Thank you for playing.
Point 3: No matter what Israel does, they will never score any points in the Arab world — Least of all with any Lebanese (and don’t buy into the line that Christians and the Druze will support the Israeli actions — because Israel air strategy has negatively affected *all* of Lebanon.
Point 4: Militarily, Hezbollah has acquitted itself better than anyone (including the Israelis) expected (except for that one fellow on this list who suggested that it would an Iwo Jima for the IDF — and he deserves kudos for his farsightedness). Although Hezbollah is being pushed back, they’re far from defeated. Heck, everyone likes an underdog — especially the little chihauhau fighting a pitbull to a standstill. It makes good copy, even if you’re an ally of the pitbull.
Disclaimer: I want to see Hezbollah wiped out. But Israel is in deeper sh*t than they expected. And I suspect they will have to re-evaluate their hardball strategies and tactics after this over. And whitewashing this ugly fact by blaming the media won’t help the Israelis…
–Beo
#10 Daniel,
To keep the French/American street pacified. i.e. it is part of the deception plan.
Look at how the French keep screwing up the deal. No accident.
The target market is the American and European street – to get them to pressure their governments for an end of the fighting at any price.
Not going to happen.
BTW A.L.,
You couldn’t be more wrong. It is not about the media war. it is about regime change in Syria and Iran. i.e. Clauzwitz. Politics by other means.
Iran and Syria have already been militarily defeated. It is all over but the shooting.
Read my stuff.
What most of you do not understand is that most Americans… (the ones who count) could care less about how many Islamic Terrorists are killed! We just wonder if you can include a few media types.
The Media War exists but it’s not very important.
Israel is fighting Hezbollah, Iran’s Goerring Legion, which is aiming to wipe out all Jews everywhere, particularly Israel.
Israel understands this, next time will be rockets tipped with Nukes or VX. Simple as that.
Hezbollah on the other hand hopes to widen the war with continued rocket attacks.
There is zero possiblity of any “peacekeeping” effort since no peacekeeping force can keep or rather make peace without destroying Hezbollah. Hezbollah has made it clear they plan on continual rocket attacks, and Israel has made it clear they will make Lebanon pay for that set of attacks.
Absent use of force (substitution of another nation(s) forces for Israel’s to destroy Hezbollah there is zero chance of “peace.”) So it matters not what the opinion of Europe is. America hates/loathes Muslims anyway (excepting for the Kossacks and Loose Change nutballs who run the Democratic Party) but who cares?
Dems since Jessie Jackson/Al Sharpton and various hard-Left outfits have had heaping helpings of anti-Semitism, big surprise Israel fighting back brings out the nutcases.
Simon –
You may get your wider war this fall (although one could wish you were less enthusiastic about it); it’s certainly one branch on the probability tree, and we’re closer to the branching point.
For myself, I’m dubious for a variety of reasons, some positive and some negative.
I continue to believe that there are outcomes that are neither regional war – because if Israel and Syria go at it in anything except a token way.
Israel can keep this up for some time. I don’t think Hizbollah can.
Jim – of course the media war matters the most; this isn’t full-blown combat with both parties completely committed. This is political message-sending, and the violence on both sides is carefully calibrated.
When it stops being carefully calibrated, then the media war will be over, and the full-blown war will have begin.
A.L.
hypocracy –
Did you see my post below, on the Sam Sheppard “play”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/008874.php we just saw?
The problem is that we’re fighting two faces of the same movement in Afganistan and Iraq; and that Israel is fighting another face of it in Lebanon.
You’re torn, because Israel’s conflict is easier to understand than ours – but it’s the same battle.
A.L.
beowulf88 (#11)
Point 1: The media are superficial. Point taken. This also means that they are easily led.
Point 2: Israelis don’t care about the media war. Yep. True enough.
Point 3: Lebanon and the Arabs are going to hate Israel no matter what. I agree short term and disagree long term.
Point 4: Hezbollah is tough. You said, “one fellow on this list who suggested that it would an Iwo Jima for the IDF — and he deserves kudos for his farsightedness”
Here we disagree. Hezbollah is well armed, sure. But Israel is comitting something like 10 thousand troops out of a force of a million. What’s that, something like 2 percent? Even with a long tail, it can’t be more than 10 percent It’s riddiculously small in terms of WWII. And the casualty figures are small as well. Hezbollah dreams that they are like the Japanese. So far, they are a poor imitation. More like a dumbed-down version of the Sopranos with cheap rocket launchers and a loud cheerleading contingent.
(you continue on about how tough it is for the Israelis) “And whitewashing this ugly fact by blaming the media won’t help the Israelis…”
This is the reason I’m writing this reply. You’ve hit this same point today on another thread. Let’s get this straight: powerful forces in the world are led by public opinion. Ergo, public opinion is a powerful force. The media is a swayer of public opinion (easily demonstrated by every commercial you ever saw on TV.)
There is a component to military action that is based on military parameters: strength of enemy, size of forces committed, strategic situation, tactical situation, etc. There is a component to military action that is opinion/media based. This is not an either/or situation. Both things must be considered. Israel has exercised certain military options available to them and attacked and slightly invaded Lebanon. This opens up more actions: for instance, commando teams operating in northern Lebanon would not seem that unusual and the existing action could support them. The _messages_, however, of dead Lebanese babies being pulled out of rubble is pressuring the UN to take some sort of action constraining Israel’s options.
Don’t confuse the two. Nobody is blaming the media for anything. There is no such thing as a truly military action any more. Even the Israelis, who seem to care less about the whole thing, will in the end be constrained by world opinion to some degree. Both the military situation and the media situation are fair game for discussion. My concern is that until we integrate the two into one kind of discussion, that we will continue to just look at one part and not the other. That sucks, because the two are intricately related — and that relationship is an important concept.
“Our soldiers”?
I am not among those disputing that the Media War is important. I think it is vital. However, there are at least 3 sides. They are:
1) Terrorist killers like Hizbollah, al-Queda and Hamas who are helped and supported by Lame Stream Media, left-wing Stalinists of A.N.S.W.E.R. and other left-wing anti-war frauds;
2) decent human beings with no media access who do not support killers as the media do;
3) Israel and it’s helpers in those blogs who are uncovering Reuters and other’s propaganda photos, etc.
The world media is MAINLY fighting for the Terrorists. More people see that each day. The results are that we are watching circulation decline very fast at the L.A. and N.Y. times, among others. We are also seeing dying networks, etc. for good reasons.
I believe that the Bush administration has been able to use the U.N.’s internal dynamics to delay, delay, delay successfully. Talk, talk, talk MAY CONTINUE to the end of this week and perhaps longer. We will see. The strategy shows political courage and intelligence, in my opinion. It is great to see the U.N. “hoist on it’s own talk, talk, talk, do nothing petard”.