5 Responses to Sock Puppeteers

1. Teddy Partridge October 3rd, 2008 at 1:49 pm 1

   Flying mighty close to the edge, I’d say (if anyone really pays attention to these things):

   While U.S. law prohibits the use of government money to direct propaganda at U.S. audiences, the “statement of work” included in the proposal, written by the U.S. Joint Contracting Command in Iraq, notes the need to “communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e. Iraqi, pan-Arabic, International, and U.S. audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of [U.S. and Iraqi government] core themes and messages.”

   Reply
2. Ari October 3rd, 2008 at 2:40 pm 2

   How is this not over the edge?

   Reply
3. SunnyNobility October 3rd, 2008 at 3:30 pm 3

   When the “strategic audiences” you’re planning to “engage and inspire” include US audiences, IMO you’re no longer close to the edge.

   Three hundred million dollars used to be a big hunk of change.

   On Aug. 21, the day before bids on the new contract were closed, the solicitation was reissued to replace repeated references to information and psychological operations with the term “media services.“

   Contractors will also develop and maintain Web sites; assess news articles in the Iraqi, U.S. and international media; and determine ways to counter coverage deemed negative, according to the contract solicitation the government posted in May. Polls and focus groups will be used to monitor Iraqi attitudes under a separate three-year contract totaling up to $45 million.

   The Pentagon’s solicitation for bids on the contracts noted that media items produced “may or may not be non-attributable to coalition forces.”

   WTF kind of language is “may not be non-attributable”?

   This article spoke of a congressional hearing last month. No specifics.

   Reply
4. SunnyNobility October 3rd, 2008 at 3:39 pm 4

   Ari, this involves a major policy issue. Diary should be on the recommended list or it should be expanded to a front page article.

   I want to know more about the hearing referenced in the WaPo article.

   Reply
5. SunnyNobility October 3rd, 2008 at 5:00 pm 5

   Lest I be misunderstood, when I said no longer close to the edge, I meant over, beyond, past the edge.

   Though the amount of money itself is huge, a more worrisome question is whether it includes funds to oppose US citizens’ views that differ from those of the defense dept. Obviously, use of the web is contemplated.

   If it were primarily (or even significantly) an above-board professional pr campaign, it’s odd recipients are all obscure military contractors.
   Could the mission description encompass interfering with progressive US blogs and web sites?

   Reply