More evidence miliary hiring bloggers

[HamdenRice]

This was reported on Democracy Now and Think Progress, and there is a post about it in GD:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3087631

Military report: secretly ‘recruit or hire bloggers.’

Noah Shachtman at Danger Room finds a 2006 report written for U.S. Special Operations Command that suggests ways the military should deal with the blogosphere. One suggestion is for the military to hire bloggers to “pass the U.S. message“:

Information strategists can consider clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers or other persons of prominence…to pass the U.S. message. … On the other hand, such operations can have a blowback effect, as witnessed by the public reaction following revelations that the U.S. military had paid journalists to publish stories in the Iraqi press under their own names. People do not like to be deceived, and the price of being exposed is lost credibility and trust.

An alternative strategy is to “make” a blog and blogger. The process of boosting the blog to a position of influence could take some time, however, and depending on the person running the blog, may impose a significant educational burden, in terms of cultural and linguistic training before the blog could be put online to any useful effect. Still, there are people in the military today who like to blog.

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/31/military-report-secretly-recruit-or-hire-bloggers/

[Grateful for Hope]

1. While I do think that this practice goes on

this article does not provide proof that it does. It is instead, a series of suggestions.

[HamdenRice]

2. It is one more bit of evidence, as here ---->

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x176008

On Saturday, the NY Times published a story confirming that the federal government has hired people to debate in on-line forums. This particular disclosure concerned a State Department blog team that debates Islamic issues on Islamic oriented web forums.

According to the article, these bloggers identify themselves as members of the State Department and confine themselves of Muslim/Arab issues.

The article did not address whether other departments, such as the defense and intelligence agencies, also hire on line debaters to push the Bush administration perpsective or disrupt discussion of other issues, such as 9/11, nor whether federal agencies sponsor on-line debaters who do not identify themselves as such.

Curious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/22/washington/22bloggers.html?_r=2&ref=middleeast&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

...

The discussion tacked back and forth for four days, one of many such conversations prompted by scores of postings the State Department has made on about 70 Web sites since it put its two Arab-American Web monitors to work last November.

[Grateful for Hope]

3. I do remember this thread, HR

And, in my mind, there is no doubt that there are paid posters on blogs. It's just that I wish this newest article had offered more proof than simply that it has been suggested.

Thanks for posting this, BTW.

[Sweet Pea]

4. Paid Posters?

I too have heard that, but I still maintain that would be some of the worst - and dumbest - spent money, ever. Meaning that yes, the federal gubmint might well be doing that, but on a larger scale? I still doubt it. There are better ways to try and influence public opinion than get "paid" to debate in online fora.

Just my two cents worth.

[AZCat]

5. "My two cents worth."

Is that all you get paid per post? You need to renegotiate your contract. Let me know if you want to switch departments - I've done the paperwork once or twice and can help you out (NWO Form TK-421 is a doozy).

[SDuderstadt]

6. I am now up to $1.25 a post

I think I made the "NWO Hall of Fame"!

[AZCat]

7. I knew the budget was being blown by someone.

I figured it was the "discretionary" budget, but it turns out you are the reason we didn't meet our first quarter budget targets! Hasn't your handler limited your sockpuppets yet? I was limited to three per forum once I hit $0.75 per post. Of course, I had just broken up with Nancy down in operations (the blonde - you know her) so I wasn't on the best of terms with management. At least I didn't get fired. I heard about the last guy who was - it took his family six months to get the DNA samples confirmed from the "accident".

[SDuderstadt]

8. Damn it...

quit giving away all the details of our secret operations.

[Sweet Pea]

9. That's....

two Euro cents, so its actually about a nickel's worth of advice.

[jberryhill]

10. Euro cents

Dang... I have GOT to get me one of those foreign assignments.

[Bryan Sacks]

11. Do you guys realize how idiotic you sound?

Few believe you're paid agents, but stop with the protesting so much, would you?

[SDuderstadt]

12. It's called satire, B.S.

Perhaps you've heard of it.


P.S. I just realized how apropos your initials are.

[Bryan Sacks]

14. that's satire?

keep working on it.

[SDuderstadt]

17. I knew it would go over your head nt

[Bryan Sacks]

30. not satire, dudey. Sarcasm. n/t

[AZCat]

13. Do you realize that we don't give a shit what you think? n/t

[Bryan Sacks]

16. That's observably false

You care what I think. If you didn't, you could send your clever satirical messages to one an other via secure email.

And you DO look idiotic. The singularity of purpose, the tirelessness: it fits the profile. That's all I see being said.

Payment by government is not the issue, AZCat. The compelling aspect of this is that the behavior of many on this forum is difficult to distinguish from the kind of behavior expected from an employee. That is one charge that cannot be credibly leveled against your foils.

[SDuderstadt]

18. WTF?

"The compelling aspect of this is that the behavior of many on this forum is difficult to distinguish from the kind of behavior expected from an employee"


Actually, we keep asking for proof of your goofy claims and you guys just fold.

[Bryan Sacks]

20. 'You guys?'

you ain't referring to me, fella. There's no claim I've made here I can't (and haven't, ad nauseum) backed up when pressed.

The obsessive debunker focus on debunking goofy claims (while studiously avoiding serious discussion of the far more plausible and equally serious claims of foreknowledge, suppression of counterterrorism efforts, allied funding of the plot and the symbiotic relationship with terrorist groups at the level of deep politics) is one compelling aspect of the behavior I refer to.

The oppositional attitude of the debunking crew has infected their ability to think critically, ironically in supposed service of same. In that respect, they are the analogue of their (tin) foils, the incorrigible delusionals who see things that aren't there.

[SDuderstadt]

28. I'll match my critical thinking skills against yours anyday, bud

Please give an example of the "studiously avoiding serious discussion of the far more plausible and equally serious claims of foreknowledge, suppression of counterterrorism efforts, allied funding of the plot and the symbiotic relationship with terrorist groups at the level of deep politics".

How is our focus "obsessive" by debunking goofy claims? And I'd doubt seriously that there is not a single claim you've made that you haven't backed up to a standard of proof necessary to prove your claims.

[Bryan Sacks]

29. search function, please

Please give an example of the studious avoidance, you say? There have been several threads in the list couple of years on which a discussion of those sorts of claims occurred, and not a peep was heard from the debunker crew, despite invitation after invitiation to weigh in. Lend me your search privilege and I'll gladly search to find them. Perhaps some others here who share my view will take it on.

As to the second point, perhaps you didn't mean to, but you distorted what I said. I said I have made no claims I haven't backed up WHEN PRESSED to. We all make claims, all the time, that are not adequately backed up each time we make them. It would be hard to speak otherwise. When pressed to prove a claim, I don't avoid it.

Anyway, the burden of proof here lies with you here, as it does with me on the above claim.

[SDuderstadt]

31. I was speaking about whether the "proof" you supply...

under ANY circumstances (pressed or not) rises to the level necessary to dispositively prove something. Also, if you'd notice, I said "I'd doubt" which puts this more in the category of an opinion rather than an assertion of fact.

[jberryhill]

32. I've been invited to play cricket, too

However, cricket's not my game.

My background is in engineering. I have an undergraduate degree in engineering with a minor in physics, and two graduate degrees in material science related aspects of electrical engineering. If you want to talk about physics, materials, complex electrical systems, modeling, simulation... that sort of stuff.... that's the stuff I enjoy discussing recreationally, and that's the stuff I discuss here in the DUngeon.

Absolutely, there are all sorts of connections between US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, the rambling wreck of the House of Saud, Mujaheddin, and there is utterly no mystery to the fact that, as documented by Richard Clarke, there was every reason to believe that there was foreknowledge of an impending attack. Buttressing your theories of those truly fascinating topics in which I have no qualifications to opine with any authority, by hitching the 911truth.org wagon to the likes of inane physical theories of the type promoted by Gage, Jones, Griffin et al. is a tremendously dopey thing to do.

Your primary complaint seems to be that nobody's interested in arguing with you. Is that it? That's why you are compelled to claim that those who are intrigued by picking over nonsensical physical theories "fit the profile" of paid military bloggers?

Uh, yeah, I get that reasoning.

[jberryhill]

19. "it fits the profile"

...and indeed the entire point of the OP, in this forum, is to suggest that paid agents are carrying out extra special seekrit operayshuns on DU. Ooooohhhh, aren't we important and brave here.

If I wanted to look idiotic, I'd say things like "there were no airphones on AA in 2001" on the basis of a phone call made to AA some years later. And if I wanted to look Extra Super Idiotic, I'd continue to repeat that "fact" even after being notified of the fact that AA removed airphones from their fleet in 2002.

If I wanted to look idiotic, I might take the documentary work of photographer Sam Hollenshead, who was employed by a union organization to take photographs of the work of union steelworkers in the WTC site cleanup, and I would claim that his photograph of the handiwork of those steelworkers in cutting and removing material provides proof of controlled demolition.

If I wanted to look only mildly idiotic, I would sit on the board of an organization which promotes the work of the aforesaid other two idiots.

Of course, if I merely wanted to make Democrats look like idiots, I would hitch the loony wagon to a Democratic discussion site.

Look up "pissers for McGovern" sometime. Yeah, folks get paid for that kind of thing.

[Bryan Sacks]

21. yeah, if you wanted to look idiotic, you might say those things

but protesting too much works, too.

I do have one question on the Hollenshead photos, since I'm not familiar with this point of contention. Is your claim that Hollenshead only took pictures of the handiwork of steelcutters because that, after all, is what he was employed to do, and thus any reference to his work to support CD (which I don't and never have, by the way) is thereby incorrect?

From your post, it's not clear what you are saying. I'm sure you can see that the reason he was hired is not by itself proof that the only pictures he took were of the handiwork of steelcutters. You likely have some other form of evidence that the picture in question depicts the work of steelcutters, yes ?

[greyl]

22. It's possible to protest too much about those who post in rebuttal to idiocy.

A campaign of infiltrating a discussion board with the aim of destroying its credibility should be at least two-pronged. One prong posts idiocy, while the other prong attacks members of the forum who counteract the idiocy.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jberryhill]

23. Yes

You likely have some other form of evidence that the picture in question depicts the work of steelcutters, yes ?


You mean other than the steelworker standing in the pit next to the column?

Yes, Bryan, I've even corresponded with Hollenshead on the subject, unlike your "researchers" who, when seeking to make something out of a photograph, don't bother to figure out who took it, when, why, or what else was in the same sequence of pictures. Posted a thread on the topic here.

But if I wanted to look like an idiot, I'd just keep my wagon hitched to Griffin, Jones, Gage, and the others who continue to recycle invincibly ignorant nonsense like that as "proof".

[Bryan Sacks]

24. 'your researchers?'

My wagon is hitched to none of them, so again I am reminded of the time-wasting aspect of discussion in this forum.

Focusing on nonsense, muddying the waters, trying to make guilty by association: that's what ruins a discussion.

[jberryhill]

26. "trying to make guilty by association"

You have your invalid tactics mixed up. The one you are looking for is called "poisoning the well". You know, that's where you jump into a thread about paid military bloggers for the purpose of pointing out that others "fit the profile". That sort of thing.

Keep it up. With matching funds for my retirement plan, this thread'll make me rich.

So, fine, you aren't associated with the continued repetitive mis-use of that photograph by people who haven't done any actual research into it. Tell us about your research into it, since you questioned my own effort to contact the actual photographer for more information about it.

[AZCat]

27. That's a horrible argument.

Why would we chat over email when we can do it right here? The messages are not for you, Brian. In fact, you weren't even present on this thread until you decided to play "mommy".

[SidDithers]

15. $CDN for me...

love that petroloonie :)

Sid