Michael Innes (bio) references some fascinating material in a roundup of posts related to the analysis of the Hezbollah telecom network (map) and the use of the media by terrorist entities.
Brigitte Nacos (bio) short essay on Media Power and Terrorists earns a mention and is worthy of a full read:
Once upon a time, Karl Marx assigned power to those who own the means of production. Today it’s safe to say that power is in the hands of those who either own the means of communication or otherwise manage to communicate their messages directly to their target publics. Governments and influential interest groups have always understood this, and so have terrorists. This point was once again driven home in the latest clash between the Lebanese government and its backers and Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that has actually grown into a mighty guerilla and de facto ruling force. While Hezbollah’s own al-Manar television and radio networks carried the threats and hard-line rhetoric of Hezbollah’s leader Sheik Nassan Nasrallah, the organization’s fighters silenced the Sunni majority party by taking its television station off the air and setting its newspaper offices on fire.
Brigitte is right. Governments have always understood this. However, few governments seem to translate that understanding into competent and timely action as successfully as your average terrorist:
To a large degree, though, the U.S. military cannot be blamed for being caught off-guard by their enemy’s sophistication in managing the way battles and campaigns are perceived. In the past two decades, insurgent, terrorist, and guerrilla groups in the Middle East have grown exponentially more sophisticated in the way they use the media available to them in order to affect the way battles are perceived. From the perspective of someone who studies military innovation, it is a remarkable achievement.
Huge advantages in this war, especially the propaganda component, will be secured by the nimble and those who understand that the channels of communication extend far beyond the old media. Our understanding of this has advanced significantly since 2003 but there are still gaps. And, again, understanding has to translate into change or it’s useless. Bureaucracy sucks the life out of anything that requires immediacy and forcefulness. It fears change and fights it at all costs. So even relatively simple concepts like these take root slowly because the roots of bureaucracy and stupidity are set stronger and much deeper:
I note that the US government because of ‘budgetary shortfalls’ is forced to fire analysts in Radio Free Europe/Free Liberty. Those receiving pink slips are apparently to include RFE/RL analysts Daniel Kimmage and Kathleen Ridolfo authors of important reports on Iraqi insurgent use of media The War of Images and Ideas and Al Qaeda’s use of the Internet The Virtual Network Behind the Global Message.
I really don’t get this administration. Actually I do get something: six years into the GWOT they still haven’t got a clue about the nature of the war they are in. It’s not just the ignorance which galls its the studied, committed blindness and warped priorities which they exhibit. RFE/RL’s annual budget is $79 million. By comparison that kind of money would buy you about one half of a single F-22–pilot and fuel not included.
It’s going to be a long war and we’re going to need every bit of it to complete the transformation required to fight and win.
Trackback this Post:Right Click for URL
Filed Under:
Terrorism, Media, Lebanon
May 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
As a Vietnam war Marine Corps Veteran I would like all of you to read the book about NVA General Giap. An American General once stated to him, You never defeated us on field of battle. His reply, Thats beside the point, We defeated you with the media and on college campuses…We had the war one in the TET offesive in 1968. Every gain the NVA made was taken back. That was the last great attempt to defeat us and make us withdraw and on the battlefield it failed. Yet our media had Americans believing it was defeat for us, And so it became. Now once again Islamic fanatics are using the media and People such as Obama and the wimpy democrats in Washington to withdraw, run, Hide..What a bunch of wimps.. I am a former warrior and I will never surrender or retreat. Duty, Honor, Country…..Stan, Combat Veteran of Vietnam War.. U.S.M.C. Semper Fi!
May 19th, 2008 at 7:00 am
I am an American writer and communicator based in the Middle East for nearly 30 years and have been a close observer of the rise of Islamic extremism and the catastrophic results of American military misadventures in the region. The problem is that American policymakers live in a blind, isolationist, beltway stupor fed by corporate media that neutralizes true dissent.
There is plenty of reporting out there. Reality is talking to us 24 hours a day. But this blizzard of information, news reports, data, surveys and statistics is so heavy that ordinary people may be blinded to what all the reality emerging from the silence actually means.
At the moment there is what journalist and educator S.A. Schleifer calls ‘a dangerous shortcoming within mainstream media’ which he characterizes as ‘the limits of empathy’. According to Schleifer there are two ways one can cover news – the first is detailed, general news coverage of many aspects of society which forms a multi-dimensional, holistic picture of a nation or region that depicts the society in human terms that elicits empathy. This is the kind of media exposure the developed world – North America, Europe, Japan and now China – routinely gets. The second way is what Schleifer calls Catastrophe Coverage – natural disasters, riots, assassinations, revolutions, wars, plagues, famines – which is what the rest of the world gets. This kind of unbalanced, editorially selective approach to newsgathering and reporting militates against the extension of empathy. In the rush to cover catastrophes there is very little time spent in looking at the religious, social, cultural, ethical and economic nuances and implications of a place or situation that can give the public real understanding of what is happening. Whole cultures are reduced to alien, exotic, forbidding and one-dimensional places, composed of villains and victims. There is no way for outsiders to grasp the meaning of what is actually going on in these places. There is no way of seeing an ongoing process at work. We only see flashpoints. There is no basis for empathy.
A War on Terror is, by definition transnational and trans-confessional. It cannot be a war against a specific religion because then it is no longer a war on terror. It is a war to win back the sanity. In order to win back sanity it is absolutely necessary to extend the limits of empathy. The news media is now almost totally owned by corporate interests. This is why New Media has assumed an increasing importance. Blogs like yours and mine can serve as platforms to encourage understanding and dialogue. These discussions are a small contribution but can be the beginning of something larger.
August 15th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Your blog is interesting!
Keep up the good work!