The brainiac authors suggest that a US response "include the use of a wider range of information warfare capabilities, then jamming, corrupting, degrading, destroying, usurping, or otherwise interfering with the ability of the propagandists to broadcast and disseminate their messages."
I think they plagiarized that plan.
It sounds to me like something that was written by some Soviet commissar deep in the throes of the old Cold War. That's when it was decided to build a massive network of high-power radio transmitters to jam the programming of the Voice of America. Real smart!
More seriously, though, Panasenko put his finger on a likely motive behind the report. He suggests it might be intended to "pull the wool over the eyes of the bosses while asking them for greater budget allocations."
That's it, I think. There is no Russian propaganda threat. Russia has no monopoly on the "firehoses of falsehoods" that exist in the world.
This is all about creating a bogeyman threat to justify seeking appropriations to beef-up America's own propaganda initiatives. What a waste.
Would a bigger and better American firehose of falsehood really help anyone? I think it would only make matters worse.
(Article changed on October 1, 2016 at 21:20)
(Article changed on October 1, 2016 at 21:22)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
