On the heels of this: http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... hp?t=53932

We have this: http://politics.slashdot.org/article.pl ... 31/0429256

what out Onion!

I don't think this means what you think it means.

Basically they just hired a PR firm. There is no evidence other than the crafty use of quotation marks by the BBC that the DOD will be lying to the media, or influencing the media to print lies any more than they currently do.

In fact, if you look at that BBC article linking to from /. you can see why the pentagon would want to establish a team like that. Simple things like putting quotes around words like "inaccurate" and "develop messages" and using words like "exploit" can change the contextual meaning to whatever slant the author of the article wishs to put on the news story. The Pentagon should be allowed to defend itself in the court of public opinion just like the press and public should be allowed to criticize it there.

And this thread will likely meet the same fate as that one.

What, 200+ views and 20 replies? I'm not sure I get your point.

I meant ending with the conclusion that this is probably not the big, devious conspiracy that it was initially made out to be.

The government should not hire a PR firm...ever heard of the fourth estate? People should be able to make up their own minds based on freely available information that isn't tied to the influence and money of the government (US or otherwise).

And, see here for some more information on past activities...just involving the current Iraqi conflict http://refuseandresist.org/dt/archives/ ... ernmen.php

Why not? What about politics and government is not INHERENTLY PR-based? It's either hire an outside firm, or hire an inside consultant. What's teh difference? What do you think the White House Press Secretary does for a living?

Answering questions on behalf of elected members of the government to prevent verbal slip-ups and give them time for other duties are one thing, hiring a third party to create positive articles and inject them covertly into publications in a concerted information warfare effort is another.

Who is to judge the impartiality (is that a word?) of the press or any “freely available information”? Who controls that information?

You claim the government/military is capable of manipulating the press and should be prevented from doing so. I agree. BUT, if you recognize that the press can be manipulated by the government, then you must admit that it can be manipulate by others as well, and if we recognize and admit that the press can be biased then we must also recognize that it most likely is biased.

Please don't get hung up on whom it's biased towards, I don't claim it either way. The simple fact that the press can be biased by editor's opinions, advertising dollars, etc, means that both sides of a story should be allowed to be presented and that may include, like in this case, the views of the US Military. And remember, just because the Pentagon puts out a briefing with it's side of some controversy, doesn't mean it will ever get published.

What you are claiming is that the government has no right to defend it's actions in the court of public opinion. That's a little absurd.