4 ms·

I like how the article failed to mention the most obvious example. The military backed out support for the movie Independence Day because they didn't want to f

I like how the article failed to mention the most obvious example. The military backed out support for the movie Independence Day because they didn't want to feed conspiracy nonsense about hiding aliens at area 51. Clearly this is a propaganda effort to bend the truth into a lie..... right? I also like how the article never mentioned military supported movies that indicate dishonorable conduct like Invisible War and The General's Daughter. I think all these very obvious omissions were intentional because the article is wanting to indicate some level of propaganda. Tipping its toe into the pool of conspiracy foolishness. * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_Day_(1996_film) * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Invisible_War * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General%27s_Daughter_(film... EDIT: I have rethought this comment (slow day at work). I do not mean to say the article is completely invalid. The fact of the matter is that the military holds trademarks over most of its common insignia, military bases are private property, and its personnel are employees. It has the right to offer or withhold any of its assets as it deems much like private entities. That said the military has the right to disqualify commentary or stories negatively without qualification. I believe the word for this is disparagement. You can be negative about the military and still receive military support, but it must be qualified. My personal opinion on the matter is the military does shape how it is perceived by the public through entertainment. It does shape that narrative. This has the potential to hint at, though very lightly, something resembling propaganda but I strongly believe this is not the intent. If the public wanted the most accurate and realistic portrayal of the military they would receive their view of that world from journalism or documentaries. This isn't want the public generally wants though. They want entertainment and all the suspended disbelief that comes with it. If you believe this is unfair then choose books as your source of fiction on military interests, which don't appear to have any such manipulation. In full disclosure I am a warrant officer in the US Army.

malchow 9y ago
Agree. Not to mention the most obvious point: actual military cooperation hasn't been needed –– not in many years –– in order to show giant explosions, cool jets, or slick military bases. I don't think I've ever read a FOIA-based article with a worse signal to noise ratio. I hope the authors, who are based in London and Bath, find something worth writing about soon or they may go insane from CIA BRAIN WAVES.
youdontknowtho 9y ago
The department of defense actually has a group that produces favorable news pieces for local news. Can't remember the name of it. After Vietnam they made some decisions about how and when they would deal with the media. Journo's "embed" with troops. Staff officers give commentary on cable news. We don't see bodies of American's or anyone else. No one pushes back on the idea that "smart bombs" still kill bystanders. Don't even get me started on the whole "special forces can do anything" message that they have been pushing for years. One of the problems is that any level of criticism is immediately taken out of all proportion. All of that being said...Warrant officer? That's cool. Like helicopters and stuff? I'm an Air Force brat.
Chardok 9y ago
"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny." From the article even documentaries aren't safe. Also from the article, they have censored any reference to military suicides, which is certainly very real and quantifiable. In my opinion, though, public relations should not be something the military should be actively engaging in. They are not a private entity nor a corporation, so why treat them as such?

malchow 9y ago

Agree. Not to mention the most obvious point: actual military cooperation hasn't been needed –– not in many years –– in order to show giant explosions, cool jets, or slick military bases. I don't think I've ever read a FOIA-based article with a worse signal to noise ratio. I hope the authors, who are based in London and Bath, find something worth writing about soon or they may go insane from CIA BRAIN WAVES.

youdontknowtho 9y ago

The department of defense actually has a group that produces favorable news pieces for local news. Can't remember the name of it. After Vietnam they made some decisions about how and when they would deal with the media. Journo's "embed" with troops. Staff officers give commentary on cable news. We don't see bodies of American's or anyone else. No one pushes back on the idea that "smart bombs" still kill bystanders. Don't even get me started on the whole "special forces can do anything" message that they have been pushing for years. One of the problems is that any level of criticism is immediately taken out of all proportion. All of that being said...Warrant officer? That's cool. Like helicopters and stuff? I'm an Air Force brat.

Chardok 9y ago

"The CIA even sabotaged a planned series of documentaries about their predecessor, the OSS, by having assets at CBS develop a rival production to muscle the smaller studio out of the market. Once this was achieved, the Agency pulled the plug on the CBS series too, ensuring that the activities of the OSS remained safe from public scrutiny." From the article even documentaries aren't safe. Also from the article, they have censored any reference to military suicides, which is certainly very real and quantifiable. In my opinion, though, public relations should not be something the military should be actively engaging in. They are not a private entity nor a corporation, so why treat them as such?