3 ms·
This is a call for grey propaganda tactics. i.e. dissemination of accurate information through third-party channels to hide attribution (the idea being that pub
by photochemsyn 3y ago
This is a call for grey propaganda tactics. i.e. dissemination of accurate information through third-party channels to hide attribution (the idea being that public trust in such third-party speakers is higher than trust in the actual source):
> "The Air Force and the joint force should work through nongovernmental organizations to debunk disinformation."
Black propaganda is defined similarly, only the information being spread is deliberately inaccurate. (White propaganda is accurate information delivered directly from the source, but only painting a limited picture of the actual situation, such as reporting all military victories but keeping quiet about defeats).
Disinformation, in contrast, is a murky poorly defined term that apparently means little more than 'things we don't like to see on social media'. It doesn't even distinguish between partial truths and outright lies.
- jruohonen 3y agoI agree that the whole terminology is a huge mess. But I think the same applies for propaganda-related terminology. As for debunking, I am little skeptical about the prospects of the so-called whole society approaches. In particular, state-NGO relations undermine the whole concept of non-governmental organizations. The end result may be a loss of trust in NGOs. A similar point applies to state-media relations. If state actors want to do debunking or counter-propaganda, they might be better off with the approach East StratCom Task Force (ESTF) has taken, i.e. keeping media and NGOs doing their own stuff. EDIT: Apparently also people from EDMO and the like are contributing to ESTF's efforts, so the lines have already been blurred in Europe.