Tweet
THE PENTAGON'S COMING EPIC FAIL
Joshua Foust
Registan.net
10/3/2009
Let's think about the Pentagon-funded propaganda channel
Al-Hurra. Originally conceived in 2004, it was meant to be an
Arabic-language counterpart to the supposed anti-Americanism of other
Middle Eastern-focused news channels, notably al-Jazeera. Ever since,
especially given its dismal ratings, the channel has faced criticisms
from all angles, whether Congress insisting it was still insufficiently
pro-America and pro-Israel, the GAO noting unacceptable management
and editorial practices, or, most recently, an investigation by the
State Department's Investigator General. In short, the channel has
been a failure at almost every level.
It was a major reason why skepticism ran high about the Pentagon's
Special Operations Command's Trans Regional Web Initiative, an attempt
to create and run regionally-oriented news sites in Russian, Chinese,
and the major Caucasian languages (Georgian, Armenian, Azeri). As
EurasiaNet correspondent Deirdre Tynan notes, skepticism runs high
about the initiative:
Experts and observers believe the initiative hypothetically has
merit. But they are questioning whether the Pentagon, its contractors
and subcontractors have the expertise and deft touch needed to
make information inroads in areas where there are deep reserves of
hostility and suspicion toward the use of American military power. Many
experts believe that existing US government-funded mass media outlets,
specifically Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(RFERL), have the capabilities and experience needed to achieve the
desired objectives.
"The initiative is not a bad idea in a general sense. But, given
the epic fail of the Pentagon's previous attempts to do this, I just
assume it will be clumsy," said Joshua Foust, military analyst and
blogger. "It's doubtful the Pentagon would allow these news outlets
[websites] to have editorial freedom and highlight US missteps."
Not to bela trength of RFE/RL and VOA is that they criticize American
actions. Even though they are not truly independent journalist
organizations, that kind of editorial freedom gives them a lot more
credibility than, say, the Pentagon Channel.
SOCOM's ownership of these websites does not bode well--even if they
wind to be capable news organizations, the fact that their funding
comes from the fracking special forces means they'll never attain
the kind of reputation and independence they'd need to fulfill their
stated purpose. Hell, VOA and RFE/RL still are viewed with tremendous
skepticism, especially inside Russia, and they've been at this for
literally decades. It's tough to know if they're effective, and they
have much more freedom to operate. How does SOCOM expect TRWI to be
effective? We don't really know. Don't hold your breath.
Joshua Foust
Registan.net
10/3/2009
Let's think about the Pentagon-funded propaganda channel
Al-Hurra. Originally conceived in 2004, it was meant to be an
Arabic-language counterpart to the supposed anti-Americanism of other
Middle Eastern-focused news channels, notably al-Jazeera. Ever since,
especially given its dismal ratings, the channel has faced criticisms
from all angles, whether Congress insisting it was still insufficiently
pro-America and pro-Israel, the GAO noting unacceptable management
and editorial practices, or, most recently, an investigation by the
State Department's Investigator General. In short, the channel has
been a failure at almost every level.
It was a major reason why skepticism ran high about the Pentagon's
Special Operations Command's Trans Regional Web Initiative, an attempt
to create and run regionally-oriented news sites in Russian, Chinese,
and the major Caucasian languages (Georgian, Armenian, Azeri). As
EurasiaNet correspondent Deirdre Tynan notes, skepticism runs high
about the initiative:
Experts and observers believe the initiative hypothetically has
merit. But they are questioning whether the Pentagon, its contractors
and subcontractors have the expertise and deft touch needed to
make information inroads in areas where there are deep reserves of
hostility and suspicion toward the use of American military power. Many
experts believe that existing US government-funded mass media outlets,
specifically Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(RFERL), have the capabilities and experience needed to achieve the
desired objectives.
"The initiative is not a bad idea in a general sense. But, given
the epic fail of the Pentagon's previous attempts to do this, I just
assume it will be clumsy," said Joshua Foust, military analyst and
blogger. "It's doubtful the Pentagon would allow these news outlets
[websites] to have editorial freedom and highlight US missteps."
Not to bela trength of RFE/RL and VOA is that they criticize American
actions. Even though they are not truly independent journalist
organizations, that kind of editorial freedom gives them a lot more
credibility than, say, the Pentagon Channel.
SOCOM's ownership of these websites does not bode well--even if they
wind to be capable news organizations, the fact that their funding
comes from the fracking special forces means they'll never attain
the kind of reputation and independence they'd need to fulfill their
stated purpose. Hell, VOA and RFE/RL still are viewed with tremendous
skepticism, especially inside Russia, and they've been at this for
literally decades. It's tough to know if they're effective, and they
have much more freedom to operate. How does SOCOM expect TRWI to be
effective? We don't really know. Don't hold your breath.