How to Start a Riot with Information Weapons(youtube.com) |
How to Start a Riot with Information Weapons(youtube.com) |
There are two important differences though.
The main difference in this case is that there is no monopoly and complete central control, like Russian leadership has over Russian mass media.
Second difference is that Western media does not have direct influence over other populations, if it decides to weaponize its mass media, it can only direct it against the people in their own country. Everywhere else it will be filtered by local publishers.
Russia has (or now in many instances, had) also media control over large Russian population in neighboring countries (like was in this example).
Asymmetry in freedom of press and freedom of speech works strongly in favor of malicious actors with strong control over media and speech.
I'm not sure who is the target audience of this video based on this unique style but it looks to cover the matter fairly exhaustive and as far I could conclude based on review of these events, it appears to be a realistic and truthful interpretation.
I have recognized very similar patterns elsewhere. For example Russia used numerous of falsified reporting of real events and complete fabricated hoaxes to incite the war in Donbas. The information warfare was used against two separate groups of people - ethnic Russian speaking Ukrainians in Donbas area and Russians in Russia. Goal of the information attacks against Ukrainians was to great unrest and wider support toward Russian intervention. Goal of the information against Russians was to deceive them to join Russian armed groups against Ukraine.
I have also suspicion that Canadian Freedom convoy movement might have been initiated and controlled by Russian propaganda through widely available Russian TV channels like RT and Sputnik France and social media. Many movement spokespersons shared beliefs propagated by Russian propaganda. This suspicion was further bolstered with the research that people against vaccination were more likely supportive of Russian invasion by large margin, that suggest that these people were more likely under Russian propaganda influence.
My personal conclusion is that Russian propaganda machinery can build very persistent and resilient but completely fabricated representations of realities that are very often held by the people under its influence even when confronted with undeniable facts. These fabricated realities are very important tool to direct attitudes of the targeted people.
This is important aspect when planning the communication with the groups under Russian propaganda influence.
For example it is widely held false belief that Ukrainian army has shelled Donbas civilian structures while none of this has been independently confirmed by the OECD mission there. Even worse, there have been at least 3 recent occasions where Russia's controlled forces have either bombed or shelled civilian structures like markets or even hospitals while it has been not feasible by Ukrainian forces because they have been out of range. Main motivation behind these attacks appears to be to maintain negative attitudes against Ukrainian armed forces.
These are complicated issues but must be taken into account in my opinion when communication with the people under strong Russian propaganda influence is planned.
With all of the vast wealth and intelligence agencies we have, the best we do on the propaganda front is when the NY Times says mean things about Trump?
Does that sound right to you?
How much American TV watch people in South America? How much English TV watches a German for example, or Italian? I would say, close to zero. So the first issue is that Western media landscape is fragmented. So it is difficult to project such possible attack to outside.
Second issue is media freedom. Media is truly privately owned and there is strong culture of press freedom. Still, there is probably also some level of cooperation with the government. So we should always pay attention if the government is trying to sell us something through media.
Isn't this how our entire "news media" landscape works (with the exception of a handful of legit investigative journalists)?
"My anonymous sources tell me..." really means "someone in the government wanted me to put this message out to the public."
Also, hasn't the US been busted funding revolutions/freedom fighters in 3rd world countries multiple times, utilizing propaganda at every step along the way? Or is that all BS?