I think it's an very interesting thread but for context, I think he might have written it in response to the mensch article (in defence of her)
Eric Garland
Eric Garland @ericgarland
A year after America was hacked through information warfare, it's time for media and citizens to discuss "information ops."
All throughout 2016, the United States was subject to what the intelligence community quickly and correctly identified as information war.
Using foreign and domestic resources, the information landscape was manipulated through both traditional outlets and social media.
A year later, I sense that media professionals have been slow to understand the danger this poses - and how to improve defenses.
For American media in general, the sense of urgency has been unmatched to the fact that we are indeed in a new form of warfare.
Now. Today.
So let's start with some baseline information, so journalists and readers can ask whether they're seeing news or info ops.
And though emotions can sometimes fly, I'm going to start by saying: the distinction is subtle, and most of this is new.
If you want a good baseline, check out this brilliant, concise slidedeck from @NicoleMatejic who works with NATO.
www.slideshare.net/NicoleMatejic/social-media-pr-and-information-warfare
We've created an information environment that many groups are trying to manipulate while we as citizens are just trying to, y'know, live.
In fact, so many of us have grown up in the era of slick market research, that we can't think what it's like NOT to be manipulated.
You can go back to the pioneering work of Edward Bernays and see the genesis of "public relations" and psychology.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=DnPmg0R1M04
For 100 years, advertising, PR, and politics have grown together to become increasingly sophisticated at hacking our psychology.
Not incidentally, that's about the same length of time Russia has had innovating the modern intelligence service.
So ops are 100 years old.
Speaking of which, I'm using intel slang here, out of habit. (It's my profession.)
What's the difference between a PR campaign and an Op?
Well, frankly, a "normal" PR campaign and an information op may share many hallmarks. They are shaping the public opinion - for someone.
Public relations exists to craft messages to hand to media, get them to adopt certain narratives so people will follow along.
Crafting narrative apparently has become so important, PR professional now outnumber journalists 4 to 1.
amp.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/oct/04/marketingandpr-pressandpublishing
You're probably asking, "OK, so what's the difference between a good press release and ad campaign and information warfare."
Technique.
If you know both fields, PR and information intel ops are very different in character, but in who executes them and what they want.
Public relations might be for a daycare or for polluters - but who they work for and why is usually fairly above board.
Not so with ops.
Once you get into the geopolitical space, things get covert, and the techniques used are more sophisticated - and recognizable.
I come from the world of competitive intelligence. Government techniques, but for companies. (NOTE: Maybe cloak, but NO DAGGER. Seriously.)
Coming from competitive intel, I recognize now in the Active Measures - info ops - used on and by the media - in some of our work.
This is why I forgive journalists and editors when they don't see the patterns - this stuff is usually hidden. So let's get it out there.
Here's an information op that companies use on each other. We call it "Blunting a launch." It's borrowed from Active Measures.
In competitive intel, one competitor will hope to learn about the launch of a new product: its feature, marketing campaign, MESSAGING.
You'd like to know what the competitor will say and above all WHEN, because this will affect your market space.
This is how you defend it.
In Blunting a Launch, ideally you obtain the date of the marketing campaign launch and what they're going to say about the product.
Here's the Active Measures part: YOU then launch a counter campaign like four days before they go live.
You can do any number of things.
You take the words they're going to use and have them mean something different.
You launch a campaign for YOUR product with the same words.
You know the competitor will change the information landscape so YOU change it first. Ideally, anyhow.
NOW: you've seen this in politics.
The thing about 2016 was that it featured EVERY MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION TECHNIQUE EVER CREATED.
Let's go back to 2004, though.
Karl Rove was a master practitioner of active measures, right up to the line of disinfo.
Remember Swift Boat Vets for Truth?
America's in the Iraq War - which ain't going great - and John Kerry has a GREAT story. Fought, but ALSO thought war sucked. Strong.
George W. Bush had a much weaker story. Stayed stateside, but was running a war, and badly.
Rove went active measures.
The Swift Boat story was packed with bullshit, but it went straight into Kerry's story as if it were the real deal. Control the narrative.
But then it got very active indeed. Somebody floated fake documents to CBS News intentionally about Bush's service during Vietnam.
Now, Dan Rather - who Republicans hated due to his tenacious role in Watergate - had done thousands of stories in his career.
And CBS News, 60 Minutes, all that: they're generally a very reputable outlet.
Now, for the rest of the campaign LIARS ABOUT BUSH!
So boom. You make up complete bullshit about a decorated war vet AND inoculate your candidate from criticism.
Issue contained.
MAN, you gotta hand it to Rove - Vladimir Putin couldn't have done it any better. Because of course Russia is the pioneer of that stuff.
Now, let's return to the current moment. We're in a media hangover after 2016's attack, and active measures are still EVERYWHERE.
Active measure: Somebody floated Rachel Maddow bogus documents from the NSA. And guess what story she's covering?
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/maddow-to-news-orgs-heads-up-for-hoaxes-985491523709
Trump-Russia was this audacious op that we strange, squirrelly intel people were screeching about for a year. And it's coming undone.
But this story is not coming out without a major fight. Somebody - and we'll find out who, eventually - is financing active measures still.
And again - journos and editors - I get why you're not on top of this, but call me, we'll do coffee. You're being used for active measures.
There are specifically timed character assassinations, for example. Ahem...ask anyone who front ran this Russia story.
Oh. Like me!
I ain't everybody's cup of covfefe, so I don't take it personal.
But there were classic active measures that hit me starting Dec 12.
Ooh! All the Russian hits!
- Insinuate mental illness and/or drug use
- Bot attacks to give impress of mass opposition
- Collection and development of phrases to be repeated over and over: Drugs, grifter, etc.
Dude, it's all classic. Neat to watch!
But these active measures - or dezinformatsiya, konspiratsiya, provokatsiya if you want the original terms - are EVERYWHERE today.
Especially online - the information environment is a perfect battlefield on which to deploy these weapons. And few recognize it, still!
We've got fake experts providing the ol' "false moderation" ploy. Provocateurs stirring up maximum conflict between natural allies.
TONS of Blunt the Launch combined with active attempts to discredit certain voices. I could go on. Jim Clapper says: they haven't stopped.
America and its political discussions are still in vertigo because our information environment is flooded with active information ops.
I don't think we can ever go back to a world pre-social media, Big Data analytics, and weaponization of data.
But we can prepare!
Within a YEAR from our political Pearl Harbor, there are new defenses such this tool to track Russian deza.
dashboard.securingdemocracy.org
The GMF dashboard analyses social media says, Hey, What Does Putin Want You Discussing?
This would have ABSOLUTELY changed 2016.
And going forward, perhaps us intel peeps can put together a Children's Treasury of Active Measures for easy review.
We have options.
To sum up, citizens, journalists, politicians, and others need to come up to speed on how this new world of information works.
As Barack Obama said in his last press conference: "Protect your democracy."
Now more than ever.