Losing the Information War

Filed under: General News — Michael van der Galien on July 19, 2008 @ 6:08 pm CEST

Andrew Klavan argues for City Journal that the United States military is losing the information war at home. This is partially, perhaps mainly, he says, due to how Hollywood treats the military; in TV shows and in movies, members of the US military are more often than not depicted as maniacs, who kill for a hobby.

I found something truly disconcerting about making the transition from Hollywood to FOB Patriot—I mean, from one exercise in make-believe to another. I couldn’t help noticing that we—we of the cultural classes—do make-believe better than the people who live and fight in the real world.

I kept thinking back to all those antimilitary movies I’d seen and to left-wing journals like the New York Times, which consistently highlight military abuses and failures while obscuring and downplaying military heroism and advances. The servicemen I was training with were clearly smart, expert, and committed to excellence in the defense of their country. They also seemed a lot more mentally stable than most of the screenwriters, journalists, and academics I know, though that’s not saying much. Yet Hollywood and our left-wing media, as well as our antimilitary professoriate, can be quite convincing when, say, they portray an isolated injustice like Abu Ghraib as evidence of systemic atrocity, or depict veterans as more likely to commit crimes than the rest of us, which statistically they’re not. Conversely, as spectacular as our armed forces are at the business of ousting real-life tyrants, they fall a little short when it comes to works of the imagination.

So why is it that the military is losing the battle in America, and especially in Hollywood?

1. The first reason is the fact that Hollywood is ruled by anti-military progressives. This is important, but one should be able to overcome Hollywood’s unwillingness to portray the average American soldiers as an honest individual.

2. ‘[T]he military has so far been incapable of putting its urgent mission into narrative form. An insulated culture of taciturn heroism may work against them here, but there’s also the usual governmental cluelessness about dealing with the public. Even at Fort Bragg, when a sympathetic journalist—namely me—tried to get permission to join the training, I was at first given the sort of stone-faced runaround you usually associate with the Department of Motor Vehicles.’

Perhaps it is time for the US military, or at least its political leaders - since the military should simply fight, etc. and leave it at that; the PR should be decided upon by civilian leaders - to change its approach a bit. The time has long come for the US Military to advertise itself, and to explain to the subject what’s truly happening in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree. Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors. Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.

(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should not be posted.

(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.

(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.

(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.

(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements. Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.

Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors by email only.

1 Tully

July 19, 2008 @ 8:56 pm CEST

‘[T]he military has so far been incapable of putting its urgent mission into narrative form.

For the simple reason that reality, unlike fantasy, is not governed by narrative. Reality does not give a crap about our puny narratives. Reality just is, and reigns supreme over such artifical BS as "narrative." Narrative is a psychological fantasy construct that people insist on (falsely) superimposing on reality. And reality, of course, ignores it. Those involved in creating compelling narrative (Hollywood, writers, etc.) and those who write at them (New York Times) are most susceptible to this basic fallacy. They actually believe narrative is reality, and insist on trying to shape reality to fit a narrative. When it doesn’t fit, they invent one.

The military is well aware of this. If they construct a positive narrative, any narrative, they are (somewhat correctly if unfairly) accused of propagandizing. If they tell the simple truth it is manipulated and twisted into anti-military propaganda, leaving them no real way to reply without constructing a contrasting narrative which gets them accused of propagandizing…lather, rinse, repeat. Catch-22. So they tend to just give the very minimum of bare-bones fact that they must, and then STFU.

Only one side actually seems to be concerned with reality, and it’s not Hollywood.

2 Interested

July 20, 2008 @ 2:44 am CEST

I agree, it’s not the Military’s job to describe what they do. It’s their job to do their job. No amount of PR is going to enlighten a pansy left winger who doesn’t care about facts.

3 Tom

July 20, 2008 @ 5:30 pm CEST

Wow, go away for a few months and a favorite centrist blog turns conservative.

Anyway, I’m back at least temporarily. And I have to say:

1. "Pansy" is a derogatory term for effeminate homosexuals. If you’re going to disagree with liberals, Stuart, could you avoid implying that they’re homosexuals and engaging in gay stereotypes?

2. The media hardly seems to be anti-military, given the various laudatory stories that appear about local servicemen and women. Or all the cheerleading during the beginning of the war. Even Jason, an Air Force vet himself, has said he’s getting annoyed with all the lionization.

3. Could it be that the media reports the bombings and scandals, not because they’re anti-military, but because those stories draw attention? Our local papers talk a lot about Chicago crime and scandals, but that doesn’t mean they’re anti-Chicago.

4. The fact that the author of the article repeatedly uses the term "left-wing" should clue you in that there is some political bias here.

5. Incidents such as Abu Ghraib were hardly the only times that US forces behaved inappropriately, just the best know and documented. And then there are other things, like the frequently sexual assaults in Iraq, overt attempts at fundamentalist indoctrination, and the shabby treatment of PTSD cases. All of which show that things are far from rosy in our military, and fair targets for criticism.

4 Jonathan Wilson

July 21, 2008 @ 3:53 am CEST

1. The term pansy when used by liberals may imply homosexuals, but to the main stream culture of America, pansy is used to describe some liberals because of their anti-war ideology. Not to say all liberals are anti-war, but that is the impression it leaves on people.

He was implying that Liberals are cowards not homosexuals. If he had used the word "homo" or "gay" or other more offensive curse words, it would imply homosexuality, but he did not, he said specifically pansy, meaning coward.

2. The media in America is quite funny, if there is peace they will support war and action– If there is war, they will support peace and anti-war ideologies.

The same goes for politicians. Bush criticized Bill Clinton for involvement in overseas wars and promised he wouldn’t be involved, but now he conducts war and is labeled a war-monger. Now Bill Clinton criticizes him for war etc.

When Democratic presidents declare war, Republicans say "well we shouldn’t be involved with other countries, the economy is hurting, it’s not our business, and it’s not constitutional.". When Republican presidents declare war Democrats say "Well we should stop the war, humans are dying, people are hating us all over the world, and the economy is going to collapse like the Great Depression!"

I hope that was Centrist enough for you.

3. You hit it on the nail. Bad stories sell, good stories don’t.
Reporting Anti-War drama and stories of atrocities sell like wildfire. They have blown it out of proportion so much that the average American thinks the Iraq war is a real war, when it is more like a dangerous city with lots of crime. Occasional terrorist attacks keep things seeming like a war. However, I don’t see houses being bombed, I don’t see B2 bombers carpet bombing a country side, and I don’t see battalions of tanks moving anywhere.

The media is the #1 factor in why people hate the military and why people hate Muslims. Why because Muslims gone wild sells, Soldiers gone wild sells… What’s really sad is that the famous "humanitarian" liberal media has become a center of breeding hatred towards other groups (politicians, nations, people, businessmen, organizations).

4. Wow, well even left-wings admit that the media is left-wing. Or did you really think that CNN and MSNBC report positive Barack Obama stories because it sells?

Actually if you’ve taken political classes or US government/politics class, you’d know that a majority of Journalists and Professors are Left-wing, not because they chose to be, but because their sociology, economical situation, and social standing compels them to be.

5. Abu Ghraib is an example of group mentality and prime example of sociology at work (people with guns and legal authority can do strange things), it has nothing to do with the United States. It was a crime. It doesn’t mean the United States army ordered it to be that way. I’m glad the media reported it and I hope those soldiers rot in prison, but that doesn’t mean I should blame the Army for anything.

"frequent sexual assaults in Iraq", like as if there has ever been a war in history without sexual assaults on civilian population, another example of sociology. Sure it is bad, but it can happen, that means you should be angry at the educational system in America not the military.