In lieu of a year-end review, I want to call attention to two articles. The first is in Slate, not quite midyear, early May of 2006. The author, Jack Shafer, reviews the press-suppression tools used by the presidency of George W. Bush. He encourages reporters and editors to continue to seek out information from leakers inside and outside the administration.
Read Shafer’s article.
At a similar time, the Columbia Journalism Review published an examination of the military’s clash between the need to create disinformation, and the need to communicate a clear understanding of events on the ground. In both cases the press becomes an instrument.
Read Schulman’s CJR article, “Mind Games.”
This sentence in the CJR article tells me a lot about how to read the press on Iraq and Afghanistan:
Information warriors often formulate what they call “truth-based” messages — information that is often vague and one-dimensional, sometimes misleading, and frequently includes statements that are subtly derogatory.
So as soon as I notice that vague feeling that comes when reading a piece that is short on details, I should stop, and go find the details.
The relevant Year-End Review
My hat-tip goes to Dahlia Lithwick’s opinion piece, “The Bill of Wrongs,” for calling attention to Jack Shafer’s Slate article, which sent me on to the CJR article, and some musing about what is happening in the war.
Dealing with Managed Information
1. Too vague to verify.
2. Too specifically favorable to a country, an individual, an organization, to be credible.
3. Attempt to understand the sourcing.
4. Develop a sense of regional and global background, beyond Borat . . . Kazakhstan.