A DISinformed Citizenry part 1- Media Censorship, State propaganda in Libya, Corporate Neocon Wars
Channel: Jeffersonian Alliance
Date: 2012-01-22

by General Alexander Hagen http://www.microtopia.org/us-and-california-politics-and-policy/libyan-conflict-intel/libya-conflict-analysis-oct-30-2011---news-of-the-world
A DIS-Informed Citizenry: Media Censorship to Control Public Policy: We are not trusted to make up our own minds. We are told what to believe.
Ghoulishly fascinating levels of disinformation

Regardless of whether you support or oppose the Libya Intervention and its outcome, it is a very interesting study of how we get our information and how it shapes public perception.

Most Everyone who is not a monarchist or aristocrat or totalitarian agrees that an educated and vigilant citizenry prevents corruption - and bad policy generally.

Most agree the media colors and shapes stories to fit their own bias. Conservatives feel the media is to liberal, and progressives (since the word liberal itself has been colored to the point where it sounds wimpy - so liberals now call themselves progressives) feel it is corporate and pro business.

My own observation is that media outlets tend to criticize their countries rivals, and often gloss over any defects in the power structures in their own societies.

In the US and the West generally, less and less information is available about the activities of our governments, secret classifications are now given 1000 times more frequently than in the 1960's when the Cold War was raging, in other words when there was greater justification.

Routine information is now secret. Our founders and most of our competent presidents would have recoiled from the lack of transparency in our Government.

So let us examine the way that information went through the governments and presses in the case of Libya, for me a network research engineer, it is like a software decision tree.

Now why is this important: Because in any system or enterprise we need to quality control - so that we can stop mistakes at the earliest point. If the basic underlying data is flawed, that flaw will carry on through to the public.

In business - if the forecast is defectives - the wrong products will be sub optimal (too little or too much resources to development) - if the products are defective - the whole operation will be threatened and the customers will be damaged - in some cases bankrupting the customers.
In Communications - deploying a whole new service - that does not work can destroy companies.

So in the case of a major policy decision like overthrowing a government how does information flow and finally become improved as people get a chance to examine it through debate and seeing what actually occurs, in other words a feedback loop. In the case of Iraq and Vietnam, a great deal of information contrary to the government position eventually changed the public view to oppose their governments. In the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan the quality of information still seems poor. The public is uncertain whether to press or to pull back, whether to shake hands or to strike.

So - a major event occurs, it is reported, the spotlight goes to the event, leaders call in their advisors, the media sends out its investigators, and pulls files from thier research departments and convenes meetings of journalists and editors. At least these are the things that should be happening.

A framework is established, boundaries are established, and this all relies on competent accurate information. If the information is poor quality errors carry through the system, and as this process of shaping public perception is a top  down one - the errors are magnified enormously, so nothing could be more important than accurate information coming in at the start - and then second getting updated as more research done.

In business this is called due diligence, and the failure to conduct due diligence - can even lead to criminal fraud prosecution. This occurs when a company is valued incorrectly due to sloppy work and investors are wiped out. Or a few are enriched due to false information.

So let us say - in Rwanda - the media and the governments - decide it is not in the Wests national interest to intervene, due to lack of full information at the outset that would show that the human toll potential - and the destabilization of the region - actually would harm the world economy and political and commercial systems.