http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-04-19/vanden-brook-locker-propaganda/54419654/1
By: Gregory Korte
Date: 2012-04-19
A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.
"We're not aware of any participation in such activities, nor would it be acceptable," said Lt. Col. James Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
By: Gregory Korte
Date: 2012-04-19
A USA TODAY reporter and editor investigating Pentagon propaganda contractors have themselves been subjected to a propaganda campaign of sorts, waged on the Internet through a series of bogus websites.
Fake
Twitter and Facebook accounts have been created in their names, along
with a Wikipedia entry and dozens of message board postings and blog
comments. Websites were registered in their names.
The
timeline of the activity tracks USA TODAY's reporting on the military's
"information operations" program, which spent hundreds of millions of
dollars on marketing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan — campaigns that have been criticized even within the Pentagon as ineffective and poorly monitored.
For
example, Internet domain registries show the website TomVandenBrook.com
was created Jan. 7 — just days after Pentagon reporter Tom Vanden Brook
first contacted Pentagon contractors involved in the program. Two weeks
after his editor Ray Locker's byline appeared on a story, someone
created a similar site, RayLocker.com, through the same company.
If
the websites were created using federal funds, it could violate federal
law prohibiting the production of propaganda for domestic consumption.
"We're not aware of any participation in such activities, nor would it be acceptable," said Lt. Col. James Gregory, a Pentagon spokesman.
A
Pentagon official confirmed that the military had made inquiries to
information operations contractors to ask them about the Internet
activity. All denied it, said the source, who spoke on condition of
anonymity because the inquiries were informal and did not amount to an
official investigation.
The websites were
taken down following those inquiries. Various other sites and accounts
were removed for violating their providers' terms of service.
"I
find it creepy and cowardly that somebody would hide behind my name and
presumably make up other names in an attempt to undermine my
credibility," Vanden Brook said.
The activity is the work of what online reputation expert Andy Beal calls a "determined detractor."
"It's
like a machine gun approach. They're trying to generate as much online
content as they can," he said. "The person who's behind this, we can
give them a lot of credit here and assume they're very sophisticated
about reputation attacks."
It can cost $10 to
register a domain name, but $50 to pay for a proxy service to hide the
owner's identity, as was done with two of the websites. A third was
registered to a non-existent address in Pueblo, Colo.
"This
is the work of somebody who knows what they're doing. They have some
experience of covering their tracks. This is probably not the first time
they've done something like this," said Beal, CEO of Trackur, an online
reputation tracking service.
Some postings
merely copied Vanden Brook's and Locker's previous reporting. Others
accused them of being sponsored by the Taliban. "They disputed nothing
factual in the story about information operations," Vanden Brook said.
On
Feb. 8, as Vanden Brook continued to ask questions of contractors, a
new Wikipedia user attempted to create an entry on him, alleging he
"gained worldwide notoriety" for his "misreporting" of the 2006 Sago
Mine disaster in West Virginia.
Early
reports from the scene, relying on faulty information from the governor
and mine operators — said 12 of 13 miners were found alive, when in
fact only one was. Many news outlets — including the Associated Press, The New York Times and USA TODAY — conveyed the inaccurate reports in early editions.
Wikipedia
took down the page and banned the user, but similar comments started
populating Internet message boards and blogs. In one case, the fake
@Tomvandenbrook Twitter account defended his Sago reporting to another
apparently fake account.
Vanden Brook said
he's continuing to pursue the propaganda story. "If they thought it
would deter me from writing about this, they're wrong."
"This is a clear attempt at intimidation that has failed," Locker said.
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
No comments:
Post a Comment