Securosis

Menu

Research

Fox News, Information Warfare, and Public Perception

Rich October 5, 2006 6 Comments

Despite living in Boulder Colorado for 16 years I’m neither a hippie nor a conspiracy theorist. I don’t use patchouli oil, wear a beanie, or ingest any mood-altering substances you can’t buy in a grocery store. I don’t think the Masons control our destiny, black helicopters molest cattle, or the NSA monitors all our communications. Oh, really? Okay, but the cattle thing definitely isn’t real. Except maybe in Nebraska, but that’s not the CIA, not that there’s anything wrong with it… Anyway, what I’m saying is that I’m fairly skeptical, if a tad on the D side of the political game. But after seeing Fox (and the AP) on this Foley Congressional page thing, I’m really starting to wonder. Wikipedia defines information warfare as: Information warfare is the use and management of information in pursuit of a competitive advantage over an opponent. Information warfare may involve collection of tactical information, assurance that one’s own information is valid, spreading of propaganda or disinformation among the enemy, undermining the quality of opposing force information and denial of information collection opportunities to opposing forces. Information warfare consists of three broad goals. Controlling the opponent’s access to information, securing your own lines of information (and communication), and using disinformation to create confusion, control opponent actions, and, basically, control the brains of the conflict (including civilians). I’ve never been a fan of Fox news. Actually, I’m not the biggest fan of any news station these days, and refuse to watch local news (unless I’m on it, of course). But I always figured even Fox has a shred of objectivity. And they can’t really be in some big conspiracy with the GOP and Diebold, can they? It’s just about ratings, isn’t it? If you’re only a tad paranoid, their latest actions just might sound like information warfare. As the scandal around Representative Mark Foley hit the news cycle Fox repeatedly identified him as a Democrat. Huh? Yep- as reported on BoingBoing Fox news identified, on screen, Mark Foley as a Democrat, not a Republican. Since probably very few Americans can tell you how many representatives are in Congress, never mind who they are and their party affiliations, it might, just might, lead some to believe that it’s the Dems running around hitting on underage boys. (from BoingBoing.net) That, my friends, is a classic use of information warfare. At least if it’s on purpose, but since there have been three reports, no corrections, and one instance was on a show recorded hours before air, it’s reasonable to assume that if it’s not on purpose, there’s a distinct lack of contrition over such a major mistake. So let’s look into the security implications, since this is a security site. The mass media has more power to sway public opinion than any other single source of information. Disinformation is a core principle of information warfare. Spammers use it to pump stock prices. Hackers use it to access your systems. Competitors set up false blogs to ruin your corporate reputation. Heck, some vendors try and leverage us industry analysts in their information warfare strategies. All of this is a form of information warfare, we’re just not always willing to admit it. Information warriors know that compromising mass media is one of the single most effective techniques, as long as you don’t get caught. All it takes is a few seeds of doubt to sway public opinion. If those seeds are true, it’s just good public relations; if they’re false, it’s information warfare. The best information warfare takes a kernel of believable truth, like some Congressman hitting on an underage employee, and salts it with just the slightest disinformation, like mistakingly listing him as a member of the wrong party in on-air graphics. Outright lies are rarely as effective as the slight lemon twist because without a foundation of credibility they are immediately dismissed by the mass majority. Disinformation is most effective when most of it is just information. Which brings us back to Fox. One mistake I could accept; these things happen. I could even understand that same mistake multiple times in the same broadcast. But different times, in different broadcasts, including prepared material? That stretches credibility. Bias in media is pretty bad, but hard to eliminate. Outright disinformation? Now that’s classic information warfare. Besides, we all know Democrats stick with inte s. At least they’re over 18… Share:

Share:
Read Post
dinosaur-sidebar

Research

view all

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Totally Transparent Research is the embodiment of how we work at Securosis. It’s our core operating philosophy, our research policy, and a specific process. We initially developed it to help maintain objectivity while producing licensed research, but its benefits extend to all aspects of our business.

Going beyond Open Source Research, and a far cry from the traditional syndicated research model, we think it’s the best way to produce independent, objective, quality research.

Here’s how it works:

  • Content is developed ‘live’ on the blog. Primary research is generally released in pieces, as a series of posts, so we can digest and integrate feedback, making the end results much stronger than traditional “ivory tower” research.
  • Comments are enabled for posts. All comments are kept except for spam, personal insults of a clearly inflammatory nature, and completely off-topic content that distracts from the discussion. We welcome comments critical of the work, even if somewhat insulting to the authors. Really.
  • Anyone can comment, and no registration is required. Vendors or consultants with a relevant product or offering must properly identify themselves. While their comments won’t be deleted, the writer/moderator will “call out”, identify, and possibly ridicule vendors who fail to do so.
  • Vendors considering licensing the content are welcome to provide feedback, but it must be posted in the comments - just like everyone else. There is no back channel influence on the research findings or posts.
    Analysts must reply to comments and defend the research position, or agree to modify the content.
  • At the end of the post series, the analyst compiles the posts into a paper, presentation, or other delivery vehicle. Public comments/input factors into the research, where appropriate.
  • If the research is distributed as a paper, significant commenters/contributors are acknowledged in the opening of the report. If they did not post their real names, handles used for comments are listed. Commenters do not retain any rights to the report, but their contributions will be recognized.
  • All primary research will be released under a Creative Commons license. The current license is Non-Commercial, Attribution. The analyst, at their discretion, may add a Derivative Works or Share Alike condition.
  • Securosis primary research does not discuss specific vendors or specific products/offerings, unless used to provide context, contrast or to make a point (which is very very rare).
    Although quotes from published primary research (and published primary research only) may be used in press releases, said quotes may never mention a specific vendor, even if the vendor is mentioned in the source report. Securosis must approve any quote to appear in any vendor marketing collateral.
  • Final primary research will be posted on the blog with open comments.
  • Research will be updated periodically to reflect market realities, based on the discretion of the primary analyst. Updated research will be dated and given a version number.
    For research that cannot be developed using this model, such as complex principles or models that are unsuited for a series of blog posts, the content will be chunked up and posted at or before release of the paper to solicit public feedback, and provide an open venue for comments and criticisms.
  • In rare cases Securosis may write papers outside of the primary research agenda, but only if the end result can be non-biased and valuable to the user community to supplement industry-wide efforts or advances. A “Radically Transparent Research” process will be followed in developing these papers, where absolutely all materials are public at all stages of development, including communications (email, call notes).
    Only the free primary research released on our site can be licensed. We will not accept licensing fees on research we charge users to access.
  • All licensed research will be clearly labeled with the licensees. No licensed research will be released without indicating the sources of licensing fees. Again, there will be no back channel influence. We’re open and transparent about our revenue sources.

In essence, we develop all of our research out in the open, and not only seek public comments, but keep those comments indefinitely as a record of the research creation process. If you believe we are biased or not doing our homework, you can call us out on it and it will be there in the record. Our philosophy involves cracking open the research process, and using our readers to eliminate bias and enhance the quality of the work.

On the back end, here’s how we handle this approach with licensees:

  • Licensees may propose paper topics. The topic may be accepted if it is consistent with the Securosis research agenda and goals, but only if it can be covered without bias and will be valuable to the end user community.
  • Analysts produce research according to their own research agendas, and may offer licensing under the same objectivity requirements.
  • The potential licensee will be provided an outline of our research positions and the potential research product so they can determine if it is likely to meet their objectives.
  • Once the licensee agrees, development of the primary research content begins, following the Totally Transparent Research process as outlined above. At this point, there is no money exchanged.
  • Upon completion of the paper, the licensee will receive a release candidate to determine whether the final result still meets their needs.
  • If the content does not meet their needs, the licensee is not required to pay, and the research will be released without licensing or with alternate licensees.
  • Licensees may host and reuse the content for the length of the license (typically one year). This includes placing the content behind a registration process, posting on white paper networks, or translation into other languages. The research will always be hosted at Securosis for free without registration.

Here is the language we currently place in our research project agreements:

“Content will be created independently of LICENSEE with no obligations for payment. Once content is complete, LICENSEE will have a 3 day review period to determine if the content meets corporate objectives. If the content is unsuitable, LICENSEE will not be obligated for any payment and Securosis is free to distribute the whitepaper without branding or with alternate licensees, and will not complete any associated webcasts for the declining LICENSEE. Content licensing, webcasts and payment are contingent on the content being acceptable to LICENSEE. This maintains objectivity while limiting the risk to LICENSEE. Securosis maintains all rights to the content and to include Securosis branding in addition to any licensee branding.”

Even this process itself is open to criticism. If you have questions or comments, you can email us or comment on the blog.