Saturday, March 25th 2017
There are also dangers in accepting a post-truth paradigm. Communicators, experts, and officials may feel overwhelmed and succumb to inaction or, worse, be seduced into adopting “post-truth techniques” that appeal only to emotion and sideline facts or challenging audiences’ beliefs.
Author: Ambassador Bruce Wharton, Acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public AffairsRead More
Sunday, January 29th 2017
In November 2016, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), along with the Center on Public Diplomacy (CPD) at the University of Southern California, convened public diplomacy thought leaders currently working in and out of government to assess the successes of PD in the outgoing administration, and make recommendations for a future course.
Subhead: Building Alliances, Fighting Extremism, and Dispelling Disinformation
Authors: Katherine A. Brown, Shannon N. Green, and Jian “Jay” Wang
Source: Center for Strategic and International StudiesRead More
Sunday, January 29th 2017
What can we do about news so toxic that it moves people to take up arms to investigate conspiracies? Unfortunately, the simple answers are inadequate, and some are downright counterproductive. Instead, any successful approach to fake news demands that we treat these three different diseases with different techniques.
Headline: Fake news is a red herringRead More
Saturday, January 28th 2017
It is possible that the State Department Global Engagement Center could provide a good model for the coordination, integration, and synchronization of messaging but it will require a focus beyond counterterrorism and a home that can truly have access to senior interagency leadership rather than being buried in the bureaucracy. In whatever form, the new capability must operate with the agility of a new-media start-up.
Authors: Jim Ludes and Mark JacobsonRead More
Thursday, January 19th 2017
“You can call it ‘information warfare,’ ‘hybrid warfare,’ or ‘political warfare,’ but whatever you call it, an adversary’s attempts to shape the minds and will of people toward a political end is not new to the United States. Nor will this be the first time the United States sought to wield these weapons against its foes.”
* * * * *
. . . by blocking the development and deployment of civilian and overt activities, Fulbright’s actions on the Freedom Academy and the Smith-Mundt Act have done more to militarize American foreign policy than any other single act by denying Congress, policymakers, and practitioners critical experience, methods, and historical precedent to properly defend the nation through nonmilitary means.
Author: Matthew ArmstrongRead More