Sunday, August 26, 2012

Targets, Goals, and Methods of Public Relations and PSYOPS

Share this:

Remember that amazing stuff that TX-Sharon dug up at the Gas-PR conference? The one where the Gassers admit to using PSYOPS (psychological operations)
against American citizens?


"Toxic Sludge is Good for You!"
by Sheldon Rampton, and John Stauber

This comes as no surprise to the people who have studied the history of Public Relations.

Have you thought about this deeply?
Like, what are the effects and goals of PSYOPS?
What techniques do they use in order to achieve their goals?

I believe that if you understand the goals and techniques of PSYOPS and Propaganda, that it can help protect against the intended effects.

Here is a summary of what I have learned about PR and PSYOPS

Public Relations / PSYOPS
Targets Goals Methods
The "Insurgency":

Outraged, engaged, activist public fighting for their lives to protect their land, homes, farms, and children against invading threat.


  • DISABLE opposition
  • DIFFUSE community outrage
  • DIVIDE opposition against each other and Conquer

  • Spy
    • recon (reconnaissance of opposition groups)
    • double agent (infiltrate opposition groups, and misdirect towards industry goals, agent provocateur)
  • Nasty and Nice (good cop/bad cop)
    • BREAK THEIR WILL (nasty)

      Bully, physical intimidation, mudslinger, character assassination, threats towards opposition
    • DIFFUSE OUTRAGE (nice)

      Conflict Management (resolve conflicts with nice/pretty people)
  • Single out successful activists and isolate/disable
Academics with research which proves industry is dangerous and toxic
  • Debunk and Discredit

  • Specific attacks against individual academics and researchers
  • Fake research by industry-funded institutes (shamstitutes)
Public as voters
  • Divert
    Get voters to support industry-friendly politicians and policies which are against the voters own self interests
  • Channel legitimate community outrage into fake groups (Tea Party, Dimock Proud, Enough is Enough, Franklin Citizens for Truth, etc) which support industry goals.
  • Political Ads
Unsuspecting, ignorant, uneducated masses
  • Support brand-ID recognition with positive industry associations.
  • Turn Truth (of an actual liability or disaster) into Debate
  • STUN potential activists into INACTION by spreading CONFUSION about the facts.
  • Portray opposition groups as fringe, radicals, hippies, tree-huggers, NIMBYs, outside agitators, etc.

  • Purveyor of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) and Confusion
  • Define the narrative (propaganda)
    • Manipulate "The News" via News releases
    • glossy publications, "newspapers" and blogs
    • staged photo ops, community philanthropy, picnics
    • corporate image management (spokes-model / actor / whore)
Public as consumers
  • Support brand-ID recognition,
  • positive industry associations

  • Industry messages that you clearly see as such
    • Advertising / Commercial messages
  • Industry messages where the source is hidden
    • Spiked "news" stories, news releases, staged photo-ops, community philanthropy
    • Fake documentaries from industry PR groups set up as "Charitible" Foundations and "Educational" non-profits.

      (e.g., Energy in Depth, Land and Liberty Foundation, American Clean Skies Foundation, Energy Citizens, etc)
Government officials, Executive, Regulators, Legislators
  • Support industry-friendly agenda though legislation and regulation

  • Palm-greaser, Spread the $LOVE$, wine+dine people of influence (bribery),
  • targeted messaging, ALEC membership groups / model laws

It is my opinion that groups like Energy in Depth are extremely dangerous not only because they are apologists for in industry which is killing us, but also because they will use whatever means are necessary to disable the opposition, including acts of violence.

I must give special mention to a couple of people working in Public Relations whom fits in the "nice" category listed above.

First is Susan Obeleski of the Susquehanna River Basin Commission. While she does not represent the gas industry, she represents a multi-state governmental body. But they might as well be working directly for the gas industry, as they are issuing permits for water withdrawals from the SRB at an accelerating pace. The SRBC is one of the most corrupt governmental bodies I've seen IMO, which is very out-of-sync with democratic principles. But dealing with Susan is a pleasant experience, as she diffuses difficult situations.

I also like George Stark from Cabot Oil and Gas. He is a very pleasant person to deal with, funny, charming. That being said, he has had me escorted away from public events, which occurred on public property TWICE, by sending armed cops with guns/TASARs after me.


See also:

No comments: