re: "Publishing In A Handbasket"

Sarah A. Hoyt at According to Hoyt ("playing the authorial game") discussed conspiracies, propaganda, disinformation, and "the narrative."

Money quote(s):

"“I entered our section offices through a washroom booth in MacArthur Station. You won’t find our offices in the phone lists. In fact, it does not exist. Probably I don’t exist either. All is illusion. Another route is through a little hole-in-the-wall shop with a sign reading RARE STAMPS & COINS. Don’t try that route either – they’ll try to sell you a Tu’ penny Black.” Robert A. Heinlein, The Puppet Masters."

Forget the movie version, read the book.

(Although CAA quite enjoys Donald Sutherland in general and thought Julie Warner was scrumptious as "Mary.")

"There is nothing so inherently human as feeling a frisson of excitement at the idea that behind the rational, dry world we know, conspiracies move in the shadow, manipulating men and societies to their whims."

Not that conspiracies don't exist in the real world. Quiet the opposite. The thing is there are so many conspiracies (for values of "conspiracies"), each working at cross-purposes, that it's hard to see any one or another getting much in the way of an upper hand.

The most successful conspiracies develop a narrative, a world-view, into a consensus that is self-perpetuating over the long term. (Which is a subject for another time and a better writer.)

"Science Fiction and Fantasy is particularly rife with conspiracies and long-held secrets. Part of this is that for some of our premises, say “there are aliens among us” or “the fairies have always been here” or even “of course there are vampires. They all work for the IRS.” "

The best science fiction takes just a single fact about reality or possible futures (or pasts) and twists it just so, and lets the logic flow therefrom.

"(E)ven in Puppet Masters, Heinlein had the UFO landings be real and the government has sat on them.

Yesterday I was talking to a young friend about conspiracies and the possibility of conspiracies, particularly by the US government. You have to understand, my own young self was convinced that the US government well well-night omnipotent, and I think so are most Europeans of all ages. I remember when, a few years ago, I told my parents that our passports were going to take – I think – six months (aftermath of 9/11) and was told I was lying. This was impossible. “Big country like that. Such an efficient government.”

I think I preferred it that way. Yes, yes, I saw all the movies with evil CIA does something evil. Sorry. I still preferred the idea that our government was sharp like a well-honed blade and capable of doing things and keeping them secret for years. Why don’t I believe that? Well… I first came to the States as an exchange student during the Carter presidency. Very few illusions can survive killer rabbits."

Just so.

"(F)or the record let me say right now that I don’t believe there are UFOs hiding among us. If the IRS employs vampires, they must survive on blood sausage. And the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy. Well, duh. Of course it was. It was a soviet conspiracy. That was why Oswald was trained. He came to the US to kill Kennedy. Look, children, sometimes things are what they appear to be, and that’s the greatest conspiracy. (And why, you ask. Oh, tons of reasons, including the fact that our sainted president WAS on prescription drugs that lessened his self control. But it’s also possible it was an agit prop operation, something the Soviets were VERY GOOD at. Look at its effect: it succeeded in radicalizing the leftwing of US politics as nothing before it had. And sometimes the effect is exactly what it was meant to be.)" (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Remember what I said about above about the most successful conspiracies? Communism or bolshevism or marxism or whatever narratival expression of the "original" conspiracy did of course exist and many unspeakable (or least barely spoken-of) and fell deeds were committed in its furtherance and in its behalf. And that just scratches the surface. Adding Kennedy to that body count, justifiably or not, is in essence the merest feather-weights increase to that weighty collection of evils.

(Look, you can take CAA out of the Cold War, but you can't take the Cold War out of CAA!)

"I don’t believe in conspiracies, but I do believe in misinformation. As all of you know, I stop short of being Roman enough to deify Heinlein. BARELY short. So I will refrain from saying that his starting with the conspiracy and then leading us to the real way something really big can keep secret RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES was deliberate and a work of genius. Perhaps it was. Ginny is no longer alive for me to ask.

It’s also entirely possible he just used the conspiracy to draw us in, and of course the misinformation was part of what he saw with World War II and the Cold War. The juxtaposition is possibly accidental.

The facts of the Kennedy assassination are right in the open. Have always been. But even those who know Oswald was a communist and had a Soviet wife, will say “yes but…” and then on go on blab about the climate of hatred or evil conservatives. Why? Because all the books, most of the articles and ninety nine point nine percent of the dramatizations involving Kennedy go haring off those points and leaving the obvious, visible truth by the way side as something of little importance." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Misdirection. It also works in magic, politics, and other stage performances.

"(W)hile I can’t believe in conspiracies – particularly conspiracies by bureaucracy (wikileaks, anyone?) I do believe in the efficacy of “the big lie”. It works because it doesn’t try to cover up every proof of what really happened. Instead, it suppresses the truth by repeating the lie so often and so loudly, and by accusing anyone who challenges it of being crazy or worse, until truth shuts up and goes away. It’s still there. It’s just that no one looks at it." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Just because Hitler used it (and did so successfully) doesn't mean others don't use the same technique. He also used staircases, automobiles, sidewalks, and tableware.

"(H)ere’s the thing, right now (wikileaks, Journolist) the levers of power and the “shut up, we’re smarter” aren’t working. There are to many other channels of communication, people are talking and posting phone videos of what they actually saw. Oh, some of it still works. The whole Arab Spring thing is not going anywhere as positively as it was painted. I’m sure the readers of this blog, innocent and fragile flowers all, will be shocked to know in most cases it might just be a way to more extremist religious regimes." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

CAA hasn't, yet, read any of Mrs. Hoyt's books but, if her fiction is as good as her web log, that is going to have to change!

"They learned at college that they are smart because they believe a set of things their professors told them — and that only ignorant people believe otherwise. And they want to go on thinking they are smart. They want to be able to tell all those squabbling bloggers and indie writers to “shut up” and “you’re irrelevant” and “we’ll never invite you to the nice parties.” "

10/17

re: "Diplomatic Political Reporting: Say What You Think?"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") gave thoughtful advice to diplomatic report writers.

He urged "the following general rules:

• if you want it to be read, make it readable
• some things are important - but don't matter
• no stupid words!
• don't be boring"

This crossdecks nicely to the U.S. diplomatic context.

"Part of the problem with political reporting is getting right the balance between what HQ wants to know and what it needs to know. Usually HQ is several months behind where any given overseas problem 'is' - standard briefs get word-processed and stale, drawing on expired assumptions.

So just as it is right to try to keep HQ up to date, Embassies also need to remember that HQ usually won't be that interested in anything which significantly changes the 'narrative' unless it is dramatic enough to catch the headlines in the HQ country.

Likewise you can say what you like in an urgent telegram, but the dominant thought about any given overseas development back at HQ will be whatever the media are saying that morning about it. Ministers pay more attention to the newspapers read in the car on the way to the office than to diplomatic cables, since any questions they will be asked during the day will draw on that media reporting, even if it is wrong or stupid..."

All very good advice, simply substitute words like "the Department," "Main State," "the Seventh Floor," or "the Bureau" where "HQ" appears, "secretaries" for "ministers," and understand that "newspapers" actually means CNN, NPR, the Washington Post, and the New York Times.

Urgent messages should relay breaking news; the context and conditions should already have been provided by background cables sent so that desk officers and the like get the "ground truth" and flavor of the place that only on scene reporting can provide.

"(T)here is no easy answer on how a young diplomat should best deal with a situation where the mission and its policy are at variance with reality, honour and common sense. Of course anyone feeling really upset can launch into the various available grievance/appeal processes, but that merely builds up a reputation as a vainglorious boat-rocker and in any case is a hopeless vehicle for changing policy analysis."

Amb. Crawford provided a nice anecdote from his own, occasionally controversial, past. Note that he made ambassador after this episode.

"(I)t ultimately comes down to how you want to live. Most of us rationalise such things away on the grounds that it just takes time to change policies, and that much of what 'policy' is ebbs and flows anyway. Sometimes it's better to avoid fighting a losing battle on one issue for the sake of making a difference in another.

If that isn't your style, resign and do something else. But remember that if you do that, the organisation you've left will have one honourable voice fewer - does that really help either?"

A very good question, but keep your hand on your wallet, and your soul, while you ponder it.

11/20

re: "DIPLOMAT Articles on All and Sundry"

Charles Crawford at Blogoir ("A digital hybrid of blog and memoir presented on a daily basis, or not.") provides a nice block of excerpts from his recent article at DIPLOMAT, "Diplomatic Drafting and Wikileaks."

Money quote(s):

"(T)the Wikileaks document dump exists in a category of its own.

The material is so powerful precisely because it blows away Assange’s banal anti-Americanism. Yes, it’s horribly embarrassing for Washington that all these cables have leaked. Confidences have been ruined. Sources endangered. In terms of writing style the cables often err on the dense and overlong side.

However, far from exposing the dark side of American/Western policies they show as never before the strengths and values of the Western Anglosphere diplomatic method. The documents uncover mile after mile of sensible, balanced, practical, timely and reasonable analysis and comment by American diplomats, often with amusing extra insights and personal touches..." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Which is nice of him to have said. One tries, after all.

"The UK has of its own free will (at least as expressed through Parliament when ratifying the Lisbon Treaty) accepted EU voting rules which allow this to happen, just as the Treaty also provides a procedure to enable a Member State to leave the Union and get back all its sovereignty once again.

Nonetheless, as the eurozone crisis gathers momentum, the existential question of sovereignty is coming back to the fore even in placid, postmodern Europe. What claims, if any, do (say) Greeks have on (say) German resources and hard work by virtue of EU ‘solidarity’? What claims do eurozone members have on (say) the UK, smugly watching the disarray from across the Channel? Tricky."

These are not exactly idle questions nowadays.

11/3