"At the end of last week, I boldly promised on a
television show: I will present 13 points - which is equivalent to a devil's
dozen - on how to deal with politicians. This entire web is now being woven
around Prime Minister Gintautas Paluckas, but any of us can be included in it.
This time, an attempt is being made to apply the so-called "journalistic
investigations" scheme to Gintautas, which includes "political
harassment and mobbing", "political crackdown through a public
scandal" or "coordinated reputation destruction" scenarios. In
this way, political intrigues are attempted to be covered up with alleged
investigations, and narratives of guilt are formed even before the facts
appear.
The actions described below correspond to the
characteristics of the so-called classic information operation. The goal of these
actions is not to delve into the truth, but to form a negative public opinion,
discredit the target (person or organization), paralyze its activities and
achieve specific political goals. Here is what the stages of such actions look
like.
Stage I: preparation and announcement (preparation of the
ground)
1. Selecting a target and a pretext
A politically or socially significant person or organization
is selected. A pretext is found or created - a real or alleged mistake, some
violation and an ambiguous situation. Often, topics that are emotionally
sensitive to the public are chosen (e.g., corruption, national security,
morality).
2. Announcement and initial intrigue
An announcement about the upcoming “sensational
investigation” appears in the media or social networks. The goal is to create
an anticipation effect and attract the public’s attention in advance. This can
be a short message, a hint or an unexpected question.
Stage II: Active attack and formation of a narrative of
guilt
3. Publication of the “investigation”
A so-called investigation is published synchronously in
several information channels (e.g., a news portal, a television show, and the
social media accounts of influential people). This “investigation” often relies
on associations, half-truths, phrases taken out of context, and omissions. Even
things or facts that happened much earlier are mixed with interpretations in
order to create a convincing, but essentially misleading, narrative. Its goal
is not to reveal the truth, but to form one or another insinuation and
suspicion.
4. Establishment of the narrative of guilt
A clear narrative of guilt is formed from the very
beginning. The target (person or organization) is assigned the role of the
“accused,” and any information is interpreted as almost indisputable evidence
of his guilt. The other side's position is ignored or presented as unreliable,
as an attempt to "evade" or "explain and defend", although
the public has already formed the impression that it is "in trouble".
The logic of "who can deny it" and conspiracy theory "help"
to further develop this narrative.
5. Involvement of political opposition
Immediately after the publication, political opponents or
competitors become involved in the situation. In addition, comments from
"experts" or "political scientists" appear, without
bothering with their competence to comment on such "research". They
express "concern", demand answers, suggest the creation of
parliamentary or other investigative commissions, or publicly call on the
target to justify himself or even decide to resign. This gives the scandal
political weight.
6. Inundation of institutions with complaints
In order to create the impression of a legal basis and to
maximally complicate the target’s activities, various institutions (in the case
of Lithuania, the FNTT, VTEK, STT, prosecutor’s office, etc.) are inundated
with (in) formal complaints and requests to initiate an investigation. Each
such appeal becomes news for the media, reinforcing the impression of serious
violations.
Stage III: Increasing pressure and escalation
7. Increasing doubts and the “second entry”
After the first wave of the scandal subsides, the “second
entry” begins. New details are published, often of little value, but
maintaining constant information noise. It is also emphasized that the target
“did not answer all the questions”, “is hiding” or “is trying to hide the truth”.
8. Involvement of senior state officials (in the case of
Lithuania, the President, the Speaker of the Seimas, the Prime Minister, etc.)
and other authorities
Attempts are made to involve the country's highest leaders
or other moral authorities in the scandal, demanding their
"position". Their silence or neutral speech is interpreted as support
for the target, and a more critical word is interpreted as confirmation of
guilt.
9. Organization of public actions
In order to demonstrate the alleged "public
outrage", small but well-covered protests and performances are organized,
often involving one or another activist group, non-governmental organizations
or youth organizations of political parties.
10. Mobilization of social networks
A narrative of guilt is massively distributed on social
networks and their "bubbles". Automated solutions, separate platforms
or artificial intelligence can also be used for this, which artificially
increase the popularity and form of the topic, giving the impression that
“everyone is talking about it.” Disinformation spreads faster than factual information
on social networks.
Stage IV: Culmination and results
11. Involvement of “appropriate” experts
“Independent” experts appear in the public sphere, who,
commenting on the situation, support and consolidate the essentially
predetermined narrative of guilt. Their status gives the scandal intellectual
weight and credibility.
12. Criminal liability and “treason” cards
The scandal narrative is raised to a higher level – people
start talking about possible criminal liability, and finally – about the influence
of hostile states, “treason”. (In the case of Lithuania – links with Russia or
Belarus). This is the heaviest artillery, designed to finally compromise the
target.
13. Opportunist Search
The organizers of the attack actively seek out dissatisfied
or wavering individuals in the target’s environment (party, team). They try to
win them over to their side, inciting potential political or other benefits, as
well as aiming to divide the target’s support base from within. The desired
“result” of implementing all of these points:
• Long-term reputational impact: even if all accusations
ultimately fail, the target’s reputation is severely and permanently damaged.
In the eyes of the public, they remain “the one who caused the scandal.”
• Political weakening: the goal of the attack is often not
to remove the person from office, but to weaken them politically so that they
become easier to manage, make certain decisions, or do not participate in the
upcoming elections.
• Public polarization: such campaigns deepen public division
and distrust not only of politicians, but also of the media, the legal system,
and state institutions.
• “Creating a precedent” – a successful “attack” becomes an
example or even a tool that can be used against any other political or
commercial opponent in the future.
This scenario helps to create and manage a well-thought-out
and coordinated campaign that uses psychological pressure, mobbing and
disinformation tactics.
Currently, practices of applying such scenarios can be found
in Lithuania as well."
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą