The Army’s planners found “that you can neither wage nor resist a guerilla war successfully unless the local population is with you… To win over native populations, a personal approach may be more effective [than] radio broadcasts.” So says a story titled “Secret Weapon: The Con Man” from The Washington Daily News published May 18, 1961.
Category: Psychological Struggle
Jim says:
would be an interesting article to read!
Bill Kiehl says:
The more things change the more they remain the same.
Shawn Powers says:
Different purposes, no? Broadcasting is typically news-based, and ideally that operation is separate from strategic communications and direct persuasion efforts, the types of things that are greatly enhanced with a personal approach.
Also, a “personal approach” probably means something different today when compared to 1961. Whereas in 1961, that almost certainly is a reference to people-to-people, direct contact, a modern “personal approach” may include a “personal” selection, e.g. information based on the target audience’s specific preferences, of news articles emailed to their laptop.
Erik719 says:
The PSYOP community has never moved away from this premise. Face-to-face dissemination of the message is _THE_ most effective means of communication. However, that is not always possible and you can reach a much larger target audience via radio/TV than you can with people on the ground.