Question: What's the difference between PR and China's informatized a.k.a. information warfare? Isn't PR not part of information battle? If they supposedly suck at PR then how are they going to fare any better when an actual conflict starts in terms of shaping the public's perception and attention. Unless the shaping and molding the attention are directed primarily to the Chinese people. But, I don't see that as any more advantageous for China if they have to do or make a lot of efforts in convincing the Chinese masses that their government's action is just and worthy of their sacrifice. That people should rally behind its govt tend to be given in many countries, regardless of how, why, and what.
Help me understand the dichotomy of these two seemingly similar approaches in context.
Well I refrain from calling them information warfare, because, it's not very PR to say it like that.
Warfare after all sounds a bit scary for many people so I just call it PR
Tbh most of the things we call PR nowadays it's just information warfare. From "Tibet independence" to HK, to Uighurs genocide bs, to now "overcapacity", they are all proper information warfare.
I tend to see PR more for defensive information shaping operations, while information attack or better yet,
cognitive warfare, more for attacking information warfare.
Overall on the military domain, I consider PR as part of the cognitive domain. But nowdays, many times these terms are used interchangeably.
To conclude, I would consider this episode as cognitive warfare with an attacking purpose
