Interesting...

A BBC article which starts with the words "Bloggers beware", is about US military operations online, what they should be, and probably are (apart from the .mil websites). There's a PDF of the Pentagon document obtained through the Freedom of Information Act too. An excerpt:

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.
...
"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops [psychological operations], is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.
...
The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.
...
It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".
...
When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.
...
"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

Most of the things I've read say the internet has grown enough that it can survive having partitions to a certain extent. This isn't about creating partitions though, it is about psyops, as the article says. A field which I know little about. As for the internet being used for propoganda or PR (It's not a weapon after all, eh?), what's the difference?, learning what to trust and what not to trust is a basic skill on the internet isn't it... isn't it?

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

That's not the grand finale, any Electrical Engineer will tell you how he's either tried to build a cellphone jammer, aspired to build one, would like to building one, is going to build one, or has built one already. The same goes for any other part of the electro-magnetic spectrum. Visible light is a part of that spectrum too. EMP's are well known weapons as well. When it comes to the electro-magnetic spectrum, jamming stuff isn't that hard, delivering information across a channel filled with noise is. In the last 5 years or so, huge strides have been made in accomplishing the latter, in WIFI routers and Japanese cellphones. Offcourse, the only thing taught in classes is the latter too. In my experience, there is far more unknown interference across a wireless channel than there is a known signal most of the time when trying to design and test something. Personally, this paper seems appealing.

I guess it is nice to know what the government is trying to do. On a side note, Google can recommend news now given some history:

When you're signed in to your Google Account, you'll receive recommended news stories based on the previous stories you've read.

Build your own bubble... no thanks. I'll pick what I want to read thank you very much.

There is a good summary of the document here.