Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Heads Up !!! - Propaganda Ban Repealed As Government Made News Floods U.S. - FDL
Propaganda Ban Repealed As Government Made News Floods U.S.By: DSWright - FDL
Monday July 15, 2013 8:17 am
<snip>
Have you ever wondered what America’s official propaganda is like? You will not have to wonder much longer as the ban on the U.S. government propagandizing American citizens has been quietly lifted. You may soon be hearing and seeing government made news, though you might not always know it was government made.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts.
The law, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, was passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The repeal of the propaganda ban went into effect this month. The country has already gotten a taste of the U.S. propaganda efforts by the Pentagon.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons.Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously.
Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported The Post.
Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported The Post.
Anonymous smearing of journalists and programs to manipulate the news, why was this ban lifted again?
While the Department of Defense does what it pleases in any case...
<snip>
More: http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/07/15/propoganda-ban-repealed-as-government-made-news-floods-u-s/
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
.
.
.
Can you feel it now?
CC
and East Germany woud do something like this. Our NSA isn't at all like the Stasi or the KGB.
Or so we hear all the time. 
Who was it that invented propaganda, again? Oh yes, that Goebbels guy -- he was a nice Chamber of Commerce type of chap.
There's nothing to worry about, some unheard of blogger will be along any time now, to tell us propaganda is just advertising. In 3-2-1...
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
The DOD has never been subject to the ban.
They need not worry. The proposed change pertains only to government-funded, civilian international broadcasters. Changing the law as H.R. 5736 proposes would have no effect on restricting the Department of Defense or other government agencies from producing content for audiences in the United States or elsewhere, because the law doesn’t currently impose any.
That’s not to say the proposed repeal shouldn’t raise questions. It should, but not questions about propagandizing US citizens. The questions should focus on why we’re so worried about the content we screen overseas, and why we haven’t gained official access to said content sooner in the current porous media environment.
We can’t, as of now, really know whether the content of VOA is in fact truthful or propagandistic, routinely biased for or against the United States, whether the content champions or condemns American foreign policy. This content, broadcast to audiences around the world, can be exempted from American freedom of information requests, and American ethnic media outlets are prevented from rebroadcasting news that would serve their communities. With the ban, all we know for certain is that content is financed by the US government. This doesn’t necessarily make it propaganda, but it certainly does make the content worthy of the same scrutiny savvy audiences apply to all media.
They need not worry. The proposed change pertains only to government-funded, civilian international broadcasters. Changing the law as H.R. 5736 proposes would have no effect on restricting the Department of Defense or other government agencies from producing content for audiences in the United States or elsewhere, because the law doesn’t currently impose any.
That’s not to say the proposed repeal shouldn’t raise questions. It should, but not questions about propagandizing US citizens. The questions should focus on why we’re so worried about the content we screen overseas, and why we haven’t gained official access to said content sooner in the current porous media environment.
We can’t, as of now, really know whether the content of VOA is in fact truthful or propagandistic, routinely biased for or against the United States, whether the content champions or condemns American foreign policy. This content, broadcast to audiences around the world, can be exempted from American freedom of information requests, and American ethnic media outlets are prevented from rebroadcasting news that would serve their communities. With the ban, all we know for certain is that content is financed by the US government. This doesn’t necessarily make it propaganda, but it certainly does make the content worthy of the same scrutiny savvy audiences apply to all media.
<And...>
When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law in early January, he authorized implementation of the Smith Mundt Modernization Act, eliminating the domestic dissemination ban. In contrast to the alarmist punditry that surfaced last May—critics said that a repeal would allow the US to subject its own citizens to propaganda—the actual change has prompted little discussion outside of public diplomacy and international broadcast circles.
As of July 1, 2013, content produced by the five US government-sponsored broadcasters, all overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will no longer be subject to the ban. In practice, not much will change. As one longtime US international broadcasting expert observed, the legislation simply changes the legal status of an already hard-to-enforce ban, “allowing de jure to catch up with de facto.” A formal statement from Voice of America, the flagship US international broadcaster, praised the change, emphasizing both the resulting transparency and the opportunity it now offers for Americans to learn more about this US foreign policy tool. As one board member declared, “All Americans will now have access to the vital and informative reporting of our accomplished journalists around the world who are working under difficult circumstances in closed societies and developing countries.”
As of July 1, 2013, content produced by the five US government-sponsored broadcasters, all overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will no longer be subject to the ban. In practice, not much will change. As one longtime US international broadcasting expert observed, the legislation simply changes the legal status of an already hard-to-enforce ban, “allowing de jure to catch up with de facto.” A formal statement from Voice of America, the flagship US international broadcaster, praised the change, emphasizing both the resulting transparency and the opportunity it now offers for Americans to learn more about this US foreign policy tool. As one board member declared, “All Americans will now have access to the vital and informative reporting of our accomplished journalists around the world who are working under difficult circumstances in closed societies and developing countries.”
From Your Articles.
I DON'T TRUST THEM.
