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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Online Propaganda - Invisible Tool of Secret Government [View all]Octafish
(55,745 posts)8. Un-American, Creepy as Hell, and Legal.
And we pay for it, too; so there is that.
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
BY JOHN HUDSON
Foreign Policy, JULY 14, 2013 - 03:06
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. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn't be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public's last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."
SNIP...
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."
CONTINUED w links n sources...
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/12/us_backs_off_propaganda_ban_spreads_government_made_news_to_americans
No static at all. No irony, neither. And please don't ask about the hypocrisy.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
136 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Yes, it is Un-American. GCHQ and JTRIG are British intel divisions. This is not an NSA program. nt
ucrdem
Mar 2014
#62
Yes, I'm sure it was presented in-depth to the NSA because they had no interest in it.
Marr
Mar 2014
#104
Bamford spelled out the situation. Two weeks later, the Pentagon dropped the I-Bomb.
Octafish
Mar 2014
#14
Oooh! I wonder too! Shifting eyes back and forth... back and forth. And don't forget there's a team!
Luminous Animal
Mar 2014
#77
Other tactics aimed at individuals are listed here, under the revealing title “discredit a target”:
Octafish
Mar 2014
#27
Absolutely, there are some classic examples of that here. But the good thing is we recognize them.
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#57
Yes, it's hard to believe Greenwald would pass off British intel as an NSA program.
ucrdem
Mar 2014
#59
Thanks for mentioning Greenwald. The smear campaign against HIM is a perfect example of the OP.
sabrina 1
Mar 2014
#70
Thank you, Oilwellian! Here's how this whole ball of antiterror police state wax got rolling...
Octafish
Mar 2014
#42
SidDithers SOP. Nothing to say about the issue, so use 'LOL' to ridicule Greenwald.
Octafish
Mar 2014
#23
You must be thinking of Latest Breaking News. That DU forum runs articles just once.
Octafish
Mar 2014
#28
I think Intercept is proving its true colors by passing this off as an NSA program. It isn't. nt
ucrdem
Mar 2014
#53
It was GREENWALD who called out Bush and Cheney on ILLEGAL N.S.A. Spying back in 2007.
Octafish
Mar 2014
#68
Here's a link: "The JTRIG is a unit of the GCHQ, the British intelligence agency." B-R-I-T-I-S-H.
ucrdem
Mar 2014
#56
Yes. And sending that info right back at us. 5 eyes. How to bypass ever english speaking
Luminous Animal
Mar 2014
#80
Well, elderly next door neighbors are under a bit of a stress and we do all that we can to help out
Luminous Animal
Mar 2014
#84
Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; Lord Acton
Tierra_y_Libertad
Mar 2014
#78
Thankfully if you look at recs and replies alone, most DUers are not fooled by the propaganda.
Rex
Mar 2014
#129
Followed a link from another DU'er who puts great stock in your information.
Judi Lynn
Apr 2014
#136