Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Guest Blogger
Investigative journalist Michael Hastings recently broke a story on BuzzFeed about an amendment that is being inserted into the latest defense authorization bill. The amendment would “legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences.” Hasting reported that the amendment would “strike the current ban on domestic dissemination” of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Pentagon. He says the “tweak” to the bill would “neutralize” two other acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—which were passed in order “to protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.” Rep. Mark Thornberry (R, Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D, Washington) are co-sponsors of the bipartisan amendment.
Hastings says that “the new law would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to push television, radio, newspaper, and social media onto the U.S. public.” One Pentagon official who is concerned about the amendment told Hastings, “It removes the protection for Americans. It removes oversight from the people who want to put out this information. There are no checks and balances. No one knows if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely false.” The official added that there are “senior public affairs” officers in the Department of Defense who would like to “get rid” of the Smith-Mundt Act “and other restrictions because it prevents information activities designed to prop up unpopular policies—like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
In a Mediaite piece last week, Josh Feldman wrote of how the US military has been looking for new ways to spread U.S. propaganda “on social media websites for a while now.” Feldman also made reference to an article that was published in Wired last July. In the article, Pentagon Wants a Social Media Propaganda Machine, Adam Rawnsley told of how the DoD “has been working on ways to monitor and engage in ‘countermessaging’ on social media sites like Twitter.”
According to Hastings, the Pentagon already spends about $4 billion dollars annually to “sway public opinion.”
Here’s something to chill you to the bone: Hastings reported that USA Today had recently published an article about the DoD having spent “$202 million on information operations in Iraq and Afghanistan last year.” Well, it appears that the reporters who worked on the USA Today article were targeted by “Pentagon contractors, who created fake Facebook pages and Twitter accounts in an attempt to discredit them.” (Read about that story here.)
One of Hastings sources on the Hill told him, “I just don’t want to see something this significant – whatever the pros and cons – go through without anyone noticing.” The source added that the law would allow “U.S. propaganda intended to influence foreign audiences to be used on the domestic population.”
Michael Hastings:
The evaporation of Smith-Mundt and other provisions to safeguard U.S. citizens against government propaganda campaigns is part of a larger trend within the diplomatic and military establishment.
In December, the Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley Manning’s pre-trial hearing; another program being developed by the Pentagon would design software to create “sock puppets” on social media outlets; and, last year, General William Caldwell, deployed an information operations team under his command that had been trained in psychological operations to influence visiting American politicians to Kabul.
The upshot, at times, is the Department of Defense using the same tools on U.S. citizens as on a hostile, foreign, population.
Is this how we want our tax dollars being spent—to produce propaganda aimed at us Americans to sway public opinion?
SOURCES
Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban (BuzzFeed)
Congress May Reverse Ban On Domestic Distribution Of Propaganda Material (Mediaite)
Pentagon Wants a Social Media Propaganda Machine (Wired)
Misinformation campaign targets USA TODAY reporter, editor (USA Today)
Mike S.,
“With Romney we have the ultimate “greed is good” candidate who has also become beholden to regressive religious Fundamentalists. Taxes for the 1% will be cut again; our bare minimum of regulations will be abolished; women’s rights will be attacked; gay rights left in shambles; more jobs will be lost; Social Security and Medicare will be privatized and medicaid destroyed; SCOTUS will become overwhelmingly conservative; and so it goes.”
There it is…in a nutshell!
1zb1,
Definitions of propaganda (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
1) The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2) Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wratime propaganda.
*****
I don’t believe that everything is propaganda. There is a difference between information and propaganda. I don’t agree that the whole point of communicating is to spread propaganda.
“The idea of causing Romney to win is loathsome, but there are still very good reasons why it might actually be better, from a humane point of view, than four more years of Obama. Mostly, they boil down to one thing; Romney would have his hands tied and gridlock in Washington is the best news Main street can hope for. If Obama is re-elected, you are almost guaranteed to see serious and totally unnecessary cuts in the safety net programs that will cause huge damage to a large swath of defenseless people, and open the gates for even more serious harm in the future. If Romney is elected, you will see the same effort, but it will result in a huge partisan fight and that might actually avoid the dreaded legislation. The strategy stems from a simple imperfection in the “rigged” system, but it has proven to work again and again in the past just it did just recently when Boehner overplayed his hand.”
BB,
The problem is that you “think” you understand American politics, but your understanding is superficial at best. A Romney victory may well take both the House and Senate on his coattails, since both of them are in play and the polling at this point gives no reason to believe otherwise. If that happens there goes your deadlock you speak about. Even if there is a split in control over the House and Senate, there still will be no “deadlock” and for the reason you can look to the aftermath of the 1980 “Reagan Revolution”. The popular vote percentages were as follows: Reagan: 50.7%, Carter 41% and Anderson 7%.
While it was true that the electoral college went overwhelmingly for Reagan, 50.7 % does not a mandate make and Congress was still controlled by the Democrats. However, the pundits of the press proclaimed it a “Reagan Revolution” rather than what it really was a Carter repudiation, very specifically due to the “Iran Hostage Crisis”. Democratic politicians react to punditry and mostly “rolled over” for Reagan. The Social Security Tax was doubled and used to pay for a further bloating of the military and the beginning
of the end of FDR’s legacy began to become undone as we bravely marched into the 80’s decade of “Greed is Good”.
With Romney we have the ultimate “greed is good” candidate who has also become beholden to regressive religious Fundamentalists. Taxes for the 1% will be cut again; our bare minimum of regulations will be abolished; women’s
rights will be attacked; gay rights left in shambles; more jobs will be lost; Social Security and Medicare will be privatized and medicaid destroyed; SCOTUS will become overwhelmingly conservative; and so it goes.
Fear not though BB, because you will have proven yourself to be a “Thoreau” at least in your imagination. So nothing to worry about, they’re all the same.
You are such a deep strategic thinker ad so much purer a soul than I.
What is the GOP-run House going to legalize next, water?
Propaganda within the U.S.eh? is a multi-billion dollar business, existing solidly for about a century now:
(The Spawn of …). It is uncanny that propaganda is one of the most prolific forms of literature, but is not easily detected by Brits and Americans.
lbz1, where did I say it doesn’t matter?
em; everything is propaganda… to a large extent the whole point of communicating – even when it is 100% factual – is to influence peoples behavior, thinking, and attitues.
BB: what you believe is it doesn’t matter…. if you really believed it doesn’t matter then there is no point in trying to convince others it doesn’t matter. and yet you continue to try and convince people it doesn’t matter which strongly suggests you believe it does matter. if everyone took your position what would be the consequences. according to you it doesn’t matter so why are you wasting your time on something that doesn’t matter and even if everyone agreed with you it still wouldn’t matter.
1zb1,
Summary of the amendment:
“Would amend the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (known as the Smith-Mundt Act) and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to clarify the authorities of the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to prepare, disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad and to strike the current ban on domestic dissemination of such material. Would clarify that the Smith-Mundt Act’s provisions related to public diplomacy information do not apply to other Federal departments or agencies (including the Department of Defense).”
*****
Informing and propagandizing are not exactly the same thing. You’re assuming that the “public diplomacy information” that is spread/distributed abroad is only informational material and not propaganda.
sm: he should try telling woman, minorities, gays, and seniors it doesn’t matter. try telling 30 million people who will loss their healthcare it doesn’t matter; try telling the hope for cleaner environment it doesn’t matter.
actually, its really too silly to even wast time on… GET OUT THE VOTE!!!!
lbz1, are you saying that if anyone believed what they are saying, they would not try and convince anyone else? Empty comment section? No Blogs? Or does it just apply to me who you happen to disagree with?
em: nothing wrong with bringing attention, but i think the underlying hasting article was perhaps misrepresenting the bill and using it to link to other activities in a misleading way. it is one thing to have the government secretly disemminating or manipulating information ie fake webposts and that is certainly a legitimate concern, but it is another to make available to the public information we are using and how we are using it as a means of informing the public…
lincoln said gov of for and by the people but regan said government is the problem and republicans have been doing their best to make that so ever since and then complaining about it. its a receipe for american decline. time to go back to the lincoln notion of government.
1zb1, BB must want more “corporations are people” and anti-choice Supreme Court appointees.
1zb1,
I’m re-posting one of my earlier comments:
em: the summary is a direct quote from the amendment. In that sense it is accurate. however, if a summary was the whole bill we would not need the rest of it to make clear what it does and the summary would not be a summary but the whole bill.
*****
So…what’s your point? What do you think the intent of the amendment is?
BTW, Congressional bills/amendments rarely make things clear. They tend to obfuscate with an overabundance of language. Summaries are written to clarify the intent of a bill/amendment.
*****
Do you think our government should be spending our tax dollars to produce propaganda targeted at us Americans? A yes or no answer will suffice.
Swarthmore mom: Yes
em: i was referring only to Smith/Thornberry Amendment
bb, if you really believed that nonsense you would not bother trying to convince everyone else of it.
Instead of stating your points below as fact try proving even one of those statements are true.
The idea of causing Romney to win is loathsome, but there are still very good reasons why it might actually be better, from a humane point of view, than four more years of Obama. Mostly, they boil down to one thing; Romney would have his hands tied and gridlock in Washington is the best news Main street can hope for. If Obama is re-elected, you are almost guaranteed to see serious and totally unnecessary cuts in the safety net programs that will cause huge damage to a large swath of defenseless people, and open the gates for even more serious harm in the future. If Romney is elected, you will see the same effort, but it will result in a huge partisan fight and that might actually avoid the dreaded legislation. The strategy stems from a simple imperfection in the “rigged” system, but it has proven to work again and again in the past just it did just recently when Boehner overplayed his hand.
Mike S, The same people said to stay home in 2010 rather than vote for any democrat. None were pure enough. All that resulted in was the GOP war on women and the loss of Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson along with others. Scott Walker is trying to turn Wisconsin into a right to work state. I don’t care if they stay home or not as I already had that discussion with them in 2010. I would rather spend my time registering voters than persuading people to stay home That is my choice. Voter participation is not very high, and I think that is a large part of the problem.
1zb1,
The focus of this post was on the Smith/Thornberry Amendment. I was attempting to call people’s attention to that one specific amendment and its intent and not to the entire Defense Authorization Act of 2013.
Idealist707, Thoreau didn’t accomplish very much by sitting in prison or did he? On the spot, I think Emerson had to bail him out. But we are still talking about his act of disobedience. The OWS protests are not accomplishing very much or are they? They have chosen to avoid specific demands. They seem to be avoiding as much as possible the system they are challenging. It’s hardly a methodology and it’s far from perfect.Thoreau was not particularly nice and created numerous awkward situations for Emerson to “clean up”. The OWS have frustrated everyone by not coming up with solutions, but instead continuing with the same refrain that the system is rigged.
I am calling into question here a sort of cozy attitude of, “it’s fine to criticize Obama or Democrats as long as you vote for them.” I don’t have answers. I think Thoreau could be a rather nasty sort at times and I think I have put myself in that same position here on this site (and no, I do not claim to be a Thoreau). Be that as it may, the question I raise is hardly my own and it is a far more reasonable question to ask than many people will admit to.
The idea of causing Romney to win is loathsome, but there are still very good reasons why it might actually be better, from a humane point of view, than four more years of Obama. Mostly, they boil down to one thing; Romney would have his hands tied and gridlock in Washington is the best news Main street can hope for. If Obama is re-elected, you are almost guaranteed to see serious and totally unnecessary cuts in the safety net programs that will cause huge damage to a large swath of defenseless people, and open the gates for even more serious harm in the future. If Romney is elected, you will see the same effort, but it will result in a huge partisan fight and that might actually avoid the dreaded legislation. The strategy stems from a simple imperfection in the “rigged” system, but it has proven to work again and again in the past just it did just recently when Boehner overplayed his hand.
Not voting for Obama is a serious option and a completely fair challenge to the notion that Obama or Democrats are really a lesser evil. Given the amount of lethal mischief Obama has accomplished in four years, that many would consider absolutely horrific had it been done by a Republican, I see no factual support for the claim of lesser evil. The best I have gotten from a very thorough and well researched commenter on this site just plays the fear card, “We would find out if Romney gets elected” But whether or not one votes for Romney, or doesn’t vote for Obama, the question should not be taboo or dismissed so easily as it currently is.
em: any bill, no matter how long or short is open to wide interpretation. we can argue over the meaning and intent of a single word. for example, some people take the healthcare penalty provision and take that to mean the government can make you eat broccolli.
i take this bill as much more about rules for making such information available to the public so the public has a means to know what we are doing overseas… for example section (b)(1)
‘(A) to establish procedures to maintain such material;
‘(B) for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred in fulfilling requests for such material; and
‘(C) to ensure that the persons seeking release of such material have secured and paid for necessary United States rights and licenses.
The part about not influencing public opinion (which gene thinks we should ignore, underscores this purpose.
at the same time the it goes without saying that all information of every kind has the potentional to influence in some fashion. A documentry which includes excerpts of such information used overseas can easily take the point of view and promote a sinister or conversely, benign slant on the material to influence people here about government activity.
in this case people have used a relatively benighn legislation that actually provides a means of getting more informed about what our government is doing overseas and has made it into more government is evil hyperbole….
seems most people here have fallen for that…. personally i want to aim to be more informed, not less. apparently most people here seem to think if we don’t know what we are saying overseas its okay and if we do know its bad.