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)
1zb1,
You wrote: “i don’t think one can make blanket statements that everything is bad.”
I had previously written the following: “I’m not implying that people never tell the truth when they are advocating for their causes.”
I don’t think there is anything wrong with advocating for a cause–as long as one tells the truth about the cause and it is a just cause. Of course, some may have different opinions about what a just cause is. I DO think we have to be wary of what we hear and read in the news. A lot of what we get isn’t hard facts/information. It’s propaganda and talking points.
Speaking for myself–I don’t want the government spending billions of tax dollars to produce propaganda that is meant to sway my opinion about the war in Afghanistan, the use of drones in this country, the use of warrant-less wiretapping, etc.
bettykath,
Amazing! Absoluting f… amazing. I didn’t know that corporations had religious or (egads) moral convictions. Oh, wait, definitions…. religious convictions…..lots of religions, new ones popping up all the time. Moral convictions…..they can change over time….maybe some people, the artificial ones especially, have their own that don’t match mine. Wonder how those artificial persons determine their religious or moral convictions…..mmmm, bottom line $$$$$$$$$$$$$ religion?
=========================================================
I was born protestant. I’m agnostic. My Navy dog tag shows “No Rel Pref.”
For those who say “so it goes” and “that’s it in a nutshell”. From nutshells, usually mighty trees grow.
Some of them quite poisonous. And some bear surprisingly unexpected fruits. Romney and his people will certainly surprise us. Ssdly.
I won’t make a list, don’t want to give any ideas.
But now is the time fo turn, but Malisha says it is too big a ship. Perhaps she is right.
This domestication of propaganda, which explicitly excludes all forms from restriction except diplomatic information, as well as that too are the death knell of freedom of speech. When all channels are bought (Dredd,) and the monies are essentially unlimited for propaganda, then what space can free speech command?
“MS, I don’t criticize your integrity. Being critical of some of your views, and defending myself from your crusade, is not at all the same.”
BB,
Thank you for that, sincerely. I think though you should again review my numerous comments to understand that I am not on a crusade to get people to vote for Obama. Unlike 2008 I have not contributed one cent to his campaign. Also unlike 2008 I will not become involved in his election campaign which has locally asked me to do so. I explained to them in length, perhaps longer than they wished to hear, how disappointed I’ve been in him and gave so many specifics that I think I upset the caller. To state my position once again, after having spent a 37 year career assisting oppressed people of every description and actively acting in that context at some risk to myself professionally, I do not want to see further misery placed upon the 99%. I am not certain that my vote can help anything, because truthfully things are perhaps already too far gone, but it costs me nothing to make the effort.
em: you said: “Is the primary motive of the people who produce propaganda about spreading the truth–or about advocating for their doctrine or cause? I’m not implying that people never tell the truth when they are advocating for their causes. ” so what is wrong with advocating for a cause….. when tobacco co market (advocate) for people to smoke when they know it kills you and then use manipulative/deceptive methods there is clearly something wrong.
if we try and promote the idea abroad that all Americans are not infadels is that bad. If the government does commercials about the features of the health care bill is that bad…. i don’t think one can make blanket statements that everything is bad.
i707: since you seem to want to trade insults rather then converse like an adult lets just get it over with now: your an idiot.
Bettykath,
I too have muttered how a corporation can have religious beliefs?! The Money is the answer to all questions coming out of the Right.
1zb1,
Government propaganda never hurt anyone–just ask the Jews who survived the Holocaust.
bettykath,
“Absoluting f… amazing.”
Ain’t that the truth?
1zb1,
It also still stands “used to influence” Who defines what the purpose of the funding is? The government and the Office of Legal Counsel in each department with guidance from the White House will define it generally and even line item by item if necessary.
Are you really incapable of reading? And using your brain of course. Can you chew gum and walk?
I don’t believe you will have to wait long to find out what happens. Watch for next seasons previews.
“The bill states that no employer or health plan provider can be compelled to provide coverage _ or be penalized for refusing to cover _ abortion, contraception or sterilization if those items run contrary to their religious or moral convictions. The bill also gives the state attorney general grounds to sue other governmental officials or entities that infringe on the rights granted in the legislation.”
Amazing! Absoluting f… amazing. I didn’t know that corporations had religious or (egads) moral convictions. Oh, wait, definitions…. religious convictions…..lots of religions, new ones popping up all the time. Moral convictions…..they can change over time….maybe some people, the artificial ones especially, have their own that don’t match mine. Wonder how those artificial persons determine their religious or moral convictions…..mmmm, bottom line $$$$$$$$$$$$$ religion?
bettykath,
Good for you. Ask Greta Van Susteren how her plastic surgery went. Does she still want some Moose chili? Don’t bother calling Ann Coulter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/kill-claire-mccaskill-applauded-son_n_1503243.html Read this, Blouise. She is a pro-choice catholic.
Elaine M. I apologize. Completely off base.
Blouise, If you saw the tea party anti-woman woman that is running against her, you might mark x for her. The other one is a hard right man.
Brooklin Bridge,
Elaine M. 1, May 21, 2012 at 11:44 am
An omen of things to come if the Republicans retain the House, gain the Senate, and Romney is elected president?
Missouri Legislature Approves Bill Allowing Employers To Deny Access To Birth Control
By Amanda Peterson Beadle on May 21, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/21/487438/missouri-employers-block-contraception-coverage/
**********
You wrote in reply:
Who, pray tell, is responsible for this?
Given the importance of this law, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review is not surprising. What is disappointing is the Obama administration’s effort to insulate the broadest surveillance program ever enacted by Congress from meaningful judicial review.
*****
Did you read the ThinkProgress article?
There is a general awareness of the revolving door between government and corporations. There is also a relationship between government and media that is disconcert\ting. Wayne Madsen has a chart
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/categories/20070423_1
that shows more than 50 of “those members of the corporate media and public relations spin machine, and their mostly GOP/neo-con shill relatives, especially their spouses”
Examples:
Chelsea Clinton, NBC News correspondent
Bill Clinton (father)
Hillary Clinton (mother)
Meghan McCain, MS-NBC contributor
Sen. John McCain (father)
Jenna Bush Hager, reporter, NBC Today show
George W. Bush (father)
James Carville, NBC Meet the Press guest, Hillary Clinton adviser and promoter of the corporate-funded and anti-labor and anti-progressive Democratic Leadership Council.
Mary Matalin (wife) Long-time confidante of Vice President Dick Cheney and was a member of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which helped “sell the war” in Iraq. Matalin and Carville often appear on Meet the Press together as dueling Washington insiders — which is a ruse designed to deceive the public.
Chris Matthews, NBC and MS-NBC, Hardball host
Jim Matthews (brother), GOP Lt. Gov, running mate of 2006 GOP gubernatorial candidate in Pennsylvania Lynn Swann.
Kathleen Matthews (wife) Executive Vice President for Global Communications and Public Affairs at Marriott International. Willard Mitt Romney is named for J. Willard Marriott, the founder of the corporation who was also a close friend of the Romney family.
Brit Hume, Managing Editor, Fox News, Washington
Kim Schiller Hume (wife), Former Fox News Washington Bureau Chief, Vice President Fox News.
Virginia Hume (daughter) Attorney with Quinn & Gillespie, co-founded by former RNC Chair and current top Bush aide Ed Gillespie.
John Ellis, Fox News
George W. Bush (cousin), In charge of 2000 election projections for Fox News.
Tucker Carlson, MSNBC
Richard Carlson (father) Vice Chairman of neo-con Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD), member Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund Trust
Bob Schieffer, CBS News
Tom Schieffer (brother) U.S. Ambassador to Japan, former U.S. Ambassador to Australia, former President of the Texas Rangers baseball team when G. W. Bush made millions from a $700,000 investment as general partner.
Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
Alan Greenspan (husband) Former Chairman, Federal Reserve Bank
Robert Kagan, Columnist, Washington Post, Co-founder of Project for the New American Century (PNAC),
Victoria Nuland (wife), Bush administration Permanent Representative to NATO.
Fred Kagan (brother), Resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute and major force behind the “surge” in Iraq.
Donald Kagan (father), West Point miltary professor. Leading neocon.
Christiane Amanpour, CNN
Jamie Rubin (husband), Former Madeleine Albright press spokesman
Claire Shipman, ABC News Good Morning America
Jay Carney (husband), Obama White House Press Secretary
An omen of things to come if the Republicans retain the House, gain the Senate, and Romney is elected president?
Who, pray tell, is responsible for this?
Given the importance of this law, the Supreme Court’s decision to grant review is not surprising. What is disappointing is the Obama administration’s effort to insulate the broadest surveillance program ever enacted by Congress from meaningful judicial review.
SwM,
“Also need McCaskill to hang on. ”
I can’t, no matter how hard I try, rationalize supporting her. She talks a good game but as a career politician who has spent all but three years of her career living off the public tit, her actual accomplishments are minimal. She knows how to work the system by lining up on the winning side when playing the internal politics of the Democratic Party.
Were I a voter in Missouri this is one race I’d have to refuse to mark or do a write-in.
anon nurse,
The appeals court properly recognized that our clients have a reasonable basis to fear that the government may be monitoring their conversations, even though it has no reason to suspect them of having engaged in any unlawful activities. The constitutionality of the government’s surveillance powers can and should be tested in court. We are hopeful that the Supreme Court will agree.
========================================================
Keep hoping. The United States isn’t Poland.
An omen of things to come if the Republicans retain the House, gain the Senate, and Romney is elected president?
*****
Missouri Legislature Approves Bill Allowing Employers To Deny Access To Birth Control
By Amanda Peterson Beadle on May 21, 2012
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/05/21/487438/missouri-employers-block-contraception-coverage/
Missouri legislators passed a bill Friday that allows employers or health insurance providers to stop offering coverage for contraception, abortion, or sterilization if doing so violates their religious or moral convictions. The bill now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon (D), who has not said whether he supports the legislation.
The measure mirrors a federal restriction proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) that has not progressed in Congress and is designed to push back against the Obama administration’s rule requiring contraception coverage to be included in insurance plans at no additional cost.
While some Democrats opposed the anti-contraception bill, it passed the Senate 28-6 and the House 105-33:
The bill states that no employer or health plan provider can be compelled to provide coverage _ or be penalized for refusing to cover _ abortion, contraception or sterilization if those items run contrary to their religious or moral convictions. The bill also gives the state attorney general grounds to sue other governmental officials or entities that infringe on the rights granted in the legislation.
“This bill is about religious freedom and moral convictions,” said Rep. Sandy Crawford, R-Buffalo. “This is about sending a message to the federal government that we don’t like things rammed down our throat.”
But state Rep. Stacey Newman (D) said the bill endangering women’s access to health care was more of an attack on “women’s reproductive choices” than a message to the federal government. “This is wrong and I dare you to go home and talk to your daughters … and say, ‘Look, what we’re going to say is that your employers’ religious beliefs matter more than your own,’” Newman told colleagues.
In 2006, 53 percent of pregnancies in Missouri were unintended, 61 percent of which resulted in live births and 25 percent resulted in induced abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 65 percent of births that were unintended were publicly funded, compared to 50 percent of all births and 37 percent of intended pregnancies.