Let's debate the value/legitimacy of gov't propaganda

The Armstrong Williams affair (see http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5183455.html, http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1155&slug=FCC%20Williams, http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000753134) calls to mind a question we don’t much think about in American political discourse: Should the government be allowed to broadcast propaganda to its own citizens and, if so, within what limits?

We do have official propaganda organs – e.g., Voice of America radio (and the U.S. Information Agency, which operated from 1953 until it was abolished in 1999, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USIA) – but they are supposed to limit their broadcasts and publications to foreigners. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_america:

Should it be illegal for VOA to broadcast within the U.S.? Maybe some legitimate good could be served (though what is not immediately obvious to me). Note the bolded passage. I’m not aware of the details, but I believe that in most of the world, it is not considered a sign of tyranny or corruption for the government to have its own news broadcast or publishing organs. It’s considered a routine government function, even in “free” countries. Certainly the BBC acted as a state propaganda organ during WWII. So did a lot of American government agencies in that period. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda.)

In broad terms, any government agency charged with getting out a certain message could be considered a propaganda machine – even something as innocuous as the President’s Council on Fitness. And most government agencies, federal and state, do have some public-relations aspect to their mission. Should all these be abolished?

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:

Waiting for one of the usual suspects to come in and say “that’s what FoxNews is for.” :slight_smile:

Doesn’t the Whitehouse already have it’s own website and can’t it pretty much put anything it wants on that web site?

I guess I just don’t see the need for a VOM broadcast in the US. The administartion can pretty much get as much air time as it wants as it is. Are you suggesting that maybe Congress would have some control over the content? If so, that would be just one more thing of the parties to fight over.

Of course, but it doesn’t count as propaganda (not very effective propaganda, anyway), if people have to go looking for it.

I don’t have the time to reply to this post in full depth, as I have an appointment in an hour, but I’ll recount a discussion I had with Russia/Israeli Jew about media outlets editorializing. Before I start, obviously, they have the right to free speech. As mentioned, Fox News may or may not be biased, but if they are biased, that is their liberty.

My point in the discussion was that a democratic society needs an educated populace. Browing the front page of the daily newspaper while eating breakfast. and maybe the nightly news, is what most people are exposed to. I feel that a direct AP-style feed with the goal of objectivity should be the ideal form of news media. My friend pointed out that this would alienate many people, who would turn to something simpler anyway (with the cite that AP news wire does exist, and most people don’t get their news from it). Instead, he supported media editorialization that goes further and connects the dots for people - instead of saying “26 people were killed in a car bomb in Mosul”, as I would wish it put, he prefered “26 Iraqis killed by terrorist attack in Mosul” (at the time, our examples were relating to Israel/Palestine, but I updated the location for this post).

One, I term news. The other, I term propaganda. As with most issues, I suspect that the truth lays somewhere in between - as it does in America. People are free to choose which media outlet they prefer. The downside to all of this editorialization is that the public rarely gets to hear both sides of an incident, and is thus self-depriving themselves of the information they need to make decisions in a democratic society. On the other hand, there is no way to force them to look at both sides.

More on topic, I think that the government spreads enough propaganda through the conventional media as it stands. When Donald Rumsfeld gets up there behind a microphone, he is obviously going to present the news in the terms kindest to his administration as possible. A government-run news network would only serve to weaken the freedom of choice in media.

Further, I don’t feel that government has a place in the media, aside from regulating things such as industry standards (AKA, the FCC). My conclusion was that media should always be independent and free to editorialize to whatever audience they care to, which is more on his side of the issue than on mine, but we don’t live in a perfect world. The best we can hope for is a competitive and independent media that actively questions issues as they wish.

You’re out of touch with the times, BG. That is the wave of the future. And I say this knowing that I’m quite a bit older than you. :slight_smile:

Just as an addendum, I’ll point out that Wikipedia has an entry devoted to propaganda from the Bush Administration:

Just so, y’know, nobody gets the idea that Armstrong Williams was the first time this group has tried to snow the populace…

From what I understand, it was not “this group” that tried to snow the populace, but Mr. Williams. I believe it was he that was required by the government to let it be known that he was being paid to promote the agenda. I highly doubt that Bush handed him the money and said “Do your thing, but keep the duckies on the down-low yo.”

That’s not mentioned in any of the news coverage I’ve heard. Do you have a cite?

That’s not Wikipedia, that’s Disinfopedia, a "Project of the Center for Media & Democracy.

Here is the Wikipedia entry for the Center for Media & Democracy. Here’s a notable quote from that article:

In other words, they are propagandists in their own right. How amusing, having a propaganda organization noting propaganda. I also note upon searching that they don’t have a similar page about any Democrat propaganda.

I am therefore forced to note that what they call propaganda may not be that at all, they’re just calling it such to rile the troops, as it were.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, they’re a private organization. We can’t have democratic politics without different factions being allowed to propagate their messages – that’s “protected political speech,” as right-wingers always (and irrelevantly) point out whenever I start a thread on campaign finance reform. It’s only government propaganda that might be viewed as improper, or dangerous to freedom – is it not so?

Based on what, apart from your ad hominem characterization of the messenger? What is faulty about the Disinfopedia’s characterization of the Administration messages in question as propaganda?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=413704

:rolleyes: An FCC investigation! Way to scapegoat! Better than what they did to the enlisted personnel at Abu Ghraib!

Perhaps Williams was required by the law to disclose at some point in his talks that this is a paid political advertisement of the Republican Party, a leisure service of Halliburton, etc. Whether he was required to do so by the Administration is a different question. It is entirely possible that, as you put it, “Bush handed him the money and said ‘Do your thing, but keep the duckies on the down-low yo.’” IOW, the FCC investigation – if done honestly – might show Williams to be a co-conspirator rather than a loose cannon. If not done honestly, it might turn into an Abu-Ghraib-like exercise in scapegoating. (Say, how much political independence does the FCC have, with respect to the White House? Does anybody know?) I also note from the article that two Democratic senators are asking Congress’ investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office, to investigate. (Same question applies – how much independence does the GAO have from a Pub-controlled Congress?)

From Wikipedia’s article on propaganda:

Perhaps I was a bit hasty, but the thing is that by using the definition that is offered here we could say that everything is propaganda, and that’s not exactly true. Propaganda invokes images of Triumph of the Will and The Battleship Potemkin, posters of Rosie the Riveter and Uncle Sam. In my mind, lobbying for your pet projects doesn’t reach the level of propaganda.

Also, the part of the article under the heading “Afghanistan” is wrong, and I would know because that’s my aircraft. I just missed Afghanistan, but I can assure you that they attribute a lot of things to us that aren’t correct. Not that that matters, but I just wanted to note that. :slight_smile:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Afghanistan:

You’re saying none of that really happened?

Whatever. It does not negate the apparent fact that transparency by Mr Williams, and maybe the stations that carried the broadcast, is what is in question by the government. If it fits your personaly political agenda to want to blame Bush, or his administration, then by all means.

No, I’m saying that they attribute things to us that aren’t correct.

No, you are wrong.

In addition to the FCC violation, the payment to Williams violates the “Publicity and Propaganda Act”. It is against the law for taxpayer dollars to be used “for publicity or propaganda purposes within the United States,” unless approved by Congress. Congress was not informed.

It also violates the “Antideficiency Act”, another federal law that prohibits govt spending in excess of what was appropriated. Since no funds were appropriated for Williams, this law applies as well.

Not the first time this admin has violated these laws:

FYI, here is the FCC violation:

The old “payola” law. But this is separate from the other violations I mentioned above.

More to the OP: BG, I remembered an interesting article by Paul Krugman awhile back that might apply. I found it in his archives. Check it out here:

Paul Krugman (Originally published in The New York Times, 5.13.03)

http://www.pkarchive.org/column/051303.html

SYNOPSIS: Bad incentives, media consolidation, and implicit favors are turning the media into a toady to the government.

My bolding.

Do departments that have funds appropriated by Congress need to have all transactions itemised and ok’d by Congress before it is spent? And do you know for a fact whether or not Congress appropriated any funds to promote NCLB?

These are honest questions that I assumed were not issues because all I was aware of was that Mr. Williams did not make aware that he was being paid.

A bit earlier I had read some comments that the Department head had made that makes me want to reserve my judgement on the whole deal. I think we will have to see what is in the contract befre we jump to conclusions.

Could you be more specific? (Without disclosing any classified information?)