# Let's debate the value/legitimacy of gov't propaganda **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611 "2005-01-13T22:41:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/1 "2005-01-13T22:41:10Z")
The Armstrong Williams affair (see [http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5183455.html](http://www.startribune.com/stories/561/5183455.html), [http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington\_story.asp?category=1155&slug=FCC%20Williams](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](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](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:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_america:) > [@](#): > > Under United States law, the Voice of America is forbidden to broadcast directly to American citizens. The intent of this legislation is to keep the government from having a direct outlet to the public, **as in many European countries.** In special cases, such as the 1981 TV program Let Poland Be Poland, Congressional approval was required to show Americans the program. However, the VOA is audible on shortwave and broadcasts streaming audio over the Internet, which enables Americans to hear the programming. > > Many Voice of America announcers, such as Willis Conover, Pat Gates, and Judy Massa became world-wide celebrities, though they were unknown in their home country. > > VOA broadcasts several programs aimed at specialist audiences: > > Radio Martí and TV Martí are aimed at Cuba. > > Radio Sawa is aimed at a younger audience in the Arab world. > > Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia are not VOA but are “sister” services aimed at the ex-communist and oppressive countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. **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.)](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:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:) > [@](#): > > In late Latin, propaganda meant “things to be propagated.” In 1622, shortly after the start of the Thirty Years’ War, Pope Gregory XV founded the Congregatio de Propaganda Fide (“Congregation for Propagating the Faith”), a committee of Cardinals to oversee the propagation of Christianity by missionaries sent to non-Christian countries. Originally the term was not intended to refer to misleading information. The modern political sense dates from World War I, and was not originally pejorative. > > \ > > Propaganda techniques were first codified and applied in a scientific manner by journalist Walter Lippman and psychologist Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) early in the 20th century. During World War I, Lippman and Bernays were hired by the United States President, Woodrow Wilson to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion to enter the war on the side of Britain. > > The war propaganda campaign of Lippman and Bernays produced within six months so intense an anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler, among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. Bernays coined the terms “group mind” and “engineering consent,” important concepts in practical propaganda work. > > The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Lippman and Bernays’ work and is still used extensively by the United States government. For the first half of the 20th century Bernays and Lippman themselves ran a very successful public relations firm. > > World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, both by Hitler’s propagandist Joseph Goebbels and the British Political Warfare Executive. > > In the early 2000s, the United States government developed and freely distributed a video game known as America’s Army. The stated intention of the game is to encourage players to become interested in joining the U.S. Army. According to a poll by I for I Research, 30% of young people who had a positive view of the military said that they had developed that view by playing the game. Though not everyone agrees that this game is propaganda, it’s certainly a recruitment advertisement. > > \ > > The United States and the Soviet Union both used propaganda extensively during the Cold War. Both sides used film, television and radio programming to influence their own citizens, each other and Third World nations. The United States Information Agency operated the Voice of America as an official government station. Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, in part supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, provided grey propaganda in news and entertainment programs to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union respectively. The Soviet Union’s official government station, Radio Moscow, broadcast white propaganda, while Radio Peace and Freedom broadcast grey propaganda. Both sides also broadcast black propaganda programs in periods of special crises. In 1948, Britain’s Foreign Office created the IRD (Information Research Department) which took over from wartime and slightly post-war departments such as the Ministry of Information and dispensed propaganda via various media such as the BBC and publishing. Records are listed here (external link) ([http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=7100&CATLN=3&Highlight=&FullDetails=True](http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=7100&CATLN=3&Highlight=&FullDetails=True)) and reports here (external link) ([http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=6965&CATLN=3&Highlight=&FullDetails=True](http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=6965&CATLN=3&Highlight=&FullDetails=True)). George Orwell had worked in propaganda and his anti-Stalinist book Animal Farm was promoted in translations abroad by the IRD. > > \ > > **Techniques of propaganda generation** > > A number of techniques which are based on social psychological research are used to generate propaganda. Many of these same techniques can be found under logical fallacies since propagandists use arguments that while sometimes convincing are not necessarily valid. > > Some time has been spent analyzing the means by which propaganda messages are transmitted. That work is important but it is clear that information dissemination strategies only become propaganda strategies when coupled with propagandistic messages. Identifying these messages is a necessary prerequisite to study the methods by which those messages are spread. That is why it is essential to have some knowledge of the following techniques for generating propaganda: > > **Appeal to fear:** Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling fear in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people. > > **Appeal to authority:** Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position idea, argument, or course of action. > > **Bandwagon:** Bandwagon and inevitable-victory appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.” > > **Join the crowd:** This technique reinforces people’s natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join. > > **Inevitable victory:** invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action. > > **Obtain disapproval:** This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group which supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. > > **Glittering generalities:** Glittering generalities are intense, emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people their connotation is always favorable: “The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous.” > > **Rationalization:** Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs. > > **Intentional vagueness:** Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. > > **Transfer:** This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response, which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. > > **Oversimplification:** Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems. > > **Common man:** The “plain folks” or “common man” approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist’s positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. > > **Testimonial:** Testimonials are quotations, in or out of context, especially cited to support or reject a given policy, action, program, or personality. The reputation or the role (expert, respected public figure, etc.) of the individual giving the statement is exploited. The testimonial places the official sanction of a respected person or authority on a propaganda message. This is done in an effort to cause the target audience to identify itself with the authority or to accept the authority’s opinions and beliefs as its own. See also, damaging quotation > > **Stereotyping or Labeling:** This technique attempts to arouse prejudices in an audience by labeling the object of the propaganda campaign as something the target audience fears, hates, loathes, or finds undesirable. For instance, reporting on a foreign country or social group may focus on the stereotypical traits that the reader expects, even though they are far from being representative of the whole country or group; such reporting often focuses on the anecdotal. > > **Scapegoating:** Assigning blame to an individual or group that isn’t really responsible, thus alleviating feelings of guilt from responsible parties and/or distracting attention from the need to fix the problem for which blame is being assigned. > > **Virtue words:** These are words in the value system of the target audience which tend to produce a positive image when attached to a person or issue. Peace, happiness, security, wise leadership, freedom, etc. are virtue words. > Slogans: A slogan is a brief, striking phrase that may include labeling and stereotyping. If ideas can be made into slogans, they should be, as good slogans are self-perpetuating. > > See also doublespeak, meme, cult of personality, spin. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2005, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/2 "2005-01-13T23:04:59Z")
Waiting for one of the usual suspects to come in and say “that’s what FoxNews is for.” 🙂 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/3 "2005-01-14T01:40:26Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Doesn’t the Whitehouse already have it’s own website and can’t it pretty much put anything it wants on that web site? Of course, but it doesn’t count as propaganda (not very effective propaganda, anyway), if people have to go **looking** for it. ---
**Author:** ![Demorian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demorian/32/7273_2.png) [@Demorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Demorian)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/4 "2005-01-14T01:59:03Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/5 "2005-01-14T03:30:30Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Of course, but it doesn’t count as propaganda (not very effective propaganda, anyway), if people have to go **looking** for it. 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/6 "2005-01-14T05:35:17Z")
Just as an addendum, I’ll point out that Wikipedia has an entry devoted to [propaganda from the Bush Administration:](http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_administration_propaganda_and_disinformation) > [@](#): > > 1 Taxpayer-funded Medicare Ads as Campaign Commercials > 2 Preemptive War > 3 Cheney’s Energy Task Force > 4 Promoting the Invasion of Iraq > 5 Disinformation Regarding Science > 6 Close Personal and Financial Ties to Corporate Crooks Just so, y’know, nobody gets the idea that Armstrong Williams was the first time this group has tried to snow the populace… ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/7 "2005-01-14T06:12:30Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > 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.” ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2005, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/8 "2005-01-14T20:33:40Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > I believe it was he [Armstrong Williams] that was required by the government to let it be known that he was being paid to promote the agenda. That’s not mentioned in any of the news coverage I’ve heard. Do you have a cite? ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/9 "2005-01-15T18:52:09Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Just as an addendum, I’ll point out that Wikipedia has an entry devoted to [propaganda from the Bush Administration:](http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Bush_administration_propaganda_and_disinformation) That’s not Wikipedia, that’s Disinfopedia, a "Project of the Center for Media & Democracy. [Here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Media_%26_Democracy) is the Wikipedia entry for the Center for Media & Democracy. Here’s a notable quote from that article: > [@](#): > > CMD have stated that they are not affiliated with a political party, but that they do not pretend to lack opinions or a point of view. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/10 "2005-01-15T19:07:48Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > 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. 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? > [@Airman Doors](#): > > 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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/11 "2005-01-15T19:20:16Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > That’s not mentioned in any of the news coverage I’ve heard. Do you have a cite? [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=413704](http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=413704) > [@](#): > > WASHINGTON Jan 14, 2005 — The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission ordered an investigation Friday into whether conservative commentator Armstrong Williams broke the law by failing to disclose he was paid by the Bush administration to plug the president’s education agenda. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/12 "2005-01-15T19:28:18Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=413704](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?) ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/13 "2005-01-15T19:29:24Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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? From Wikipedia’s article on [propaganda](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda): > [@](#): > > In English, the word “propaganda” often carries strong negative (as well as political) connotations, despite being accepted as a general meaning of “advertising” on rare occasions. This is not necessarily so in other languages, and usage of the term may lead to misunderstanding in communications with non-native English speakers. For example, in Brazil and some Spanish language speaking countries, particularly in the Southern Cone, the word “propaganda” usually means the most common manipulation of information—“advertising.” 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/14 "2005-01-15T19:31:55Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > 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. 🙂 From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Afghanistan:](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda#Afghanistan:) > [@](#): > > In the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, psychological operations tactics (PsyOps) were employed to demoralize the Taliban and to win the sympathies of the Afghan population. At least six EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft were used to jam local radio transmissions and transmit replacement propaganda messages. > > Leaflets were also dropped throughout Afghanistan, offering rewards for Osama bin Laden and other individuals, portraying Americans as friends of Afghanistan and emphasizing various negative aspects of the Taliban. Another shows a picture of Mohammed Omar in a set of crosshairs with the words “We are watching”. You’re saying none of that really happened? ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/15 "2005-01-15T19:47:35Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > :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?) 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. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/16 "2005-01-15T19:53:04Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You’re saying none of that really happened? No, I’m saying that they attribute things to us that aren’t correct. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/17 "2005-01-16T00:42:42Z")
> [@Puffs](#): > > 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, 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: > **[Bush's Drug Videos Broke Law, Accountability Office Decides (Published 2005)](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/07/us/bushs-drug-videos-broke-law-accountability-office-decides.html)** > > Government Accountability Office says Bush administration violated federal law against using taxpayer money for propaganda by producing and distributing television news segments about effects of drug use among young people; says videos 'constitute... FYI, here is the [FCC](http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/sponsid.html) violation: > [@](#): > > Section 317 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317 requires broadcasters to disclose that matter has been broadcast in exchange for money, service or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be made when the subject matter is broadcast. The old “payola” law. But this is separate from the other violations I mentioned above. ---
**Author:** ![annaplurabelle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/919ad9/32.png) [@annaplurabelle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/annaplurabelle)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/18 "2005-01-16T00:57:40Z")
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](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. > [@](#): > > A funny thing happened during the Iraq war: many Americans turned to the BBC for their TV news. They were looking for an alternative point of view — something they couldn’t find on domestic networks, which, in the words of the BBC’s director general, “wrapped themselves in the American flag and substituted patriotism for impartiality.” > > Leave aside the rights and wrongs of the war itself, and consider the paradox. The BBC is owned by the British government, and one might have expected it to support that government’s policies. In fact, however, it tried hard — too hard, its critics say — to stay impartial. **America’s TV networks are privately owned, yet they behaved like state-run media.** My bolding. ---
**Author:** ![Puffs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c77e96/32.png) [@Puffs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Puffs)\ **Post date:** [January 16, 2005, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/19 "2005-01-16T08:53:39Z")
> [@annaplurabelle](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2005, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611/20 "2005-01-17T04:49:34Z")
> [@Airman Doors](#): > > No, I’m saying that they attribute things to us that aren’t correct. Could you be more specific? (Without disclosing any classified information?) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-debate-the-value-legitimacy-of-govt-propaganda/284611.md?page=2)