1940's Government Funded Propaganda Ban REPEALED!

[The2ndAmendment]

This is the start, expect Obama to announce the suspension of the Constitution within the next couple of years:

U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans | The Cable

The media is now being weaponized. Expect LOTS of race baiting, to cause race wars, to give the government an excuse to confiscate firearms, to allow them to suspend the Constitution.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

excerpting the article:

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."

"They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate."

A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."

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."

Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars -- greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.

But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon's top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported the Post.

But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.

One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)

But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it's a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico's Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."

That of course doesn't leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won't be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we'll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."

 

[Norman]

"Good news...."

 

[Mr. H.]

American taxpayers have been funding NPR propaganda for decades.
What's the difference?

 

[The2ndAmendment]

American taxpayers have been funding NPR propaganda for decades.
What's the difference?

Have you read the article?

 

[boedicca]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

 

[Mr. H.]

American taxpayers have been funding NPR propaganda for decades.
What's the difference?

Have you read the article?

The first half.
Does it get better?

 

[francoHFW]

zzzzzzzzzz

 

[francoHFW]

Hater dupes worried about bs misinforming propaganda- Hilarious! LOL

 

[dilloduck]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

 

[boedicca]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

They could make David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs anchors of prime time newszines.

 

[FA_Q2]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

I hope that is a satirical statement. It could get a LOT worse. A LOT.

 

[francoHFW]

Compared to the pure bs propaganda Sean Rushbeck/Heritage/Moonie Times/Examiner/Murdoch Rags etc etc etc, CNN MSNBC NPR ABC are saintly journalists, hater dupes- though they are terrified of the loudmouth RW lynch mob. See sig for what you're never told and the pure bs you are...Keep up the BS, you're our best pals- kiss your brainwashed hater azz goodbye in 2014-16...

 

[Gardener]

looks like another silly conspiracy theory.

there has been a military channel for a long time on cable.

Voice of America is NOT broadcast in the USA.

 

[dilloduck]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

I hope that is a satirical statement. It could get a LOT worse. A LOT.

I'm ready for a change. Bring it on

 

[Avatar4321]

Im pretty sure MSNBC has been on the air for a while.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Im pretty sure MSNBC has been on the air for a while.

It won't be long before this type of propaganda towards Classical Liberals:

 

[Katzndogz]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

The news we get now is biased but foundationally correct. Now we will get totally fabricated stories without a shred of truth or fact behind them.

 

[MisterBeale]

This move isn't a surprise to me. At the CFR, leaders of the corportacracy meet to control that destiny of nations. The wealth of the nation is distributed among the elites, but has traditionally been barred from the leaders of the press.

Where do tax payers hard earned dollars go in this collusion? Does it go to the military-industrial complex? Of course, we fight meaningless wars every day. Does it go to Wall Street? Of course, they bail out failing "too big to fail" industries every once in a while and approve mega-mergers and sanction monopolies at the peril of consumers. Does it go to the international banking cartel? Of course, the Federal Reserve is printing billions of dollars a month at interest on the tax payers dime, just to keep the politicians in business and make themselves a tidy profit, because they can't, or won't do their jobs. But what about the journalistic elites, the ones that are doing their bidding, the ones that are hiding what is really going on, and distracting the conscientious voter? The only thing they have had to get by on is ad revenues. And with the advent of the Internet?!? Well, business just isn't what it used to be. They need their share. . . .

I think I have posted this article a half dozen times, WARNING people what is going on, it foretold what was going to happen. Anyone who bothered to read it wouldn't be AT ALL surprised by this move. They were discussing it TWO YEARS ago. C'mon. They always tell us what they are planning.

Monday, 30 August 2010 11:30
Elites Push Government-funded "Public" Media

The Aspen Institute hosted its annual Forum On Communications And Society (FOCAS) August 15–18 in Aspen, Colorado, exploring the theme of "News Cities: The Next Generation of Healthy Informed Communities." Sponsored by the Aspen Institute and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the FOCAS gathering is the latest in a series of conferences and publishing events aimed at boosting the idea that the federal government should pump tens of billions of tax dollars into America's newspapers, broadcast news, and activist "citizen media."

The aim of FOCAS 2010 is to advance the recommendations of the Knight Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy (Knight Commission), which were spelled out in the Commission's 2009 report, Informing Communities: Sustaining Democracy in the Digital Age.

Those recommendations include calling on Congress to:

ncrease the funding available for the transformation and localization of America's public media....

Authorize increased support for public media, including increases for news and information at the local level....

Appropriate funds to help support local community "Geek Corps" that involve young adults 18-26 in providing technical training and consultation to local governments and community groups.

The Commission's "Conclusion and Call to Action" states: "The Commission has directed many of its recommendations to government agencies and officials. They are far more likely to respond if their constituents are campaigning day-in and day-out for a pro-information agenda."

And to insure that "constituents are campaigning day-in and day-out," the Knight Foundation and similarly-minded tax-exempt foundations (Ford, Carnegie, Rockefeller, MacArthur, etc.) fund a large network of media activists, organizations, and think tanks calling for a "pro-information agenda" that invariably involves ever-expanding government funding for the media.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/3302-elites-push-government-funded-public-media

 

[FA_Q2]

Considering the journalistic standards of CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC-NYT, the ban has been rather moot for a few years...

Seriously---how could it get worse ?

The news we get now is biased but foundationally correct. Now we will get totally fabricated stories without a shred of truth or fact behind them.

Correct, this would be the major problem.

When the media is specifically tailored to eliminate negative stories about the government and apply positive stories about them we will have a serious problem.

Seriously, how many people would actually believe that Iraq would have had any negative coverage if the media was controlled by the government? None.