Domestic Propaganda: NDAA 1.2

(Photo Credit: http://www.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/p/keep-calm-and-drink-the-kool-aid/)

//
//

While browsing through my Google Alerts I came across a RT (Russia Today) which is actually a damn good resource for news you wont find in America, sure they are overly critical of the U.S. and a State Funded News Agency, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have great stories.  I look at them often and regard them as a much more genuine source of news in the U.S. than CNN, Fox or most others.

An Amendment to NDAA will be tacked onto the acts funding for Fiscal year 2013, called the “Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012″ (Story was written in May 2012)

This act was originally enacted in 1948 and the Modernization act updates this old bill as well as the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987″ which was ostensibly to “Prepare, Disseminate and use public diplomacy information abroad”, i.e. propaganda.  Now in the beginning of and the heyday of the Cold War and worldwide countering of Communism, this seemed like a great idea, to put out pro Western/American/Capitalist messages abroad to counter Soviet Propaganda at the time.

However this new Amendment will strike down the long standing ban that the act had on domestic dissemination in the US, that is the ban allowed the U.S. to put out whatever propaganda they wanted overseas to whoever, but that no money allocated could be used to help sway public opinion in the U.S. and put out advertising campaigns to support this war or that war, etc.

Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Adam Smith (D-WA) are the ones who introduced this bill have defended it saying

“This outdated law ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible and transparent way. Congress has a responsibility to fix the situation.”

Rep Smith said.

“…To do this, Smith-Mundt must be updated to bolster our strategic communications and public diplomacy capacity on all fronts and mediums – especially online.”

The Story goes on to ask whether that means that the U.S. will start targeting domestic internet sites (as “online” was one of the main mediums mentioned) to help “explain” their position for bombing Libya or giving arms to terrorists in Syria?  The bill has no language to say that it wont, and if you let history be the judge of the Congress you can be sure of many things, one being…If it don’t say DON’T they take it as YES PLEASE DO!

In a follow up to the controversy the bill stirred up the Congressman responded by saying

“It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences’ and, in fact, specifically ensures that the content to be rebroadcast or republished domestically by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) shall not influence public opinion in the US. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion.”

However the text of the bill does not reflect this statement and a very big grey area can be seen in how the government can finagle around the words “public opinion” by just saying “Well we aren’t influencing public opinion through propaganda only putting out the factual information we have for the public to judge…” or something to that effect.

The Bill (H.R.5736) can be seen though this link

If you look in Section 208 you will see in part A the words

“No funds authorized to be appropriated to the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States. This section shall apply only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (22 U.S.C. 1431 et seq.), the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201 et seq.), the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465 et seq.), and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act (22 U.S.C. 1465aa et seq.)”

However this shows the Congressman are stretching the truth at best, since that language of “shall not” is followed by “This section shall only apply to programs carried out pursuant to…”

In part B you can see these words…

“Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board of Governors from engaging in any medium or form of communication, either directly or indirectly, because a United States domestic audience is or may be thereby exposed to program material”

followed by in section C

“The provisions of this section shall apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors and to no other department or agency of the Federal Government.’.”

This Bill “died” in committee but was passed in HR 4310 i.e. the NDAA Fiscal Year 2013 bill (H.R. 4310, you can find the text on page 326)