What’ s Wrong Today:
Two
congressmen are attempting to insert a provision in the National Defense
Authorization act that would allow
the Department of Defense to subject the US domestic public to government propaganda. The amendment is
sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX) and Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA).
The
amendment strikes the current ban on
domestic dissemination of propaganda material produced by the State
Department and the Pentagon that is contained in the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948
and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act in 1987—that had been passed to
protect U.S. audiences from our own government’s misinformation campaigns.
The
amendment would give sweeping powers to the State Department and Pentagon to
push television, radio, newspaper, and social media to the U.S. public.
Thornberry
and Smith, in a press release, warned that in the
Internet age, the current law “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic
officials, military, and others by inhibiting our ability to effectively
communicate in a credible way.” They also state that the informational material used overseas to influence foreign
audiences is too good to not use at home, and those new techniques are
needed to help fight Al-Qaeda, a borderless enemy whose own propaganda reaches
Americans online.
So
What’s Wrong?
This is just one more log on a bonfire of
disappointment the Wrongologist sees with the current direction of our
government. There is no question that the government has used propaganda in the
US (see: reasons to invade Iraq, Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman), but they had to
be tricky and/or subtle to keep it within the law.
The Pentagon spends some $4 billion
a year to sway public opinion. It was recently revealed by USA Today the DoD spent $202 million solely on information operations in Iraq
and Afghanistan last year. With this much money, the Pentagon becomes a
huge player in the domestic news industry immediately.
There are issues for
each citizen to consider because it removes some protection for Americans:
· There
will be no oversight of the people who will put out this information
· There
will be limited checks and balances
· No
one will know if the information is accurate, partially accurate, or entirely
false
Professional reporters at major news
outlets are supposed to fill this need. Even if they have a bias, over time, it
becomes evident and readers can factor it in. But even these guys, when working
in good faith, can cover all sides and do research before laying out the logic
and judgment on what they see as the truth.
But the
MSM has evolved. In many cases we no longer see reporters, but stenographers. Most
of the reporting in the MSM is designed by producers and talking heads to
repeat the well-polished spin by politicos and partisans. In the worse case, reporters
rarely challenge or ask for proof statements.
The unleashing of a domestic propaganda program by
our government, when coupled with the malaise in journalism, will push us away
from the MSM towards non-traditional sources for news that lack the resources
of the Pentagon. This makes us vulnerable to a possible lack of journalistic
integrity or editorial control (“who is your 2nd source for that?”) at
these internet news aggregators or blogging sources.
This is
dangerous. As Juan Cole reported over the
weekend regarding this amendment:
“Nothing speaks
more urgently to the creeping fascism of American politics than the assertion
by our representatives, who apparently have never read a book on Germany in
the 1930s-1940s or on the Soviet Union in the Stalin period, that
forbidding DoD and the State Department from subjecting us to government
propaganda “ties the hands of America’s diplomatic officials, military, and
others by inhibiting our ability to effectively communicate in a credible way.”
(Emphasis by the Wrongologist)
Propaganda has many
meanings and applications, but with social media, it’s likely to go into some
very disturbing directions:
· In December, the
Pentagon used software to monitor the Twitter debate over Bradley
Manning’s pre-trial hearing
· Another program
developed by the Pentagon designed sock puppets (an online identity
used for purposes of deception) on social
media outlets
· 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
Last year, Wired
Magazine reported that the Defense Department is trying to seek out
“persuasion campaign structures and influence operations” developing across the
social sphere through its Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC)
program. SMISC is supposed to quickly flag rumors and emerging themes on social
media, figure out who’s behind it.
You can be sure this is the
direction the Pentagon will be most interested in pursuing. After all, they
don’t need traditional pro-war propaganda, they have the MSM for that.
The
upshot? The Department of Defense will be using the same tools on U.S. citizens
as they do on a hostile, foreign, population in Afghanistan.
No one
should want a law this significant, whatever the pros and cons, to pass without anyone noticing.
Where is the MSM on this one?
“This country has come to feel the same when
Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.” –Will Rogers
