4 ms·

It's worth noting that US propaganda operations even on US soil are not unprecedented. During his tenure Obama signed a national defense authorization act[0][1]

It's worth noting that US propaganda operations even on US soil are not unprecedented. During his tenure Obama signed a national defense authorization act[0][1] that some claim has re-legalized propaganda operations on US citizens. The CIA has admitted doing so during Operation Mockingbird[3] and in other situations[4] in the past. Given that I suggest that you remain highly skeptical of all media and independently verify claims as much as possible as it seems historically governmental as well as corporate interests have manipulated the media for their purposes and that is appears it is legal for the CIA to do so today. [0]https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-2012-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/ndaa-legalizes-propaganda-20... [1]https://www.rt.com/usa/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/ https://www.rt.com/usa/propaganda-us-smith-amendment-903/ [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird [4]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_influence_on_public_opinio... Edit: made comment more clear

pjc50 8y ago
While what you say is almost certainly true, I note the irony of linking to a Russian propaganda news organisation to support it. Even more ironically the only reason people follow RT is that they're often covering things that the western media status quo has a blind spot to.
- fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
  I noted that myself, rather suspiciously western media failed to cover it at the time. I can find the text for the bill and prove that he signed it via official government sources but business insider is the only reasonably reputable source that covered in the US to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that it does what they say it does but it leaves me skeptical.
  - tivert 8y ago
    > I noted that myself, rather suspiciously western media failed to cover it at the time. I can find the text for the bill and prove that he signed it via official government sources but business insider is the only reasonably reputable source that covered in the US to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that it does what they say it does but it leaves me skeptical. The take you're promoting seems to have originated with Buzzfeed, then got picked up by BusinessInsider and amplified by Russia Today. Given that it's pretty unbelievable that there's a coordinated Western-media conspiracy to suppress it, my bet is that take has some major flaws and/or there's less to it the take makes it seems. Based on some quick Googling, the law that was modified was the one that authorizes The Voice of America and related organizations, and (according to Wikipedia) the prohibitions on its US dissemination were originally put in place because some Congressmen in the 40s thought the State Department was full of commies (really). This NY Times from 2018 gives some perspective (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/technology/facebook-ads-propaganda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/technology/facebook-ads-p...). VOA is still not permitted to advertise to Americans, and it characterized the law RT was writing about as: > As with all affiliates of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is governed by the Smith-Mundt Act, a 1948 law that banned government-funded media outlets from disseminating their content inside the United States. The law was amended in 2014 to allow state-funded media organizations to distribute their content “upon request” to American viewers. It seems that it amounted to giving organizations like the VOA permission to send their content to individual Americans who ask for it. It seems like prior to that it was available "for examination only." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Provisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Provis... I would only be skeptical of something based on an RT story if you actually do the digging yourself to see if there's really a there there. In this case, I don't think there is.
    - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
      That New York Times article is interesting, if it is indeed illegal to target propaganda to American citizens it seems that VOA did so in violation of law and only stopped when caught doing so. That leads me to one of three conclusions: 1: Someone working for VOA felt that it was not illegal for them to do this making Business Insiders interpretation of the law at least plausible if not correct. 2: VOA knowingly used Facebook to target Americans with illegal propaganda. 3: Workers implementing VOA advertising were unable to understand that if you select "United States" as a target in Facebook's geo-targeting tool[0], that advertising indeed will be shown in the US. Three seems the least likely to me personally given the historical context and since being skeptical of news releases is likely good practice anyway I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be. To quote the same article: Weston R. Sager, a lawyer with firm Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell who has written about anti-propaganda laws, said that it was disturbing to see government-funded news agencies targeting Facebook ads at Americans, no matter their content. “I’m concerned that we’re seeing the beginning of government efforts to try to influence public opinion in the United States through the B.B.G. and its affiliate entities,” Mr. Sager said. “It’s one thing to read a tweet by Donald Trump. It’s another to receive a very polished news story from an organization that holds itself out as objective and fact-based.” [0]https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696

pjc50 8y ago

While what you say is almost certainly true, I note the irony of linking to a Russian propaganda news organisation to support it. Even more ironically the only reason people follow RT is that they're often covering things that the western media status quo has a blind spot to.

fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
I noted that myself, rather suspiciously western media failed to cover it at the time. I can find the text for the bill and prove that he signed it via official government sources but business insider is the only reasonably reputable source that covered in the US to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that it does what they say it does but it leaves me skeptical.
- tivert 8y ago
  > I noted that myself, rather suspiciously western media failed to cover it at the time. I can find the text for the bill and prove that he signed it via official government sources but business insider is the only reasonably reputable source that covered in the US to my knowledge. I'm not a lawyer so I'm not going to assert that it does what they say it does but it leaves me skeptical. The take you're promoting seems to have originated with Buzzfeed, then got picked up by BusinessInsider and amplified by Russia Today. Given that it's pretty unbelievable that there's a coordinated Western-media conspiracy to suppress it, my bet is that take has some major flaws and/or there's less to it the take makes it seems. Based on some quick Googling, the law that was modified was the one that authorizes The Voice of America and related organizations, and (according to Wikipedia) the prohibitions on its US dissemination were originally put in place because some Congressmen in the 40s thought the State Department was full of commies (really). This NY Times from 2018 gives some perspective (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/technology/facebook-ads-propaganda.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/technology/facebook-ads-p...). VOA is still not permitted to advertise to Americans, and it characterized the law RT was writing about as: > As with all affiliates of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is governed by the Smith-Mundt Act, a 1948 law that banned government-funded media outlets from disseminating their content inside the United States. The law was amended in 2014 to allow state-funded media organizations to distribute their content “upon request” to American viewers. It seems that it amounted to giving organizations like the VOA permission to send their content to individual Americans who ask for it. It seems like prior to that it was available "for examination only." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Provisions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith%E2%80%93Mundt_Act#Provis... I would only be skeptical of something based on an RT story if you actually do the digging yourself to see if there's really a there there. In this case, I don't think there is.
  - fuzz4lyfe 8y ago
    That New York Times article is interesting, if it is indeed illegal to target propaganda to American citizens it seems that VOA did so in violation of law and only stopped when caught doing so. That leads me to one of three conclusions: 1: Someone working for VOA felt that it was not illegal for them to do this making Business Insiders interpretation of the law at least plausible if not correct. 2: VOA knowingly used Facebook to target Americans with illegal propaganda. 3: Workers implementing VOA advertising were unable to understand that if you select "United States" as a target in Facebook's geo-targeting tool[0], that advertising indeed will be shown in the US. Three seems the least likely to me personally given the historical context and since being skeptical of news releases is likely good practice anyway I'm not convinced that you shouldn't be. To quote the same article: Weston R. Sager, a lawyer with firm Gallagher, Callahan & Gartrell who has written about anti-propaganda laws, said that it was disturbing to see government-funded news agencies targeting Facebook ads at Americans, no matter their content. “I’m concerned that we’re seeing the beginning of government efforts to try to influence public opinion in the United States through the B.B.G. and its affiliate entities,” Mr. Sager said. “It’s one thing to read a tweet by Donald Trump. It’s another to receive a very polished news story from an organization that holds itself out as objective and fact-based.” [0]https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696 https://www.facebook.com/business/help/202297959811696