8 ms·

> Later, I thought I'd learned (maybe misheard?) that US could engage in propaganda or psyops, but that there were strict rules not to do it against US citizens

> Later, I thought I'd learned (maybe misheard?) that US could engage in propaganda or psyops, but that there were strict rules not to do it against US citizens. That law was repealed in 2010. Since then its all out propaganda.

tablespoon 4y ago
> That law was repealed in 2010. Since then its all out propaganda. Cite? I'm aware there was some kind of awkward law that meant to block domestic access to VOA-type stuff (IIRC, because it was feared the VOA or State Department was infiltrated by Communists or something like that) that got repealed, but that's a far cry from "since then its all out propaganda." I mean, I don't think I've even seen a single VOA article in our local newspaper.
- black6 4y ago
  The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the door for materials produced by the US Department of State and the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within the borders of the US.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the door for materials produced by the US Department of State and the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within the borders of the US. What's been the actual effect of that? It's been 10 years, and I can't recall seeing a VOA story reposted in a local outlet or radio stations switching to a VOA-based format.
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      It's rather more broad. The text from the bill itself, "The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication." I don't understand the implications of that, because I don't know the details of the law beforehand. But something that's clear is that it opens the door to some very nasty stuff - especially if there is no obligation for source/identity disclosure.
    - ImHereToVote 4y ago
      "What's been the actual effect of that?" What is the mainstream medias opinion on Julian Assange?
      - unity1001 4y ago
        Isn't the mainstream media selling that very propaganda...
      - fortuna86 4y ago
        The "mainstream media" is a collection of thousands of people at hundreds of independent organizations, it doesn't have a single collective opinion about anything..
        alfiedotwtf 4y ago
        > hundreds of independent organizations You forgot the /s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Yes, hundreds. https://adage.com/images/random/100mediacos03.pdf https://adage.com/images/random/100mediacos03.pdf Worldwide, thousands. But do go on about how they all meet in secret once a month to go over their collective talking points.
        jessaustin 4y ago
        There are six TV news firms in USA. In many locales, the same local news "team" appears on all broadcast channels.
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Now do print, online, radio, etc. All of that is "mainstream news", right?
    - walterbell 4y ago
      > What's been the actual effect of that? One example mentioned in the article and visualized on TV shows—teams of software-assisted humans each acting under multiple online personas, e.g. on social media or discussion forums. The more problematic elements often intersect with private contractors and commercial activity, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838001
    - jonnybgood 4y ago
      VOA has much of the same content as major US news organizations. It's actually a pretty decent news source. I don't know what you mean by VOA-based format.
takoid 4y ago
Additional context: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/americans-finally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/america...
IncandescentGas 4y ago
Not that that law mattered before it was repealed. Here's a nytimes articles from 2005. > To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. > This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new-age-of-prepackaged-tv-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new...
- pessimizer 4y ago
  It's bizarre that Armstrong Williams was the only person to pay a price for a massive government manipulation program, but it's typical. Judith Miller got to take responsibility for the entire Iraq war.
- Spooky23 4y ago
  There are lots of instances like that. During the 1991 gulf war, they rolled out the “babies thrown out of incubators by the hun^H Iraqis”, I remember a 60 minutes segment after 9/11 talking to the Afghan government in exile, which consisted of a bunch of dudes in cube farm in Virginia.
  - AtlasBarfed 4y ago
    And Gulf War II was steamrolled with a ton of astroturfing "journalism". I will never forget the cheerleader role the New York Times played in the Iraq Invasion, from the straight-up swallowing of Colin Powell's false "evidence", egregious saber rattling "articles", it was depressing. "The paper of record" officially killed the fourth estate during that time period, and journalism has never recovered. I was a dumb 20something, and even I could see the vast conflicts of interests, the military industrial complex frothing at the mouth, the Cheney-fronted petroleum bigwigs cackling, and the callous political calculus of starting a war just to have a more important administration. Or the worst of all: trillions of dollars and a million dead iraqis just so Bush Jr could "show up" Bush Sr.

tablespoon 4y ago

> That law was repealed in 2010. Since then its all out propaganda. Cite? I'm aware there was some kind of awkward law that meant to block domestic access to VOA-type stuff (IIRC, because it was feared the VOA or State Department was infiltrated by Communists or something like that) that got repealed, but that's a far cry from "since then its all out propaganda." I mean, I don't think I've even seen a single VOA article in our local newspaper.

black6 4y ago
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the door for materials produced by the US Department of State and the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within the borders of the US.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 opened the door for materials produced by the US Department of State and the Broadcast Board of Governors to be spread within the borders of the US. What's been the actual effect of that? It's been 10 years, and I can't recall seeing a VOA story reposted in a local outlet or radio stations switching to a VOA-based format.
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    It's rather more broad. The text from the bill itself, "The Secretary and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are authorized to use funds appropriated or otherwise made available for public diplomacy information programs to provide for the preparation, dissemination, and use of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, its people, and its policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers, instructors, and other direct or indirect means of communication." I don't understand the implications of that, because I don't know the details of the law beforehand. But something that's clear is that it opens the door to some very nasty stuff - especially if there is no obligation for source/identity disclosure.
  - ImHereToVote 4y ago
    "What's been the actual effect of that?" What is the mainstream medias opinion on Julian Assange?
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Isn't the mainstream media selling that very propaganda...
    - fortuna86 4y ago
      The "mainstream media" is a collection of thousands of people at hundreds of independent organizations, it doesn't have a single collective opinion about anything..
      - alfiedotwtf 4y ago
        > hundreds of independent organizations You forgot the /s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_fHfgU8oMSo
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Yes, hundreds. https://adage.com/images/random/100mediacos03.pdf https://adage.com/images/random/100mediacos03.pdf Worldwide, thousands. But do go on about how they all meet in secret once a month to go over their collective talking points.
      - jessaustin 4y ago
        There are six TV news firms in USA. In many locales, the same local news "team" appears on all broadcast channels.
        fortuna86 4y ago
        Now do print, online, radio, etc. All of that is "mainstream news", right?
  - walterbell 4y ago
    > What's been the actual effect of that? One example mentioned in the article and visualized on TV shows—teams of software-assisted humans each acting under multiple online personas, e.g. on social media or discussion forums. The more problematic elements often intersect with private contractors and commercial activity, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838001 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29838001
  - jonnybgood 4y ago
    VOA has much of the same content as major US news organizations. It's actually a pretty decent news source. I don't know what you mean by VOA-based format.

takoid 4y ago

Additional context: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/americans-finally-have-access-american-propaganda/313305/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/america...

IncandescentGas 4y ago

Not that that law mattered before it was repealed. Here's a nytimes articles from 2005. > To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. > This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new-age-of-prepackaged-tv-news.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/politics/under-bush-a-new...

pessimizer 4y ago
It's bizarre that Armstrong Williams was the only person to pay a price for a massive government manipulation program, but it's typical. Judith Miller got to take responsibility for the entire Iraq war.
Spooky23 4y ago
There are lots of instances like that. During the 1991 gulf war, they rolled out the “babies thrown out of incubators by the hun^H Iraqis”, I remember a 60 minutes segment after 9/11 talking to the Afghan government in exile, which consisted of a bunch of dudes in cube farm in Virginia.
- AtlasBarfed 4y ago
  And Gulf War II was steamrolled with a ton of astroturfing "journalism". I will never forget the cheerleader role the New York Times played in the Iraq Invasion, from the straight-up swallowing of Colin Powell's false "evidence", egregious saber rattling "articles", it was depressing. "The paper of record" officially killed the fourth estate during that time period, and journalism has never recovered. I was a dumb 20something, and even I could see the vast conflicts of interests, the military industrial complex frothing at the mouth, the Cheney-fronted petroleum bigwigs cackling, and the callous political calculus of starting a war just to have a more important administration. Or the worst of all: trillions of dollars and a million dead iraqis just so Bush Jr could "show up" Bush Sr.