The Establishment Media Lying About the US Removal of the Propaganda Act

Table of Contents: Select a Link to be Taken to That Section

Executive Summary

In addition to being on the US government payroll, the establishment media created articles lying about the 2012 change in US propaganda law.

Introduction

Since 1948, it was not legal for the US government to propagandize its domestic population. In 2012, that changed, and US media immediately lied about the change.

About the Act

Under President Obama, A law was changed with the new Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, an act sponsored by Rep. Mac Thornberry (R- Texas) and Rep. Adam Smith (D- Wash.). The reform was quietly inserted into the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), and effectively nullifies the original 1948 act.

In 2013, the NDAA created an act called Countering foreign propaganda and disinformation act which removed the ban in place since 1948, (The Smith-Mundt act 1948) and as well as the (Foreign Relations Authorization Act) FRA act of 1987.In 2016, the NDAA reinforced it by including it In It’s 2017 budget to fund it.

The original law prohibited U.S. organizations from using state resources, including the intelligence community, to influence public opinion of United States citizens. President Obama’s reform to the Smith-Mundt Act allows the American public to be one of its targeted audience of U.S. government-funded information campaigns.

Isn’t that interesting?

The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and the NDAA stated it was “countering foreign propaganda” rather than producing US propaganda. And this was called “reform.”

What was the point of the Smith-Mundt Act?

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was established as a prohibition on domestic dissemination of materials intended for foreign audiences by the State Department, also known as propaganda. It was established as a barrier between government agencies and the media, and for 65 years the act stood unchallenged, given the role propaganda is generally reserved for in empowering dictatorial governments.

The purpose of the repeal, to disseminate foreign policy related information. This newfound power could be used to influence our democratic election or used to produce false information by any party in power. – Change.org

Amazingly, this segment was found on CBS News. However, the moderator takes the position of the US government. However, like Facebook, CBS is on the US government payroll and runs propaganda that the US government clears.

This violation of the Smith Mundt Act is no longer an issue as the act has been repealed.

Analysis of the Change by the Northwestern Law Review

These were some of the most interesting quotes from this article, which you can read at the Northwestern Law Review.

In 2012, the United States spent over three-quarters of a billion dollars funding government agencies that produce and broadcast programming1 around the globe.2

Yet, for over sixty years, all international broadcasts produced by the federal government could not be disseminated within the United States. A longstanding provision contained within the Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 (commonly known as the Smith– Mundt Act) prohibited the federal government from domestically disseminating any government-produced programming intended for a foreign audience, such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasts.3

That all changed when the ban was lifted on July 2, 2013, allowing the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of

Governors (BBG) to disseminate their programming to the American people with few restrictions.4

The Smith–Mundt Act traces its origins to World War II. In an effort to consolidate wartime propaganda efforts, President Franklin Roosevelt formed the Office of War Information (OWI) in 1942 by executive order.18 The mission of the OWI was to counter Axis propaganda19 and to provide “information programs designed to facilitate the intelligent understanding . . . of the war policies, activities, and aims of the

Government.”20 The recently formed Voice of America (VOA), a government-funded news service, was incorporated into the OWI, and further expanded its broadcasts of pro-American news stories around the world.21 The OWI also conducted psychological warfare overseas, using radio and print publications to demoralize the enemy,22 and oversaw the Bureau of Motion Pictures, which collaborated with Hollywood to develop propaganda films.23 The pro-American Hollywood films were particularly important for bolstering support within the United States. OWI Director Elmer Davis once remarked, “The easiest way to inject a propaganda idea into most people’s minds is to let it go in through the medium of an entertainment picture when they do not realize that they are being propagandized.”24 However, as the outcome of the War became increasingly certain, the need for domestic propaganda waned. In 1945, as major combat operations came to an end, the OWI was terminated and its remaining broadcasting operations were transferred to the State Department.25

Not long after the War, the federal government considered establishing a permanent government broadcasting agency. In October 1945, Representative Sol Bloom (D-N.Y.) introduced a bill that would have allowed the Secretary of State to more aggressively broadcast governmentproduced programming internationally.26 But due to administrative delays

and legislative bickering, the “Bloom Bill” died one year after it was introduced.27 However, the idea of a peacetime government broadcasting agency lived on.28 In the months that followed the demise of the Bloom Bill, Democrats and Republicans continued to spar over whether to establish a permanent government broadcasting agency that would be operational during wartime and peacetime alike.29

1. The De Facto Dissemination Ban.—There is no doubt that the Smith–Mundt Act permitted the federal government to disseminate its message abroad, but it is less certain whether it prohibited the federal government from disseminating its message within the United States. Some have argued that the original version of the Smith–Mundt Act permitted domestic dissemination because it did not contain an explicit prohibition on the domestic dissemination of government-produced programming, and because it allowed certain members of the American public to access these otherwise off-limits materials at specified government agencies.48 However, a more plausible reading is that a de facto ban existed.

Thirteen years later,78 the 1972 Amendment’s explicit prohibition on the domestic dissemination of government-produced materials was further strengthened. In 1985, Senator Edward Zorinsky (D-Neb.) drafted an amendment to the Smith–Mundt Act (1985 Amendment) that proposed reinforcing the domestic dissemination ban.79 Senator Zorinsky was chiefly concerned with the USIA’s “second mandate,” which permitted the Agency to initiate cultural training programs for U.S. citizens.80 He believed that this mandate could be used to “propagandize” the American people to

adopt pro-communist views on foreign policy issues.81 In furtherance of his proposal to reinforce the domestic dissemination ban, Senator Zorinsky memorably stated: “The American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support U.S. Government propaganda directed at him or her.”82 In its final form, the 1985 Amendment required that “no funds authorized to be appropriated to the [USIA] shall be used to influence public opinion in the United States, and no program material prepared by the [USIA] shall be distributed within the United States.”83

The passage of the 1985 Amendment marked the zenith of the domestic dissemination ban on government-produced programming. After that date, cracks began to develop in the wall that Senators Fulbright and Zorinsky built.

1. The 2010 Bill.—The first attempt at repealing the domestic dissemination ban came in July 2010. Representatives Mac Thornberry (RTex.) and Adam Smith (D-Wash.) introduced “The Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2010” (2010 Bill) into Congress.91 At its core, the 2010 Bill was a national security measure designed to “modernize authorities to fight and win the war of ideas against violent extremist ideologies over the [I]nternet and other mediums of information” within the United States.92

Despite its shortcomings, the 2010 Bill is notable because it signaled a turning point in how Congress perceived the Smith–Mundt Act’s domestic dissemination ban. In decades prior, Congress was inclined to reinforce the domestic dissemination ban, as it did in 1965, 1972, and 1985,98 but by 2010, Congress was willing to consider a complete repeal.99 This radical change in perception is attributable to two major developments. First, advances in information technology allowed people to communicate freely, severely diminishing the government’s power to control the media. Consequently, many began to doubt the effectiveness of state-made propaganda generally,100 the domestic dissemination ban’s enforceability,101 and the overall feasibility of the statutory regime surrounding government broadcasting.102 But the most salient reason for amending the Smith–Mundt Act was to curb the threat of domestic terrorism.

Although the 2013 Amendment repealed the blanket ban on the domestic dissemination of government-produced programming, some restrictions remain. Analyzing these restrictions is important to understanding how government-produced materials may be disseminated domestically; however, they do not, either separately or as a whole, significantly impede the State Department and the BBG from distributing their programming to the American public.

However, the 2013 Amendment creates new problems. Allowing the State Department and the BBG to freely disseminate their materials within the United States could compromise free public discourse.164 Neither the amended Smith–Mundt Act nor any other law or regulation contains substantive limitations on what the State Department or the BBG may disseminate within the United States.165 Although there are a number of restrictions that the State Department and the BBG must follow, they are ineffective, unverifiable, rendered irrelevant by carve-outs, or some combination thereof. More critically, there are no meaningful consequences should the State Department or BBG violate one or more of these restrictions. Theoretically, the American people have the ability to elect representatives who would defund these agencies should they abuse their power. However, this traditional check on government overreach is largely ineffective against modern propaganda. Modern propaganda is often indistinguishable from privately produced news because it is by-and-large truthful and accurate; it gently guides a viewer to adopt a particular point of view rather than inundate him with an obvious political message.166

When the public is misled about the independence of a broadcast, not only are the viewers deceived, but also free public discourse as a whole is damaged.169 Hence, the State Department and BBG must be required to attribute their programming.170

However, the 2013 Amendment creates new problems. Now, there is little preventing the State Department and the BBG from widely disseminating unattributed government-produced programming within the United States.

The danger of domestic dissemination does not lie in the dissemination itself; rather, it lies in anonymous dissemination. To curb the potential harm of covert government propaganda, there must be either legislation or a judicial doctrine that requires the State Department and the BBG to attribute their materials.

Fortunately, there is little evidence that the State Department and the BBG have any desire to “propagandize” the American people.229

The final quote here must be some joke by the author.

Both Politifact and The AP State That The Claim Smith-Mundt Modernization Act Did Not Allow the US Government to Disseminate Propaganda to its Citizens

Whenever there is something true that billionaires or the US government do not want people to know, sources like the AP and Politifact (as well as USA Today and many others) publish “fact-checking” articles. Naturally, these articles appeared on this topic as well. Here are quotes from the Politifact article.

Did President Barack Obama make it “legal” for media outlets to purposely lie to the American public?

That’s what one Facebook post claims.

The full post reads:

“Thanks to Obama, it is perfectly legal for the media to purposely lie to the American people. He quietly signed into law HR 4310 in 2012, allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda.”

The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

This proves nothing. What Facebook calls false news and misinformation usually is information that its funders (Facebook receives significant funding from the US government) do not want to be known. However, the establishment media constantly point to Facebook or other Big Tech entities taking down content as evidence that it is false.

The quote continues.

No, Obama didn’t make it legal for propaganda to run amok in U.S. newsrooms and be presented as fact in broadcasts and reports to the American public. But a bill passed as part of H.R. 4310 — the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 — instead reversed restrictions on news programs funded by the U.S. government.

Let’s break this down.

First, Obama didn’t “quietly” sign H.R. 4310, also known as the National Defense Authorization Act, into law as the meme suggests. He issued a statement about its passing and about some provisions he didn’t agree with, though he didn’t list the Smith-Mundt modernization bill as part of his objections.

So what did the legislation actually do?

H.R. 4310 and the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012
H.R. 4310, otherwise known as the National Defense Authorization Act, authorized Pentagon funding through fiscal year 2013.

As part of H.R. 4310, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 also passed and removed restrictions on programming produced by the U.S. Agency for Global Media, formerly known as the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. government’s broadcasting arm.

Some of these programs include Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

These programs are government propaganda. I have reviewed Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia. I can say the quality of these entities is a joke, and they are unreliable sources of information. I would not spend a minute reading any of these publications.

Politifact continues.

Many have criticized the programs and dubbed the content propaganda, while the organizations say they adhere to strict journalistic standards and aim to educate populations that come from parts of the world where freedom of speech is suppressed.

It is propaganda. Politifact is an arm of the establishment media that propagandizes the public for powerful entities.

What the organizations like Politifact say about the topic is hardly relevant as their job is to produce propaganda, which has always been the objective of these entities.
They are 100% controlled by the US government to advance US foreign policy objectives. Furthermore, reading them makes it easy to tell they are propaganda.

Politifact continues.

For example, Voice of America says it broadcasts “accurate, balanced and comprehensive reporting, programming, online and social media content for a global audience, particularly to those who are denied access to open and free media,” and it defines the legally mandated standards in the VOA journalistic code.

“An essential guarantee of the journalistic credibility of Voice of America content is the ‘firewall’ enshrined in the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting Act,” the website says. “The firewall prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news, thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference.”

Well, the firewall is not working. The content is a joke and is deliberately misleading.

The idea that Politifact would present what the Voice of America says about itself tells you a lot about Politifact’s “fact-checking.”
Using this logic, to know if a person accused of murder is guilty, Politifact would ask the suspect’s attorney, and Politifact would report that the attorney stated: “he is innocent.” Fact checks complete.

The quote continues.

Before the act was passed, the programs could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The bill removed restrictions on domestic distribution.

That is a very oversimplified way of explaining the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act. Allow me to elaborate. It means that government-created propaganda designed to advance US policy objectives limited to outside the US can not be directed within the US. Furthermore, as the Northwestern Law Review article addresses, no attribution or disclosure is required. The Pentagon can pay ABC or CBS to run stories written by the Pentagon press office without the viewer being informed who wrote the story or that the Pentagon paid ABC and CBS.

The quote continues.

A contemporaneous report by Foreign Policy, a news organization that covers global affairs, detailed what the bill did, along with why government officials say it was passed:

“A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) 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.’

Therefore, the logic is that because there are so many foreigners in the US, the government must be allowed to reach them with propaganda designed for other countries.

Do you know who else will be caught in the propaganda net? The entire rest of the country.

Furthermore, Politifact makes it sound like there is some specific reason the US wants to propagandize its populace. However, there is no particular reason necessary. Look at the coverage of Ukraine. The New York Times is functioning as an outlet for the Pentagon, helping them enlarge and extend the war and lying about the US involvement in setting up the war.

The Politifact quote continues.

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..”

Where is the transparency?

The US does not have to disclose its funding program.

This is an amazingly idiotic statement in an overall ridiculous article by Politifact. It also shows how little Politifact cares about what is true.

The Politifact quote continues.

That doesn’t change the fact that the programs can be considered propaganda, but contrary to the Facebook post’s claim, the legislation did not repeal any law that prohibited independent and traditional media outlets in the private sector from publishing false information. It removed limitations on U.S.-funded and generated content from being aired in the country.

Right. What? What is Politifact talking about? Yes, the latter is what it did. That is the entire point of this discussion.

Politifact seems to have forgotten the quote on Facebook. It is fact-checking, and here it is again.

allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda.”

The Politifact author appears to be confused about what they are fact-checking.

For context, it’s important to note that post might sound like Obama changed libel laws in the country. But that’s not true, either. Libel laws vary state by state, and there isn’t a federal libel law.

This is another irrelevant comment from an author who has lost their bearings. It’s also not true that the act prohibits children’s car seats. That was not the topic of the quote on Facebook, but Politifact may also include that.

The Politifact quote continues.

Our ruling
A Facebook post claims Obama made it legal for the media to “purposely lie to the American people” when he signed H.R. 4310 into law in 2012, “allowing propaganda to be used on the citizens of the USA by its own government, essentially repealing the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, banning the use of domestic propaganda.”

Obama did sign H.R. 4310 into law, also passing the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. But the bill did not make it legal for independent, private-sector media outlets to present outright false information to the public. Instead, it allowed government-sponsored news like Voice of American to be broadcast in the United States. It removed restrictions on U.S.-generated news from being presented to American audiences.

The claim is not accurate. We rate it False.

The Politifact author is so confused and wrapped up in falsehoods that their determination of what is true or false is meaningless.

This happens when a brain does not get enough sleep or long chain fatty acids. This author is at risk for early-onset dementia. Let us review the facts.

Billionaires fund Politifact to shut down dissent from the elite establishment view. They are prostitutes who will provide any fact check based on who pays them. Their coverage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act will naturally lie because Politifact works as a front end for elite entities that do not want the public to know about the reality of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act.

Sharing This Article

Share this article with someone you know by copying this article link and pasting it into your email so they can read the same information.