Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #41)
Fri May 25, 2012, 02:25 PM
freshwest (40,331 posts)
42. Went to Adam Smith's blog to get the facts straight from the donkeys' mouth:
Last edited Fri May 25, 2012, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)
Rep. Smith Clarifies the Intent and Impact of the Thornberry-Smith Amendment
Posted by Rep. Adam Smith on May 23, 2012
I have heard from several constituents regarding an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) I co-sponsored with Congressman Mac Thornberry that would modernize the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. Unfortunately, recent articles have misinterpreted the intent and impact of the Thornberry-Smith amendment to the NDAA and I would like to take this opportunity to clarify misconceptions about what the amendment does.
First let me say, that the Thornberry-Smith amendment does not authorize any U.S. government agency to develop propaganda for a domestic audience nor is that our intent... As the NDAA continues to make its way through the Senate and then conference between the House and Senate, if there is a possibility this language could be misinterpreted to allow a U.S. government agency to develop propaganda for a domestic audience please be assured, changes will be made to make sure it does not happen...
This amendment is intended to provide greater transparency and to ensure the U.S. government can get factual information out to foreign audiences in a timely manner for many reasons including countering extremist misinformation and propaganda. It does not and is not in any way intended to ‘legalize the use of propaganda on American audiences,’ it does not neutralize or repeal Smith-Mundt and, in fact, it 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 U.S. It clearly states, no funds authorized to be appropriated to State Department or BBG for any activity shall be used to influence public opinion. Further, beyond the scope of the State Department and BBG, restrictions are passed into law each year that would prevent taxpayer dollars from being spent by the U.S. government for propaganda purposes...
Am summarizing to meet the three paragraph rule, but he cites cases where Somalians and Haitians in the US asked for updates about conditions in their homelands. But they were denied them as the radio stations cited Smith-Mundt and would not allow the news to be broadcast as it was foreign, per the link below.
I'm hoping this will give greater presence of foreign news in many instances where Americans need to get out of the news bubble that the corporate media has us isolated in. There are other solutions that we've been effectively kept in the dark about by corporate forces on issues such as healthcare and other views. IMHO, that would be a good thing, although his explanation is complicated. We're already subjected to real misinformation and non-stop propaganda from FOX and others who only report what the energy giants, GOP and MIC allow them to do now. There is a much broader view of how to solve our problem than theirs.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Amster Dan||May 2012||OP|
|Ex-Pat Pats Fan||May 2012||#36|
Went to Adam Smith's blog to get the facts straight from the donkeys' mouth:
|woo me with science||May 2012||#49|
|sofa king||May 2012||#7|
|Harcourdt Fenton Mud||May 2012||#8|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#48|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#44|
|Flying Squirrel||May 2012||#32|
|Larry Ogg||May 2012||#33|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#46|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#43|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#47|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#52|
|woo me with science||May 2012||#54|
Please login to view edit histories.