I suggest taking a look at the way non-State foreign affairs agencies already operate: namely USAID and DOD. History teaches us that eliminating "redundancies' is a favored method of operation in Washington. That was a justification for eliminating USIA. It is a justification for merging USAID more and more into State. Without the Smith-Mundt statutory firewall, what would be the justification to maintain two information bureaus at State -- PA and IIP -- along with their parallel webpages, speakers programs, etc.?
What defines "propaganda" in the 21st century? The term itself means "to propagate information." By that definition, why has propaganda become such an unappealing term and practice?
Why are the discplines of influence, persuasion, and perception any more unattractive options to engaging foreign (and domestic) audiences than the use of other elements of national power such as the military or intelligence?
What is the point is the danger of eviscerating programs and resources intended for overseas publics. The temptation of the executive branch of government to use all available means to influence domestic American opinion is overwhelming.
Given a choice of placing resources into foreign language materials for placement and American speakers for, say, sub-Saharan Africa, instead of press releases and surrogate speaking tours in, say, Missouri, guess which will win? That is without a statutory firewall protecting, long-term resources, infrastructure, and expertise in international information policy and programs.
At one time you could neatly separate audiences and hence “target” specific ones with messages. I think those early shapers went through a lot of trouble and maybe rightly so to separate propaganda from public information. However, I would argue whether or not it is propaganda can only be defined by the receiver’s view of the content, not the senders. Now, unlike many o my colleagues, I subscribe to the thought that everything we do is influence. True the terms have negative connotations, but what if you call it marketing vice propaganda; informing vice influencing; and promotion vice persuasion? So does Smith-Mundy become obsolete, maybe? The factor not worked in to targeting audiences and separating PA from say IO is that it is almost impossible to target an audience with a message and not have that message spill over to unintended audiences. Therefore, we simply can’t lie or deceive as once organizations were able to. It is too easy for the content to be torn apart and exposed -- rather quickly I may add. Ironically, I think Smith-Mundt has become a barrier to legitimate communication.
Alan's comment makes a common assumption, indeed the prevailing assumption of this conference, "that it is almost impossible to target audiences with a mesage and not have that message spill over to unintended audiences." It's hard to argue with this. With Martin Luther King's birthday approaching, you'll see a lot of targeted messaging to sub-Saharan Africa, including in French, Portuguese, Swahili, Hausa, Amharic, Shona, Ndebele, and Somali. Even in Arabic. The messaging indeed focuses on promoting democracy, rule of rule and explaining how a society can go about correcting its most egregious flaws non-violently, democratically, and under the rule of law. It's safe to say that message will be picked up in places like Morocco, Egypt, and perhaps even among Ethiopians, Somalis, and Eritreans in the United States. It's a potentially dangerous, even revolutionary message. But one that for various reasons resonates greater in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere, and thus the special focus on African audiences
PAOs in the field -- seize the moment to communicate what really goes on! Unfortunately. Matt's Smith-Mundt Symposium doesn't include any active duty, experienced PD professionals who might be able to communicate this perspective.
I suggest taking a look at the way non-State foreign affairs agencies already operate: namely USAID and DOD. History teaches us that eliminating "redundancies' is a favored method of operation in Washington. That was a justification for eliminating USIA. It is a justification for merging USAID more and more into State. Without the Smith-Mundt statutory firewall, what would be the justification to maintain two information bureaus at State -- PA and IIP -- along with their parallel webpages, speakers programs, etc.?
Questions for consideration:
What defines "propaganda" in the 21st century? The term itself means "to propagate information." By that definition, why has propaganda become such an unappealing term and practice?
Why are the discplines of influence, persuasion, and perception any more unattractive options to engaging foreign (and domestic) audiences than the use of other elements of national power such as the military or intelligence?
Wordsmithing "propaganda" isn't the real point.
What is the point is the danger of eviscerating programs and resources intended for overseas publics. The temptation of the executive branch of government to use all available means to influence domestic American opinion is overwhelming.
Given a choice of placing resources into foreign language materials for placement and American speakers for, say, sub-Saharan Africa, instead of press releases and surrogate speaking tours in, say, Missouri, guess which will win? That is without a statutory firewall protecting, long-term resources, infrastructure, and expertise in international information policy and programs.
At one time you could neatly separate audiences and hence “target” specific ones with messages. I think those early shapers went through a lot of trouble and maybe rightly so to separate propaganda from public information. However, I would argue whether or not it is propaganda can only be defined by the receiver’s view of the content, not the senders. Now, unlike many o my colleagues, I subscribe to the thought that everything we do is influence. True the terms have negative connotations, but what if you call it marketing vice propaganda; informing vice influencing; and promotion vice persuasion? So does Smith-Mundy become obsolete, maybe? The factor not worked in to targeting audiences and separating PA from say IO is that it is almost impossible to target an audience with a message and not have that message spill over to unintended audiences. Therefore, we simply can’t lie or deceive as once organizations were able to. It is too easy for the content to be torn apart and exposed -- rather quickly I may add. Ironically, I think Smith-Mundt has become a barrier to legitimate communication.
Alan's comment makes a common assumption, indeed the prevailing assumption of this conference, "that it is almost impossible to target audiences with a mesage and not have that message spill over to unintended audiences." It's hard to argue with this. With Martin Luther King's birthday approaching, you'll see a lot of targeted messaging to sub-Saharan Africa, including in French, Portuguese, Swahili, Hausa, Amharic, Shona, Ndebele, and Somali. Even in Arabic. The messaging indeed focuses on promoting democracy, rule of rule and explaining how a society can go about correcting its most egregious flaws non-violently, democratically, and under the rule of law. It's safe to say that message will be picked up in places like Morocco, Egypt, and perhaps even among Ethiopians, Somalis, and Eritreans in the United States. It's a potentially dangerous, even revolutionary message. But one that for various reasons resonates greater in sub-Saharan Africa than elsewhere, and thus the special focus on African audiences
PAOs in the field -- seize the moment to communicate what really goes on! Unfortunately. Matt's Smith-Mundt Symposium doesn't include any active duty, experienced PD professionals who might be able to communicate this perspective.