Recalling History: Secretary of State testifies for information activities

Below is testimony and questions from a hearing before a special subcommittee of the House of Representative’s Committee on Foreign Affairs on May 16, 1947. The subject is HR 3342, a bill that would become known as the US Information and Education Exchange Act of 1948, also referred to as the Smith-Mundt Act. George C. Marshall was General of the Army (5-stars), Ambassador to China, Secretary of State, and later Nobel Peace Prize laureate. He was the third Secretary of State in two years. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., served 1 Dec 1944 – 27 June 1945. James F. Byrnes served 3 July 1945 to 21 January 1947. Marshall served 21 January 1947 to 20 January 1949.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Continue reading “Recalling History: Secretary of State testifies for information activities

Quoting history: engaging in the information sphere

Years ago, the House Appropriations Committee opened an inquiry into “cultural diplomacy.” The response from the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs at the time was that it was a necessary response to the “enormous sums” our adversary was spending on propaganda, “possibly more than the rest of the world combined.” Below is an excerpt from the newspaper story reporting on State’s defense of its cultural efforts (details on the story are below the fold):

[Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs] said the giving of “ideas” or “propaganda” to other countries had become the “fourth arm” of foreign policy. … Congress and even the State Department did not fully appreciate its value, [the Assistant Secretary] said.

[The House Appropriations Committee Chairman] contended that most of the information [from the State Department] was “slanted” to favor the department’s views and thus constituted a “ministry of propaganda.”

[The Assistant Secretary] replied that everything that emerged from his office was “straight information”; that
any “slanted or one-sided information” always gave the source, thus removing it from the “propaganda classification.

[A]sked why [State’s Public Affairs] had more employees – 3,000, – than the entire State Department had [only four years prior], the [Assistant Secretary] explained the State Department rarely received requests for information [before] but now got an average of 34,000 a month.

Continue reading “Quoting history: engaging in the information sphere

Looking for a research topic on public diplomacy and strategic communication?

Are you a graduate student looking for a research topic? Then I’ve got two topics for you. Actually I have a dozen topics, but here’s two, one I’ve shared several times over the last couple of months and another. I haven’t spent a lot of time refining these so don’t bang on me too hard on the wording but a discussion is encouraged.

Continue reading “Looking for a research topic on public diplomacy and strategic communication?

Inconvenient ignorance: America’s curious concern over influence in foreign affairs

Organizing for America - Domestic Propaganda?
Organizing for America – Domestic Propaganda?

For Americans, “influence” or “persuasion” in the context of foreign affairs is unseemly and even distasteful. While it is the responsibility – the requirement even – of a democratic leader to marshal and manage public opinion behind an issue or a platform, we have an uneasy relationship with this concept in the area of foreign affairs. 

Using carefully selected words for carefully selected audiences, leveraging social media, traditional media, and personal engagement to build support for an issue are the hallmarks of political campaigns. Whether running for office or pushing legislation, politicians and their advisors explore the psychology of constituents to push emotional buttons to influence and mobilize audiences.

The propagation of accidental misinformation or intentional disinformation is a healthy business in America, as is the business of uncovering the same. It is legal to “swift boat” in the US is legal, the President can solicit my support through electronic media (see image above, ostensibly from a private entity) and through weekly radio addresses, I can watch government influence operations (from the Administration and Congress alike) on Sunday Talk Shows, and the President’s own press secretary can master the art of obfuscation (must more prominent in the previous Administration).

But change the target audience to be outside the US and all of a sudden the color of the discourse changes and we assume what our own government says and does in our name is “dirty” and unfit to be viewed by Americans, even through the filter of our own media.

Why is this? Craig Hayden says it is because we harbor “the phantom fears of the propaganda state”. But, as he points out,

…we already live in a propaganda state, where mainstream media reporting caters to narrow-cast markets with news and opinions framed to be marketable. So the dangers that Smith-Mundt supposedly protects U.S. citizens from is non-unique. At the same time, the U.S. clings to a phantom hope that its journalistic institutions adhere to a kind of impartial “objectivity” to serve the interests of public debate. Objectivity has been watered down to artificially bisect all issues as politically debatable, with few evaluative standards other than those posed by stakeholders with conveniently contrasting views on the “news.” Put simply – current U.S. media institutions produce propaganda – for better or worse.

The “inconvenient ignorance” of the “propaganda state” limits our ways, means, and purposes of engaging global audiences. We imply certain discourse is unsavory for Americans and label it “propaganda” or “psychological operations” simply because the conversation is with non-US audiences. The result is that we censor our Government, and only our Government, in the area of foreign affairs and yet domestically, we have a vibrant industry targeting individuals in far less savory ways (seriously, “death panels”?).

See also:

More on my Foreign Policy article about Smith-Mundt: Censoring the VOA

My article at Foreign Policy, Censoring the Voice of America (with additional information here), on the dated restrictions in the Smith-Mundt Act that prevents access to America’s international broadcasting elicited two reactions at ForeignPolicy.com. Both of the comments were expected and both are dated and ill-informed. Shawn Powers added his voice in a must-read comment at FP:

… Mr. CKWEBBIT, the idea that the status quo protects Americans from government propaganda is an utter joke. The war in Iraq is a terrific example of how, if the government wants, it can spin the US media any which way it likes. Let us, for once and for all, move past the idea that Americans (or anyone) need protection from particular media (be it Americans being protected from VOA or Arabs from Al Jazeera) and begin a conversation about the importance of integrating media literacy into the curriculum at a young age. … propaganda is already all over our satellite systems, from China’s CCTV to Russia’s Russia Today (RT). Press TV, Iran’s English language broadcaster is even available throughout the US via Livestation. If you want to argue for protection against propaganda, I suggest you refocus your criticism.

Mr. RLHOTCHKISS: … there are many ways to know when any news media is being deceitful — you compare it to other, credible sources. As an important example, the VOA corrected the mainstream media last month regarding a poll in Honduras after the coup. Let me restate: the CSM, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Reuters got it wrong and VOA got it right. You also state: "If you want to provide objective news in different languages do like the BBC and pay for it." We DO PAY FOR IT. With taxes. $700 million a year. But you can’t read/view it due to the Smith Mundt Act, so who knows if your taxes are being spent well.

See also:

Discussing Conspiracy Theories: a CO.NX webchat with Todd Leventhal

CO.NX, a State Department’s online conferencing tool, hosted a conversation with Todd Leventhal, State’s “disinformation and conspiracy theory specialist”. Todd is also the author of America.gov’s Rumors, Myths and Fabrications.

There are some interesting questions in the transcript which, by the way, is available online at the US Embassy in London. Because of an interpretation of the Smith-Mundt Act that disallows information created by specific offices in the State Department for foreign audiences, Todd’s expertise and this transcript are intentionally not available from the State.gov website to make it easier for Americans to see this conversation

A suggestion: State should host CO.NX style conversations with Americans to go beyond dispelling the same rumors, myths, and fabrications, as well as better engage and inform the public. A model would be the Defense Department’s Blogger Roundtable combined with DipNote’s focus on people and actions that don’t get a lot of coverage.

There is precedent in State. Former Under Secretary James Glassman held a few roundtables (with the bloggerati of public diplomacy but everything starts small) and out of public affairs (which Sean McCormack was working on before he left – he was even looking to integrate bloggers into daily press briefings).

Back to Todd. Select bits of the conversation are after the fold, but it is worth reading the whole article to get a feel for what is going on. Thanks Todd for sending this.

Continue reading “Discussing Conspiracy Theories: a CO.NX webchat with Todd Leventhal

In America? Smith-Mundt means no SMS updates on the President’s Ghana speech for you!

imageTo let the American public get updates to the President’s speech via SMS is dangerous and, presumably, equivalent to Al Qaeda and Taleban propaganda. No wait, those messages come through just fine so it must be worse than that and even Iranian, Russian, and Chinese Government propaganda. If you’re an American, you cannot sign up for SMS updates to what surely will be an excellent speech by the President – nor could you sign up for the previous much anticipated and lauded speeches – because the Smith-Mundt Act prevents American public diplomacy activities from reaching sensitive and impressionable American eyes and ears. If you’re in the 50 United States ("US minor outlying islands" don’t count) then you’ll have to hope the State Department’s Public Affairs

does something, but, call me a pessimist, I wouldn’t hold your breath.

See also:

Obsolete arguments to keep an obsolete law

By all means, let’s keep a law designed for another era on the books because, well, it’s there. That’s the argument many have offered in defense of the restrictive provisions added to the Smith-Mundt Act in 1972 and 1985. My friend Kim Andrew Elliot makes this argument while reviewing the Defense Department paper on strategic communication I posted this week.

"Understand the difference between public diplomacy and strategic communication. For the former, the audience is outside the geographic territory of the United States. For the latter, the audience is global. Science and Technology solutions do not generally discriminate based on geographic location, nor should they. The domains of strategic communication can not be limited to those with public affairs authority – everyone should be viewed as a strategic communicator."
Brilliant. This report has found a way to work around the Smith-Mundt clause prohibiting the domestic dissemination of public diplomacy. Just call it "strategic communication."

Kim’s statement is based on the belief that American public diplomacy is unfit for American audiences because it is a) deceitful, b) illegal influence, or c) damaging to the domestic news market. None of these are valid reasons today. 

Continue reading “Obsolete arguments to keep an obsolete law

Senator Edward Zorinsky and Banning Domestic Access to USIA in 1985

Senator Edward Zorinsky, D-NE
Senator Edward Zorinsky, D-NE 

If you’ve looked into public diplomacy or the Smith-Mundt Act, you have likely come across this quote by Senator Edward Zorinsky (D-NE), or some paraphrased reference to it:

The American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support U.S. Government propaganda directed at him or her.

Most likely, the text was standing alone and without any context of when and why the Senator said it, or perhaps even without a reference to who said it. In my experience, I have seen the quote in perhaps a dozen books, and some scholarly articles, and yet most of the time Zorinsky’s name is not given and never, not once, was a source given. The reader was left hanging.

The logical — and only — implication to be drawn from the quote when devoid of the original context was that the Government should not propagandize its people, then or today. Americans are comfortable with this idea, but the context here, like many other instances, really matters. The whole statement may cause you to reconsider what this line means.

Continue reading “Senator Edward Zorinsky and Banning Domestic Access to USIA in 1985

Recommended reading: Smith-Mundt: Censorship American Style?

Read Greg Garland’s editorial at AmericanDiplomacy.org, Smith-Mundt: Censorship American Style?

A provision of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the Voice of America and all other organs of public diplomacy from disseminating within the United States material intended for foreign publics.  What motivated Congress was distrust of the loyalty of the State Department; by banning domestic dissemination, Congress could block State from “propagandizing” the American people. … Despite this glaring flaw, Smith-Mundt as a whole is the vital legal foundation for all U.S. public diplomacy.  Questioning the law inevitably means questioning the nature of American public diplomacy. Understanding this, blogger Matt Armstrong (www.mountainrunner.us) organized a conference on January 13 to debate the merits of Smith-Mundt. [http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/]… As I sat through the conference, I kept thinking back to my boyhood clandestine listening.  Why on earth would Uncle Sam want to keep something from his own citizens but share it with the rest of the world? … don’t repeal Smith-Mundt.  It creates a statutory firewall between resources intended for foreign audiences and those used domestically. … tweak Smith-Mundt by getting rid of the one provision banning domestic dissemination. In this age of communication without borders, the existence of such statutory language only subverts America’s most powerful tool of soft power: our ideals.

Read the whole editorial here.

Media Roundtable Transcript is Online

The transcript for the January 6, 2009, AOC Journalist Series meeting (aka media roundtable) is available: AOC_Journalist_Series_Transcript_010609 (83k PDF)

Thank you to the Association of the Old Crows (AOC) for organizing and hosting this event.

Panelists for this discussion were:

Matt Armstrong
  Armstrong Strategic Insights Group (ASIG)
  www.MountainRunner.us

David Firestein
  US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy

George Clack
  Director, Office of Publications
  Bureau of International Information Programs (DOS-IIP)
  U.S. Department of State

RADM Greg Smith
  Director of Communications
  US Central Command (CENTCOM)

Smith-Mundt Symposium in the Blogosphere +

The Smith-Mundt Symposium in the blogosphere and “formal” media.

VOA News Blog by Alex Belida (link)

VOA Director David Jackson, a panelist at the symposium, did make a couple of points we believe are worth repeating here. First of all, he stressed that all those working in the VOA headquarters in Washington are journalists. He said U.S. officials can “no more tell them what to write” than they can tell journalists at the Washington Post (newspaper) what to write.And he suggested that removal of the Smith-Mundt restrictions on VOA could help silence critics who claim the contents of VOA shows must be suspicious if the American people aren’t allowed to see them.

Intermap by Craig Hayden (link) ** REQUIRED READING **

Here are some basic takeaways:

1) The dissemination ban contained in the Smith-Mundt Act was for many an irrelevance.

2) The difference of perspective between what we might call “traditional” PD experts, usually from the ranks of the former USIA (retired or otherwise), and those charged with implementing new policies of public diplomacy.

Reliable Sources by Pat Kushlis (link)

A Rear Admiral on one of the panels admitted that the US military did not have and will not have in the near future anywhere near the number of language qualified troops needed to engage people overseas in their own languages. As a result, Uncle Sam relies on contractors to carry out the function. He later added that what was most important was that the Iraqis and the Afghans see what we do, not just rely on being told what to think.

Talking Smith-Mundt by Pat Kushlis (link)

State has just never “gotten” the importance of the information game – either at home or abroad. It’s not and never will be part of its “core diplomatic functions” so will always receive the short end of the stick. Secrecy and hierarchy are the rules of State’s road – and they’re so ingrained in the bureaucracy and its operation – that they just plain aren’t going to disappear.

Congressman to Propose Some Form of Update for Smith-Mundt Act by Fawzia Sheikh of Inside Defense (subscription only)

Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA) plans to propose some form of update for the Smith-Mundt Act, a Cold War public diplomacy law, but many experts who spoke at a recent, related conference argued the current statute is not problematic and no more than minor tweaks should be made.

Two Agenda Items for Next Week’s Smith-Mundt Pow Wow by Steve Corman (link)

The SMA impairs domestic oversight.  In response to a “so what” question from Spencer Ackerman, the panelists pointed out that the SMA prevents proper oversight of U.S. strategic communication by those outside the government.  For example if the press has questions about specific overseas communication efforts, the State Department can’t answer them for fear of violating the SMA.

Getting Past Smith-Mundt by Craig Hayden (link)

George Clack related some humorous stories about how his department has to navigate around the prohibition in order to help US students who wish to use its resources to do school work, and offered two interesting observations. First, in response to a question from Patricia Kushlis of Whirled View – he worried that a removal of the dissemination ban might muddle the divisions between messages designed for foreign audiences, and those that already are released to explain policies to the American people. Basically, he argued that the U.S. needs to retain its capacity to tailor its publications and messages to specific audiences, and not have that process be subsumed by the production of domestic, political talking points. Second, he concluded that the future of U.S. diplomacy will be defined by the notion of “dialogue” – and that the Department of State should embrace Web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter and other social networking tools.

Symposium Transcripts: (former) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mike Doran

This PDF (72kb) is the second of six transcripts from the January 13, 2009, Smith-Mundt Symposium. This is the lunch time keynote by (former) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mike Doran. His comments are followed by an active question and answer session. Audio for this part of the Symposium can be download here (1 hour and 3 minutes, 15mb). My comments will follow in a forthcoming report.

Excerpt is below the fold.

Continue reading “Symposium Transcripts: (former) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Mike Doran

Symposium Transcripts: Under Secretary Glassman’s keynote and my welcome

Transcripts for the January 13, 2009, Smith-Mundt Symposium will begin appearing online as I review them. Federal News Service did a superb job transcribing the 8.5 hours of audio so quickly.

The first transcript to be posted is that of my opening comments and the morning keynote by now-former Under Secretary of State Jim Glassman. A PDF of the transcript can be downloaded here (65kb PDF). Audio of the same can be downloaded here (54 minutes mp3, 13mb). The Under Secretary’s comments begin at the bottom of page 5 of the transcript and at the 13:45 mark of the audio.

Excerpt below the fold.

Continue reading “Symposium Transcripts: Under Secretary Glassman’s keynote and my welcome

Symposium Audio: Glassman and Doran Keynotes

Complete audio for the 2009 Smith-Mundt Symposium will be available soon. The transcript will be available in about two weeks. Below, however, are mp3’s for the two keynotes.

I think many will find both interesting and very worthwhile to listen to sooner than later. Without comment (yet):

Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Jim Glassman’s keynote and questions & answers begins 13:45 into the mp3 at the link below. The beginning nearly fourteen minutes is my introduction to the Symposium.

http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/audio/smithmundtsymposium-glassman-011309.mp3 (54 minutes total, 13mb)

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy, now Special Advisor at the State Department, Mike Doran’s keynote and questions & answers may be downloaded at the below link.

http://mountainrunner.us/symposium/audio/smithmundtsymposium-doran-011309.mp3 (1 hour and 3 minutes, 15mb)

Following Up on the Smith-Mundt Symposium’s Media Roundtable

Yesterday Two days ago (already) was the media roundtable pre-event in advance of the Smith-Mundt Symposium that will take place next week, January 13, 2009. I am grateful to AOC for arranging and hosting this event and for Ken Miller’s hard work in setting it up, as well as a special thanks to Joel.

On the panel were Rear Admiral Greg Smith of CENTCOM, David Firestein from the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, George Clack of IIP, and me. Jeff Grieco from USAID was unable to attend.

Overall, I think the event went well. Although, for the most part the mainstream media failed to show, except for Adam from Congressional Quarterly, making this event predominately a blogger roundtable.

AOC – Ken specifically – will provide a transcript and the audio recording of the event next week.

In the meantime, some reactions from the bloggers (in no particular order)

I’ll post more links as they get posted by the other bloggers. 

See also:

And of course, visit the Smith-Mundt Symposium website.

Media Event: Journalist Roundtable on the Smith-Mundt Symposium

(I am not the organizer of this event, just a participant. If you are interested in attending this roundtable, appropriate contact information is below.)

AOC Journalist Series roundtable tomorrow, Tuesday, January 6, 2009, from 3:00 p.m. – 4:30 p.m. (EST), in Alexandria, VA. Media interested in attending in person or via conference call, contact Ken Miller at kmiller@crows.org or (703) 549-1600.

Continue reading “Media Event: Journalist Roundtable on the Smith-Mundt Symposium

Kill My TV: where’s the news?

Hmmm. Rob at Arabic Source offers a suggestion.

I want to second Abu Muqawama’s Kill_Your_TV post.   American tv coverage of the events in Gaza is beyond bad – its horrible.  CNN.  NBC.  All of them are garbage.   Who gives a crap about Rod Bagloyavic?   Who cares whether Sarah Palin is now a grandmother.  Maybe that’s news if there was nothing whatsoever going on.  But how ’bout this thing called Gaza?   Isn’t  it a national security issue when the American people are getting such poor quality information about events that are critical  to US  security in the Middle East.   Might not the American people have a need to know  about them?

If I was US National Security Adviser or Secretary of State,  here’s what I would do to critically improve US National Security:  The first thing I would do is have the US government fully subsidize a new network,  next to CBS, NBC and ABC, that broadcasts only quality news and documentaries on world affairs and current events.    Nothing but serious programs on all of the important issues that people need to know about.   American Idol, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton would never, ever get a mention on this new TV station.   Anyone who mentioned even one time, any of of these three, would immediately be fired.

People need to know what’s going on.  Dumb voters elect dumb politicians.  And dumb politicians make dumb policies.  So  what’s $50-100 million to run a 4th network featuring only serious world news?

This is spot on with my three reasons why the domestic dissemination prohibition of the transformed Smith-Mundt Act must be repealed. As the media has retreated from reported what goes on overseas out of a combination of budgets and interest, the American public are increasingly subjected to a combination of no information and half-truths from foreign sources without challenge (including the now widely read Russian psychological warrior Panarin – and here, reality check is here).

Introducing a new source of information, based on journalistic standards and public diplomacy standards to tell the truth, inform, and explain would, hopefully, raise the bar and challenge American media who no longer view informing the American public as a public service or a profit center. The purpose of the prohibition on domestic dissemination came not from the fear the Government would unduly influence the public, but that the State Department, full of Communists and Socialists, would undermine the Government. This was held by Congress, the FBI, and academics who questioned State’s loyalty of ability to manage both the information services and the exchange of persons programs.

What was done overseas in America’s name and with America’s money was intended to be shared within our borders by the media, Congress and academia. This created the necessary transparency and accountability of not just the programs but of the Government itself. At the time, holding the media accountable was not the issue. Today, it is as revenue streams shape content and headlines more than the need to now.

After the passing of “Deepthroat”, Mark Felt, someone observed that Watergate would probably not happen again because the major news organizations won’t fund such long investigations. This would have to come from “new” and independent organizations.

This is a good subject for the upcoming Smith-Mundt Symposium.