Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 – Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government’s policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. (Under current law such authority is restricted to information disseminated abroad, with a limited domestic exception.)
Authorizes the Secretary and the Board to make available in the United States motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to such Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.
Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States. (Under current law such provision applies to the United States Information Agency [USIA].)
Applies such prohibition only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.
States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency.
Facts About Smith-Mundt Modernization
The U.S. Agency for Global Media and the media organizations that it supports can now make their content available in broadcast quality upon request within the United States. This is due to a law that went into effect on July 2, 2013, amending the U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, known as the Smith-Mundt Act. Amending Smith-Mundt for this purpose was part of the strategic plan adopted in 2011 by the governing board overseeing the then BBG.
Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA) and Congressman Mac Thornberry (R-TX), co-sponsored the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which was introduced in 2010 and made part of a larger piece of legislation in 2012.
The new law will let people across America see and hear the valuable news reported by the Agency’s accomplished journalists. It takes into account modern content platforms that are not restricted by national boundaries, such as the Internet, mobile delivery and satellite broadcasting.
The modernization of Smith-Mundt will facilitate global connectivity and audience engagement and will provide greater transparency into publicly-funded broadcasting.
Here are some Frequently Asked Questions about the new law.
- Can USAGM focus its broadcasting on the United States?
- So what does the new law allow that wasn’t allowed before?
- How can these materials be requested?
- Wasn’t this content already available in the United States via the Internet or other means, and isn’t it still available without having to be requested?
- Do you intend to target your programming to émigré communities in this country?
- Is this an attempt to influence or propagandize US citizens?
- But won’t the Defense Department now be at liberty to spread propaganda in the United States thanks to this new legislation?
- What guarantees that USAGM content is balanced and accurate?
Q. Can the USAGM focus its broadcasting on the United States?
A. No. There has been no change to the Agency’s enabling statute, the U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994, which authorizes the agency to create programs for foreign audiences. The Agency is not authorized to begin broadcasting or to create programming for audiences in the United States. We do not seek to change that. USAGM continues to focus on overseas audiences.
Q. So what does the new law allow that wasn’t allowed before?
A. The new legislation eases Smith-Mundt restrictions and allows the agency and its broadcasters to respond positively to requests from within the United States for their content. Much, but not all, of this programming is now available online. Additionally, the Agency can consider domestic requests for ongoing subscriptions if doing so falls within the agency’s mission and other statutory authorities.
Q. How can these materials be requested?
A: Requests for use of program content should be made through individual broadcasters. Please see this page for information.
Q. Wasn’t this content already available in the United States via the internet or other means, and isn’t it still available without having to be requested?
A. It is true that some, but not all, of our broadcasters’ content has been and will continue to be accessible on the Internet, via shortwave radio (depending on signal quality and availability) or on TV outlets where the international footprint for our programs is accessible in this country. However, that makes up only a fraction of the content created by our broadcasters each year. Now our broadcasters can make this material available upon request in broadcast quality. Requesters are obliged to secure U.S. broadcast rights and permissions for any third-party copyrighted content that may be contained in USAGM programming.
Q. Do you intend to target your programming to émigré communities in this country?
A. No. Existing law does not allow the Agency to create programs for audiences in the United States, nor do we seek to do that. But the new law does allow interested U.S. residents to access USAGM content, upon request. Historically, organizations operating internationally and representatives of émigré communities – some from areas in conflict — have sought out this reliable news of their home countries and in their native languages.
The modernization of Smith-Mundt will facilitate global connectivity and audience engagement and will provide greater transparency into publicly-funded broadcasting.
Q. Is this an attempt to influence or propagandize US citizens?
A. No. Our journalists must abide by legally mandated broadcasting standards and principles to present accurate and objective news and information. They do so in 64 languages for audiences in more than 100 countries countries where it is often difficult or impossible to receive locally-produced, uncensored or unbiased programs. They provide responsible discussion and open debate in places where it is rare in the media. To call these efforts “propaganda” is an affront to those journalists, many of whom work in some of the roughest spots in the world, putting themselves and their loved ones at great risk.
Q. But won’t the Defense Department now be at liberty to spread propaganda in the United States thanks to this new legislation?
A. No. The U.S. Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 does not apply to the Defense Department, and neither do the subsequent amendments.
Q. What guarantees that content from USAGM is balanced and accurate?
A. USAGM networks are legally mandated to present accurate and objective news and information. The mission statements of our networks reinforce the commitment to high-quality journalism and serving as a model of free press. All of the networks — Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV & Radio Sawa) — are considered vital, objective news sources and are frequently cited by major media, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Miami Herald, and CNN, for their high-quality reporting. This is testament to the quality and range of reporting that our journalists produce.
APPLE PIE PROPAGANDA? THE SMITH–MUNDT ACT BEFORE AND AFTER THE REPEAL OF THE DOMESTIC DISSEMINATION BAN
—For over sixty years, the Smith–Mundt Act prohibited the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from disseminating government-produced programming within the United States over fears that these agencies would “propagandize” the American people. However, in 2013, Congress abolished the domestic dissemination ban, which has led to a heated debate about the role of the federal government in free public discourse. Although the 2013 repeal of the domestic dissemination ban promotes greater government transparency and may help counter anti-American sentiment at home, it also gives the federal government great power to covertly influence public opinion. To curb the potential harm of surreptitious government propaganda, while also preserving the benefits of repeal, this Note advocates for requiring the State Department and the BBG to clearly attribute any government-produced programming these agencies disseminate within the United States. This Note contends that attribution can be best accomplished in one of two ways: by passing new attribution legislation similar to that of the failed Truth in Broadcasting Act of 2005 or by expanding the judicially created government speech doctrine to require these agencies to properly attribute any materials they distribute to the American public.
Since the introduction of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2013, there has been a surprising amount of attention to the fear of the American public being subjected to propaganda. The Act would remove the restriction currently in place that bans the dissemination of government material produced for overseas consumption from being made available to the American public. Let’s ask a lot of questions.
For a moment, let’s assume this is true and assert that the American public will be subjected to the same “propaganda” as issued by the U.S. Government overseas. What is it exactly that we are worried about? Are we to assume that the messages we issue overseas are somehow unfit for the American public? If so, why is that? Is the information untrue? If it’s untrue, then it’s disinformation, and I don’t want that broadcast in my name—so let’s fix it.
Edward R. Murrow, the often-quoted father-figure of American public diplomacy and first head of the U.S. Information Agency, remarked on what makes good propaganda:
…truth is the best propaganda and lies are the worst. To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as simple as that.
Now, let’s assume the American public will be able to access all the information the United States publishes for foreign consumption online. Actually, we don’t need to assume this, because it is already true. Practically any Google search of an international or foreign policy issue generates results from Voice of America, which technically, under Smith-Mundt, Americans aren’t legally allowed to receive—it’s essentially legally codified censorship. In fact, I would argue that it’s a violation of the First Amendment, as it restricts freedom of the press. Foreigners can view it, but Americans aren’t allowed to? Smith-Mundt is outdated, ineffective, disabling, and arguably unconstitutional.
Making information readily available, propaganda or not, subjects it to more scrutiny and analysis directly by the people who are paying for it in the first place. It creates more transparency and accountability, and eliminates the domestic media as an intermediary. Should we rely completely on private media to decide what government-produced information we should or should not be issued? Why should we let CNN or Fox News decide for us? Doesn’t putting the information out there for public viewing make the private news we rely on more responsible for debating it? Shouldn’t we be able to know what we are broadcasting or publishing overseas?
So again, let’s assume that our foreign “propaganda” will be made available for domestic consumption. In today’s increasingly skeptical, informed, and interconnected society, who’s to say that such propaganda could be effectively used for nefarious purposes? This material should be available for scrutiny.
For a split moment, let’s think about the example of the BBC, which is funded by the British Government. What if the British weren’t allowed to watch or listen to material created by the BBC for international broadcasting? Doesn’t that seem a bit absurd?
Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation succinctly lays argues against the irrational fears of propaganda:
Critics have already voiced concerns that this will open the floodgates of propaganda by the U.S. government. This is hardly likely. Indeed, access to programs and materials produced by the State and the BBG will allow Congress and the public a better understanding of what we are funding. Much of it is high-quality journalism, which deserves support, and some programming could have a positive impact on certain immigrant communities in the United States that are vulnerable to radicalization. As for programming and materials that are controversial, questionable, or wasteful, doesn’t the U.S. public deserve to know what is being published or broadcast in its name?
The fact of the matter is that Americans are subjected to propaganda in a variety of forms. Political campaigns are propaganda. Tourism ads are propaganda. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense was propaganda. Standing on the National Mall surrounded by monuments is propaganda. What is it that frightens us?
U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they “should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA “present fair and accurate news.”
“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG 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.”
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. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported the Post.
But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.
One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the “R” bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)
But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. “To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another,” Thornberry told The Cable last May. “And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire.”
That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. “Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff,” the former U.S. official told The Cable. “Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now.”
Resources
usagm.gov, “Facts About Smith-Mundt Modernization.”; scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu, “APPLE PIE PROPAGANDA? THE SMITH–MUNDT ACT BEFORE AND AFTER THE REPEAL OF THE DOMESTIC DISSEMINATION BAN.” By Weston R. Sager; americansecurityproject.org, “Propaganda? So what?” By Matthew Wallin; foreignpolicy.com, “U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans: For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences.” By John Hudson;