 |
|
RE: Just to show how far gone the media has become since
Posted on: May 4, 2025 at 21:35:54 CT
KCT-BoneTiger MU
Posts:
30913
Member For:
14.69 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
65
BuzzFeed News extensively covered the 2012 amendment to the Smith-Mundt Act, known as the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which allowed U.S. government-produced media content intended for foreign audiences to be made available to domestic audiences. The amendment was included in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 and signed into law by President Obama.
In a May 18, 2012, article titled "Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban," BuzzFeed reported that the amendment would "strike the current ban on domestic dissemination" of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The article noted that the change would neutralize previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from government misinformation campaigns.
Critics, including Michael Shank from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, expressed concerns that the amendment could lead to "blowback" and inundate Americans with government propaganda. Shank argued that such efforts might not effectively counteract extremism and could instead undermine trust in government communications.
Supporters of the amendment, like Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), contended that the change was necessary to enhance the U.S. government's ability to counteract extremist narratives online. Smith emphasized that the amendment was not about influencing domestic audiences but about freeing up current restrictions placed on foreign information campaigns.
In a follow-up article on May 24, 2012, titled "Senate Bill Drops 'Propaganda' Amendment," BuzzFeed reported that the Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the defense appropriations bill did not include the amendment. The article noted that this marked a setback for the approval of the amendment, though it remained possible for it to be introduced on the Senate floor or added during the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
In a May 18, 2012, article titled "Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban," BuzzFeed reported that the amendment would "strike the current ban on domestic dissemination" of propaganda material produced by the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The article noted that the change would neutralize previous acts—the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 and the Foreign Relations Authorization Act of 1987—that had been passed to protect U.S. audiences from government misinformation campaigns.
Critics, including Michael Shank from the Friends Committee on National Legislation, expressed concerns that the amendment could lead to "blowback" and inundate Americans with government propaganda. Shank argued that such efforts might not effectively counteract extremism and could instead undermine trust in government communications.
Supporters of the amendment, like Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), contended that the change was necessary to enhance the U.S. government's ability to counteract extremist narratives online. Smith emphasized that the amendment was not about influencing domestic audiences but about freeing up current restrictions placed on foreign information campaigns.
In a follow-up article on May 24, 2012, titled "Senate Bill Drops 'Propaganda' Amendment," BuzzFeed reported that the Senate Armed Services Committee's version of the defense appropriations bill did not include the amendment. The article noted that this marked a setback for the approval of the amendment, though it remained possible for it to be introduced on the Senate floor or added during the reconciliation process between the House and Senate versions of the bill.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: Just to show how far gone the media has become since - KCT-BoneTiger A - 5/4 21:35:54