.jpg)
In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson wanted to generate support from the isolationist camp to intervene in the war in Europe. According to various sources, including PBS, he formed the Committee on Public Information, also known as the “Creel Commission,” to spread anti-German sentiment.
(Also see Wikipedia’s entries on the Creel Commission and propaganda. Good stuff.)
Wilson hired a “muckraking” journalist named George Creel to push official and pro-war information, and history shows he was successful, although many supported the war on principle, as well. (See Cartooning for Victory and Four Minute Men: Volunteer Speeches During World War I — Are the sources biased? Probably, but as long as they present facts…)
Most of us think of war generally or Nazism specifically when we hear the word “propaganda.” Today we think of propaganda as misleading per se, but that wasn’t always the case. Back in the seventeenth century, the church in Rome formed the Congregation de Propaganda Fide, or the Roman Catholic Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, to oversee the spread of Catholicism. The term became pejorative most likely after the formation of the Creel Commission. (Note: A commenter writes: “The OED gives a source from 1842 which says “propaganda is used as a term of reproach in modern political language…for the spread of opinions and principles which are viewed by most governments with horror and aversion.”)
If you’re like me, you don’t mind a little propaganda with your coffee.
As a conservative who supports the war on terrorism wholeheartedly, for example, including the “battle” in Iraq, I tend to give more weight to pro-war messages than “peace” messages. If we want to rid the world of war, we have to rid the world of sin. We don’t have the power to do this, but we have the power to protect ourselves from attack.
That’s why I believe certain types of propaganda during wartime are permissible (I can already see the e-mail coming!). I listen to old radio shows, and I especially like the ones broadcast during WWII. I even like the commercials. Everyone and everything seemed patriotic. We’re wise enough to know this wasn’t the case. The point is that Germany and Japan heard and saw pro-American and anti-German and anti-Japanese propaganda, which was the point. If nothing else, America presented a united front to the enemy, which I think is an extremely important psychological tactic during wartime.
If you haven’t already figured it out, I’ll disclose my bias. I am not against propaganda, especially during a time of war. The extraordinary circumstances that our country’s young men and women face on foreign soil defending freedom requires, in my opinion, a strong, unequivocally united front. If the spreading of pro-war sentiment is necessary for swift victory and the protection of as many lives as possible, then I’m all for it.
Now we get to 2005. I said all of the above to somewhat lessen the impact of the current form of propaganda being perpetrated in government agencies. The Bush administration has violated the law at least three times.
The language found in appropriations bills since 1951 usually reads like this: “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not authorized by the Congress.” Three of Bush’s agencies paid no attention to the prohibition:
— In May 2004, the General Accountability Office (GAO), a government agency that purports to “investigative agency that examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to help the Congress make effective oversight, policy, and funding decisions,” found that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (of the Department of Health and Human Services) had violated the prohibition against using public money for publicity or propaganda. (Decision)
The “covert propaganda” was in the form of unsourced video news releases (VNRs) sent to various media outlets by government agencies via public relations firms (like Ketchum). If these VNRs do not identify the source of the information to the viewing/reading audience, it’s known as “covert propaganda” because it is misleading. People believe they are watching a reporter presenting a news story, but the “reporter” is actually a government contractor and the “news story” is actually publicity for a government program.
A spokesman for DHHS tried to defend the agency’s actions. “It’s not covert. TV stations knew the videos came from us and could have identified the government as the source if they had wanted to.” (Source)
Leave it up to journalists to disclose the information? Why not just indicate the source in the videos themselves to avoid all the trouble? Unless you’re trying to mislead the public. The GAO dismissed the government’s argument:
The intended audience, it said, was not news directors, but viewers, and “the video news releases did not alert viewers that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was the source.”Moreover, it said, “some news organizations indicated that they misread the label or they mistook the story package as an independent journalist news story.” (Source)
— On January 4, the GAO found another violation under Bush’s watch. The Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) produced VNRs and failed to identify itself to the viewing audience as the producer of the videos. (Decision)
Agencies, I assume, usually defend themselves by asserting that the type of publicity and “outreach” in VNRs are authorized by the Congress, as did the ONDCP and, therefore, are not in violation of the law. The GAO said:
We agree with ONDCP that news media outreach is an authorized activity under the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign, and we agree that section 1802(a)(1)(H) evinces congressional intent that ONDCP influence the attitudes of the public and the news media with respect to drug abuse. Section 1802(a)(1)(H), however, does not relieve ONDCP of the need to comply with the publicity or propaganda prohibitions.
What’s the rationale behind the prohibition on public funds used for propaganda? For starters, taxpayer funds shouldn’t be used to spread misleading information. As for journalists, they operate under the same criminal and civil laws that we do, as well as an unofficial code of ethics:
Journalism societies have noted in their codes of ethics that journalists should resist influence from outside sources, including advertisers and special interest groups. Because VNRs consist of information generated by a group with a distinct perspective on an issue, the unfettered use of VNRs may run afoul of these principles. Moreover, professional organizations warn against using materials that would deceive audiences. VNRs that disclose the source of information to the target audience alleviate these ethical concerns.
— Last and certainly not least, the Department of Education recently violated the prohibition against covert propaganda: the government failed to identify itself as the source of Armstrong Williams’s “advertisements.” Now, there’s been no GAO hearing on this, but I’m positive Democrats in Congress are drawing up the papers as I write.
What could have prevented the previous rulings and Williams’s embarrassment? Disclosure, disclosure, disclosure! I cannot stress this enough. The illegality of the whole Armstrong Williams fiasco turns on the failure to disclose. It would have been so simple, too simple, to identify the source of the videos referenced in the GAO cases.
And all Williams had to do was tell his audience that although he supports No Child Left Behind, the government was sponsoring the message. He would have been off the hook and the rest would’ve been Bush’s problem. But, alas, Williams is just a cog in the machine, the fall guy, and nothing more.
It’s not enough to believe that you’re doing nothing wrong or that what you are doing is nobody’s business. The appearance of impropriety is enough. Here are other laws that Williams broke, as pointed out by a commenter:
Section 317 of the [Federal] Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires broadcasters to disclose that matter has been broadcast in exchange for money, service or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be made when the subject matter is broadcast…Section 507 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C….requires that when anyone pays someone to include program matter in a broadcast, the fact of payment must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast to the station over which the [matter] is to be carried. Both the person making the payment and the recipient are obligated to disclose the payment so that the station may make the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Act. Failure to disclose such payments is commonly referred to as “payola” and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice…
See Section 317 and Section 507.
The law found in appropriations bills and the federal code seems clear on its face, so why does the Bush administration continue to violate it? The president’s lawyers are in need of some remedial legal training. I hate to agree with liberals, but in this case, I must. While I don’t want to read about yet another Congressional hearing or investigation, one might be necessary.
I wonder how many other journalists (conservative AND liberal) are receiving payments from the government which are channeled through public relations firms for write-ups disguised as news or journalists’ opinions?
Update: FINALLY! Samuel “Sandy” Berger’s pilfering of top secret documents (down his PANTS) will be vetted before a federal grand jury. (Hat tip: Blogs for Bush)
Also, regarding video news releases (VNRs), reader Bryan P. writes:
When a reporter receives a VNR, it is up to that reporter to vet the information in it. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but it is their job to do that before they air it. If a reporter airs material from a source they neither know nor understand, they are not acting as a responsible journalist. As for disclosing the source in the video, you can’t really do that and expect it to air. If, for example, DHHS puts its logo on the footage, who’ll use it? They should disclose the source in accompanying paperwork, and that may have been done but the reporters never saw it. That paperwork tends to get lost in the shuffle at larger broadcast outlets. As for the VNRs themselves, sometimes the VNR makes it onto the air verbatim from the PR house, with only the station or network’s IDs attached. Most of the time the VNRs never see the light of day, or if they do only some small part gets aired. The tapes get turned into stock footage or get erased and used by the station that received them. If the station or net is in a generous mood, they’ll return the tape to the sender. This almost never happens, though.For years, VNRs have served both the agencies and the press. The
agencies get to tell their story to the press; the press gets a ready-made piece that will require just enough assembly on their end
to justify their existence. But I think in the DHHS/Drug VNRs,
someone in the press decided to “burn” this source. Either the VNRs
got outed by someone who’s new to the process and didn’t understand the role of VNRs in the press, or they did know but just wanted to embarass the Bush administration. Guess which theory I favor. The Washington press corps loathes Bush; anything they can do to embarass him, they’ll do. And the VNR story sure embarassed the administration, and helped close off one of its avenues for getting its stories to the public.
Update II:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan was cautious in choosing his comments.“Questions have been raised about that arrangement, it ought to be looked into, and there are ways to look into matters of that nature,” [Scott] McClellan said…The Government Accountability Office is already investigating whether the department illegally promoted the No Child Left Behind law with a video that looks like a news story but fails to make clear the reporter involved was paid by the government. The GAO is also reviewing why the department paid for rankings of how reporters are covering the law. (Source)
If McClellan is lying (because it will be found out if he is), can you imagine the fall-out? The Democrats will have their long-awaited scandal.
(Hat tip: Cincinnati Black Blog)
Update III (1/12): Those Power Line guys are alright.
Also see Casey Lartigue’s Open Letter to Armstrong Williams.
Update IV (1/13): From Little Green Footballs:
“Well, here’s a shocka.
Markos “Screw Them” Zuniga, the proprietor of moonbat lefty site Daily Kos, was paid — apparently well paid — by the Howard Dean campaign…”
I hope liberals will have some substantive to say about this. What do I say? Since we bloggers fancy ourselves citizen journalists, shouldn’t some journalistic standards apply? Of course. Daily Kos should have disclosed. It reeks.
Update V (1/14): As it turns out, Daily Kos disclosed. It reeks less.
