Congressmen seek to lift propaganda ban

Congressmen Seek To Lift Propaganda Ban
Propaganda that was supposed to target foreigners could now be aimed at Americans, reversing a longstanding policy.

This article is strangely written. Or maybe I just don't understand how Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state can be sponsoring this bill when he was also the co-sponsor of the bill to kill the NDAA that got defeated. Seem like diametrically opposed views.

 

Great. Our government can become the biggest Internet troll of them all.

 

This bill is dangerous. No one would trust the media if this bill passed into law.

 

the cracks are getting wider and things are starting to shake. sorry guys, but propaganda is not going to stop what's coming...

 

I wonder how effective it would be, though, in the age of the Internet where anything shown on TV can be fact-checked, and where more and more households (mine included) don't even have broadcast-receiving TVs, opting instead for HTPCs, streamboxes, and the like.

Heh, kinda funny to consider. What if they held a propaganda rally and nobody came?

 

It's downright poisonous.

 

I don't know..... I think the bill could still be effective. After all, who fact-checks the fact-checkers.

 

Based on some of the bald face lies coming out of DHS/TSA/DOJ/ and NSA just to mention a few three letter agencies I didn't realize propaganda was not allowed.

 

You took the words right out of my mouth, boggie dog.

 

Who defines propaganda? (I know, I know, insert TSA Blog Team member joke here) Seriously, how is it defined as propaganda, and how do they determine what is not disseminated and what is? To piggy back on Boggie from above, what is the difference between what is being disseminated now and what the reversal of this bill would allow? The sitting government usually determines the flow of information from the inside (regardless of political affiliation), with a few hiccups in that message here and there from whistleblowers and such, so what would be the change? The sitting government has determined the flow of information since before any of us were here, and with the introduction of the net and 24/7 news cycles, it is both easier to reinforce the information they want, and more difficult to tamp down dissent. There are so many information sources, that the days of old school propaganda are pretty much over at this point, at least domestically - it simply doesn't work the way it used to, when there were 2 tv channels and 3 radio stations that delivered the news nationwide. At any given time, there are 200 channels on tv, 25-30 radio stations in a small - medium sized market (such as here) and millions of sources on the internet that push their own view of the situations as they come up.

What do you see as the changes that would be allowed that would actually impact the country the way it used to? Are there any?

 

prop·a·gan·da/ˌpräpəˈgandə/​

Noun:​

1. Information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
2. The dissemination of such information as a political strategy.

In addition, I would direct you to Jacques Ellul, who studied and wrote extensively on propaganda:
On media, propaganda, and information

This comports with not only what we have discovered in trying to talk to TSA apologists and presenting them with facts they have no interest in hearing, but also with lots of research that's been done on the human brain and how people process information. We've discussed this here at TUG many times. People who hold to an irrational (or even rational) idea, when presented with irrefutable facts that contradict said idea, won't be persuaded to change their minds; on the contrary, they will cling even more tightly to their original idea:
How facts backfire

 

I understand what is written above Lisa and some of the differences in what is out in the waves now, but seriously - how will the repeal of the law make that much of a difference? (I am opposed to the repeal, as I think that it can remove some of the more blatant distortions from the public dissemination system) What major changes would you expect to see though? Already the collectives for all sides in any issue flood the news markets and even the blogosphere with their particular version of events and policies - either through outright statement from designated spokespersons, or through strategic leaks and a myriad other ways, so what would the major difference be (other than the blatant distortions and outright lies)? Even I (since I am considered an outsider on the vast majority of issues here) see that each side of issues (in many cases) are willing to ply whatever will sway a majority to their side, regardless of whether it is ethical, righteous or moral.

Do you think that there will be a major increase in what is being put out? Seriously, what types of changes do you see coming from this if it comes to fruition?

 

Yeah, I do think there would "be a major increase in what is being put out." I think we're flooded with propaganda as it is, and this would create more. More importantly, it would codify into law what is already being done and thereby give it the stamp of approval. Same reason I think the codification into law of indefinite detention (NDAA) is important, is profound, is dangerous. I know that indefinite detention was already going on; I get it. People who argue that because of that existence its codification doesn't mean anything are full of (expletive deleted). The rule of law does mean something, and if you eviscerate it, you are saying that anything goes.

 

Repealing the law would make what the TSA Blog and its team do legal.

Is that clear enough Rugape?

 

I think this would be a horrible move for all of the reasons cited by Lisa.

I apologize in advance for my upcoming snark, but... this is one of the problems that occur when we don't teach kids how to think critically and who then grow up to be adults who don't think critically. I don't even know how anyone can seriously ask what difference it would make if we repealed this law. Am I the only one who learned about propaganda in the 7th grade?

 

Rep. Smith on his controversial bills
The Washington Democrat discusses his bills to ban domestic indefinite detention but allow domestic "propaganda"
by Glenn Greenwald

 

"Public diplomacy" -- that's a hot one.

 

like calling a brothel a 'convalescent facility'.

the use of euphemisms like this to mask the truth is a hallmark of totalitarian regimes.

 

No reason to apologize, your snark was downright pleasant comparatively speaking. I always thought that critical thinking included the ability to recognize that other people see different things than you do, and may point out something that you didn't necessarily notice or recognize - and that asking questions to gain those diverse insights was of paramount to critical thinking.

I learned quite a bit about propaganda (both in school and in the military in a foreign country - read Stars and Stripes sometime for a clue!). I see only minor variances (in my personal experience) from what is already out there now:

Tax cuts are not really cuts, they are the lessening of the governmental seizure of your personal funds.
Military advisors are still our military members killing people in foreign lands, under color of "training".
Programs to help what many call "less fortunate" are not always what they are listed as and in many cases become entitlement programs (do not read that to be an assault on the programs, simply the rampant abuse within them that are glossed over by many).
Undocumented aliens is a politically nice way of saying someone broke the law just to enter the country - at a minimum.

There are literally thousands of these that you or I could post over the course of a day, many more subtle than most folks realize. There are millions of websites/news services/opinion groups/insert source here, that are published daily and go far beyond the bounds of truth or comparitive truth - to include some gov pages.

My question was what types of changes do you really see coming, and secondarily do you foresee an increase the amount of information being put out? I have already stated that I am against this, but I was seeking more information/confirmation/other points of view to expand my knowledge. If that is considered being dense, then I will wear that mantle.

 

It's not information, it's disinformation.