They Have 'Propaganda,' US Has 'Public Diplomacy'-and a Servile Private Sector
The New York Times headline (4/15/15) paints a dire picture:
Turmoil at Voice of America Is Seen as Hurting US Ability to Counter Propaganda
But wait a second-isn't Voice of America itself a propaganda outlet? Not in the New York Times stylebook, apparently. The piece, by Ron Nixon, describes VOA as "the government agency that is charged with presenting America's viewpoint to the world." Later on, the Times refers to what it calls "America's public diplomacy."
The US's enemies, on the other hand, have "sophisticated propaganda machines that have expanded the influence of countries like China and Russia and terrorist groups like the Islamic State." The difference between "propaganda machines" and "public diplomacy" is never explained in the article, but the former appears to be what "they" do while the latter is what "we" do.
The only source quoted in the article who's not directly connected to the government is Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation, described as "a Washington think tank." ("We are getting our butts kicked.... Countries like Russia are running circles around us," Howard says.) Not mentioned is the fact that Jamestown was founded with the help of then-CIA Director William Casey to provide financial support for the Agency's spies (Washington Post, 1/10/05).
The article reports that since the Cold War, which it helped win by "providing unfiltered news to dissidents and countering communist propaganda in the Soviet Union and Soviet-backed countries," VOA has been "pulled between providing credible news and supporting American policy." Congressional Republicans want to
revise the Voice of America's charter to state explicitly that the agency has a role in supporting American "public diplomacy" and countering propaganda from other countries.
In other words, they're insisting that VOA make its news more propagandistic. And the New York Times refers consistently to this goal throughout the article as "countering propaganda."
When you have arguably the US's most prestigious for-profit media outlet describing government propaganda as "efforts to counter propaganda," it's pretty clear that the nation's demand for propaganda is going to be met-whether by the public or the private sector.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The New York Times headline (4/15/15) paints a dire picture:
Turmoil at Voice of America Is Seen as Hurting US Ability to Counter Propaganda
But wait a second-isn't Voice of America itself a propaganda outlet? Not in the New York Times stylebook, apparently. The piece, by Ron Nixon, describes VOA as "the government agency that is charged with presenting America's viewpoint to the world." Later on, the Times refers to what it calls "America's public diplomacy."
The US's enemies, on the other hand, have "sophisticated propaganda machines that have expanded the influence of countries like China and Russia and terrorist groups like the Islamic State." The difference between "propaganda machines" and "public diplomacy" is never explained in the article, but the former appears to be what "they" do while the latter is what "we" do.
The only source quoted in the article who's not directly connected to the government is Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation, described as "a Washington think tank." ("We are getting our butts kicked.... Countries like Russia are running circles around us," Howard says.) Not mentioned is the fact that Jamestown was founded with the help of then-CIA Director William Casey to provide financial support for the Agency's spies (Washington Post, 1/10/05).
The article reports that since the Cold War, which it helped win by "providing unfiltered news to dissidents and countering communist propaganda in the Soviet Union and Soviet-backed countries," VOA has been "pulled between providing credible news and supporting American policy." Congressional Republicans want to
revise the Voice of America's charter to state explicitly that the agency has a role in supporting American "public diplomacy" and countering propaganda from other countries.
In other words, they're insisting that VOA make its news more propagandistic. And the New York Times refers consistently to this goal throughout the article as "countering propaganda."
When you have arguably the US's most prestigious for-profit media outlet describing government propaganda as "efforts to counter propaganda," it's pretty clear that the nation's demand for propaganda is going to be met-whether by the public or the private sector.
The New York Times headline (4/15/15) paints a dire picture:
Turmoil at Voice of America Is Seen as Hurting US Ability to Counter Propaganda
But wait a second-isn't Voice of America itself a propaganda outlet? Not in the New York Times stylebook, apparently. The piece, by Ron Nixon, describes VOA as "the government agency that is charged with presenting America's viewpoint to the world." Later on, the Times refers to what it calls "America's public diplomacy."
The US's enemies, on the other hand, have "sophisticated propaganda machines that have expanded the influence of countries like China and Russia and terrorist groups like the Islamic State." The difference between "propaganda machines" and "public diplomacy" is never explained in the article, but the former appears to be what "they" do while the latter is what "we" do.
The only source quoted in the article who's not directly connected to the government is Glen Howard, president of the Jamestown Foundation, described as "a Washington think tank." ("We are getting our butts kicked.... Countries like Russia are running circles around us," Howard says.) Not mentioned is the fact that Jamestown was founded with the help of then-CIA Director William Casey to provide financial support for the Agency's spies (Washington Post, 1/10/05).
The article reports that since the Cold War, which it helped win by "providing unfiltered news to dissidents and countering communist propaganda in the Soviet Union and Soviet-backed countries," VOA has been "pulled between providing credible news and supporting American policy." Congressional Republicans want to
revise the Voice of America's charter to state explicitly that the agency has a role in supporting American "public diplomacy" and countering propaganda from other countries.
In other words, they're insisting that VOA make its news more propagandistic. And the New York Times refers consistently to this goal throughout the article as "countering propaganda."
When you have arguably the US's most prestigious for-profit media outlet describing government propaganda as "efforts to counter propaganda," it's pretty clear that the nation's demand for propaganda is going to be met-whether by the public or the private sector.