A classic example of the private sector "countering propaganda."
Apr 17, 2015
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.
Why Your Ongoing Support Is Essential
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
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.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.