Eleanor Finch
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, but the question of whether news agencies are protected when they put out propaganda is more complex. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the US, and the Brennan Center for Justice has called for Congress to strengthen laws against domestic government propaganda. The Bush administration in the early 2000s produced and distributed hundreds of video news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments in support of invading Iraq. In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991), the Court affirmed that media outlets must comply with generally applicable laws, even if those laws incidentally impact the media’s free speech rights.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| News agencies must comply with generally applicable laws | Yes |
| News agencies are protected by the First Amendment | Yes |
| News agencies are legally insulated from White House pressure | Yes |
| News agencies are protected by the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 | Yes |
| News agencies are protected by the domestic propaganda ban | Yes |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
- The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the U.S
- The Court saw no constitutional problem with enforcing laws against news agencies
- The Secretary of State serves ex officio, legally insulating the appointed members from White House pressure
- Violations of covert propaganda restrictions are difficult to prove and unlikely to result in meaningful repercussions
- Congress should strengthen laws outlawing domestic government propaganda
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the U.S
The First Amendment protects news agencies' right to free speech, but it does not protect them from generally applicable laws.
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from disseminating government-produced programming within the United States. The Act was a response to fears that these agencies would "propagandize" the American people. Amendments to the Act in 1972 and 1985 tightened provisions on the dissemination of information to the American public. However, in 2013, Congress abolished the domestic dissemination ban, leading to a heated debate about the role of the federal government in free public discourse. The repeal of the ban promotes greater government transparency but also gives the federal government great power to covertly influence public opinion.
Despite the Smith-Mundt Act, violations of the covert propaganda restriction are difficult to prove and are unlikely to result in meaningful repercussions. The Bush administration in the early 2000s, for example, produced and distributed hundreds of video news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments in support of invading Iraq.
In recent years, there have been concerns that news agencies could be used as a Trump propaganda machine. The nomination of Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker and Trump loyalist, as CEO of an agency with a large budget and oversight of five news networks, has raised fears that the agency could be used to promote favourable coverage of the president.
Militias and the Constitution: Protected or Not?
You may want to see also
The Court saw no constitutional problem with enforcing laws against news agencies
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, for example, banned the global news agency from spreading its programming within the US due to concerns about the propagandistic power of government messaging. However, violations of covert propaganda restrictions are difficult to prove and often go unpunished. As a result, government news and advertisements can be crafted to resemble private broadcaster speech and be seamlessly integrated into broadcasts without attribution.
To prevent this, some have called for stronger laws and more vigorous congressional oversight to ensure that news agencies do not devolve into propaganda machines.
Constitutional Protections for Illegal Aliens: What's the Verdict?
You may want to see also
The Secretary of State serves ex officio, legally insulating the appointed members from White House pressure
The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, which includes the right to disseminate propaganda. However, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the U.S. This ban was put in place to prevent the government from unduly influencing Americans with its messaging.
Despite this, there have been instances of government agencies producing and distributing news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments. For example, in the early 2000s, the Bush administration produced hundreds of video news releases in support of invading Iraq. These were broadcast anonymously by local news stations across the country.
To prevent news agencies from becoming propaganda machines, vigorous congressional oversight is critical. The Secretary of State serves ex officio, meaning they are appointed to their position due to their expertise or influence, rather than being elected or appointed through a traditional process. As an independent agency, the appointed members are legally insulated from White House pressure. This insulation ensures that the Secretary of State can act without being influenced by the executive branch, promoting objectivity and journalistic integrity.
Ex officio members of a board are those who automatically serve on a board due to holding another position. They are not necessarily elected or appointed through a traditional process, but their expertise or influence is valued in that position. For example, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is ex officio the First Lord of the Treasury, and the Lord President of the Court of Session is ex officio appointed as Lord Justice General of Scotland.
Pension Protection: Are New York's Retirement Benefits Safe?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Violations of covert propaganda restrictions are difficult to prove and unlikely to result in meaningful repercussions
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the US. However, violations of covert propaganda restrictions are difficult to prove and unlikely to result in meaningful repercussions. For example, in the early 2000s, the Bush administration produced and distributed hundreds of video news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments in support of invading Iraq. These were broadcast anonymously by local news stations across the country.
Despite this, the Court has affirmed that media outlets must comply with generally applicable laws, even if those laws incidentally impact the media's free speech rights. For instance, in Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. (1991), the Court saw no constitutional problem with enforcing it against news agencies.
Congress has also been urged to strengthen laws outlawing domestic government propaganda, especially in light of the nomination of Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker and Trump loyalist, as CEO of an agency with an $808 million budget and that oversees five news networks with 3,500 journalists broadcasting on radio, television, and the internet in 61 languages.
The Constitution: A Citizen's Shield or Sword?
You may want to see also
Congress should strengthen laws outlawing domestic government propaganda
The Bush administration did just that in the early 2000s through its Departments of State, Defense, and Health and Human Services, among others. These federal agencies produced and distributed hundreds of video news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments in support of invading Iraq and other government objectives, which were broadcast anonymously by local news stations across the country.
Vigorous congressional oversight is critical to prevent the agency from devolving into an international Trump propaganda machine and disseminating its news directly to American audiences in violation of a longstanding law. The Senate has begun hearings on the nomination as agency CEO of Michael Pack, a conservative filmmaker, Trump fan, and close collaborator of former Trump advisor Steve Bannon. The Trump loyalist would take the reins of an agency with an $808 million budget and that oversees five news networks with 3,500 journalists broadcasting on radio, television, and the internet in 61 languages. Pack was asked during his nomination hearing in mid-September whether he would be able to resist pressure from the president to promote favorable coverage, and Pack replied that he thinks he can.
The Court has affirmed that media outlets must comply with generally applicable laws, even if those laws incidentally impact the media’s free speech rights.
Constitution and Minors: What Protections Are Guaranteed?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 banned the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the US.
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, also known as the domestic propaganda ban, prohibited the global news agency from disseminating its programming within the US. The ban stemmed from lawmakers' fear of the propagandistic power of government messaging to unduly influence Americans.
The Brennan Center for Justice is an organisation that has called for Congress to strengthen laws outlawing domestic government propaganda. They argue that violations of the covert propaganda restriction are difficult to prove and unlikely to result in meaningful repercussions.
In the early 2000s, the Bush administration produced and distributed hundreds of video news releases designed to be indistinguishable from independent news segments in support of invading Iraq. These were broadcast anonymously by local news stations across the country.
