Propaganda – Law Street

Will Voice of America Become ‘Trump TV’?

Jacob Atkins — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 15:07:28 +0000

Donald Trump Courtesy of Gage Skidmore : License (CC BY-SA 2.0)

From documenting human rights abuses in China to investigating political corruption scandals in Nigeria, Voice of America (VOA) often serves as the only source of global news in nations with restrictive press freedoms. Aired in more than 100 countries, translated in 61 languages, and seen by over 278 million viewers worldwide, today VOA is the largest provider of multilingual content aimed at promoting democratic interests abroad. However, recent structural changes within the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent agency responsible for overseeing U.S. government information services, may result in VOA becoming more of a household name in 2017.

A new provision in the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2017 fiscal year has replaced the BBG’s bipartisan nine-member board with a single CEO selected by the president. The BBG supervises not only VOA, but also Television Martí, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia. Certain political analysts now worry that President Donald Trump could potentially capitalize on the provision and use the BBG’s vast network to combine his television background and foreign policy interests. According to Politico, “Trump is finally getting his Trump TV–financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

Voice of America’s Origins

Originally VOA began as an alternative to Nazi and Japanese wartime propaganda in 1942. However, under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the network was forbidden from broadcasting in the United States until 2013 out of fears that it would inundate Americans with propaganda. Despite the ban being lifted during Obama’s presidency, speculations over VOA’s autonomy stem from such historic origins.

Nowadays, VOA claims that it functions as “surrogate media” in countries where state-run media supersedes the free press. Former president Gerald Ford tried to honor the agency’s editorial independence in 1976 by enacting a VOA public charter. To distance the agency from claims of propaganda, the bill solidified VOA’s commitment to promoting freedom of the press and transparent reporting on American foreign policy, according to the VOA website.

Along those lines, the BBG launched in 1994 after the International Broadcasting Act passed. Designed to function as an editorial “firewall” between American policymakers and journalists, the board was founded to prevent the State Department, White House, and other agencies from interfering with the news agency. As previously mentioned, historically the BBG has been comprised of nine members tasked with preserving the “accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness and objectivity” of the United State’s transnational media operations. Originally it was part of the U.S. Information Agency, but it became an independent agency in 1999 with the legislation of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.

Criticisms & Legal Changes Threatening Editorial Independence

From allegations of ineffective public diplomacy to a poorly managed $750 million budget of taxpayer dollars, the BBG is no stranger to criticism. In 2012, the board was ranked as one of the most poorly managed federal government agencies to work for due to its “hostile board dynamics,” and opponents claim the BBG fails to compete with Russia’s RT or Qatar’s Al Jazeera. According to one report, the former nine-member council was “incompetent, useless, and perhaps fatally broken” due to unqualified board members not taking the job seriously.

The new provision, which passed by a 92-7 vote in the Senate led by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce (R-CA), replaces the board of directors with a presidential-appointed CEO who will serve a three-year term and report directly to the White House. A Washington Post article speculates that checks and balances may be eliminated by placing power into the hands of an individual chosen by the highest authority. With Trump officially in office, the story raises the concern that he could take advantage of the new amendment to elect another representative from the transpiring alt-right movement (or even elect an official with close ties to the Kremlin) to oversee the BBG.

Roots for Concern in Trump’s Administration.

According to NPR, Trump’s “attitude toward the press veers wildly depending on the favorability of the treatment he receives.” Trump, who is known for lashing out at mainstream media outlets for critical coverage, set an alarming standard when he selected Steve Bannon as his chief strategist. The appointment left many Americans fearful of what President Trump could accomplish with the spokesman of the alt-right movement as his lead accomplice, according to a New York Times article. Bannon previously served as executive chairman of hyper-conservative Breitbart News, whose columns “reflect abhorrence for so-called mainstream media organizations” such as CNN. Watchdog groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League condemned Trump’s decision based on Bannon’s platform of white nationalism and accusations of anti-Semitism.

After choosing Bannon, President Trump is expected to appoint a divergent political figure to represent U.S. media abroad as the head of the BBG. Whoever Trump ends up appointing as the new CEO will have the ability to hire and fire media personnel at will, in addition to controlling the budget with unparalleled authority. Although the prospective CEO is also expected to choose their own five-member cabinet, they won’t have any statutory power. Skeptics from the Washington Post are saying that VOA could someday rival the Kremlin in terms of lack of oversight.

“Congress unwittingly just gave President-elect Trump unchecked control of all U.S. media outlets,” said Michael Kempner, a Democratic member of the board who was appointed by President Barack Obama and was a Hillary Clinton donor. “No president, either Democrat or Republican, should have that kind of control. It’s a public jewel. Its independence is what makes it so credible.”

Conclusion

While credible concerns have arisen over VOA’s new Trump leadership, “Trump TV” may in fact already be here. Conservative media outlet Right Side Broadcasting Network (RSBN) is often referenced using the moniker after live streaming nearly all of Trump’s events and extensively covering his campaign. In December, the new 24-hour network announced it will have access to White House press briefings, raising questions about whether President Trump intends to circumvent traditional media by allowing a non-credentialed reporter to ask questions during briefings. Regardless, Trump still has the BBG and VOA in his pocket. While VOA never managed to fulfill its potential as an American propaganda tool before, it very well could under Trump’s presidency.

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Will Voice of America Become ‘Trump TV’? appeared first on Law Street.

Why Has ISIS Propaganda Production Decreased?

Emma Von Zeipel — Tue, 11 Oct 2016 20:33:02 +0000

Image courtesy of [thierry ehrmann via Flickr]

The media output and amount of propaganda coming from the terror group ISIS has dropped dramatically as the group has experienced increasing military pressure, according to a new study. In August of last year, which was the peak of ISIS’s media activity, the group released 700 media items from official sources in Syria and other countries. This past August, it only published or released 200 items.

The propaganda by ISIS has from the beginning focused on how the group is creating a functioning new society with thriving businesses and happy citizens–a new caliphate, meaning a unified Muslim country. Foreign Muslims were “invited” to move to Syria and live in a peaceful, thriving Muslim community, specifically in Raqqua. The propaganda material often featured pictures of happy children and a life of prosperity. But as the fighters face defeats and mounting pressure, Aleppo is in ruins, and some high profile leaders have been killed, that image becomes harder and harder to uphold.

Daniel Milton from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, who wrote the new report, told the New York Times:

It’s not just the numeric decline. The caliphate was their big selling point. Now there’s an inability to say we’re doing the things that make us a state. And that was behind their broad appeal.

Very interesting piece on falling ISIS media output. Sobering last question on traumatised youth growing up in Raqqa https://t.co/UWnS8iboKX

— Julian Sayarer (@Julian_Sayarer) October 11, 2016

Another figure that illustrates the Islamic State’s shrinking influence is how many foreign fighters join the cause. According to the Pentagon the number of fighters going to Syria and Iraq from other countries has shrunk from about 2,000 a month a year ago to only 200.

Milton believes the decreased media output is due to the military actions against ISIS. The fact is that the “caliphate” is not an organized state. It is a group of militants trying to fight for a cause, but this means that the people publishing media content are also soldiers. When they fight, no one is there to put out media content, and when they get killed, the army shrinks even more. Also many media outlets, like Twitter, have made an effort to block radical Islamic accounts.

But even though the new information points to decreased power when it comes to territory as well as propaganda, experts warn that the ideology and mentality of the Islamic state will keep attracting lone terrorists for a long time. There is also the risk that Islamic fighters will return to their real home countries in the West, and carry out terror attacks like the ones seen in France. And, lastly, there is the problem of how to take care of the kids that have grown up during the war and been fed with propaganda for their whole lives.

“How do you deal with all the children who have had these experiences and who have been exposed to this worldview? This is going to be a long-term problem,” said Milton.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why Has ISIS Propaganda Production Decreased? appeared first on Law Street.

Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda?

Emma Von Zeipel — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 20:53:18 +0000

"City council meeting and security checkpoint" courtesy of [DVIDSHUB via Flickr]

The U.S. government allegedly paid a British PR firm half a billion dollars between 2007 and 2011 to produce fake al-Qaeda videos as part of a propaganda program, the British Bureau of Investigative Journalism revealed on Monday.

A British PR firm called Bell Pottinger reported frequently to the CIA, Pentagon, and the National Security Council. The staff produced videos made to look like amateur footage shot by rebels, and Arabic news programs.

One of the video editors, Martin Wells, called the operation “shocking, eye-opening, life-changing,” and provided comments to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. When he applied for the job in London in May of 2006 he only knew it involved a project in the Middle East. When he went for an interview it surprised him to find guards watching the room where it took place. When he asked when he would find out if he got the job, they said: “You’ve already got it. We’ve already done our background checks into you.”

Bell Pottinger in the spotlight for creating propaganda videos for US military in Iraq: https://t.co/QzBAPV0HSn #comms pic.twitter.com/ALM9asdimZ

— PRWeek UK (@prweekuknews) October 4, 2016

Wells then had 48 hours to prepare for a flight to Baghdad, where he spent his time producing fake news segments and low-quality, violent commercials for al-Qaeda. He and the other staff sent out the videos to local TV stations and the military dropped digital copies off in different raids. Since the video files contained embed codes they were able to trace where and how the footage was being watched—and also trace the people who were watching them–a powerful counter-terrorism tool.

This was not a small operation—it cost over $100 million a year. Sometimes approval came straight from the White House and at one point almost 300 staff members from Britain and Iraq were involved. Wells stayed for two years. The whole operation ended in 2011, when American troops withdrew from Iraq. It was not the first time the government has used the media to spread its views and policies.

In 2005 the government hired a Washington-based firm called the Lincoln Group to pay Iraqi newspapers thousands of dollars to publish pro-American articles, written by the U.S. military. In 2009 it was revealed that the Pentagon hired controversial PR firm Rendon to monitor journalists embedded within the U.S. military to see whether they were covering their missions in a positive way.

Emma Von Zeipel

The post Did the U.S. Pay Half a Billion Dollars for Fake Anti Al-Qaeda Propaganda? appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Anti-Gay Laws: The Discrimination Continues

Law Street Media Staff — Mon, 06 Oct 2014 19:00:59 +0000

Image courtesy of [Kasya Shahovskaya via Flickr]

Russia’s treatment of its gay citizens has long been very unforgiving. The country often systematically discriminates against LGBT citizens, has rashes of hate crimes, and has been decried by much of the international community for the human rights abuses against the LGBT community. Read on to learn about the recent history of LGBT abuse in Russia, current issues, and what the future may hold.

Recent History of LGBT Rights in Russia

Russia is extremely socially conservative when it comes to LGBT rights. The influence of the Eastern Orthodox Church plays a large part in this, as it consistently stands very strongly against homosexuality.

On June 30, 2013, the upper house of Russia’s parliament passed a bill banning propaganda involving non-traditional sexual activity from being given to minors. The law defines propaganda as:

distribution of information that is aimed at the formation among minors of nontraditional sexual attitudes, attractiveness of nontraditional sexual relations, misperceptions of the social equivalence of traditional and nontraditional sexual relations, or enforcing information about nontraditional sexual relations that evokes interest to such relations . . . .

The law sets the penalty for individuals distributing propaganda at 4,000-5,000 rubles ($120-$150). The penalty for groups, such as NGOs or corporations, is up to 1 million rubles ($30,000). There are also harsh penalties for non-Russian citizens who break the laws. Foreigners can be sentenced to 15 days in prison, and possibly even deported from the country.

Around the same time, a much broader blasphemy law came into effect in Russia, which allows for prison sentences of up to three years for those who attend protests that infringe on Russian citizens’ religious feelings.

Courtesy of AmnestyUK.

HBO just released a documentary entitled “Hunted: The War Against Gays in Russia.” The striking documentary chronicles attacks against LGBT individuals by vigilante groups in Russia, and the consistent indifference of the authorities to the issue. The film depicts the nightmare that LGBT people in Russia face on a daily basis.

Case Study: 2014 Olympic Games

Russia’s approach toward gay rights became a strong topic of contention during last year’s Olympic Games. Yelena Kostychenko, an independent newspaper journalist, said that “this law has brought fascism to my country.” International human rights groups have indicted this law as “the worst human rights climate in the post-Soviet era.” The International Olympic Committee (IOC) heard from various sponsors expressing their concern over the new law. On SumOfUs.org there is a petition signed by 35,000 people asking for Coco-Cola to speak publicly against this law. Forbes even reported that “the safety and dignity of Russians, athletes and fans is in doubt as long as Russia’s anti-gay laws are intact.” In addition to the many activist groups, athletes, and general public against Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law, the “Open Games” has been created. Viktor Romanov’s gay-friendly Olympics in Moscow happened three days after the Sochi Winter Olympics for athletes of any orientation. Romanov has said he isn’t afraid and has taken this law and turned it into an outlet for acceptance.

Others believe that while this law may affect people’s perception of Russia, it should not affect the way athletes viewed the Olympics as an objective, unbiased event that draws on nothing except the skills of the various competitors. Alex Ovechkin stated, “I’m a hockey player and I’m not [into] politics.” Johnny Weir, who is an openly gay retired athlete was an analyst with NBC in Russia. He stated that he will not risk jail time by making a political statement. He, like Ovechkin, mentioned that he was not a politician and would respect Russia’s law. Russian athlete Ilya Kovalchuk agrees with the anti-gay propaganda law and said, “I’m Russian and we all have to respect that. It’s personal and, like I said, it’s a free world, but that’s our line. That’s our country, so everybody has to respect that.”

These athletes may or may not agree with the law, however they understood the importance of respecting Russian ideals. More than 70 human rights organizations showed support over Russia’s anti-gay propaganda law after the first week of publication, and hailed the country as guarding “genuine and universally recognized human rights” issues. Jack Hanick of Fox News supported Russia’s traditional values and banning of anything that diverts from this. The new propaganda law might have left a bad taste in certain people’s mouths, however it did not affect the competition or the actual games.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that Russia’s anti-gay laws didn’t end up having much effect on the 2014 Olympic Games, the conversation is far from over. Russia continues to sit by while the international community observes its many human rights violations happening on its soil. The way in which Russia moves forward on this issue could have a huge impact on its reputation within the international community.