Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About AJ DiCintio
AJ DiCintio is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. He first exercised his polemical skills arguing with friends on the street corners of the working class neighborhood where he grew up. Retired from teaching, he now applies those skills, somewhat honed and polished by experience, to social/political affairs.
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
Got Milk, Got News, Got Everything
AJ DiCintio
July 19, 2013
Every person who cares about defending the Bill of Rights will acknowledge the profound relationship that exists between Washington's warning regarding "that love of power and proneness to abuse it which predominates in the human heart" and the oft quoted maxim which declares that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

That being the case, those same folks surely thank John Hudson for his article, "US Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans" (thecable.foreignpolicy.com) for the following three reasons.

First, it informs us of the congressional repeal of language in the decades old Smith-Mundt Act that "prevented the US government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences."

Second, it explains the fundamental reason behind the prohibition by quoting Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who, in 1985, argued that government propaganda ought not be permitted in a nation that fundamentally distinguishes itself "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."

And third, it informs us that officials of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which directs the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, as well as politicians such as Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX) don't accept Zorinsky's argument.

They agree, instead, with BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil, who "insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet" because its agencies "present fair and accurate news."

Problem is, supporters of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 make two horrendous mistakes:

They ask us to accept the lie propagated by 50's entertainment executives who selfishly ignored a democracy's need for a private, diverse media that insures no political figure or party is exempted from exhaustive, unrelenting scrutiny when they conceived of television's Uncle News Anchor and marketed the character as imbued with a perfect probity, objectivity, intellect, and prescience that permits him to select and present the public with "the" news or, as one actor who famously played the role put it, "the way it is."

They summarily dismiss Washington's warning about the power loving nature of the human heart, a reality, history frightfully shows, whose implications become astonishingly important with respect to the insatiable heart of the politician.

Those realities notwithstanding, government produced propaganda disguised as news is now permissible in the United states.

That fact combined with recent Supreme Court decisions that have affirmed the government's authority to engage in speech it authors in partnership with a private entity that requires its members to pay for it ought to have every citizen concerned about a future in which America's constitutional republic looks ever more like the "temporary dictatorship" that used Pravda to give the USSR's citizens all "the" news they needed to know.

Foremost among those decisions is "Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association," in which the Court ruled for the Bush administration that the "Beef: It's What's for Dinner" advertising campaign, which was carried out in conjunction with the beef industry, whose members were required to contribute $1 per head of cattle toward its cost, didn't infringe upon ranchers' First Amendment rights not to have speech forced upon them because the ads constitute government, not private speech.

Moreover, in a similar case that went against dissenting dairy farmers required to pony up money for the "Got Milk?" ad campaign, the Court's liberal activist justices incredibly maintained that the issue had nothing whatsoever to do with the government's forcing speech upon anyone but everything to do with its power to regulate commerce.

Let's suppose, then, that Smith-Mundt had been "modernized" a few decades ago, so that when the current administration assumed power, it inherited federal "news" agencies with enormous experience in offering propaganda to the American public.

Now, given the testimony which an imperious, even contemptuous Barack Obama and his obedient appointees have provided in support of the truth that the political heart bursts with the "love of power and proneness to abuse it," do you think it likely the nation would, for example, currently be awash in government "news" about the wonders of "Obamacare"?

Given the Supreme Court decisions mentioned above, do you think much of that "news" would flow from incestuous relationships in which government teams up with cash flush ideological groups and business interests to tout the medical, social, economic, and political beauties of the oxymoronically titled Affordable Care Act?

And given reports the Obama administration is preparing to enlist teens to promote Obamacare and has even considered the idea of recruiting an entire professional sports league and its stars to do the same, do you think it likely that today the federal government's Broadcasting Board of Governors would be operating a broadcasting arm religiously devoted to serving up "news" to the nation's youth?

Not a pretty picture for the future, is it?

Especially if we recall the argument made by Senator Zorinsky and think about the fact that the Barack Obama who has intimately tied the ruthless principles of Alinskyite community organizing to his entire approach to governing is the same Barack Obama who on the third day of his first term introduced the nation to Organizing for America (later, Organizing for Action), a "charity" that doesn't fund medical research, minister to the poor, or seek to solve the world's energy problems but is exclusively devoted to promoting Obama's collectivist vision for America.

If we then consider that Obama will leave this perverse legacy to future presidents.

And, finally, if we ponder this quote from Vladimir Lenin:

"The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses."








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on tax deductible donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server