home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
Obama’s Team: Pro Biz, Pro War
Did Obama’s progressive base get anything? Is it going to be four years of let-down? CounterPunch editors Cockburn and St Clair take a hard, sharp look at the new line-up. A MUST for all Paul Craig Roberts fans: part one of the shortest, simplest, sharpest outline of economics ever written. Alexander Cockburn’s Trans-America Diary: this time it’s the story of a true conspiracy: the Secrets of Jekyll Island. Get your Legacy Edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories February 2, 2009 Uri Avnery Ralph Nader Paul Craig Roberts January 30 / February 1, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Michael Hudson Ismael Hossein-Zadeh Dave Lindorff Saul Landau Andy Worthington Subcomandante Marcos Robert Jensen Ron Jacobs Gareth Porter Allan Nairn Laura Carlsen Rev. William E. Alberts Christopher Brauchli Jules Rabin Col. Dan Smith Missy Beattie Tom Barry J. Michael Cole Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dan Bacher David Rosen Don Monkerud Binoy Kampmark Lorenzo Wolff David Yearsley Poets' Basement January 29, 2009 Peter Linebaugh Paul Craig Roberts Riz Khan M. Reza Pirbhai Wajahat Ali Gregory Vickrey Dina Jadallah-Taschler Alison Weir Alan Farago Walter Brasch Website of the Day
January 28, 2009 Norman Finkelstein Noam Chomsky Patrick Cockburn Rob Larson George Wuerthner Allan Nairn M. Junaid Stefan Simanowitz Charles R. Larson Website of the Day January 27, 2009 Winslow T. Wheeler Yigal Bronner / Joshua Frank Jordan Flaherty Ralph Nader Rev. José M. Tirado Benjamin Dangl Russell Mokhiber Martha Rosenberg C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day January 26, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Deepak Tripathi Vijay Prashad Peter Lee Allan Nairn Uri Avnery John Sayen Dave Lindorff Lawrence R. Velvel David Macaray Roger Burbach Norman Solomon Website of the Day January 23 / 25, 2009 Alexander Cockburn P. Sainath Patrick Cockburn Saul Landau Sasan Fayazmanesh Alan Farago Christopher Brauchli Andy Worthington Ron Jacobs Lawrence Velvel Henry A. Giroux David Yearsley Raymond F. Gustavson Dave Lindorff Roberto Rodriguez Dina Jadallah-Taschler Fidel Castro J. Michael Cole Bob Fitrakis / Ramzy Baroud Mohammad Ali Shabani Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend January 22, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Kathy Kelly Allan Nairn Lawrence Velvel Andy Worthington Peter Morici Joseph G. Davis Adriana Kojeve Benjamin Dangl Website of the Day January 21, 2009 Gabriel Kolko Harry Browne Michael Colby Lawrence R. Velvel Audrey Stewart Wajahat Ali Binoy Kampmark David Kεr Thomson John Ross Allan Nairn Sheldon Richman Website of the Day January 20, 2009 Chuck Spinney Kathy Kelly Raymond Deane Ralph Nader Audrey Stewart Jonathan Cook Harvey Wasserman Christopher Ketcham Robert Jensen Dave Lindorff David Macaray January 19, 2009 Kevin Alexander Gray Uri Avnery Kathy Kelly Mike Whitney Lawrence R. Velvel Mats Svensson Harry Browne Norman Solomon Jeffrey Sommers Kenneth Libby Peter Ewart Bob Sommer Website of the Day
January 16-18, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Caoimhe Butterly Audrey Stewart / Jeffrey St. Clair Ellen Cantarow Neve Gordon Vijay Prashad Jonathan Cook Rannie Amiri Andy Worthington Joshua Frank Dave Lindorff Brian Cloughley Belén Fernández Missy Beattie Fred Gardner George Ciccariello-Maher John V. Whitbeck Stephen Fleischman Mischa Gaus Saul Landau Norm Kent Alejandro López David Yearsley James McEnteer Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Day
January 15, 2009 Pam Martens Karl Grossman M. Shahid Alam Jules Rabin Alan Farago Ron Jacobs Timothy Seidel George Ochenski Todd Chretien Bob Fitrakis / Website of the Day January 14, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Kathy Kelly Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney Paul Craig Roberts Glen Ford Aditya Chakrabortty Dave Lindorff Jonathan Cook David Swanson Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day
January 13, 2009 Norman Finkelstein Jonathan Cook Michael Neumann Coleen Rowley / Robert Sandels Saul Landau David Swanson Wajahat Ali Sam Bahour Stanley Heller Robert Jensen Robin Mittenthal Website of the Day
January 12, 2009 Uri Avnery Paul Craig Roberts Mike Whitney Ewa Jasiewicz Bill Quigley Dave Lindorff Bill and Kathleen Christison Jonathan Cook Andy Worthington Kara N. Tina Brenda Norrell Nour Kharma Website of the Day
January 9/11, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Kathy Kelly Bill Quigley George Ciccariello-Maher Elaine C. Hagopian Mike Roselle Steve Hendricks Gary Leupp Jonathan Cook Karim Makdisi Rannie Amiri Peter Morici Peter Montague Ralph Nader Andy Worthington Nadia Hijab Dan Bacher Catherine Fenton David Macaray Valia Kaimaki Richard Morse David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend January 8, 2009 Jean Bricmont / Franklin Lamb Paul Craig Roberts Kevin Alexander Gray Chris Floyd Ewa Jasiewicz Steve Conn Harvey Wasserman Wayne S. Smith Linda Mamoun Adam Turl Chris Papaleonardos Website of the Day January 7, 2009 Saree Makdisi Franklin Lamb William Blum Belén Fernández Lawrence Davidson Allan Nairn Jonathan Cook Muhammad Idrees Ahmad Deepak Tripathi Cal Winslow Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dr. Hannah Safran Website of the Day January 6, 2009 Pam Martens Victoria Buch Neve Gordon Tami Sarfatti / Mike Whitney Alan Farago Gary Leupp Larry Everest Ron Jacobs David Macaray Stephanie Basile Stacey Warde Website of the Day January 5, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Sousan Hammad Wajahat Ali Mats Svensson Jen Marlowe Muhammad Ali Khalidi Brian Cloughley Faheem Hussain William Cook Dr. Trudy Bond Christopher Ketcham Steve Early Dave Lindorff Website of the Day January 2 - 4, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Uri Avnery Jonathan Cook Paul Craig Roberts Brian Eno Ralph Nader Omar Barghouti Graham Usher P. Sainath Belén Fernández Deb Reich Gary Leupp Michael Yates Joanne Mariner Seth Sandronsky Cynthia McKinney Sonja Karkar Deepak Tripathi Robert Fantina John Ross Norm Kent Larry Portis Richard Rhames Dee C. Lubell David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Marc Catone Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
January 1, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Oren Ben-Dor Wajahat Ali Saul Landau David Michael Green Website of the Day December 31, 2008 Pam Martens Neve Gordon / Ted Honderich Brian Cloughley Ron Jacobs Vijay Prashad Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney David Macaray Richard Thieme Mary Lynn Cramer Stephen Lendman Worthy Group of the Day December 30, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Tariq Ali Robert Bryce Jonathan Cook Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Brian McKenna John Walsh Ramzy Baroud Bob Sommer Worthy Activist of the Day
December 29, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Neve Gordon Joshua Frank George Salzman / Norman Solomon Ewa Jasiewicz Rob Larson Kenneth Libby Robert Weissman Elsa Johnson Nicola Nasser Belén Fernández Worthy Group of the Day December 26-28, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Dr Eyad Al Serraj Jeffrey St. Clair Bradley Simpson Ralph Nader Gary Leupp Ellen Cantarow Matt Landon David Macaray Patrick Bond Norm Kent Brian T. Ketcham Rannie Amiri Larry Portis Richard Rhames Stephen Lendman James L. Secor Ramzy Baroud Harold Pinter Cpt. Paul Watson Howard Lisnoff Michael Dee Steve Conn Poets' Basement Worthy Group of the Weekend December 25, 2008 Judy Gumbo Albert Rev. William E. Alberts Hannah Mermelstein Worthy Group of the Day December 24, 2008 Bill Quigley Saul Landau Sam Smith Brian Cloughley John Ross Eric Walberg Norm Kent Stephen Martin Worthy Group of the Day December 23, 2008 Michael Hudson Michael Yates Chuck Spinney Vijay Prashad Brian Horejsi David Macaray Neil Watkins / David Michael Green Worthy Group of the Day
|
February 2, 2009 The Messenger and the MessageBanning Domestic PropagandaBy DIANE FARSETTA "I want to make sure that we strengthen prohibitions against domestic covert propaganda campaigns aimed essentially at breaking down the Constitutional barriers between who controls policy and who makes war," stressed Representative Paul Hodes. "It's an important point, given the recent history." Rep. Hodes was speaking at a conference on public diplomacy, held in Washington, DC on January 13. Public diplomacy is a catch-all term for the various ways in which the United States promotes itself to international audiences (as opposed to "regular" diplomacy, which targets foreign governments). These include international media, like the Voice of America; cultural and educational exchanges, such as the Fulbright Program; and a wide range of information activities, including foreign press centers, speaking events and publications. As the University of Southern California's Center on Public Diplomacy notes, the term "was developed partly to distance overseas governmental information activities from the term propaganda, which had acquired pejorative connotations." In the United States, public diplomacy's legislative history also involves propaganda. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which provided a legal framework for public diplomacy activities, forbids the government from disseminating within the United States information intended for foreign audiences. Other legislation, such as appropriation bills, theoretically reinforces the ban on using taxpayer money for "publicity or propaganda purposes." (The ban on domestic propaganda can't be considered more than theoretical, unfortunately, because there's no mechanism to enforce it, as Sheldon Rampton and I noted previously.) The recent public diplomacy conference was organized to critically reconsider Smith-Mundt. Many presenters supported changing the Act; specifically, removing or watering down its restriction on domestic dissemination. Among the reasons given were that the restriction, which effectively divides the world into U.S. residents and everyone else, is outdated in the global information age; that it hampers public diplomacy efforts; that it suggests to foreign audiences that U.S. government-provided information is suspect, since it can't be shared with U.S. residents; that it denies U.S. residents useful information; and that it keeps U.S. residents from accessing information necessary to evaluate work done overseas, in their name and with their tax dollars. On the other side, there were conference attendees who argued that the Smith-Mundt restriction doesn't impact work in the field, and that it helps insulate sensitive international work from domestic political pressures. It was an informed, in-depth debate, led by people with extensive State Department and military experience. But until Rep. Hodes spoke -- during the last session of the day -- no one had mentioned that, until just nine months ago, there had been an active covert campaign to influence U.S. public opinion: the Pentagon's pundit program. Paved with good intentions "Let me posit what I believe should be the rule," said outgoing Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs James Glassman, a keynote speaker at the conference. Domestic dissemination should be permissible, he suggested, "if the intent of the work involving domestic audiences is to influence foreign audiences." For Glassman, the government's motivation behind engaging U.S. residents is key. "The reasonable way to judge whether the State Department should be prohibited from disseminating a film, or a television program, or a speech, or a magazine, is the intention of the department," he declared. While "traditional American concerns about government involvement -- not merely in influence, but in information -- are deeply rooted and appropriate ... intent should be our guide. If our target is foreign audiences, as it must be in public diplomacy, then we should be able to engage domestic individuals and groups in this effort." Glassman's emphasis on intent is nothing new. For example, the Bush administration -- and the Clinton administration before it -- funded video news releases (VNRs) that television stations across the United States aired as independent "reports" during their news programming. Not surprisingly, the VNRs portrayed government actions and policies in a favorable light. One on educational assistance under No Child Left Behind concluded, "This is a program that gets an A-plus." Congress' investigative arm, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), repeatedly ruled that government VNRs are illegal covert propaganda, unless their source is made clear to viewers. The Bush administration rejected the GAO's rulings, substituting their own intent-based standard. They argued that government VNRs are permissible, whether disclosed or not, as long as the intent behind them is to inform, not to persuade. The Defense Department has also relied on intent, to dismiss concerns about propaganda blowback. The department's 2003 Information Operations Roadmap admits, "Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP [psychological operations], increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa." However, it argues that "the distinction between foreign and domestic audiences becomes more a question of USG [U.S. government] intent rather than information dissemination practices." In other words, it doesn't matter whether material designed to influence foreign audiences -- including, in the case of military information operations and psychological operations campaigns, material that may be misleading -- is conveyed to U.S. residents as "news." All that matters is that the responsible government officials' hearts are pure. We know that the conveniently slippery standard of intent has already resulted in fake TV news that would make Soviet-era propagandists proud. As professor Marc Lynch noted at the conference, "Who knows what evil lurks in the minds of men? The Shadow knows, but State Department lawyers don't, which makes it very difficult to build a regulatory foundation on questions of intent, particularly when ... intent can be multi-faceted and highly complex." Instead of loosening propaganda restrictions by relying on intent, why not adjust to the global information era by ensuring clear attribution of all government communications? Truth is an obvious second standard, but public diplomacy, by definition, deals with issues in which the U.S. government is an interested party. It's therefore naive to claim that a standard of "truth" -- which must transcend, or at least fairly acknowledge, competing interests -- could be upheld. Propaganda 2.0 Heading into the public diplomacy conference, I wondered how government officials could possibly feel constrained by Smith-Mundt. After all, blatant media deception was one of the hallmarks of the Bush administration, including by VNR, payola pundit, fake reporter, multi-faceted campaigns to sell war and numerous ploys to hide the real costs of war. While there have been attempts to investigate and legislate against these transgressions, there has been no real accountability. James Glassman answered my question. "Today's public diplomacy, 2.0, involves interaction, a deep multi-sided conversation. It uses the tools of digital social networking," he explained. "We often want to engage both Americans and non-Americans." He admitted that "one could certainly argue" that this approach, in "actively disseminating information purposely to Americans, [is] in violation of Smith-Mundt." However, he warned, "if such an argument were to succeed, then American foreign policy would be the loser." One example of public diplomacy 2.0 is a State Department partnership "with such private sector organizations as NBC Universal, the Directors Guild of America, [and] the Tisch School [of the Arts] at NYU, to launch what's called the Democracy Video Challenge. Entrants in this contest make their own three-minute videos, which are posted to a site on YouTube, with the topic 'democracy is,'" explained Glassman. "We see this project as part of a global conversation about democracy. We don't want to exclude Americans. In fact, we think that the presence of Americans is helpful in meeting our foreign policy goals. But could encouraging Americans to submit videos be a nefarious plot to influence them in a particular way about the nature of democracy, in violation of Smith-Mundt?" Glassman's question assumes that the only thing that could possibly be wrong would be if the video contest were designed with "nefarious" intent. That ignores the many issues inherent to the U.S. government's strategic engagement of individuals, especially when using a medium as fluid, far-reaching and as easily manipulated as the Internet. Looking at the video contest's YouTube page, it's difficult to tell that it's organized and sponsored by the U.S. government. The written description makes no mention of U.S. government involvement. A small State Department emblem does appear under the "partners" section, but only after the logos of ten other entities, most of which are wholly private and not usually associated with government initiatives. Admittedly, it's difficult to imagine what damage could be done by short video reflections on democracy, no matter who submits the videos or what they say. But it's important to ask what precedent is being set, where it could lead and how to ensure that it doesn't go too far. Glassman's second example hints at thornier issues. "About a year ago, a young, unemployed computer technician in Colombia named Oscar Morales spontaneously started a Facebook group ... called One Million Voices Against the FARC," he recounted. The group "put 12 million people into the streets in a single day last February, in 190 cities around the world, just two months after it was set up, in protest against the FARC, a violent extremist group that had been terrorizing Colombia for more than 40 years. A few months ago, after I visited Oscar in Bogota, we had put together a partnership with such firms as Google, Facebook, AT&T, MTV and Howcast, and convened a conference for representatives from groups like Oscar's. ... Two dozen youth empowerment groups were represented at the meeting of what is now called the Alliance of Youth Movements. ... Nearly all of these groups were foreign, but we wanted American organizations to attend, too, and we invited some. But did we violate the letter or the intent of Smith-Mundt?" Civil society groups play an important role in healthy democracies, organizing and educating citizens, and often serving as independent critics of their governments. When the U.S. government supports civil society groups in other countries, it can undermine the groups' perceived integrity and effectiveness, as Iranian dissidents have warned. Moreover, it can complicate efforts to achieve U.S. policy goals, by entangling those efforts in other countries' domestic politics. In the case of Colombia, the FARC, while indeed "a violent extremist group," is one of three actors responsible for "violations of international humanitarian law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity," according to Amnesty International. The United States isn't likely to promote groups condemning the other violent actors: the Colombian security forces and army-backed paramilitaries. Colombian president Alvaro Uribe is a strong U.S. ally, despite his poor human rights record and his political allies' paramilitary ties. During his last week in office, George Bush honored Uribe with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, leading international human rights groups to say the award "only further tarnishes the Bush administration's own reputation on human rights issues in the region." The Colombia example illustrates a frequent dilemma in public diplomacy work: how to craft and communicate strategic, pleasing messages for international audiences, when U.S. foreign policy is well understood and widely condemned overseas. Conference speakers called for a greater role for public diplomacy practitioners in policymaking, but stressed that opinion polls can't determine U.S. policy. Left unmentioned was the simple but perhaps inconvenient truth that a more just foreign policy would be easier to explain, to international and domestic audiences alike. The messenger and the message Much of the conference dealt with the increasingly-muddied distinction between U.S. and foreign audiences. Yet, another dichotomy seems at least as critical to the future of U.S. public diplomacy: the military versus the State Department. The State Department -- and the U.S. Information Agency, before it was folded into State -- used to be responsible for public diplomacy. In 1999, then-president Clinton tasked numerous federal agencies with "influenc[ing] foreign audiences." He established an International Public Information group, comprised of officials from the State, Defense, Justice, Commerce and Treasury departments, along with the FBI and CIA. Post-9/11, the Pentagon's budget ballooned and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld proclaimed that communications must be "a central component of every aspect of this struggle." As a result, the U.S. military has become increasingly involved in public diplomacy. "The Defense Department has assumed a greater role, the last several years," Rear Admiral Greg Smith admitted at the conference. Smith is Director of Communications at U.S. Central Command, and also served as the spokesman and head of public affairs for the U.S.-led military forces in Iraq. "We entered a war, some years ago now, that began with an information environment that had collapsed," Smith said, referring to Iraq. "We've created some of our own institutions, some of our own mediums of delivery: Al Hurra, Radio Sawa. We've certainly created a tremendous amount of capacity, in the information environment, both in the traditional public affairs lanes and also in information operations. In fact, the art of information operations has truly grown up in this conflict." Smith unapologetically defended two controversial practices. One is the close association of public affairs and public diplomacy communications with information operations and psychological operations. Smith warned against "an unnecessary discretion about firewalls," saying "the counterinsurgency game we play" isn't "built along firewall discussions." He also defended intentionally obscuring the source of military communications, saying doing so gives "more opportunity to reach an audience who would be tone-deaf to the U.S. government, once again, messaging to them. ... If everything that we did had to be completely divulged ... I think our effectiveness would be very, very much marginalized." While these tactics may be helpful on the battlefield, what is their role in public diplomacy? Over time, will the military's use of deceptive tactics deligitimize public diplomacy efforts? More fundamentally, should the military be involved in public diplomacy? On the question of Smith-Mundt, its ban on domestic dissemination has clearly been rendered moot by Google. Instead of using that as an excuse to burn down firewalls, the U.S. government should follow strict media ethics standards, regardless of whether its intended audience is in Iowa or Islamabad. All public diplomacy communications and activities should be clearly attributed. Information operations and psychological operations, which require a lack of transparency, should be kept completely separate from public diplomacy and public affairs. Lastly, the military's role in public diplomacy should be decreased and, perhaps, ended. In the short term, it may be effective to pay Iraqi newspapers to run columns by U.S. military officers, printing them as though they were written by Iraqis. But, in the long run, such tactics undermine the integrity of the local media and the reputation of the U.S. government. Diane Farsetta is the Center for Media and Democracy's senior researcher. She participated in the "stridently anti-American" National Conference on Media Reform in Minneapolis, on a panel titled, "The Changing Role of Media Critics." She can be reached at: diane@prwatch.org |
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Waiting for
Lightning
|