I'm not concerned, and I think it makes complete sense. That they are geopolitical adversaries in more ways than our interests are aligned doesn't make it undiplomatic to recognize and confront their information warfare - which is itself the actual instance of undiplomatic behavior.
If it's the same as the House bill, the citations to Russia and China occur only in the "Sense of Congress" section (which isn't legally binding) and include only:
(1) foreign governments, including the Governments of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners;
(2) the Russian Federation, in particular, has conducted sophisticated and large-scale disinformation campaigns that have sought to have a destabilizing effect on United States allies and interests;
(3) in the last decade disinformation has increasingly become a key feature of the Government of the Russian Federation’s pursuit of political, economic, and military objectives in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Balkans, and throughout Central and Eastern Europe;
I would dispute that this constitutes an identification of Russia as an "enemy".
Edit
Further: my understanding now is that this was an amendment on the 2017 NDAA. I read the text of the 2017 NDAA (or, at least, searched it for all clauses pertaining to "Russia" and "propaganda") and it's not the same bill, nor does it call out Russia or China.
The whole 'fakenews' narrative is just a ploy to get censorship passed, I hope you guys all realize this. Any foreign media can be classified as propaganda and be called a national security risk - and be banned at will.
What do you think "proactively advance fact-based narratives that support U.S. allies and interests" means? It means that US "facts" will get priority in the media over foreign "non-facts". Somebody will decide what is and isnt a fact and those somebodies will sit in the state departement.
Nobody is ever going to make a bill saying "we will censor russian and foreign media", you do realize that right? The wording will always seem a lot less threatening.
It's always tricky to tell if commenters here are from Europe, the US, or elsewhere, but on the off chance that you're not from the US: the US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry, and can't prioritize any particular kind of content in it.
> US federal government has virtually no control over the US media industry
They may not have any control de jure, but the government (federal or otherwise) has de facto gained a lot of control by threatening the media's "access". Yes, this should be an empty threat that the media shouldn't submit to so easily, but in practice it has been extremely effective in keeping some topics off the news.
In what sense? Can you provide specific examples? It hasn't been my impression over the last (say) 4 years that the media narrative has been dominated by stories that started with access. In fact: access to the newsmakers of the opposition has probably been more lucrative.
Journalists have been complaining for at least 10-15 years about having to self-censor their coverage under threat of losing access to politicians and other "insiders". You should have seen many examples of this yourself.
The problem isn't any specific story. This kind of self-censorship creates a culture based on never challenging authority. Did you notice, for example, that CNN has slowly fired anybody that regularly "threatens their access" by acting like a real reporter? What about the people claiming[1] that the job of a journalist is to only act as a stenographer?
This is demonstrably untrue, I have read many articles showing collaboration between major news outlets and the US government. I think wikileaks mentioned it too. Specifically John Podesta saying something along the lines of "lets ask one of our friendlies at AP to plant a story".
Even if all the wikileaks and other reports were untrue, this isnt a conspiracy theory, the US media needs collaboration from the US government if it wants to get invited to white house press conferences, be called upon in them etc.
Revoking media access to the US government is very much in the power of the US government.
You are being very naive to think that the US government has zero control over the media. The US government regularly talks with silicon valley companies, I'm sure Mark Zuckerberg had a few meetings discussing how to combat fake news aka suppress articles from rt.com and breitbart.
Not just that, it is public knowledge that facebook and google are part of the prism program that gives direct access to their data to the US government.
So in light of all that, your tone is quite inappropiate because it is in fact you who speaks out of ignorance.
Your theory here being that the US government will use its friendly relationship with the AP to censor stories favorable to Russia, and that it's a newly passed law that's going to enable them to do that? This isn't coherent.
Either the government is constantly acting sub rosa to manipulate media narratives, in which case this bill doesn't matter because they're already doing it, or they aren't, in which case this bill doesn't matter because the US government has no formal control over the media.
It is surprising how many HN discussions about newly proposed (or, here, signed) legislation take this form.
It's not a dichotomy at all. It's an argument that doesn't hold together. As in virtually every HN argument about legislation, someone has supposed that the government needs a new law to do something the arguer claims the government routinely accomplishes lawlessly.
Ostensibly fakenews is not state sponsored or it would be called disinformation. Also fakenews is different than misinformation in that it is intentional. So the question is really what is the source and target of the fakenews, and how is it being funded?
If it's a for-profit organization selling lies that aren't sourced by any government (domestic or foreign), I don't see how any existing law prevents it. Stupid people and businesses will end up paying for the spread of falsehood, which seems like an eventual dead end. But if they're being fed (dis)information from government(s) then certainly that should be illegal and should come with very punitive sanctions. Disinformation gets people killed.
Why is this my favorite? Because it defines a word which has an obvious meaning, "invasion" in this case in such a way that it excludes situations that any reasonable person would identify as a referent of that word. For example, according to this article, the United States didn't invade Afghanistan. It also does not count use of air power to enforce a no-fly zone as an invasion. This definition is very in tune with the legal and linguistic shenanigans the US goes through in order to justify their military intervention all over the world.
Fact checking can be propaganda too. The idea that the United States' propaganda is justified and others' is not is pure doublethink. This bill claims that it'll preserve democracy by giving the US government the power and resources to create its own propaganda networks (which, by the way, it has been running clandestinely for decades anyway). The people who will enshrine totalitarianism in the law will do it while honestly believing they are saving something they call freedom.
RT is little more than the personal blog of Vladimir Putin who is a far-right authoritarian who has engorged his assets by selling his country's resources and wealth to plutocrats.
One man's propoganda is another man's counter-propoganda. If the bill aimed to empower independent sources, such as BBC/Reuters etc, I'd be all for it. But a group that's beholden solely to the US federal government? I wouldn't expect anything less than a biased mouthpiece for the President's interests.
Here's the thing I don't get about that, maybe you can help me out. How did the Clintons profit from the Clinton Foundation? I'm looking on Politifact, which says:
"The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit."
"The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead."
So, I'm trying to work how this matches up with what basically became a mass meme, that the foundation was utterly corrupt. It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly valuable "income stream", as you call it. What am I missing? I can see it being an example of the Clintons being too close to the rich donor class, but then, Trump met Carlos Slim the other day (describing him as a great guy) so it's hardly as if there was only one candidate guilty of that.
>Aren't these non-profit P&L/expense reports on file with the IRS and public record?
They don't have to disclose full (itemised) expenditures or income IIRC and even if they did someone needs to take a very deep look at it, the clinton foundation issues 1000's of invoices on a monthly basis if not more it's not like they would mark "-150,000$ - Chelsea's wedding" in the books.
Totally speculating out of thin air ... but what if charity is the currency used by the powerful? X donates to Y's foundation in return for favours. Y uses those donations for Z's social work in return for favours, and so on it goes.
Maybe it acts as a bank for special interests, but with different reporting/legal obligations? I mean, that's just one of many intents I could speculate that large foundations could potentially realize. ('Speculate' being a key word.)
No idea about the US but the standard way thr rich and powerful do this in India is to setup the "charitable" foundation and then setup companies (who's share holding structure can be made complex to prevent traceback) to bid to provide goods and services to the "charitable" foundation at inflated prices and take a cut out of that while sub contracting the actual work. If you think about it a bit, the possibilities to get at that 80-90% used for "charitable purposes" are really endless.
As an example, in South India, many rich cloth mill owners converted their land into schools and colleges when they realized they would not be competitive in the global market. In India, schools and colleges are not allowed to be profit making institutions. Guess who owns all the service companies that provide services to these institutions?
Can we stop treating Politifact as being unbiased just because it contains the string "Fact" in its name? I think the site is owned by a Democrat newspaper in Florida?
As someone else mentioned, in 2010 Chelsea had a wedding that was the 7th most expensive wedding of all time [1], paid for (illegally) by the CF. [2]
Not bad for people who claimed to be "dead broke" 10 years earlier. [3]
Of course, it's not usually donation to pocket. It was donation, to $500k speech from Putin affiliated bank, to State Department deal for 20% of the US uranium [4]
Then again, there's the occasional $1m birthday gift from Qatar that helps pay the bills [5]
“[Qatar] would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand. “Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti — particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I’m collecting input from CF Haiti team.”
This (2016) bill is extremely silly. But so was that Techdirt story. Can you identify the government "propaganda" we've been subjected to since 2014 that we weren't subjected to in (say) 2007?
this is a good reply. people often get stuck because they get goaded into trying to describe a single "smoking gun" that doesn't exist in such a blatant form. propaganda is much more subtle, a well-timed unsubstantiated allegation that is later claimed to be a good faith error, when the damage is already done.
it's good to refuse to play that game altogether, and focus instead of facts such as the the fact that WMDs were not found, the CIA torture report was not discussed by talking heads, drone bombings aren't personal interest stories, and that bird's eye view kind of stuff.
This is an excuse for censorship. Censorship is a big problem on the internet. Including sites like Hacker News. Make a somewhat political statement that is popular, it will be upvoted. Make a somewhat political statement that is very critical of the United States or contradicts a mainstream liberal media myth or bias, you will be flagged (censored). This is the same as what happens in China when you criticise the government.
This is a ridiculous statement. You are not entitled to free speech on a private website. Downvoting is not censorship; not every comment is privileged to be at the top or completely visible. I agree that flagging is abused at times, but it means that the community has found that some part of your post violates its guidelines, and it's their right to do that. When site staff ban you, they are moderating their community and it is not censorship. Sorry, but "censorship" is not a shield you can use to deflect any criticism or repercussions of your actions. You might find this comic enlightening: https://xkcd.com/1357/. Lastly no, this is not at all what happens in China. In China the government will kidnap and arrest you, not hide your comment on an internet forum.
I didn't say downvoting, I said flagging. I have seen it or other moderation used many times to remove contributions that contradict belief systems or site-accepted political worldviews but do not violate terms of use. And HN/reddit/etc. are very large groups that allow public participation.
I enjoy reading news sources from around the world, including China Daily and Russian Times. All news media carries some bias, and my strategy for understanding the world is to read news from many countries. The news in my country (USA) is also heavily biased. I expect to see less freedom in the Internet in the future, but I hope I am wrong about that!
44 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadNew counter-propaganda law was put in place
- provides grant funding for NGOs working to reduce disinformation from propaganda
- institutionalize the support of a free-press overseas, particularly around Russia/China
This just doesn't seem to make much diplomatic sense.
If it's the same as the House bill, the citations to Russia and China occur only in the "Sense of Congress" section (which isn't legally binding) and include only:
(1) foreign governments, including the Governments of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, use disinformation and other propaganda tools to undermine the national security objectives of the United States and key allies and partners;
(2) the Russian Federation, in particular, has conducted sophisticated and large-scale disinformation campaigns that have sought to have a destabilizing effect on United States allies and interests;
(3) in the last decade disinformation has increasingly become a key feature of the Government of the Russian Federation’s pursuit of political, economic, and military objectives in Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, the Balkans, and throughout Central and Eastern Europe;
I would dispute that this constitutes an identification of Russia as an "enemy".
Edit
Further: my understanding now is that this was an amendment on the 2017 NDAA. I read the text of the 2017 NDAA (or, at least, searched it for all clauses pertaining to "Russia" and "propaganda") and it's not the same bill, nor does it call out Russia or China.
They may not have any control de jure, but the government (federal or otherwise) has de facto gained a lot of control by threatening the media's "access". Yes, this should be an empty threat that the media shouldn't submit to so easily, but in practice it has been extremely effective in keeping some topics off the news.
Journalists have been complaining for at least 10-15 years about having to self-censor their coverage under threat of losing access to politicians and other "insiders". You should have seen many examples of this yourself.
The problem isn't any specific story. This kind of self-censorship creates a culture based on never challenging authority. Did you notice, for example, that CNN has slowly fired anybody that regularly "threatens their access" by acting like a real reporter? What about the people claiming[1] that the job of a journalist is to only act as a stenographer?
[1] http://www.mediaite.com/online/michael-wolff-says-journalist...
Either the government is constantly acting sub rosa to manipulate media narratives, in which case this bill doesn't matter because they're already doing it, or they aren't, in which case this bill doesn't matter because the US government has no formal control over the media.
It is surprising how many HN discussions about newly proposed (or, here, signed) legislation take this form.
In the category of the government already doing it, there is a difference in outcomes between doing it with x funds and n*x funds.
If it's a for-profit organization selling lies that aren't sourced by any government (domestic or foreign), I don't see how any existing law prevents it. Stupid people and businesses will end up paying for the spread of falsehood, which seems like an eventual dead end. But if they're being fed (dis)information from government(s) then certainly that should be illegal and should come with very punitive sanctions. Disinformation gets people killed.
Why is this my favorite? Because it defines a word which has an obvious meaning, "invasion" in this case in such a way that it excludes situations that any reasonable person would identify as a referent of that word. For example, according to this article, the United States didn't invade Afghanistan. It also does not count use of air power to enforce a no-fly zone as an invasion. This definition is very in tune with the legal and linguistic shenanigans the US goes through in order to justify their military intervention all over the world.
Fact checking can be propaganda too. The idea that the United States' propaganda is justified and others' is not is pure doublethink. This bill claims that it'll preserve democracy by giving the US government the power and resources to create its own propaganda networks (which, by the way, it has been running clandestinely for decades anyway). The people who will enshrine totalitarianism in the law will do it while honestly believing they are saving something they call freedom.
Clinton Foundation donors 2015
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/05/clinton-foundati...
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim - Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
James Murdoch - Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox
Newsmax Media - Florida-based conservative media network
Thomson Reuters - Owner of the Reuters news service
$500,000-$1,000,000
Google
News Corporation Foundation - Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
"The Clintons don’t take a salary from this work, and they don’t receive any other direct monetary benefit."
"The Clinton Foundation is a public charity that, as we have reported, allocates about 80-90 percent of its expenditures to charitable programs, while the rest goes to fundraising and overhead."
So, I'm trying to work how this matches up with what basically became a mass meme, that the foundation was utterly corrupt. It certainly doesn't sound like a particularly valuable "income stream", as you call it. What am I missing? I can see it being an example of the Clintons being too close to the rich donor class, but then, Trump met Carlos Slim the other day (describing him as a great guy) so it's hardly as if there was only one candidate guilty of that.
(http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/sep/01/...)
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/52046
Aren't these non-profit P&L/expense reports on file with the IRS and public record?
They don't have to disclose full (itemised) expenditures or income IIRC and even if they did someone needs to take a very deep look at it, the clinton foundation issues 1000's of invoices on a monthly basis if not more it's not like they would mark "-150,000$ - Chelsea's wedding" in the books.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/bill-cli...
https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/us/...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/foreign-governments-...
As an example, in South India, many rich cloth mill owners converted their land into schools and colleges when they realized they would not be competitive in the global market. In India, schools and colleges are not allowed to be profit making institutions. Guess who owns all the service companies that provide services to these institutions?
Not bad for people who claimed to be "dead broke" 10 years earlier. [3]
Of course, it's not usually donation to pocket. It was donation, to $500k speech from Putin affiliated bank, to State Department deal for 20% of the US uranium [4]
Then again, there's the occasional $1m birthday gift from Qatar that helps pay the bills [5]
“[Qatar] would like to see WJC ‘for five minutes’ in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC’s birthday in 2011,” an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand. “Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti — particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are happy to consider projects we suggest. I’m collecting input from CF Haiti team.”
[1] http://www.therichest.com/luxury/most-expensive/10-most-shoc...
[2] http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/chelsea-clinton-used-foundation...
[3] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jun/...
[4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-...
[5] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/13/wikileaks-em...
Oh, it's about foreign propaganda? Never mind...
it's good to refuse to play that game altogether, and focus instead of facts such as the the fact that WMDs were not found, the CIA torture report was not discussed by talking heads, drone bombings aren't personal interest stories, and that bird's eye view kind of stuff.