Obsolete Restrictions on Public Diplomacy Hurt U.S. Outreach and Strategy

[Steve Blair]

Hi Canoneer,



Somewhat unusually for an academic, I prefer to use real words with their real meanings rather than rely on euphemisms . All a euphemism does is substitute one term for another while hoping and praying that the negative emotional connotations of the real term don't shift over to the new one. This is, in many ways, a silly exercise as can be witnessed through the vast variety of euphemisms developed over the past 50 years that seem to change every week.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.

Quite agree, Marc. Fuzzy language creates more problems than it solves, IMO. Sometimes a problem is a problem, not an "opportunity" or a "challenge."

[Ron Humphrey]

If we're talking about propaganda, reading Galula is useful, from page 14 (also on my blog):

directed information release, focused advertisement, whichever you wish I find myself of one mind.

I always felt that if one chose not to provide a counter to that which was wrong, or failed to attempt to right that which is wrong; then in the end although they may not carry responsibilty for the wrong itself, they do personally bear the responsibility for doing nothing about it.

If information is there in any form for the observers than those who have a counter message bear the responsibility for providing the whole picture in order to facilitate more informed observation.

If the ultimate goals for any entity are to achieve better long term situations, then communication along with all other aspects of power, carry responsibility to work towards those goals.

Man I wish it was as easy for me to write as eloquently as yourselves, it seems I write like I think and as things don't always follow good MLA format

[ilots]

Somewhat unusually for an academic, I prefer to use real words with their real meanings rather than rely on euphemisms . All a euphemism does is substitute one term for another while hoping and praying that the negative emotional connotations of the real term don't shift over to the new one. This is, in many ways, a silly exercise as can be witnessed through the vast variety of euphemisms developed over the past 50 years that seem to change every week.

Let's agree to disagree on this one.

While you may choose to use "real words;" the choice is limited by your paradigm. To paint US (or any entities' communications) simply as propaganda, thus adhering a label for what you, or others, perceive as negative attempt to influence, uses too broad a stroke. By labeling all communications (ours and our enemies') as propaganda, then we equally risk substituting one term for another, albeit with a separate set of emotional responses.

There is no question that politicians & various political entities unleash propaganda to their domestic audiences, that was not what lies at the crux of the Smith-Mundt Act debate. Even information which is not part of a campaign designed to influence can fall subject to the SMA. Conversely, information such as the leaflets used in OIF/OEF were removed from the CENTCOM website, as their exposure to US citizens could be construed as a violation of the SMA - does this not limit our citizens ability to understand what actions our civilian led military takes? More directly, the broad stroke of the word propaganda has offered unique challenges to the use of the US Military's (& other Gov organizations) ability to communicate to populations - even domestically during times of disaster - due to the perceptions surrounding the SMA.

While the US government certainly conducts propaganda against foreign audiences, to me, one set of reactions is almost as dangerous as the other.

But then again, this is from a career propagandist -

[marct]

to look at the specific context in which I made that comment - to whit,

Use of the word, propaganda, is counterproductive when describing one's own side's use of it because of the perjorative connotations of the word among English-speaking peoples in the first decade of the 21st Century.

While you may choose to use "real words;" the choice is limited by your paradigm.

In this specific case, my "paradigm" was the English language.

To paint US (or any entities' communications) simply as propaganda, thus adhering a label for what you, or others, perceive as negative attempt to influence, uses too broad a stroke. By labeling all communications (ours and our enemies') as propaganda, then we equally risk substituting one term for another, albeit with a separate set of emotional responses.

Actually, I didn't say that - what I said was that propaganda should be called propaganda, regardless of who is employing it. This was, by no means, meant to term all communications as propaganda.

Even information which is not part of a campaign designed to influence can fall subject to the SMA. Conversely, information such as the leaflets used in OIF/OEF were removed from the CENTCOM website, as their exposure to US citizens could be construed as a violation of the SMA - does this not limit our citizens ability to understand what actions our civilian led military takes?

Which points out a serious problem with the interpretations of SMA and.or its current relevance in the modern communications environment. This latter point is, IMO, quite important. The SMA was developed when "propaganda" had to be broadcast at a fairly large cost to the organization doing so. In todays' communication landscape, both cost and "broadcast" are increasingly irrelevant. Your example of the leaflets taken off the CENTCOM site just highlights this.

More directly, the broad stroke of the word propaganda has offered unique challenges to the use of the US Military's (& other Gov organizations) ability to communicate to populations - even domestically during times of disaster - due to the perceptions surrounding the SMA.

Agreed. I would also add in that there has been a significant shift in how people "consume" (for want of a better term) information. This can be seen in the general "dumbing down" of most forms of information (not excluding academia ).

Marc