Smith-Mundt "Modernization"
Thursday, May 24th 2012
There has been of late a flurry of commentary about the proposed modernization of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 which created the framework for all of the overseas information dissemination and cultural and educational exchanges activity of the USG. The reasons for the modernization vary with the interest group concerned but it is generally regarded that the 24/7 news cycle and the existence of the Internet have made portions of the Act either laughable or inoperable depending upon your point of view.
Specifically, the prohibition against the Department of State's dissemination of material intended for overseas audiences to American citizens or residents of the USA is a rather tough rule to enforce when most of this content is carried routinely on the Internet and is instantly accessable to millions of Americans--if they choose to access it.
Rather too much has been made of this over the years and I am ambivalent as to whether modernization is so vitally necessary. Still, I think modernization of the relevent portions of the Act is inevitable and in making these changes we must ensure that there are no unintended consequences which would allow some future bureaucrat to manipulate American public opinion. That said, the American public is already perhaps the most propagandized public on the face of the earth--we just call it public affairs or public information instead of propaganda! For another interesting point of view see John Brown's latest Blog posting:
http://johnbrownnotesandessays.blogspot.com/2012/05/propaganda-public-diplomacy-and-smith_24.html
3 people have commented on this article so far
William P. Kiehl
Treasurer / Board Member
Bill Kiehl is founding President & CEO of PD Worldwide, consultants in international public affairs, higher education management, and cross-cultural communication. Dr. Kiehl is currently the Book Review Editor and editor emeritus of the journal American Diplomacy, published by the American Diplomacy Foundation in cooperation with the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. He served as Executive Director of the Public Diplomacy Council from February 2004 through April 2007. Dr. Kiehl has taught public diplomacy at the Foreign Service Institute and has lectured at a number of colleges and universities in the U.S. and abroad. He holds his Doctorate in Higher Education Management from the University of Pennsylvania; his dissertation was "The Influence of Campus Internationalization on Local Communities."
...click authors name for more infoAuthor: Bill Kiehl
Stay Connected
Follow the Public Diplomacy Council on Facebook and share your opinion about up-to-date issues with us.
We welcome comments from our readers that advocate and shed light on the subject of public diplomacy. We avoid discussion that is politically partisan, commercial in nature or offensive, and the Council reserves the right to remove such comments.
Smith Mundt
Having had some experience with Smith Mundt, I have yet to see the compelling case for eliminating the restrictions. Making materials subject to FOIA requests, though, would be a good idea.
Propaganda and Smith-Mundt
Bill has a point about our "propagandized" public, with the political campaign well underway. Whoever is concerned about the "propaganda" from VOA or the State Department should take a look at http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/ and compare it to the PAC and party ads on American TV and computer screens. Tell us what you think.
transparency, accountability & Smith-Mundt
Joe B, FOIA is not a timely and efficient means of transparency and accountability.
Joe J, the quality of the work of IIP, long hidden from the American public, is certainly something that should be discussed. (Note: display format and content are not the same; also audience matters.)
To both of you, should we continue to hide our public diplomacy from our own public because of concerns over quality of its content or its purpose? If you feel the IIP Digital Embassy is not effective, should it be raised and explored? Certainly if there was a strategy, with the audience and purpose defined, and the content and its dissemination created to match the strategy, then there would be a reasonable defense of the current IIP Digital Embassy, or any other public diplomacy effort. Would you want academics, the media, legislators, and other practitioners to know if that is or is not the case? As it is, you should not have access to the IIP Digital Embassy website.
Or, back to the first point, should there be no sunshine so we can continue to complain at our leisure (i.e. when we get around to reviewing actual, not conceptual, public diplomacy)? Or, if there is unique content available from BBG or State, should the US media, academics, and legislators be able to decide for themselves whether to refer to, or possibly use, that content?
Matt
Post new comment