[tboyd47]

Relevant here is an article by Huffington Post from 2012 criticizing a bill to update the Smith-Mundt Act which prohibited the US government from spreading propaganda to American citizens. The congressmen were complaining that if other countries can propagandize Americans, our government should have the same right. Their update would effectively remove that prohibition. The bill was swiftly passed and made law.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/propaganda-public-diplomacy_b...

[kube-system]

That bill was about "propaganda" like VOA... which is mandated to provide pretty damn fair and accurate news by other laws. Do you really think it should have remained (technically) illegal to click this link: https://www.voanews.com/ ?

In any case, that law/amendment has nothing to do with the video in this post. The reason all these stations are saying the same thing is not because of the government, it is because they are all owned by Sinclair Broadcast Group, and those who run that company wanted to push this message.

Honestly, the quality of "government propaganda" from VOA is better than what we get from Sinclair.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/voice-of-america/

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/sinclair-broadcast-group/

[coliveira]

VOA is not propaganda with quotes, it is real propaganda produced by American government targeted at other (mainly eastern European) countries. It is the same thing they complain about in RT and similar state controlled news stations.

[kube-system]

It is propaganda in the most technical sense of the word, which is why I used it. I put it in quotes because it is a very loaded word with colloquial connotations that depart from the technical sense.

[tboyd47]

So, it’s good propaganda because it’s by the good guys?

[kube-system]

A fair and accurate statement made with the intent to influence does, in fact, meet the dictionary definition of propaganda. This is not, however, the way that the word is typically used.