• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Smith-Mundt Modernization: Better Late than Never

    The House Armed Services Committee clearly acted in the U.S. interest when it voted to modernize the Smith–Mundt Act last week, as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. Since 1948, Smith–Mundt has prohibited agencies of the U.S. government from informing the U.S. public in print or on the airwaves about their activities. In the age of the information revolution and the global war of ideas, these prohibitions have become obsolete and worse. As noted by Juliana Pilon in the Heritage paper “Obsolete Restrictions on Public Diplomacy Hurt U.S. Outreach and Strategy”:

    In the war on terrorism, this restriction is worse than an anachronism: It amounts to self-sabotage. Until Congress relegates this piece of legislation to the dustbin of history, the U.S. cannot expect to conduct public diplomacy effectively.

    For instance, Americans cannot order English-language materials from the State Department. If they try, they will be informed that “the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs is prohibited from distributing its print materials in the United States by the Smith–Mundt Act.” This bureau is among many U.S. agencies affected by Smith–Mundt; Americans are by law prevented from learning about taxpayer-funded humanitarian and democracy-assistance programs, including the grantees and contractors of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

    Or consider this: Today, listeners of National Public Radio (funded in part by the U.S. government) can and do get their international news from the BBC (funded by the British government), but not from Voice of America (funded by the U.S. government and therefore prohibited by Smith–Mundt).

    So, changes are overdue. Authored by Representatives Mac Thornberry (R–TX) and Adam Smith (D–WA), H.R5736—Smith–Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 (Introduced in House, IH) removes the prohibition on public diplomacy materials being available to Americans. This bill, though, specifies that the changes in Smith–Mundt apply only to the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. As these are the primary public diplomacy agencies of the United States, at least this is a good start. The bill has been several years in the works, and while it should have been included in a State Department authorization bill, such a bill has not been passed by Congress in years.

    Critics have already voiced concerns that this will open the floodgates of propaganda by the U.S. government. This is hardly likely. Indeed, access to programs and materials produced by the State and the BBG will allow Congress and the public a better understanding of what we are funding. Much of it is high-quality journalism, which deserves support, and some programming could have a positive impact on certain immigrant communities in the United States that are vulnerable to radicalization. As for programming and materials that are controversial, questionable, or wasteful, doesn’t the U.S. public deserve to know what is being published or broadcast in its name?

    Another positive consequence of the changes to Smith–Mundt should be to level the global media playing field. As things have stood for the past half-century, Congress created a situation in which the U.S. public could freely receive news from foreign governments but not legally receive news and information produced by their own government. The result is that today, China’s CCTV, Russia Today, Al-Jazeera, France 1, BBC America, and even Iran’s IRIB are available on American cable networks, but not Voice of America. This situation is bizarre and contorted.

    So, kudos to the authors of the Smith–Mundt Modernization Act. They have tackled a thorny issue left unresolved for far too long.

    Posted in International [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Smith-Mundt Modernization: Better Late than Never

    1. Vladislaw says:

      "Critics have already voiced concerns that this will open the floodgates of propaganda by the U.S. government. This is hardly likely."

      That is what was said by the supreme court about unlimited campaign funding that it would hardly be likely that unlimited funding would lead to corruption and we would not see an increase in corruption if funding was unlimited.

      it is one thing to for a free flow of information and propaganda another. The rules could be modified but still leave some safe guards.

      People said that the Glass-Stegal act was out of date and Banks would not turn into casinos if that law was repealed.

      We all saw what the banks did once that law was removed.

      Becareful when a group of people say that a law, that has protected us for DECADES, is out of date and should be removed. Are they wolves in sheep's clothing? Are they saying "trust me"?

    2. Ted Lipien says:

      I agree with and value Dr. Dale's views and analyses, especially those on US international broadcasting and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), but in this case I'd like to comment on one aspect of the proposed legislation that has not been addressed. While I support certain modifications to the old Smith-Mundt Act, it appears that the changes being considered do not offer specific enough restrictions on what government bureaucrats can do with this new law.

      Those of us who have seen the Broadcasting Board of Governors executives in action over the years fear that they will take advantage of the vague wording of the law to divert resources from critical radio and television broadcasts overseas — as they have already tried (China, Tibet) and in some cases succeeded (Russia) — and to use these scarce resources on domestic dissemination of broadcasts and news, but mostly on themselves and their own bureaucratic activities, including possible domestic marketing, advertising, audience research, numerous contractors but all of it to no good purpose. BBG executives would like nothing better than to have an NPR-like network in the United States. The law should clearly state that they cannot favor one domestic broadcaster over another, place any restrictions on the use of the programs, enter into agreements with domestic stations, actively market the programs, or charge unreasonable fees for making the programs available.

      I would go even further than the proposed legislation envisions. All BBG programs — not just Voice of America programs but also Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) – Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV — should all be placed in the public domain for anyone in the United States to use them. But the new law needs to place some restrictions and create specific rules for government bureaucrats to abide by because one cannot trust them to restrain themselves. I don't think the current group of BBG executives is capable of doing great harm to Americans with sinister domestically-targeted news programs, but future government bureaucrats may be. They can certainly waste taxpayers' money and cut critical overseas broadcasts if given more unrestricted powers. Some vigilance is necessary.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×