Psyops + internet = more misinformation - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

US plans to 'fight the net' revealed

By Adam Brookes
BBC Pentagon correspondent
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.

Bloggers beware.

As the world turns networked, the Pentagon is calculating the military opportunities that computer networks, wireless technologies and the modern media offer.

From influencing public opinion through new media to designing "computer network attack" weapons, the US military is learning to fight an electronic war.

The declassified document is called "Information Operations Roadmap". It was obtained by the National Security Archive at George Washington University using the Freedom of Information Act.

Officials in the Pentagon wrote it in 2003. The Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, signed it.

Information Operations Roadmap
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Download the reader here

The "roadmap" calls for a far-reaching overhaul of the military's ability to conduct information operations and electronic warfare. And, in some detail, it makes recommendations for how the US armed forces should think about this new, virtual warfare.

The document says that information is "critical to military success". Computer and telecommunications networks are of vital operational importance.

Propaganda

The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.

All these are engaged in information operations.

US Defense Secretary at the Pentagon
The wide-reaching document was signed off by Donald Rumsfeld

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the roadmap is its acknowledgement that information put out as part of the military's psychological operations, or Psyops, is finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans.

"Information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and Psyops, is increasingly consumed by our domestic audience," it reads.

"Psyops messages will often be replayed by the news media for much larger audiences, including the American public," it goes on.

The document's authors acknowledge that American news media should not unwittingly broadcast military propaganda. "Specific boundaries should be established," they write. But they don't seem to explain how.

"In this day and age it is impossible to prevent stories that are fed abroad as part of psychological operations propaganda from blowing back into the United States - even though they were directed abroad," says Kristin Adair of the National Security Archive.

Credibility problem

Public awareness of the US military's information operations is low, but it's growing - thanks to some operational clumsiness.

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone. It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system

Late last year, it emerged that the Pentagon had paid a private company, the Lincoln Group, to plant hundreds of stories in Iraqi newspapers. The stories - all supportive of US policy - were written by military personnel and then placed in Iraqi publications.

And websites that appeared to be information sites on the politics of Africa and the Balkans were found to be run by the Pentagon.

But the true extent of the Pentagon's information operations, how they work, who they're aimed at, and at what point they turn from informing the public to influencing populations, is far from clear.

The roadmap, however, gives a flavour of what the US military is up to - and the grand scale on which it's thinking.

It reveals that Psyops personnel "support" the American government's international broadcasting. It singles out TV Marti - a station which broadcasts to Cuba - as receiving such support.

It recommends that a global website be established that supports America's strategic objectives. But no American diplomats here, thank you. The website would use content from "third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than US officials".

It also recommends that Psyops personnel should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.

'Fight the net'

When it describes plans for electronic warfare, or EW, the document takes on an extraordinary tone.

It seems to see the internet as being equivalent to an enemy weapons system.

"Strategy should be based on the premise that the Department [of Defense] will 'fight the net' as it would an enemy weapons system," it reads.

The slogan "fight the net" appears several times throughout the roadmap.

The authors warn that US networks are very vulnerable to attack by hackers, enemies seeking to disable them, or spies looking for intelligence.

"Networks are growing faster than we can defend them... Attack sophistication is increasing... Number of events is increasing."

US digital ambition

And, in a grand finale, the document recommends that the United States should seek the ability to "provide maximum control of the entire electromagnetic spectrum".

US forces should be able to "disrupt or destroy the full spectrum of globally emerging communications systems, sensors, and weapons systems dependent on the electromagnetic spectrum".

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

Are these plans the pipe dreams of self-aggrandising bureaucrats? Or are they real?

The fact that the "Information Operations Roadmap" is approved by the Secretary of Defense suggests that these plans are taken very seriously indeed in the Pentagon.

And that the scale and grandeur of the digital revolution is matched only by the US military's ambitions for it.

I remember once asking my history teacher if propaganda was illegal in America. She laughed at me. "Isn't propoganda something that stands in the way of democracy?", I asked. "Well, yes it is, but those in charge are not interested in democracy. They are interested in accumulation of power." I had a really good 6th grade teacher.

What does everyone think of this? Is it possible for the DoD to really make a difference by pushing more propoganda on us? Would the same tactics that are fairly successful on television and print be successful on the internet? Am I an enemy of the state for being pissed at the current admimistration?

kutulu · 01-31-2006, 12:19 PM

People live for propaganda. Damn right it will work.

irateplatypus · 01-31-2006, 12:34 PM

hmm... apparently cynicism is the mark of a good middle school teacher.

the article clearly describes the US military's propaganda as being directed at the enemy, not "us". their concern, in fact, is that such propaganda would be picked up by our own journalist and re-transmitted to domestic audiences. the DoD is doing its best not to push anything on US citizens, i don't see how your concern fits in with the topic.

i think you're being melodramatic w/the enemy of the state comment.

the thrust of the article brings us this dramatic summation:

Quote:

Consider that for a moment.

The US military seeks the capability to knock out every telephone, every networked computer, every radar system on the planet.

what is new or unexpected about that? communication infrastructure is among the most vital of any military's assets, why shouldn't we plan to degrade an adversary's comm while protecting our own? should we seek the capability to destroy some phones, but not others? should we try to knock out radar system A but neglect radar system B?

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

hmm... apparently cynicism is the mark of a good middle school teacher.

There's a difference btween cynicism and realism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

the article clearly describes the US military's propaganda as being directed at the enemy, not "us". their concern, in fact, is that such propaganda would be picked up by our own journalist and re-transmitted to domestic audiences. the DoD is doing its best not to push anything on US citizens, i don't see how your concern fits in with the topic.

My concern is connecting the information in this article with the multitude of scandals over the last few years. The idea that the government is willing to bribe journalists and put pressure on them to hold back stories or introduce false or misleading stories is extreemly dangerous. Combine that with a vast, yet fragile system of information online and you can have an extremly dangerous situation.

Quote:

i think you're being melodramatic w/the enemy of the state comment.

Not according to Will Smith.

irateplatypus · 01-31-2006, 12:54 PM

Quote:

My concern is connecting the information in this article with the multitude of scandals over the last few years. The idea that the government is willing to bribe journalists and put pressure on them to hold back stories or introduce false or misleading stories is extreemly dangerous. Combine that with a vast, yet fragile system of information online and you can have an extremly dangerous situation.

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "multitude of scandals over the last few years". are you referring to the psy-ops listed in the article? do you really think planting US-favorable info is a scandal? if so, how in the world can you separate the described instances from other psy-op methods? if you condemn those uses of this millenia-old strategic tool, how can you avoid advocating the removal of it from our military's arsenal altogether?

even considering all that, each instance (it seemed to me) was directed at foreign audiences... i don't think you can justify linking it to fears of domestic propaganda with the given information.

Quote:

Not according to Will Smith.

Ustwo · 01-31-2006, 01:38 PM

I'd be far more worried if the DoD wasn't doing this.

This is the information age, not the industrial age, and information technology is the first thing you attack, even before the enemy troops in any conflict.

As for the propaganda, welcome to reality 101, its what all governments do, and have done. There is nothing wrong with presenting your point of view, or getting people to come over to your side.

I don't see the situation as extremely dangerous, any more than saying the government controlls the army. If the government becomes 'evil' than we have problems reguardless, if its on our side, we want to make sure we have all the weapons needed to defeat any enemy.

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

i'm not quite sure what you're getting at when you say "multitude of scandals over the last few years". are you referring to the psy-ops listed in the article? do you really think planting US-favorable info is a scandal? if so, how in the world can you separate the described instances from other psy-op methods? if you condemn those uses of this millenia-old strategic tool, how can you avoid advocating the removal of it from our military's arsenal altogether?

even considering all that, each instance (it seemed to me) was directed at foreign audiences... i don't think you can justify linking it to fears of domestic propaganda with the given information.

Rummy said it better than I can.

Quote:

information intended for foreign audiences, including public diplomacy and PSYOP, increasingly is consumed by our domestic audience and vice-versa

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/...ps_roadmap.pdf
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, amended in 1972 and 1998, prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences; and several presidential directives, including Reagan's NSD-77 in 1983. By it's very definition, it's illegal. If propoganda directed at other governments, organizations, or people can reach the American people (like information available on the interweb), it is illegal. Whether my fears of corruption at the DoD are founded or not, it is certianally illegal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by irateplatypus

Willravel isn't all buisness.

Ustwo · 01-31-2006, 03:10 PM

Quote:

information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on, request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.

Seems fine to me, whats illegal again?

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Seems fine to me, whats illegal again?

It forbids the domestic dissemination of U.S. government materials intended for foreign audiences. I can't find a full copy of the damned thing.

alpha phi · 01-31-2006, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It forbids the domestic dissemination of U.S. government materials intended for foreign audiences. I can't find a full copy of the damned thing.

I think this is what you are looking for

TITLE 22 > CHAPTER 18 > SUBCHAPTER V

SUBCHAPTER V—DISSEMINATION ABROAD OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE UNITED STATES

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...0_18_20_V.html

from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America#History
The Cold War years (1948-1992)
During the Cold War, VOA was placed under the U.S. Information Agency. In the 1980s, VOA also added a television service, as well as special regional programs to Cuba, Radio Marti and TV Marti.

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alpha phi

I think this is what you are looking for

/snip, useful info

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for!

Ustwo · 01-31-2006, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Thanks, that's exactly what I was looking for!

So whats illegal again?

Sorry, don't see the problem.

Willravel · 01-31-2006, 09:45 PM

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences. The propoganda and psyops on the internet, despite their being directed at foriegn audiences, will find Americans. Unless they can prove that Americans can't access or be in some way propagandized by the (mis)information - something impossible to prove, they cannot proceede in this operation.

alpha phi · 02-01-2006, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences. The propoganda and psyops on the internet, despite their being directed at foriegn audiences, will find Americans. Unless they can prove that Americans can't access or be in some way propagandized by the (mis)information - something impossible to prove, they cannot proceede in this operation.

First of all, I find it a rather sad state of affairs we would
have to lie about ourselves in order to prop ourselves up
to the people of foreign countries.
The truth is a beacon of light that cuts through any darkness.
Even the truth "as we see it" is far better than a lie.

We now live in the information age.
Just as propiganda will find it's way back home.
The rest of the story will find it's way back
to the targets of said propaganda.

If we are indeed embarking on a just and noble cause
why is there a need for propaganda?
I see nothing wrong with brodcasting the "truth as we see it",
to win the hearts and minds of the people of a hostile area.
And when it inevitably leaks into our own media
there is no harm done.
After all it's the truth.....Right?

If it's not the truth......

Ustwo · 02-01-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

prop·a·gan·da Audio pronunciation of "propaganda" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (prp-gnd)
n.

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda.

And this is bad why?

filtherton · 02-01-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

And this is bad why?

Well, it is illegal. Not that that's always the dividing line between bad and good. Perhaps it's bad because the amount of misinformation already present in the american media is already huge. We don't need more lies from the goverment.

roachboy · 02-01-2006, 08:49 AM

it is useful to know the extent of such operations.
of questionable legality, problematic in the context of a democracy--sure.
what states do--sell their politics---obviously.

the question is what relation do you adopt to such practices.
nothing gets us off the hook--we have to sort, evaluate, interpret, consider information.
all the more so now in that so much information is generated by institutions that use the surface features of legitimate modes of inquiry to advance particular, usually profit-driven--agendas (the new widepsread practice of corporations hiring pet scientists to generate experimental "confirmation" of corporate actions/products--particularly active in areas that involve assessments of environmental impact of production practices/products, etc.)---the assumption sems to be that an informed polity is a problem---so flood the polity with often bogus information mingled with other than bogus information and you'll disable debate--while debate spins in circles, hamstrung by problems of information quality, institutions can do as they like...it is a nice feature of living in the states today, this kind of contempt for thinking.

if information is problematic, then it become easier to treat political committments are arbitrary. the treatment of political committments as arbitrary explains something of the surreal character of much conservative "thinking"....it is easier to draw hard lines between positions if these positions are as much based on faith as on descriptive power of political positions. such beliefs also make it easier to draw a clear line between "us" and "them"---and in this you see traces of the general trajectory left to right of many of the neocons--this emphasis on clear organizational boundaries comes straight from lenin.

no matter, though: state ideology can form the basis for a wrap-around world, prechewed, given in advance, the adoption of which requires no effort.

i do wonder, however, if ustwo and irate would hold to the same blase line about this that each outlined above if they disagreed fundamentally with the politics of the administration in power.

host · 12-26-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Quote:

"information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on, request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress."

Seems fine to me, whats illegal again?

Well, Ustwo, it looks like you and I agree on leaving the Smith-Mundt Act just the way it is! OR....?

Quote:

http://www.prweekus.com/Comms-pros-c...article/57436/
Comms pros consult on US military report
Ted McKenna
July 30, 2007

ARLINGTON, VA: The RAND Corporation consulted with a number of top PR and marketing experts when creating a recently released report urging the US military to think of itself as a brand that must ensure its communications are met with appropriate actions.

The $400,000 report, <a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2007/RAND_MG607.pdf">"Enlisting Madison Avenue: The Marketing Approach to Earning Popular Support in Theaters of Operation,"</a> which was commissioned by the US Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) and is available at www.rand.org, discussed how the military could effectively use corporate branding and communications strategies and techniques for operations in Iraq and elsewhere.

Executives from Burson-Marsteller, Weber Shandwick, J.D. Power, the Rendon Group, and the Lincoln Group, among others; marketing professors at NYU and Northwestern; and various military experts aided the report.

The key message of the report, said lead author Todd Helmus, who is a clinical psychologist by training, but has spent the past three years studying lessons learned by the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that like any corporate brand, the US military must make sure its actions match its words. Otherwise, it won't receive the trust or support of the ever-critical civilian population on which military operations ultimately depend.

"Our point in the report is that actions speak louder than words," Helmus said. "You can't build positive relationships with people in war zones by just saying good things. You have to do good things."

The report coincides with Congressional discussions over the 2008 defense appropriations bill, including debate over continued funding for the controversial Guantanamo military prison.

In practice, that means being as up-front as possible about, for instance, accidental civilian casualties or other mistakes that can potentially be used for propaganda purposes by the adversary. With the prevalence and immediacy of the Internet, that means a focus on online communications, which the report, as well as a number of PR experts, says has not been utilized as effectively as possible by the US military.

WS chairman Jack Leslie, who was consulted for the report, said the US government is increasingly willing to study best practices from the corporate world.

"Especially now, given the radical changes going on in the marketing world, there are all sorts of innovations happening in corporate marketing that the government would like to access," he added. "This is a convenient way to do it, and it doesn't require a big contract with individual agencies."

DBD Worldwide chairman Keith Reinhard, also consulted for the report, agreed that government agencies are embracing corporate communications principles, but he said funding for their adoption remains generally too low.

While insurgent forces in Iraq and elsewhere have done a good job projecting or "shaping" their global image via the use of multimedia online, including videos of "jihadis," cell phone messages, and even video games, US policies such as the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act - <h3>which prohibits the government from directing propaganda at US audiences - prevent the US military from engaging as extensively and effectively as it could with an online audience, </h3> said the report.

<h3>Paige Craig, ex-president and now a board member of the Lincoln Group</h3>, which is conducting polls in Iraq to study the attitudes and perceptions of Iraqis on rule of law, support for violent groups, and other issues, said US military adversaries have great propaganda.

"It doesn't look as flashy as something you'd find on Madison Avenue, but it's very effective," he said. <h2>"It's almost embarrassing to sit here and realize we've got the talent and ability to counter what the adversary makes; it's simply a matter of policy."</h2>

Helmus said that the new report, like others commissioned by the USJFCOM, will enter a process of evaluation to determine its merits and how recommendations can be tested and put into action.

A spokesperson for USJFCOM, which is tasked by the US Defense Department with "transforming" the US military through new technologies and practices, said officials were not immediately available to comment on the report.

Quote:

http://www.prwatch.org/node/6306#comment-2324
Military Propaganda in the US
Submitted by The Walsh Wire on Thu, 08/02/2007 - 16:19.

Two most important elements of a fascist state are an all-controlling wealthy/corporate class working in concert with a permanent political class and a sophisticated public brainwashing mechanism. We now have the former,if we are not careful,we soon have the latter.

<h2>The fact that the military would be so confident as to even consider such a path should be evidence enough to show how far along we have come in throwing away our liberty.......</h2>

I've posted much more related info in post #16 here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...56#post2369056

loquitur · 12-27-2007, 07:33 AM

The internet raises all sorts of new issues in all sorts of realms. I would suspect that Smith-Mundt doesn't prohibit US govt communications being posted on the net for overseas consumption merely because readers in the US could access the overseas sites. The analogy from pre-internet days would be whether it would be illegal to bring into the US a pamphlet circulated by the US govt abroad. Obviously it wouldn't be, and I don't think we want to live in the sort of police state that would prohibit people from bringing in reading materials from overseas. A website designed for overseas consumption but accessible through the net here is roughly comparable (though not perfectly).
More to the point, though, don't we want to have transparency here? Shouldn't we WANT to see what's going on in other countries, whether it's our own government's actions or other governments'? What is the harm?

The other thing is, we have to understand what propaganda is for purposes of the Smith-Mundt Act. I haven't done the research and haven't dug out the definition, but if we're going by the dictionary, then every press release put out by a Congressman, Senator, White House, agency chief or department head is propaganda. That's what propaganda is: self-serving PR stuff. And that's why I think the statutory definition is probably a bit more precise.

Plan9 · 12-27-2007, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Am I an enemy of the state for being pissed at the current admimistration?

How fast can you run in a bathrobe?

...

Nice post. Very GI Joe PSA.

01-31-2006, 01:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I'd be far more worried if the DoD wasn't doing this. This is the information age, not the industrial age, and information technology is the first thing you attack, even before the enemy troops in any conflict. As for the propaganda, welcome to reality 101, its what all governments do, and have done. There is nothing wrong with presenting your point of view, or getting people to come over to your side. I don't see the situation as extremely dangerous, any more than saying the government controlls the army. If the government becomes 'evil' than we have problems reguardless, if its on our side, we want to make sure we have all the weapons needed to defeat any enemy. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

02-01-2006, 08:49 AM	#17 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	it is useful to know the extent of such operations. of questionable legality, problematic in the context of a democracy--sure. what states do--sell their politics---obviously. the question is what relation do you adopt to such practices. nothing gets us off the hook--we have to sort, evaluate, interpret, consider information. all the more so now in that so much information is generated by institutions that use the surface features of legitimate modes of inquiry to advance particular, usually profit-driven--agendas (the new widepsread practice of corporations hiring pet scientists to generate experimental "confirmation" of corporate actions/products--particularly active in areas that involve assessments of environmental impact of production practices/products, etc.)---the assumption sems to be that an informed polity is a problem---so flood the polity with often bogus information mingled with other than bogus information and you'll disable debate--while debate spins in circles, hamstrung by problems of information quality, institutions can do as they like...it is a nice feature of living in the states today, this kind of contempt for thinking. if information is problematic, then it become easier to treat political committments are arbitrary. the treatment of political committments as arbitrary explains something of the surreal character of much conservative "thinking"....it is easier to draw hard lines between positions if these positions are as much based on faith as on descriptive power of political positions. such beliefs also make it easier to draw a clear line between "us" and "them"---and in this you see traces of the general trajectory left to right of many of the neocons--this emphasis on clear organizational boundaries comes straight from lenin. no matter, though: state ideology can form the basis for a wrap-around world, prechewed, given in advance, the adoption of which requires no effort. i do wonder, however, if ustwo and irate would hold to the same blase line about this that each outlined above if they disagreed fundamentally with the politics of the administration in power. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

01-31-2006, 12:19 PM	#2 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	People live for propaganda. Damn right it will work.

01-31-2006, 09:45 PM	#13 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits the U.S. government from propagandizing the American public with information and psychological operations directed at foreign audiences. The propoganda and psyops on the internet, despite their being directed at foriegn audiences, will find Americans. Unless they can prove that Americans can't access or be in some way propagandized by the (mis)information - something impossible to prove, they cannot proceede in this operation.

12-27-2007, 07:33 AM	#19 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	The internet raises all sorts of new issues in all sorts of realms. I would suspect that Smith-Mundt doesn't prohibit US govt communications being posted on the net for overseas consumption merely because readers in the US could access the overseas sites. The analogy from pre-internet days would be whether it would be illegal to bring into the US a pamphlet circulated by the US govt abroad. Obviously it wouldn't be, and I don't think we want to live in the sort of police state that would prohibit people from bringing in reading materials from overseas. A website designed for overseas consumption but accessible through the net here is roughly comparable (though not perfectly). More to the point, though, don't we want to have transparency here? Shouldn't we WANT to see what's going on in other countries, whether it's our own government's actions or other governments'? What is the harm? The other thing is, we have to understand what propaganda is for purposes of the Smith-Mundt Act. I haven't done the research and haven't dug out the definition, but if we're going by the dictionary, then every press release put out by a Congressman, Senator, White House, agency chief or department head is propaganda. That's what propaganda is: self-serving PR stuff. And that's why I think the statutory definition is probably a bit more precise.