“To be persuasive we must be believable; to be
believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful. It is as
simple as that.”[1] American journalist Edward R. Murrow, made
this statement about the importance of the broadcasting, both domestically
and abroad. However, sixty years later, the U.S. has retained
restrictions over international broadcastings being run within the U.S. since
the establishment of the Smith-Mundt Act in 1948. The continued existence of the Smith-Mundt ban on
domestic dissemination of organizations such as Voice of America (VOA),
and U.S. government-produced international broadcasting (USIB) products, has
created an "iron fence" preventing the U.S. public from accessing
cultural communication networks, which broadcast inclusive coverage
of world-news.
Viewed as one of the most influential laws,
the Smith-Mundt act, has raised contemporary concerns due to the dynamic
change of the international environment compared to the period after WWII, when
it was created. According to critiques, the Smith-Mundt act creates barriers
in oversight and prevents cultural communication. For example, possessing
an educational and cultural exchange component focused on the promotion of
American information abroad, the act was created as a counter-wait to the
(former) USSR and signed into law under a "cold-war context".
Seeing the need to foreign audiences to learn more about the U.S. by
establishing programs abroad was essentially the Smith-Mundt acts main goal.
Consequently, Congress did not include a two-way exchange component within this
legislation due to a consensus that materials created for foreign audiences should
not publicized within American borders.
It was not until 1972 that an amendment was
added onto the act, sponsored by Senator J. William Fulbright.
However, during the same year the 1972 Foreign Relations Authorization
Act that prevents domestic dissemination of “information about the United
States, its policies, and its people”[2] prepared for foreign audiences
was created to support the Smith-Mundt act. Why this act still remains in
place today, may be closely tied to a security aspect more so than a prescribed
ban on preventing cultural communication. However, by default the
Smith-Mundt act has prevented the American publics access to wide-ranging
information on foreign affairs. Even now, the act hinders use of
significant journalistic resources by both public and private networks in the
U.S.[3] Whether or not this "iron fence" will be removed remains to
be seen at this time.
__________________
[1,2, and 3] Metzgar, T. Emily. Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt, and the American Public. (2012). Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101. Retrieved from: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publications/METZGARPDSmithMundt& theAmericanPublic.pdf. Accessed on November 28, 2012.
__________________
[1,2, and 3] Metzgar, T. Emily. Public Diplomacy, Smith-Mundt, and the American Public. (2012). Communication Law and Policy, 17:1, 67-101. Retrieved from: http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/publications/METZGARPDSmithMundt& theAmericanPublic.pdf. Accessed on November 28, 2012.
Thanks for sharing your views on the Smith-Mundt Act. We can't expect to improve U.S. public diplomacy abroad when American taxpayers don't fully understand it at home. Technical or scholarly definitions of public diplomacy in books or officially publications will far from suffice, and making available information about public diplomacy projects and materials employed by U.S. diplomats overseas to Americans will undoubtedly aid in fostering greater understanding and discussion. Besides, in the IT-laden information and media environment we live in today, it's nearly impossible to hide American public diplomacy entirely behind the iron curtain. Like you've stated, we might as well move forward beyond outdated regulations.
ReplyDelete