Read on Twitter
There are several troubling aspects to this program, but I want to focus on the part about "defeat[ing] despair and inspir[ing] hope." https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/31/hhs-contract-coronavirus-despair-hope-406361
tl;dr Govt propaganda is bad and maybe illegal but they can do much of the same on social media where it may be more effective.
There's a word for this type of government information program: propaganda. Spreading the word about a legit vaccine is one thing. Spreading false hope is another. Spreading false hope as part of a re-election campaign is monstrous: literally killing people to win in November.
Propaganda is a dirty word these days, largely because of its association with fascist regimes. US policymakers have not always thought so, but for most of the past century, @congressdotgov has not only discouraged it, they've prohibited the executive branch from engaging in it.
My research on propaganda focuses on national security politics, where these legislative prohibitions have been especially prominent. The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act created broad "public diplomacy" capabilities that eventually fell under the authority of the US Information Agency.
It also prohibited the distribution of any USIA material domestically. Congress has opposed domestic propaganda for several reasons, among them the excesses of the WWI Creel Committee and because it empowers the executive at the expense of the legislature.
Though I'm not as familiar with such prohibitions in the domestic policy domain, I'm aware that they exist. The government may raise awareness about programs available to the public, but there's a line (albeit a blurry one) between that and straight-up propaganda.
Presidents have found creative ways around these statutory barriers, mostly by outsourcing PR work to private organizations. AdCouncil, which began as the War Advertising Council in WWII, is a private nonprofit organization that runs PSAs.
Note the sword in the logo (1950s)
Note the sword in the logo (1950s)
Though formally independent, they have always been responsive to the White House. The Eisenhower administration was perhaps their most enthusiastic partner. Together, they exhorted the public to combat communism by donating to Radio Free Europe...
supporting defense budgets, and sending their children to church
These partnerships go beyond working with AdCouncil. My own published work shows that the White House systematically turns to private associations for political help by appointing their affiliates to national security Federal Advisory Committees. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psq.12491
Outsourcing propaganda has benefits beyond skirting legal prohibitions. Early on, public diplomacy operators learned that the stamp of official US government involvement breads skepticism among foreign audiences, and the same applies to the domestic sphere.
Which is why administrations have continued to launder propaganda through private organizations despite the collapse of Smith-Mundt's prohibitions in 2012. See Ben Rhodes JCPOA "echo chamber" for an example of coordination between the WH and ostensibly independent sources.
Smith-Mundt's prohibitions collapsed because the internet has made it impossible to prevent materials produced for overseas audiences from reaching the US. This tech has also created new opportunities to circumvent anti-propaganda laws in a way that mirrors outsourcing.
Among other things, social media are civil society platforms. Groups can recruit members, raise funds, coordinate activities, and distribute professionally crafted messages to targeted audiences. Previously, clearing barriers to media access required substantial organization.
Interest groups, think-tanks, diaspora lobbies, etc. had that capacity, which made them valuable to administrations that need PR support.
Now, social media provides those capabilities. From POTUS on Twitter to private CBP Facebook groups, this admin has used them vigorously.
Now, social media provides those capabilities. From POTUS on Twitter to private CBP Facebook groups, this admin has used them vigorously.
I'm no lawyer, but to me, those calling for regulating social media are only half right. I'd argue that it's even more urgent for Congress to restrict the use of social media by executive branch officials to restore the checks against government propaganda.
Administrations thus constrained will continue to outsource PR responsibilities to external organizations. At least they will be forced to involve civil society, which enforces some small measure of accountability that technology companies do not.
