Alarming New Law Could Allow ‘Voice Of America’ To Turn Into Trump’s Pravda

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is a federal agency with seventy-four years of history. It was created to produce pro-western news stories for distribution around the world. It was intended to advance democracy and counter propaganda in countries suffering from stiff censorship and suppression of free speech.

Donald Trump

The BBG manages outlets like the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, among others. However, its mission of late has been muted by bureaucracy and mismanagement. In an effort to address these problems Congress passed a reform bill that would phase out the bipartisan board and replace it with a CEO to be appointed by the president.

These reforms were not considered especially controversial when they were proposed. They even received some bipartisan support in Congress. However, with the election of Donald Trump, some of the initiative’s backers are having second thoughts. As Politico reported:

“President-elect Donald Trump is about to inherit a newly empowered Voice of America that some officials fear could serve as an unfettered propaganda arm for the former reality TV star who has flirted for years with launching his own network.

“Buried on page 1,404 of the National Defense Authorization Act that passed last week is a provision that would disband the bipartisan board of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the independent U.S. agency that includes Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and the Middle East Broadcast Networks.”

Trump and his cohorts have demonstrated that they are not above lying to manufacture narratives that support their interests. Consequently, the new BBG could wind up being a version of Trump TV that is “financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.” And with other recent legislation, there’s nothing to stop this agency from airing its broadcasts in the United States. This is troubling because the reformed board could produce propaganda aimed at American citizens and distribute it through conventional media and news programming.

Now some people might be thinking “So what? Isn’t that what Fox News already does?” And they would be right. Fox News is the de facto PR division of the Republican Party. And with the elevation of Trump to the White House, Fox becomes the President’s official mouthpiece. However, another production entity with a nearly billion dollar budget should not be dismissed. It’s programming could be distributed to hundreds of small TV stations throughout the country who could air it for free. This would expand the reach of the right’s propaganda to millions of new households.

The congressional managers of the bill insist that their reforms preserve a “firewall” that prohibits political influence from the White House or the new CEO. They maintain that journalists would still have a free hand to produce their own stories. But if the new CEO was inclined to throw his weight around, he could still bully his subordinates into submission. Plus he could hire journalists that were pre-screened for right-wing, ideological purity. Imagine someone like Stephen Bannon (Trump’s Strategic Advisor and former chairman of Breitbart News) in that role. And Roger Ailes, former CEO of Fox News, is looking for work after having been fired for sexual harassment. He and Trump are best buddies.

How Fox News Deceives and Controls Their Flock:
Fox Nation vs. Reality: The Fox News Cult of Ignorance.
Available now at Amazon.

Both Democratic and Republican members of the current board have expressed concerns about the reforms. They recognize the potential for abuse without strict oversight. The Washington Post notes that, “If Congress’s intention was for US broadcasting to rival the Kremlin’s, it may well get its wish.” And what would make Trump happier than to emulate his hero in Russia with his very own version of Pravda?

The Truth About Fox News And Pravda

Ordinarily the viewpoint of a biased, journalistic extension of state propaganda would hardly seem noteworthy. The tendency of such an enterprise to weight its coverage with rosy scenarios penned by government scribes would render the reporting suspect at best. But enough about Fox News…

In an article analyzing the ratings competition between American cable news networks, it is Pravda that provides the clear-eyed view of American media. Reporting that CNN beat Fox News for the first time in seven years, Pravda opined that “TV viewers preferred the ‘objective’ CNN to Fox News that justifies George Bush’s policy. The article went on to quote the views of Joe Cuthbert, whom they identify as a Columbia University journalism professor:

“Fox News, a part of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, engaged in one-sided advocacy of the stance of the current US administration, instead of providing all-round objective reports of election campaigns. Economists proved that George Bush would have never won the 2000 election but for the support from Fox News. The TV channel definitely backs up right-wing Republicans, Cuthbert considers. ‘Fox is rather the advocate of Bush’s government than a news TV channel. Now the political ship is sinking, and so is Fox.'”

This astute analysis from Pravda (which means “truth”), while accurate, needs to be taken with a bucket of salt. The article’s headline reads, “Most Americans do not even think about getting information from alternative news sources.” Few could argue with that, but there is nothing in the article that addresses that point other than the headline. And it’s obvious that the Russian version of Fox News is just as likely to propound views favorable to their political benefactors as Fox would be. In that respect they are comrades.

However, it was interesting to note their reference to economists and the 2000 election. They appear to be referring to a study (pdf), prepared by UC Berkeley and Stockholm University, that showed that Fox News may have had a discernible impact on the election that is rarely reported in the U.S.:

“We find a significant effect of the introduction of Fox News on the vote share in Presidential elections between 1996 and 2000. Republicans gained 0.4 to 0.7 percentage points in the towns which broadcast Fox News.”

In an election as close as the one in 2000, those numbers could easily have altered the outcome.

While Pravda may have hit the mark as regards Fox News and Rupert Murdoch, I would not rush to associate myself with their conclusions. They are still an arm of the political hierarchy that is more interested in manipulating the public than in informing them. Which is exactly why pseudo-journalistic organizations that are really just fronts for government propaganda are so dangerous to free societies. But as I said above, enough about Fox News…