The Fight over Government “Propaganda”

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. Ken Rhodes says:

    In your post you mention “This proposal was initially spurred by members of Congress unhappy with the Eisenhower Administration’s efforts to generate public support for its proposed health care legislation.”

    Though there was no restraining legislation proposed (that I know of), I think there were members of Congress unhappy with President Roosevelt’s “Fireside Chats” a generation prior to Eisenhower. However, I think the President speaking directly to the public meets both the spirit and the letter of your last paragraph for transparency and accountability. Direct communication by the President to the American public eliminates the ambiguity in source or context that is created by agencies issuing press releases and white papers.

    I believe that the President is neither required nor expected to remain mute on important issues. When he speaks, he tells us what he believes, what policies and priorities he favors, and what actions he supports. To attempt to curb such direct communication is to imply that we should be treated as retarded children, and leave the serious deliberations and decisions to the politicians.

  2. PrometheeFeu says:

    Another problem I see with government propaganda is that they may be using tax dollars to support passing legislation that some tax-payers oppose. It seems unacceptable to force someone to fund a propaganda campaign opposed to their own views.