Propaganda

   Defining the difference between news and propaganda depends on who's responsible for writing and distributing the information. When a private organization does it, it's news, but when a central government tells an information agency which stories to broadcast and how to handle them, it becomes propaganda.
   There's a move under way in the U.S. to have RT (Russian Television) and Sputnik, an Internet news operation, register as foreign agents because they are owned by the Russian government.
  But should that definition also apply to the BBC, which is owned by the British government; to CBC, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.; or even to the Voice of America, which is owned and operated by the U.S. government and spreads information reflecting American views?
   Now consider the origin of the term, propaganda. It comes from the same root that gives us "propagate," to spread. So propaganda originally referred to an operation that spreads a message. The term got a negative rating in the 1930s when a propaganda operation spread negative, bigoted and biased messages stipulated by a certain government.
   So if RT and Sputnik are to be labeled propaganda outlets and handle stories from angles dictated to it by the Kremlin, and therefore must register as agents of a foreign government, why not apply the same label to the BBC, the CBC and the Voice of America, which are also owned and operated by their respective governments?
   The difference seems to be whether the British, Canadian and U.S. governments tell the several broadcast operations how to handle their news and information broadcasts.
   Similar standards could just as easily be applied to any other broadcast operations owned and operated by any other government around the world.
   The fuss over Sputnik and RT came to light after an American reporter employed by Sputnik refused to use questions and instructions allegedly forwarded to him by the Kremlin. He was promptly fired. Since then, he has been interviewed by the FBI and has gone public. Consequently, there are demands that Sputnik and RT register as foreign agents.
  Now here's a complication: The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, which means that anyone can write, publish or broadcast information and opinions contrary to the official views of government, whether federal, state or local.
   Any move to limit or prohibit that, such as requiring a person or news outlet to register as an agent of a foreign government, or to penalize those who spread information that the American government doesn't like, would be a clear violation of the Constitution.
   Not that it hasn't been tried before. The Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in 1798, made it a crime to criticize the federal government. These laws authorized the president to deport aliens, permitted their arrest and imprisonment during wartime and made it a crime for even American citizens to "print, utter or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writing" about the government.
   Sound familiar, like it's about to be attempted again?
   At the time, the only journalists prosecuted under the new laws were editors of opposition newspapers. Fortunately, the political party that pushed for the laws was roundly defeated in 1800, and the Alien and Sedition Acts were overturned.
   The right to disagree is basic to a civil society. Any attempt to limit or cancel that right can only lead to an autocratic dictatorship.
   Fair warning: There are increasing signs that the new guy in Washington is moving to suppress disagreement of any kind, from anyone.
   That way dictatorship lies.