In a recent address at the World Economic Forum, John Kerry expressed frustration over the challenges of free speech, claiming it makes it difficult to "build a consensus." For many, this raised the question of whether the government is looking to control public discourse to streamline its messaging, pushing the media to align with political objectives rather than focusing on unbiased reporting.
Kerry, who served as Secretary of State under the Obama administration, is no stranger to media influence. It’s worth noting that during the Obama era, significant changes were made regarding how information was disseminated to the public. The administration notably altered the rules around media engagement, such as loosening restrictions on the use of propaganda by allowing the State Department and Pentagon to target foreign and domestic audiences. This raised concerns about how the narrative surrounding key issues could be carefully crafted to suit political objectives.
The question then arises: Is Kerry’s frustration with free speech rooted in a desire for a media landscape that is more compliant with government messaging, one that prioritizes building a narrative over presenting facts? If so, it paints a troubling picture of how consensus is built—not through open dialogue and the exchange of ideas, but through control of the information flow.
This sentiment becomes even more significant when viewed through the lens of policy changes made under the Obama administration, during which Kerry served as Secretary of State. In 2012, the Obama administration supported the passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which was included in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2013. This act effectively loosened restrictions on domestic propaganda, overturning decades-old regulations that prohibited the U.S. government from using its own media productions to influence American citizens.
What is the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act?
The original Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was designed to prevent the U.S. government from propagandizing its own people. It allowed government-sponsored news and media content, primarily produced by the State Department and Pentagon, to be broadcast only to foreign audiences. The idea was to use these outlets for diplomacy abroad, not domestically.
However, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act changed all of this. The amendment allowed for U.S. government-produced news and information to be distributed within the U.S., sparking concerns that the government could begin shaping narratives for domestic consumption. Critics argued that this change opened the door for state-sponsored propaganda aimed at U.S. citizens under the guise of information dissemination.
In 2013, Congress abolished the domestic dissemination ban, which has led to a heated debate about the role of the federal government in free public discourse. Although the 2013 repeal of the domestic dissemination ban promotes greater government transparency and may help counter anti-American sentiment at home, it also gives the federal government great power to covertly influence public opinion.
Kerry’s Comments: A Call for "Controlled Consensus"?
Kerry’s recent comments at the WEF about the difficulties of building consensus in an environment with free speech align eerily with these changes. It suggests that for political figures like Kerry, free discourse and media independence make it more difficult for the government to manage the narrative.
When combined with the loosening of the rules on propaganda under the Obama administration, this raises troubling questions about the role of the media today. Are we seeing a shift toward using the press not as a free entity but as a tool to build political consensus, as Kerry hinted at?
The fact that these government actions directly target how information is shared with the American public makes Kerry’s remarks all the more alarming. It is one thing for free speech to make consensus difficult; it’s another entirely if the solution being proposed is more control over public discourse, potentially achieved through propaganda-like strategies approved by the government.
A Threat to Free Press and Free Speech
The loosening of these rules in 2013 set a dangerous precedent, one that aligns with current discussions on limiting free speech for the sake of "consensus." The American public relies on a free and independent press to report the truth and challenge power. If that press becomes merely an arm of government messaging, whether through direct influence or subtle manipulation, it threatens the core of American democracy.
Kerry’s comments and the policy changes under the Obama administration reveal a worrying trend: the pursuit of media control for the sake of political objectives. The public should be wary of any attempt to limit free speech, especially if it is framed as necessary for consensus-building.
The Media’s Role in Democracy
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and Kerry’s WEF comments serve as a reminder of the media's importance in holding power accountable. While consensus is necessary for political progress, it cannot come at the cost of free speech and independent reporting. Any attempt to stifle these freedoms, whether through changes in policy or rhetoric aimed at controlling the narrative, must be scrutinized and challenged.
"He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake".
Comments