---

Propaganda or plain talk
a matter of perspective

AS propaganda goes, the pre-World War II film seems heavy-handed and over the top when seen through present-day eyes.

Ominous music swells as the images emerge, signaling the grave, fallacious message of the movie -- that Japanese Americans in Hawaii were spying for the enemy before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The film, directed by John Ford of "Grapes of Wrath" fame and shot by noted cinematographer Gregg Toland, was commissioned by the government but not shown to the general public. It will be screened Friday as part of "Sunshine Week" observations of the Freedom of Information Act.

As clumsy as the film comes off now, it isn't difficult to imagine that had it been shown during the period after the attack, it would have had tremendous impact on public perceptions.

The cast of government propaganda these days is more subtle though no less insidious. Though people are more aware of attempts to influence them -- think television commercials -- propaganda brushes across fine lines and takes advantage of the mess of the media to get through to the public.

A lengthy report in The New York Times Sunday catalogued the federal government's production and distribution of "news reports" to get its views across. In its first four years, the Bush administration has spent $254 million on public relations contracts -- twice as much as the previous administration -- to create these pre-packaged reports that were broadcast by television stations, many without noting that they came directly from the government.

These reports included Iraqi Americans thanking the president after the fall of Baghdad, touting Bush's Medicare prescription drug benefits plan and segments praising U.S assistance in liberating women in Afghanistan, among others. The last piece was produced by State Department contractors, one of 59 issued in the White House's effort to build support for the war.

The effort goes far beyond the all-too-common spinning practiced by political operatives local and national, government officials, members of Congress and almost everyone who has an ax to grind or an objective to gain.

The Government Accountability Office in three instances last year ruled that the government-produced news pieces may be construed as "covert propaganda," even though television stations that aired them knew of their origins.

Similar reports generated by the State Department's Office of Broadcasting Services tout U.S. achievements in Iraq and Afghanistan in an endeavor to strengthen administration foundations for the wars in those countries. These were also distributed nationally and around the world, a possible violation of a law designed to prevent domestic circulation of government propaganda.

The problem is that though the broadcasters were aware of the government's fingers in their pies, a good number of them concealed the fact from their viewers and simply presented them as "news." Many television stations were more than glad to broadcast the material, saving them the cost of producing their own reports.

The Bush administration has dismissed the GAO determinations, saying the investigative arm of Congress does not have jurisdiction over its activities. But the question isn't exclusively about legalities. There are ethical considerations as well.

The president is free to push his agenda. He can lobby for his plan to allow individuals to divert some of their Social Security taxes to private accounts. He can do so before hand-picked audiences at so-called "town meetings" conducted across the country, financed by tax dollars. He can muzzle dissent by having critics hustled out of public spaces should they voice their opposition or ask disturbing questions.

But he and his people ought not to propagandize. If his ideas are sound, he should be able to stand up for them frankly and directly. Deception and trickery should not be in the government's quiver. In the end, the notions they bear do not endure.

---