Secretary Hillary Clinton told the House Committee on Foreign affairs last week that it needs more money in order to spread its message through alternative media. Does this mean that Clinton is advocating for more money for propaganda?
Here's what she actually said before the committee:
"During the Cold War we did a great job in getting America's message out. After the Berlin Wall fell, we said, 'Okey, fine, enough of that, we are done,' and unfortunately we are paying a big price for it. Our private media cannot fill the gap."
She went on to state that the private news (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, MSNBC, etc.) were not doing a good enough job against rivals like Al'Jezeera, China's CCTV or Russia Today (RT).
Clinton explained this saying, "We are in an information war and we are losing that war. Al Jazeera is winning. The Chinese have opened a multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English language network. I've seen it in quite a few countries and it is quite instructive."
Fox News' Ben Swann points out that Clinton is not only saying that America is losing the propaganda war, but that she is appealing for more tax dollars to engage in it.
Swann went on to define the term Propaganda. He did so by defining it as:
1. information, esp. of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.
So this is the message (propaganda) that Clinton wants taxpayer money to help promote. Swann rightly points out that it's not necessarily the message of the American people, but the propaganda of the American government.
Watch Swann's report:Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.