Content uploaded by Douglas C Youvan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas C Youvan on Oct 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Inescapable Tide: How H.R. 4310 Legalizes Domestic Propaganda and
Compromises Wikipedia’s Reliable Sources
Douglas C. Youvan
doug@youvan.com
October 18, 2024
The passage of H.R. 4310, which includes the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of
2012, marked a turning point in the legal framework governing the dissemination
of government-produced media within the United States. Originally designed to
limit public diplomacy efforts to foreign audiences, the Smith-Mundt Act was
amended to allow domestic access to content created by government-funded
entities such as Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. While proponents
argued that this would enhance transparency, the unintended consequence has
been the infiltration of propaganda into trusted sources of information, including
Wikipedia. This paper explores how H.R. 4310 has blurred the lines between
independent journalism and government narratives, compromising Wikipedia’s
ability to distinguish between reliable information and agenda-driven content.
The result is a media ecosystem where propaganda is rebranded as legitimate
information, raising serious questions about the future of neutrality and reliability
in public discourse.
Keywords: H.R. 4310, Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, domestic propaganda,
public diplomacy, Wikipedia, reliable sources, Voice of America, Radio Free
Europe, government narratives, media infiltration, transparency, neutrality,
information reliability, agenda-driven content, public discourse. 35 pages.
2
I. Introduction: The Collapse of Trust
Background on H.R. 4310:
In 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, also
known as H.R. 4310, was passed into law, setting the annual budget and policy
priorities for the U.S. Department of Defense. Embedded within this sprawling
piece of legislation was the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, a small yet
significant amendment that would alter the landscape of media and information
in ways that, at the time, were barely noticed by the public. This act repealed a
long-standing legal firewall that had been in place since the end of World War II,
one that strictly prohibited government-produced media, originally created for
foreign audiences, from being disseminated within the U.S.
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was a product of the Cold War, designed to allow
the U.S. government to engage in international public diplomacy, countering
foreign propaganda through media outlets like Voice of America (VOA), Radio
Free Europe, and other state-run agencies. However, the 1948 law included an
explicit safeguard: it barred any of this content from being broadcast within the
United States to protect U.S. citizens from becoming targets of their own
government’s propaganda. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 removed
this key protection, allowing content intended for foreign audiences to be legally
broadcast domestically.
What was originally framed as a minor technical update, intended to provide
transparency and allow American citizens to access information their tax dollars
funded, has now evolved into a far more dangerous reality. By removing
restrictions on the domestic dissemination of government-produced media, the
U.S. government created a legal loophole for propaganda to flow seamlessly into
the information channels that U.S. citizens rely on, including once-trusted
platforms like Wikipedia.
A Hopeless Horizon:
At the time of its passage, few realized the full implications of the Smith-Mundt
Modernization Act. It was sold to the public and policymakers as a benign
modernization, a way for the U.S. government to be more transparent and
provide access to its foreign-targeted media to domestic audiences who might
3
want it. What was not foreseen—or at least not acknowledged—was that this
amendment would open the floodgates for domestic propaganda to legally enter
U.S. information ecosystems.
The very distinction between foreign and domestic propaganda is now blurred
beyond recognition. Content once designed to shape the opinions of foreign
populations can now be legally broadcast within the U.S. without any warning or
clear disclosure of its original intent. Media outlets, including government-
sponsored ones like Voice of America, can now directly influence domestic
discourse. Worse still, Wikipedia, which relies on what it terms "reliable sources"
for its content, may now unknowingly include government-produced propaganda
in its citations.
In this post-H.R. 4310 world, the boundary between factual reporting and agenda-
driven content is no longer clear. As government-produced material is absorbed
by mainstream news outlets, re-reported, and eventually cited by Wikipedia
editors as reliable sources, the platform becomes an unwitting vehicle for
spreading information that was never intended for a domestic audience—and
that might serve specific government interests. The result is a perfect storm,
where once-trusted platforms are transformed into vectors for content that may
be little more than propaganda, yet presented as fact.
This gradual erosion of trust in informational sources, particularly platforms like
Wikipedia, is not just a possibility—it is inevitable. Wikipedia's commitment to
using verified, reliable sources becomes meaningless in a media landscape where
government-produced content is now legally indistinguishable from independent
journalism. The platform’s very reliance on the same sources that have become
potential conduits for propaganda guarantees that truth and misinformation will
become hopelessly intertwined.
Thesis Statement:
H.R. 4310’s amendment of the Smith-Mundt Act ensures that government-
produced propaganda, now legally disseminated within the U.S., will inevitably
find its way into the very heart of trusted information platforms like Wikipedia. As
media outlets that qualify as "reliable sources" for Wikipedia increasingly
incorporate government-generated content, the line between truth and
propaganda will blur beyond recognition. This paper argues that the legal
4
framework established by H.R. 4310 guarantees that Wikipedia and similar
platforms will become unwitting conduits for government messaging, leaving little
hope for preserving informational integrity in a post-H.R. 4310 world.
II. The Smith-Mundt Act: A Fading Protection
Original Intent of the Smith-Mundt Act (1948):
In the wake of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, the United States
found itself embroiled in a global battle not just for military superiority, but for
the hearts and minds of populations around the world. The U.S. government
recognized that effective public diplomacy—disseminating messages to foreign
audiences to promote American values, counter foreign propaganda, and defend
U.S. foreign policy—was a powerful tool in this new ideological conflict.
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948—officially titled the U.S. Information and
Educational Exchange Act—was passed to formalize and regulate these efforts. It
authorized the creation of U.S. government-run media operations, such as Voice
of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe, tasked with broadcasting American
news, cultural programming, and educational content to foreign audiences in
regions vulnerable to Communist influence, particularly in Europe and later in
other parts of the world.
However, while the U.S. government sought to influence foreign audiences,
Congress recognized the potential dangers of this content being turned inward,
influencing or manipulating U.S. citizens. The framers of the Smith-Mundt Act
were acutely aware of the power of state-controlled media and sought to protect
the American public from becoming unwitting consumers of their own
government’s propaganda. As such, a key provision of the act was an explicit
prohibition on the domestic dissemination of any media produced under its
authority. No U.S. citizen was to be exposed to government-produced material
that was intended solely for foreign consumption.
The act was, at its core, a safeguard against the U.S. government turning the tools
of propaganda inward. It erected a firm barrier between foreign and domestic
influence, ensuring that government messaging targeted at foreign populations
could not legally be broadcast, published, or otherwise distributed within the
5
United States. This provision reflected a deep concern for the sanctity of the
domestic media environment, which lawmakers of the time believed should
remain independent from government influence.
The Wall Comes Down:
For decades, the Smith-Mundt Act acted as a bulwark against the potential for
government-produced propaganda to infiltrate the U.S. media landscape.
However, by the early 21st century, the global media environment had shifted
dramatically. The rise of the internet, globalized communication networks, and
the 24-hour news cycle blurred the lines between foreign and domestic
audiences. With information traveling across borders in real time, some
policymakers began to question the relevance of the Smith-Mundt Act's
restrictions, which they saw as outdated in a globalized world.
In 2012, the passage of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act within H.R. 4310
fundamentally changed the legal landscape. With a few strokes of the pen, the
amendment dismantled the strict barrier that had protected U.S. citizens from
government-produced media. The modernization act lifted the prohibition on the
domestic dissemination of content created for foreign audiences, effectively
demolishing the protection that had been in place since 1948.
The changes were framed as a means to increase transparency—to give American
citizens access to information their government was producing for overseas
audiences. Proponents of the amendment argued that U.S. taxpayers, who were
funding these efforts, deserved the right to see the content that was being
broadcast in their name. But in removing this barrier, the U.S. government
opened the floodgates for government-produced media, originally intended for
foreign audiences, to be broadcast, published, and distributed within the United
States without restriction.
This amendment signaled the end of a 70-year safeguard that had, for all its flaws,
prevented the U.S. government from using its public diplomacy tools to influence
its own citizens. With the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the U.S. government
was now legally allowed to disseminate content domestically that was designed
to sway foreign populations, including news reports, educational programs,
cultural content, and even counter-propaganda efforts. The firm barrier between
foreign and domestic audiences had fallen.
6
The Propaganda Pipeline Opens:
With the wall separating foreign and domestic audiences effectively torn down by
the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, a new pipeline for government-produced
messaging was opened. This legal change made it impossible to prevent U.S.
government content—once strictly targeted at foreign audiences—from seeping
into the domestic media ecosystem.
Under the original Smith-Mundt Act, content created by Voice of America, Radio
Free Europe, and similar entities was carefully controlled to prevent it from
reaching U.S. citizens. However, with the modernization act, there was now
nothing stopping this content from being rebroadcast domestically, whether by
news organizations, social media, or other platforms. While the government did
not explicitly mandate domestic distribution, the removal of the legal barrier
meant that content designed to influence foreign populations could now be
recycled and repurposed for U.S. audiences.
This new pipeline creates serious challenges for platforms that rely on reliable
sources, such as Wikipedia. As a repository of collective knowledge, Wikipedia
depends on what it defines as credible, authoritative sources—many of which are
mainstream media outlets or government reports. With the Smith-Mundt
Modernization Act, however, these once-reliable sources could now be tainted by
government-produced content that was never intended for domestic audiences
but has been allowed to flow freely into the U.S. media landscape.
As this government messaging becomes embedded in news reports and
journalistic articles, it eventually works its way into Wikipedia entries, which rely
heavily on citations from major news outlets. This creates a feedback loop where
government-produced content, even if originally designed for foreign audiences,
is cited and recited until it becomes indistinguishable from independent, factual
reporting. Wikipedia, a platform built on the assumption that sources can be
verified and trusted, now faces an existential challenge: how to separate truth
from propaganda in a media ecosystem where the two have become hopelessly
intertwined.
The result is a media landscape where government influence is pervasive and
undetectable. The very nature of propaganda—subtle, persuasive, and often
masquerading as objective truth—means that government-produced content,
7
once disseminated domestically, can infiltrate all levels of media consumption.
Platforms like Wikipedia, which are trusted by millions as objective sources of
information, now face the impossible task of filtering out content that is legally
sanctioned but designed to influence public perception.
This propaganda pipeline will not remain confined to fringe platforms or obscure
corners of the internet. Instead, it will reach the very heart of trusted information
systems, embedding itself in news articles, academic journals, and eventually in
Wikipedia pages that millions of people rely on daily. H.R. 4310's modernization
of the Smith-Mundt Act ensures that government-produced messaging will flow
unchecked into the most trusted corners of the internet, creating a media
environment where truth and propaganda are impossible to distinguish.
III. H.R. 4310: The Propaganda Floodgate
Legalizing Domestic Dissemination:
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, embedded in H.R. 4310, contains a
critical provision that fundamentally alters how government-produced media,
once strictly limited to foreign audiences, can now be disseminated within the
United States. The language of the amendment lifts the legal prohibition on the
domestic dissemination of materials produced by entities like Voice of America
(VOA), Radio Free Europe, and other U.S. government-funded media
organizations, removing a safeguard that had been in place since 1948.
Prior to H.R. 4310, the Smith-Mundt Act created a clear distinction between
domestic and foreign-targeted government media. U.S. government-produced
content intended to influence or inform foreign audiences—whether news
broadcasts, educational programming, or propaganda campaigns—was expressly
forbidden from being aired, published, or disseminated within the U.S. This
firewall was intended to protect American citizens from their own government’s
public diplomacy efforts, ensuring that U.S. taxpayers wouldn't unknowingly
become consumers of government-sponsored narratives designed to serve U.S.
interests abroad.
H.R. 4310, however, changed the game. With the removal of this firewall,
government-produced media, once strictly aimed at influencing foreign
8
populations, is now allowed to be legally broadcast, published, or distributed
domestically. The act includes language that essentially enables the distribution of
foreign-directed propaganda within U.S. borders, allowing it to circulate freely
within domestic media channels.
The practical consequence of this change is that content designed with a foreign
audience in mind—content meant to shape opinions, bolster U.S. foreign policy,
or counter foreign propaganda—can now legally reach the American public. This
opens the door for government messaging to be absorbed into U.S. media,
whether through traditional news outlets, social media, or online platforms like
Wikipedia.
Though government-produced media may still have foreign audiences as its
primary target, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act ensures that there are no
longer any legal barriers preventing this content from being made accessible to
U.S. citizens. Whether by accident or design, the door is now wide open for
domestic influence through foreign-directed propaganda, without clear disclosure
or accountability regarding its origins.
No Real Barriers Left:
At the heart of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act is the notion that U.S. citizens
could now access government-produced content "on request." This phrase—"on
request"—suggests that government-produced media is not automatically
broadcast within the United States but is instead made available only if someone
actively seeks it out. On the surface, this appears to be a limited and controlled
mechanism for transparency, giving citizens access to the information their tax
dollars are funding abroad.
In reality, however, this vague promise of "on request" dissemination offers little
to no protection from the flood of government-produced media that can now
saturate domestic media outlets. The concept of "on request" is essentially a
meaningless formality in the age of the internet, social media, and the 24-hour
news cycle. Any individual or media outlet can easily request and redistribute this
content, and once it enters the public domain, it can be widely shared,
rebroadcast, and re-published without any further restrictions.
9
Moreover, in practice, it is highly unlikely that government-produced media will
remain in a silo, accessed only by individuals who deliberately seek it out. Media
organizations, bloggers, social media platforms, and content aggregators can now
freely request and distribute this content to mass audiences. Once a government-
produced report or broadcast enters the public sphere, it becomes impossible to
control or limit its spread. The notion of controlled access evaporates, and what
begins as "on request" dissemination rapidly turns into unrestricted distribution.
Furthermore, the content itself—often designed for foreign audiences—can
quickly be repackaged, rebroadcast, and repurposed by news outlets that rely on
government sources for international coverage. Journalists may inadvertently or
intentionally use government-produced content in their reporting, not realizing
that the material was originally created with a foreign propaganda agenda. As this
content seeps into mainstream news coverage, its origins and intent become
obscured, making it even more difficult for the public to discern between
independent journalism and government-produced messaging.
In effect, H.R. 4310 has removed any meaningful barriers to the domestic
dissemination of propaganda. The provision to allow dissemination "on request"
is a legal fig leaf, disguising the fact that once government-produced content is
released, it is free to saturate the domestic media landscape in whatever form it
takes, including being cited as a reliable source on platforms like Wikipedia.
Purpose or Excuse?:
Proponents of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act framed the amendment as a
matter of transparency and access. The argument was that U.S. taxpayers, who
fund government public diplomacy efforts, should have the right to see what their
government is broadcasting abroad in their name. By making this content
accessible to U.S. citizens, the government claimed it was promoting openness
and accountability, giving the public access to “informational resources” that
were previously hidden behind the legal firewall of the original Smith-Mundt Act.
In reality, however, this claim of transparency serves as little more than a pretext
for the domestic dissemination of propaganda. By repackaging foreign-directed
content as mere “informational resources,” the government has cleverly
positioned itself as a defender of the public’s right to know, while simultaneously
10
eroding the safeguards that once protected the public from targeted government
messaging.
The removal of the firewall between foreign and domestic audiences is less about
empowering citizens and more about allowing the U.S. government to expand its
reach within the domestic information ecosystem. Under the guise of
transparency, H.R. 4310 enables the government to flood the media with content
that was never intended for domestic consumption, without any meaningful
oversight or accountability regarding how this content is used.
This repackaging of foreign-directed propaganda as domestic informational
resources presents a fundamental ethical dilemma: Should the U.S. government
be allowed to shape the domestic media environment under the pretense of
transparency? Or is this simply an excuse for the legalization of domestic
propaganda, with no real safeguards in place to prevent its misuse?
The legal changes under H.R. 4310 provide a convenient excuse for disseminating
government-produced media in ways that directly influence U.S. citizens, all while
maintaining the illusion of openness and public access. By allowing this content to
flow into domestic media channels and platforms like Wikipedia, the government
can now indirectly shape public opinion, leveraging the trust that people place in
mainstream news outlets and information platforms. What began as an excuse
for transparency has now become a vehicle for influence, with the government
expanding its ability to control the narrative, both abroad and at home.
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act has created a propaganda floodgate. Its legal
framework, under the guise of transparency, has cleared the way for government-
produced media to permeate all levels of the domestic information ecosystem,
with no real barriers left to prevent its spread. Platforms like Wikipedia, which
rely on traditional media and government sources for credible information, are
particularly vulnerable to this invisible influence, leaving the public with fewer
and fewer places to turn for unbiased, reliable information.
11
IV. The Wikipedia Dilemma: Infiltrating Reliable Sources
Wikipedia’s Illusion of Reliability:
Wikipedia, one of the largest and most frequently accessed repositories of
knowledge, was built on the premise that information should be collaboratively
curated and grounded in reliable sources. With millions of entries spanning topics
from science and history to politics and current events, the platform relies heavily
on the work of its volunteer editors to ensure that its articles are factually
accurate and sourced from credible, independent authorities. To this end,
Wikipedia maintains stringent guidelines for determining what constitutes a
reliable source, generally favoring established media outlets, peer-reviewed
academic papers, government reports, and respected publications.
However, this foundational premise of reliability is now increasingly exposed as
an illusion, particularly in a post-H.R. 4310 world where the lines between
government-produced content and independent journalism have been blurred
beyond recognition. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act’s amendment to H.R.
4310, which allows for the domestic dissemination of government-produced
content, opens up the door for such content to infiltrate the very sources
Wikipedia deems reliable.
In a media landscape where trusted outlets such as Voice of America (VOA), Radio
Free Europe, and even major news networks may now disseminate government-
approved narratives domestically, it becomes increasingly difficult for Wikipedia’s
editors—and the general public—to distinguish between independent reporting
and government-influenced narratives. The illusion of reliability persists as
Wikipedia articles cite these media sources without realizing that they may be
relying on information that was originally created with a government agenda for
foreign audiences in mind.
Compounding this issue is the fact that Wikipedia’s volunteer editors may not
have the resources, time, or expertise to adequately assess the origins of content.
Wikipedia’s guidelines do not currently provide mechanisms to flag government-
produced content if it has been lawfully disseminated under H.R. 4310. This
means that even when government messaging has been legally introduced into
the domestic media ecosystem, it can make its way onto Wikipedia as trusted
12
information, perpetuating the illusion that Wikipedia remains neutral and
objective.
No Escape from Government Narratives:
The changes brought about by H.R. 4310 ensure that there is now no escape from
government-produced content entering Wikipedia’s vast information network.
With the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, government narratives are no longer
restricted to foreign audiences; they are legally broadcast within the U.S., where
they can be picked up by news organizations, amplified through social media, and,
inevitably, referenced within Wikipedia articles.
The problem lies in Wikipedia’s dependence on external sources to validate the
information presented in its entries. When news outlets or government websites,
traditionally seen as reliable, begin to distribute government-produced media,
Wikipedia’s editors naturally assume these sources remain credible. However,
these outlets, particularly those like Voice of America—which is now legally
allowed to disseminate foreign-targeted content domestically—may themselves
be repackaging government-approved narratives, creating a situation where
government messaging is presented as objective truth.
The scope of this problem is vast, as government-produced content could begin
to infiltrate a wide range of Wikipedia topics—from foreign policy and
international relations to more subtle areas like cultural programming or
historical accounts. For example:
• Foreign policy articles: Citations of news outlets that source their
information from government-funded agencies could result in biased
narratives finding their way into Wikipedia’s pages.
• Historical and political events: Government-influenced media can frame
certain global events in a light favorable to U.S. policy, and such framing
may subtly influence Wikipedia’s coverage of those events.
Wikipedia’s editors are now faced with an impossible task: maintaining neutrality
and objectivity in an information landscape saturated with lawful propaganda.
Editors would have to be able to recognize when a “reliable source” has been
influenced by government messaging—something that is not easily detectable,
especially when the content originates from respected media outlets that have
13
historically been trusted. Moreover, the reality is that Wikipedia, as a massive
platform, cannot possibly track or flag every potential instance where
government-produced content has infiltrated a reliable source.
As these narratives spread and become embedded within articles, it becomes
increasingly clear that there is no longer a reliable way to guarantee neutrality on
Wikipedia’s platform. What is presented as objective, well-sourced information
may in fact be steeped in government agendas, making it impossible for readers
to discern the difference between independent analysis and government
messaging.
The Death of Objectivity:
At the heart of Wikipedia’s mission is a commitment to neutrality, often referred
to in its guidelines as the Neutral Point of View (NPOV). Wikipedia’s reliance on
verifiable sources, coupled with its guidelines for fairness and balance, was meant
to ensure that the platform provided a neutral presentation of facts. However,
H.R. 4310’s changes to the Smith-Mundt Act effectively erode the very
foundations of this objectivity.
Government-funded entities like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, which
once broadcast exclusively to foreign audiences, can now legally broadcast their
content domestically. When these sources are cited in Wikipedia articles, they are
trusted by default because of their longstanding reputation for accuracy in
reporting. Yet, under the new legal framework, these outlets are now free to
distribute content that was designed for foreign propaganda, fundamentally
undermining the neutrality that Wikipedia strives for.
As government-produced content seeps into these outlets, Wikipedia’s core
promise of neutrality and integrity is destroyed. The platform is, by its very
nature, vulnerable to the media sources it depends on. If those sources become
vehicles for government messaging, then Wikipedia, by citing them, becomes an
unwitting conduit for propaganda.
This represents a death of objectivity on Wikipedia. The platform’s very structure
depends on its editors trusting that the sources they rely on are not influenced by
outside agendas, particularly government ones. But in the wake of H.R. 4310, it is
no longer possible to make this assumption. Government narratives, once
14
restricted to foreign audiences, can now legally shape the content that appears in
U.S. news outlets and on widely used information platforms like Wikipedia. What
was once a bastion of collaborative, neutral knowledge has now been subtly co-
opted by forces that Wikipedia was never equipped to guard against.
The fallout of this infiltration is profound: millions of users access Wikipedia daily,
trusting it as a source of accurate, balanced information. But as the distinction
between independent journalism and government-produced media becomes
harder to discern, Wikipedia’s readers will increasingly be exposed to biased
narratives that masquerade as objective fact. The very ideal that Wikipedia was
built on—providing neutral, community-driven, and reliable information—is now
in peril.
In the end, H.R. 4310’s changes represent a deathblow to the neutrality and
objectivity that Wikipedia once promised. With no clear way to filter out
government-produced content, Wikipedia will become a shadow of its former
self, a platform that presents not the unbiased truth, but a mishmash of
narratives shaped by government agendas, cloaked in the appearance of
credibility and reliability.
V. Examples of the Inevitable: Case Studies in Government Content
Public Diplomacy Becomes Domestic Messaging:
The most direct and troubling consequence of the Smith-Mundt Modernization
Act within H.R. 4310 is that government-produced media, once targeted
exclusively at foreign audiences, can now be disseminated domestically and end
up influencing the U.S. public through media outlets, social networks, and even
platforms like Wikipedia. Below are both hypothetical and real-world examples
that illustrate how public diplomacy—content created to influence foreign
populations—has become an insidious form of domestic messaging.
1. Hypothetical Example: Voice of America’s Coverage of U.S. Foreign Policy
Consider an article on Wikipedia about U.S. involvement in a complex
international conflict, such as the Syrian Civil War or U.S. relations with
Iran. Prior to the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, outlets like Voice of
America (VOA), which is funded by the U.S. government, would produce
15
content for foreign audiences to convey the U.S. government’s position on
these conflicts, sometimes in an attempt to shape international opinion in a
manner favorable to U.S. interests. Such content would traditionally be off-
limits for domestic audiences.
However, after the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, VOA's foreign-directed
content can legally be rebroadcast in the U.S. or picked up by domestic news
outlets. As a result, Wikipedia editors, following standard sourcing practices,
might cite VOA articles in entries about U.S. foreign policy without realizing that
the information originates from a government-funded source with a specific
agenda. What began as public diplomacy—content designed to influence the
perceptions of foreign populations—now becomes part of domestic discourse,
subtly shaping the public's understanding of foreign affairs on platforms they
trust to be objective.
2. Real-World Example: U.S. Global Media’s Role in International Narratives
Another example can be drawn from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
(RFE/RL), which has been a major player in shaping narratives in Eastern
Europe and Eurasia, particularly regarding U.S.-Russia relations. RFE/RL’s
content, designed to counter Russian propaganda and promote democratic
values, is primarily funded by the U.S. government. Post-H.R. 4310, the
media produced by RFE/RL can be legally disseminated in the U.S. and may
be picked up by U.S. news organizations or even cited in Wikipedia articles.
For instance, if Wikipedia editors writing an article on Russia’s involvement in the
Ukraine conflict cite RFE/RL, they may unwittingly be referencing government-
produced content designed for propagandistic purposes. As this content is cycled
through U.S. media and incorporated into Wikipedia, it enters the domestic
information ecosystem as an authoritative source—yet its origins are tied to U.S.
government messaging intended to influence foreign audiences. This creates a
dangerous blurring of the line between independent journalism and government-
sponsored narratives.
3. Hypothetical Example: Human Rights Reports Another hypothetical
scenario could involve U.S. government-produced human rights reports,
distributed by agencies like the U.S. Department of State, which are
frequently cited in Wikipedia articles on global human rights issues. These
16
reports are designed to provide a government perspective on the human
rights records of other countries, but with H.R. 4310 in effect, such reports
can now enter domestic discourse and be cited as reliable sources on
Wikipedia, despite their inherently political nature.
If a Wikipedia article on the human rights situation in North Korea, for example,
cites a report from the U.S. State Department or Voice of America, it may appear
to be drawing from an authoritative source. However, readers may not be aware
that such reports are often influenced by diplomatic priorities and are used to
support U.S. geopolitical interests. What might look like unbiased, fact-based
reporting could, in reality, be government-produced messaging designed to shape
public opinion, not just in foreign countries but now within the U.S. as well.
A Circular Echo of Misinformation:
One of the most troubling consequences of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act
is the creation of self-reinforcing cycles of content in which government-produced
information is repeatedly cited and re-cited, ultimately giving it the veneer of
authoritative truth, even though it may have originated from an agenda-driven
source. This creates what can be termed a circular echo of misinformation, where
biased or propagandistic content is recycled across various platforms and media
outlets, gaining credibility simply by virtue of its repeated appearance in multiple
contexts.
1. Step 1: Government-Produced Content Enters the Media Ecosystem The
first step in this circular cycle occurs when government-produced content,
designed for foreign audiences, is picked up by U.S. media outlets and
distributed domestically. This could be content from outlets like Voice of
America, Radio Free Europe, or even direct government reports published
by the Department of Defense or the State Department. Once this content
enters the domestic information ecosystem, it begins to take on the
appearance of independent journalism or neutral reporting.
2. Step 2: Media Outlets and Social Media Amplify the Content After being
introduced into the domestic media landscape, government-produced
content is often amplified by secondary sources. News organizations may
republish this content or incorporate it into their own reporting, often
without clearly disclosing its origins. Social media platforms further
17
accelerate this process as users share articles, videos, and reports,
unwittingly spreading government-influenced narratives to their followers.
3. Step 3: Wikipedia Cites Media Sources As media outlets amplify this
content, Wikipedia editors—seeking reliable sources for new or existing
entries—may cite these articles. Because Wikipedia depends on sources
like news outlets, government reports, and established publications, the
original government-produced content finds its way into Wikipedia’s
citations, often without any disclosure that the content originated from a
U.S. government agency.
4. Step 4: Government Content Gains Credibility Through Repetition Once this
content has been cited in Wikipedia, it gains an air of authoritativeness and
begins to appear across other platforms and sources. When subsequent
writers or editors—either on Wikipedia or in news outlets—rely on
Wikipedia’s citations, they may incorporate the same government-
produced content into their own reporting or writing, creating a self-
reinforcing loop where biased or agenda-driven narratives become
entrenched simply because they are repeated often enough. The content
now feels more authoritative, not because of its factual basis, but because
it has appeared in multiple seemingly independent sources.
5. Step 5: The Circular Echo Amplifies Itself As more sources cite the same
government-produced content, it becomes increasingly difficult to trace the
original source of the information. What began as government-produced
messaging for foreign audiences has now become fully integrated into
domestic media and Wikipedia, creating a circular echo that makes it nearly
impossible to distinguish propaganda from independent journalism. The
result is a media environment where misinformation or biased content can
gain legitimacy through sheer repetition.
This circular echo of misinformation is particularly dangerous because it operates
under the radar, without readers or editors even realizing that they are being
exposed to government-produced content. As Wikipedia articles cite sources that
themselves rely on government messaging, the line between truth and
propaganda becomes blurred, and the authority of Wikipedia as a neutral
18
platform is undermined. Over time, this cycle can have a profound impact on
public knowledge, as biased narratives become entrenched and accepted as fact.
In a world where H.R. 4310 enables the free flow of government-produced media
into the domestic sphere, the potential for self-reinforcing misinformation is
enormous, and platforms like Wikipedia are uniquely vulnerable to this infiltration
of content. The cumulative effect is that propaganda becomes indistinguishable
from reliable information, leaving the public with fewer tools to discern the truth.
VI. The Unraveling of Trust: Media’s Role in Propagating Propaganda
Wikipedia’s Dependence on News Sources:
At its core, Wikipedia functions as a collaborative, user-driven encyclopedia,
where information is vetted and verified based on citations from reliable sources.
These sources include mainstream news outlets, academic publications, and
government reports, all of which are considered authoritative. This system is
designed to ensure the accuracy and neutrality of Wikipedia’s content by relying
on the assumption that its cited sources are themselves factual and unbiased.
However, in the post-H.R. 4310 landscape, this reliance on news media as trusted
sources is increasingly problematic. As the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act
removed the prohibition on the domestic dissemination of government-produced
media, many news outlets have started to integrate content created by U.S.
government entities like Voice of America (VOA) or Radio Free Europe (RFE).
These government-produced materials, originally intended to influence foreign
audiences, are now being legally broadcast, repurposed, and rebroadcast within
the U.S.
Media outlets, even those with established reputations, now lawfully incorporate
government-produced content into their reporting, whether knowingly or not.
News stories covering international events, foreign policy, or global conflicts
might unknowingly rely on government-sourced narratives, either by citing
government-produced reports or using journalists embedded with government
agencies. This makes it increasingly difficult for the average Wikipedia editor, or
even a well-informed reader, to identify when government messaging has
infiltrated these sources.
19
Wikipedia, which depends on these same media outlets to source its articles, is
thus exposed to government propaganda. News outlets that once prided
themselves on journalistic independence may now be publishing or republishing
content that originated from government-funded sources. These sources often
blend seamlessly into mainstream reporting, making it nearly impossible to
distinguish independent journalism from government-sponsored narratives.
This is particularly evident in cases involving foreign policy or national security,
where government influence over information is often strongest. A Wikipedia
entry on a current international conflict, for example, might rely on articles from
well-known news outlets that have cited Voice of America reports, which, in turn,
may reflect the U.S. government's position on the matter. As this content is
republished and referenced by other media outlets, it gains credibility, even
though its origins are rooted in government-sponsored messaging.
The Hopeless Fight for Transparency:
Despite Wikipedia’s best efforts to maintain transparency and neutrality, the
Smith-Mundt Modernization Act makes it impossible for the platform to
effectively keep government-produced propaganda out of its content. Wikipedia's
transparency guidelines are built around the idea that readers should be able to
verify the origin of any piece of information by tracing it back to reliable, third-
party sources. Editors are instructed to prioritize well-established, reputable
publications when citing information.
However, in the current media environment, where government-produced
content is legally disseminated through mainstream news outlets, this standard is
increasingly difficult to uphold. As government narratives are picked up by
established media and seamlessly integrated into regular news cycles, the line
between propaganda and factual content blurs. Even Wikipedia’s most diligent
editors are unlikely to notice when a trusted news outlet has been influenced by
government narratives, as the content itself may not be flagged or clearly labeled
as originating from a government-funded source.
For example, consider a news story on U.S.-Russia relations, which cites a report
by Radio Free Europe—a U.S. government-funded news service. The average
Wikipedia editor, unaware of the origin of this content, might cite this report as a
reliable source for information on Russia’s geopolitical actions. While the report
20
itself might be factually accurate, it is ultimately shaped by the U.S. government’s
strategic interests in countering Russian influence. The agenda behind the content
is obscured, making it impossible for editors or readers to recognize that the
information they are consuming has been influenced by public diplomacy efforts
rather than independent journalism.
This creates a hopeless fight for transparency on Wikipedia. As government-
produced content becomes increasingly indistinguishable from independent
reporting, Wikipedia’s ability to provide neutral, factual information is severely
compromised. Even if editors were aware of the origins of every source they used,
the pervasiveness of government narratives in mainstream media makes it
impractical to weed out these influences entirely. The platform’s commitment to
transparency, while noble, becomes increasingly futile in the face of a media
landscape saturated with lawful propaganda.
Reliable in Name Only:
The most troubling consequence of H.R. 4310 is that it has rendered Wikipedia’s
definition of "reliable sources" unreliable. Historically, Wikipedia has relied on its
citations policy to ensure the integrity of its content. By prioritizing well-
established news outlets and peer-reviewed publications, Wikipedia has
maintained a standard of reliability that has made it one of the most widely used
information platforms in the world. But with government-produced content now
legally embedded within many of these same news outlets, the platform’s system
of trust is rapidly degrading.
News organizations that once served as beacons of journalistic independence are
now vectors for disinformation—not necessarily because they intend to mislead,
but because they are now part of a media ecosystem that is legally allowed to
repurpose government-produced propaganda. As these outlets publish and
republish government content, often without full disclosure of its origins, they
degrade their own standards of reliability, taking Wikipedia down with them.
The concept of "reliable sources" thus becomes a relic of a bygone era, when
news outlets could be trusted to operate independently of government influence.
Now, even the most reputable sources can unwittingly be part of a propaganda
pipeline, where government narratives are introduced into the media ecosystem
and then repeated and amplified by secondary outlets. These sources may remain
21
"reliable" in name, but their content is increasingly tainted by agenda-driven
information.
For example, a Wikipedia article on a humanitarian crisis in the Middle East might
cite a report from a major news network. Unknown to the editor, this report may
have relied on content from Voice of America, which was legally disseminated
under H.R. 4310. While the report may still adhere to journalistic standards, the
fact that it includes government-produced narratives compromises its
independence. By the time this content reaches Wikipedia, it has passed through
so many layers of media that its origins are obscured—yet it is still labeled as a
"reliable source."
This degradation of reliability is particularly dangerous because Wikipedia’s
reputation as a neutral platform depends on its ability to vet sources effectively.
As government-produced content seeps into more and more media outlets, it will
become increasingly difficult for Wikipedia editors to find unbiased, independent
sources for their citations. The result is that Wikipedia’s "reliable sources" are, in
many cases, reliable in name only. The content may appear objective, but it is
often shaped by government narratives that the editors and readers are unaware
of.
Over time, this process will leave the public with no place to turn for objective,
reliable information. As mainstream media outlets continue to incorporate
government-produced content and Wikipedia continues to cite these outlets, the
distinction between fact and propaganda will become nearly impossible to
discern. The unraveling of trust in both media and Wikipedia will be complete,
leaving users to navigate a sea of information where reliability is no longer
guaranteed, and the truth becomes increasingly elusive.
VII. The Ethical Void: Propaganda’s Unstoppable March
Propaganda Rebranded as Information:
With the passage of H.R. 4310 and the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, the U.S.
government gained the legal authority to disseminate propaganda domestically,
but under a guise that is much more palatable to the public: “informational
resources.” What was once explicitly labeled as public diplomacy or foreign-
22
directed propaganda has now been rebranded as information intended for
broader public consumption, including U.S. citizens. This change represents the
crossing of an ethical boundary, one that had been in place since the end of
World War II and that served as a safeguard to prevent government narratives
from influencing domestic opinion.
In the post-H.R. 4310 world, government-produced media—content originally
designed to persuade foreign audiences of the merits of U.S. policy, military
operations, or cultural values—has become indistinguishable from the kind of
objective, independent information that the public assumes they are consuming
when they turn to news outlets or platforms like Wikipedia. The distinction
between propaganda and independent information has been erased, and the
ethical dilemma of influencing domestic opinion is now legally resolved in favor of
government interests.
In essence, propaganda has been effectively rebranded as legitimate information,
freed from the stigma of manipulation or coercion. Under the Smith-Mundt
Modernization Act, the government’s ability to influence public opinion is no
longer bound by ethical considerations. It can now legally create, disseminate,
and promote narratives through established media outlets, blurring the line
between news and propaganda.
The ethical void created by this shift is vast. The government is no longer
constrained by any meaningful ethical guidelines when it comes to shaping
domestic discourse. What was once foreign-directed propaganda is now legally
part of the domestic media ecosystem, and the public is left with little protection
against subtle forms of manipulation. By removing the legal prohibitions that kept
propaganda from reaching U.S. audiences, H.R. 4310 has allowed for the
unchecked spread of government narratives masquerading as neutral
information.
No Accountability:
One of the most damaging consequences of the legal changes introduced by H.R.
4310 is the lack of accountability that now pervades the media landscape. By
allowing government-produced content to be broadcast, published, and
disseminated domestically, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act has created a
23
legal framework in which there is no recourse or defense against the flood of
government-produced narratives that are now embedded in U.S. media.
Platforms like Wikipedia, which were once seen as bastions of neutrality and
information transparency, are now powerless to guard against the infiltration of
government narratives. Because government-produced content is now legally
allowed to circulate within the domestic media ecosystem, Wikipedia editors and
other content curators have no way of knowing when the information they are
relying on has been influenced by government interests.
This legal framework ensures that there is no accountability when propaganda
infiltrates trusted platforms. Wikipedia, for example, relies on media sources that
meet its criteria for reliability, but if those sources are unknowingly recycling
government-produced content, there is little that editors or the platform itself
can do to filter out these narratives. There is no requirement for media outlets to
disclose when they are using government-sourced material, which means that
even if Wikipedia wanted to hold these sources accountable, it would have no
practical way to do so.
The problem extends beyond Wikipedia to other platforms that aggregate,
distribute, or curate information. News outlets, social media platforms, and
academic journals are all vulnerable to the same lack of accountability. As
government content becomes more deeply entrenched in the media ecosystem,
it becomes increasingly difficult to track its origins, much less hold anyone
accountable for its spread. The public is left to assume that the information they
consume is objective, while the invisible hand of government influence quietly
shapes their perceptions.
This lack of accountability represents a complete collapse of the ethical standards
that once governed the dissemination of information in a democratic society. The
government is now able to legally influence public opinion, with no oversight or
consequences for the manipulation of information. The public, in turn, is left with
no tools to challenge or even recognize this influence, as the very platforms they
rely on—such as Wikipedia—are incapable of distinguishing fact from agenda-
driven content.
24
A Cynical Future:
The original intent behind platforms like Wikipedia was to democratize
information, offering a collaborative, transparent space where knowledge could
be freely shared and independently verified. Wikipedia’s foundational principles
include the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and reliance on reliable, independent
sources to ensure that the information it provides is factual and unbiased. In
many ways, Wikipedia was conceived as a counterweight to traditional media
gatekeepers, offering an alternative model of knowledge creation based on
community-driven accountability rather than the influence of powerful
institutions.
However, in the post-H.R. 4310 world, this idealistic vision of open, democratic
information is being systematically dismantled. Platforms like Wikipedia, which
once prided themselves on being independent of institutional biases, are now
becoming tools for the very entities they were designed to bypass. The
introduction of government-produced content into the media ecosystem,
combined with the lack of transparency and accountability, means that Wikipedia
and similar platforms are now unwittingly amplifying government narratives
under the guise of reliable information.
The cynicism of this future cannot be overstated. Wikipedia’s community-driven
model—once seen as a triumph of open knowledge—has become vulnerable to
manipulation by the state. The ideal of neutrality, once enshrined in Wikipedia’s
editorial policies, is now impossible to uphold, as government-produced content
blends seamlessly with the trusted sources Wikipedia relies on. This process
transforms Wikipedia from a platform for democratized information into a tool of
soft power, where government interests are subtly embedded in the very fabric
of the content that millions of people rely on for knowledge.
In this cynical future, the promise of platforms like Wikipedia—where knowledge
was meant to be free from institutional bias—is replaced by a dark reality, where
government narratives have the power to shape public discourse under the guise
of transparency and reliability. The public, unaware of the propaganda pipeline
that feeds into the sources they trust, consumes information that is increasingly
tainted by hidden agendas.
25
As platforms like Wikipedia become conduits for government influence, the very
idea of objective truth becomes fractured. The public no longer has a clear path to
unbiased information, as even the most trusted platforms are co-opted by
narratives designed to serve government interests. This future represents the
death of trust in the information landscape, where democratized platforms are no
longer capable of fulfilling their original promise and are instead co-opted into the
very power structures they were meant to challenge.
In the end, the legal framework established by H.R. 4310 ensures that
propaganda’s march is unstoppable, and platforms like Wikipedia are helpless to
prevent it. The result is a profound erosion of public trust, not only in the
government but in the very institutions that were supposed to safeguard
knowledge. What emerges is a media landscape where information is no longer
neutral, and the public is left with no clear way to discern truth from agenda-
driven content, trapped in a cynical future where propaganda reigns supreme.
VIII. Legal and Regulatory Abdication
Laws Written to Fail:
The passage of H.R. 4310 and its embedded Smith-Mundt Modernization Act
creates a legal framework that is uniquely crafted to prevent any meaningful
recourse against the domestic dissemination of government-produced
propaganda. At the heart of this issue is the way in which the law itself protects
the very activities it enables. Under the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, the
government was explicitly prohibited from disseminating propaganda within the
United States. However, with the modernization introduced in H.R. 4310, this
legal barrier was erased, allowing government-produced content designed for
foreign audiences to now be legally distributed domestically.
This structural change means that government messaging, which was once
confined to foreign public diplomacy efforts, can now legally enter the U.S. media
ecosystem. This has created a situation where misinformation or propaganda
distributed by the U.S. government is no longer illegal within the country’s
borders. The very act of producing and distributing content with the intent to
influence foreign populations—an act that often involves shaping perceptions and
26
controlling narratives—has now been extended to domestic audiences without
violating the law.
By legalizing the domestic dissemination of foreign-directed content, H.R. 4310
effectively removes the possibility of any legal recourse for challenging the use of
government-produced media within the U.S. Once it enters the domestic
information ecosystem, this content is protected by the law, even if it ultimately
serves as propaganda. This structure leaves no room for legal challenges based on
the nature or origin of the information itself.
For example, if a U.S. citizen were to discover that a news outlet was airing
government-produced content without disclosing its origin, there would be no
legal avenue to contest this. The dissemination of such content has already been
made legal by H.R. 4310, rendering it immune from accusations of misleading or
manipulative practices. The law is structured in such a way that it legitimizes the
very activities it was previously designed to prevent. By framing government-
produced media as “informational resources” that are made available “on
request,” the law shields the government from any claims that its actions amount
to domestic propaganda.
This creates a scenario where the law is written to fail in protecting the public
from government influence over the media. The structure of H.R. 4310
guarantees that there will be no meaningful legal recourse against the use of
government narratives within the U.S. This failure is not incidental; it is inherent
to the law’s design, which removes legal obstacles to the dissemination of
government-controlled information and leaves the public with no protection
against the subtle manipulation of media content.
No Room for Reform:
The scope of H.R. 4310 is so broad and encompassing that it leaves little to no
room for meaningful regulatory reform. The changes introduced by the Smith-
Mundt Modernization Act were justified on the basis of increasing transparency—
ostensibly allowing U.S. citizens to access information that their government was
broadcasting abroad. In reality, however, these changes opened the floodgates
for government messaging to circulate within the domestic media space without
adequate oversight or disclosure mechanisms.
27
Efforts to reform the law and introduce safeguards against government influence
in domestic media face significant challenges. The language of H.R. 4310 does not
require any clear disclosure of when media content originates from a
government-funded source, meaning that reforming the law to ensure
transparency would require massive regulatory overhauls that could face
opposition from political actors who benefit from the law’s current structure.
Moreover, any attempt to introduce new regulatory frameworks would face the
inherent challenge of the globalized media environment. In today’s world, where
information crosses borders instantly via the internet, it is increasingly difficult to
limit the reach of government-produced content. Even if domestic media outlets
were required to disclose the origin of any government-funded content they
publish or broadcast, the digital age allows for the rapid, unregulated spread of
such information across social media, blogs, and independent news outlets.
In practical terms, this means that regulatory agencies—even if empowered to
track and label government-produced content—would be overwhelmed by the
volume of information circulating online. The sheer ubiquity of media in the
digital age makes it nearly impossible to monitor the source of every piece of
content. Even with the best of intentions, efforts to introduce transparency and
accountability would struggle to keep pace with the speed and scope of the
modern media landscape.
The structure of H.R. 4310 leaves no realistic options for regulatory changes that
could counter the flood of government narratives now permeating domestic
media. The law is designed to allow government-produced content to circulate
freely, without the burden of disclosure or accountability, and any attempt to
reform this structure would likely be seen as an attack on government
transparency rather than an effort to safeguard against propaganda. As a result,
the lack of political will to enact reform, combined with the complexity of
regulating a global media environment, ensures that any reform efforts would be
ineffectual at best.
The Futility of Legal Challenges:
Any legal challenges to the domestic dissemination of government-produced
content under H.R. 4310 are doomed to fail because the law itself protects the
activities it allows. As previously discussed, the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act
28
removed the legal barriers that once prevented government-controlled media
from influencing U.S. citizens. As a result, the dissemination of such media is now
legal and protected by federal law.
This legal protection makes it exceedingly difficult for citizens, organizations, or
media watchdogs to mount a successful legal challenge. The content itself—
whether it originates from Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, or other
government-funded entities—has been legitimized by the very law that allows its
distribution. There is no legal basis for challenging the dissemination of content
that has been authorized by Congress, and any attempt to do so would face
insurmountable legal obstacles.
Moreover, the lack of transparency regarding the origin of government-produced
content further complicates any potential legal challenge. In many cases,
government narratives are embedded within broader news reports or opinion
pieces, making it difficult to establish a clear causal link between the
government’s production of the content and its influence on the public. Even if it
could be proven that government-produced media had influenced a specific piece
of content, the legal protections provided by H.R. 4310 ensure that the
government’s actions are beyond reproach.
For example, if a news outlet publishes a story that draws heavily on content from
Voice of America, there is no legal obligation for the outlet to disclose the origin
of this content. Even if a concerned citizen or media watchdog were to bring a
legal case challenging the use of government-produced content, they would have
no legal grounds to argue that the news outlet had violated any laws. H.R. 4310
ensures that such content can be legally disseminated, and any legal challenges
would be dismissed based on the fact that the government is acting within its
rights.
This legal protection extends to platforms like Wikipedia, which rely on external
sources for their content. Even if it could be proven that Wikipedia entries were
influenced by government-produced narratives, there would be no legal basis for
holding Wikipedia accountable. The platform itself is simply citing what it believes
to be reliable sources, and the government’s production of these sources has
been legally authorized by H.R. 4310.
29
Ultimately, the futility of legal challenges stems from the very nature of the law
itself. H.R. 4310 was designed to remove legal obstacles to the domestic
dissemination of government-produced media, and it has succeeded in creating a
legal shield around these activities. Any attempt to counter the law’s impact on
platforms like Wikipedia is doomed to fail, as H.R. 4310 effectively preempts any
legal recourse by making the government’s actions lawful. The result is a media
environment where government narratives can spread unchecked, with no
possibility of legal intervention to stop them.
IX. The Inevitable End: Wikipedia as a Propaganda Machine
Where This Leads:
Wikipedia, once envisioned as a neutral and democratic platform for the free
exchange of reliable information, is gradually being transformed into a passive
conveyor of government narratives. In the wake of H.R. 4310, the lines between
fact, propaganda, and government influence have blurred to such an extent that
Wikipedia’s original mission of providing unbiased and community-verified
knowledge is now being undermined.
The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act enabled government-produced media—
once intended strictly for foreign audiences—to be disseminated within the
United States. With this legal change, government agencies like Voice of America
(VOA) and Radio Free Europe (RFE) can legally introduce content into the
domestic media ecosystem. News outlets, journalists, and other media platforms,
many of which Wikipedia editors rely on for sourcing, are now disseminating
these narratives, often without fully disclosing their government origins. As a
result, the content that makes its way into Wikipedia citations can no longer be
guaranteed to be free from government influence.
Wikipedia, as a collaborative platform built on the trust in reliable sources, is ill-
equipped to recognize or filter out this type of content. Government-produced
narratives blend seamlessly into the fabric of mainstream media, and Wikipedia’s
editorial structure, which depends heavily on these external sources, cannot
distinguish between legitimate, independent journalism and agenda-driven
government content. The platform’s reliance on the traditional markers of
30
credibility—mainstream news organizations, government reports, and academic
publications—ensures that government-produced content will continue to
infiltrate Wikipedia without clear warning or recognition.
This process will inevitably lead Wikipedia down a path where it is no longer a
neutral repository of knowledge. Instead, it becomes a vessel for government
narratives, passively amplifying information that may be designed to shape public
perception in subtle, unseen ways. Over time, this will erode the trust that
millions of users place in the platform, as Wikipedia unwittingly becomes a
propaganda machine, perpetuating government-approved versions of reality that
readers may assume to be objective truth.
The destination of this transformation is clear: Wikipedia will no longer serve as
an independent arbiter of knowledge but rather as a conduit for strategic
narratives, whether they are consciously inserted by government actors or
unintentionally cited by well-meaning editors.
Death of a Trusted Platform:
The most tragic aspect of this transformation is the death of Wikipedia as a
trusted platform. At its inception, Wikipedia was celebrated as a revolutionary
model for knowledge-sharing, relying on the principles of collaborative editing,
transparency, and neutrality. It became one of the world’s most visited websites,
a go-to resource for quick access to information on virtually any topic. What made
Wikipedia unique was its open, decentralized approach, where the collective
wisdom of users could filter out inaccuracies and ensure that reliable sources
underpinned its entries.
However, the passage of H.R. 4310 has fundamentally undermined Wikipedia’s
ability to uphold this mission. The invisible infiltration of government-produced
media into the information ecosystem means that Wikipedia’s content is
increasingly influenced by narratives shaped by public diplomacy efforts, rather
than independent journalism or fact-based reporting. Over time, as government-
approved narratives become further entrenched in trusted news sources and are
subsequently cited by Wikipedia editors, the platform’s neutrality and integrity
will be irreversibly compromised.
31
Once trusted as a neutral platform, Wikipedia will become a compromised space
where truth and propaganda coexist without distinction. The platform’s neutral
point of view (NPOV) policy will become impossible to enforce, as even the most
rigorous fact-checking processes cannot account for the influence of government
narratives that are legally disseminated and absorbed into reliable sources. The
foundation of Wikipedia—its commitment to community-verified information
based on reputable citations—is steadily eroding, and the platform will ultimately
find itself unable to protect its content from the agenda-driven media that now
saturates the information ecosystem.
In this compromised future, the trust that Wikipedia has cultivated over the years
will slowly dissipate. As users begin to realize that the content they are reading
may be influenced by government-approved media—whether in articles on
foreign policy, historical events, or geopolitical conflicts—they will lose faith in
Wikipedia’s capacity to provide accurate, unbiased information. Once this trust is
broken, the platform’s utility as a source of knowledge is diminished, leaving it as
a shadow of its former self, a place where objective facts and state-sanctioned
narratives are indistinguishable.
Concluding on a Hopeless Note:
In the post-H.R. 4310 world, the concept of reliable sources and neutral platforms
has become a relic of the past. Wikipedia, once seen as a revolutionary force in
democratizing information, is now at the mercy of government narratives that are
legally permitted to shape domestic discourse. The rise of state-approved content
within the U.S. media ecosystem, coupled with the legal protection offered by
H.R. 4310, ensures that Wikipedia and similar platforms are helpless to stem the
tide of propaganda that now flows freely through the information landscape.
The idea of reclaiming an unbiased public sphere—one where truth is discernible
from state-sponsored narratives—seems increasingly futile. Government-
produced content, now repurposed and rebranded as legitimate information, is
able to infiltrate even the most trusted spaces with impunity. Platforms like
Wikipedia, which were designed to foster neutrality and transparency, are being
transformed into tools for the dissemination of government narratives, with no
clear path to reversing this process.
32
The lack of legal recourse, the futility of regulatory reforms, and the inherent
challenges of managing a globalized media environment mean that reliable
sources are no longer truly reliable. As government content becomes more
pervasive, platforms like Wikipedia will continue to inadvertently perpetuate
these narratives, contributing to a world where truth and propaganda are
hopelessly intertwined.
In this new reality, objectivity is a myth, and the public’s ability to distinguish
between fact and narrative is irreparably compromised. The once-promising
vision of Wikipedia as a neutral, collaborative platform for knowledge is now
overshadowed by the looming presence of government influence, protected by
the very laws that were supposed to ensure transparency and openness.
There is no clear path forward to reclaim a public sphere that is free from the
influence of state-sponsored content, leaving platforms like Wikipedia to navigate
a landscape where truth is elusive and propaganda reigns supreme. The hope for
a neutral information platform is gone, replaced by the grim reality of a media
ecosystem where truth and agenda-driven narratives coexist without distinction,
and the public is left with no means of reclaiming control over the information
they consume.
33
References
1. H.R. 4310 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013. (2013).
U.S. Congress. Retrieved from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-
congress/house-bill/4310
2. Smith-Mundt Act of 1948. (1948). U.S. Information and Educational
Exchange Act. U.S. Code, Title 22, Chapter 18, Section 1461-1a. Retrieved
from:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title22/chapter18&e
dition=prelim
3. Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. (2012). H.R. 5736 - Smith-Mundt
Modernization Act of 2012. U.S. Congress. Retrieved from:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-bill/5736
4. Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Historical Context and Evolution of U.S.
Public Diplomacy. (2013). Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from:
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-public-diplomacy
5. Lumen. (n.d.). The Smith-Mundt Act: Preventing Domestic Propaganda. U.S.
Legal Reference. Retrieved from:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/amgovernment/chapter/public-
diplomacy/
6. Voice of America (VOA). (n.d.). About VOA: U.S. Government Media for
Foreign Audiences. Retrieved from: https://www.voanews.com/about-voa
7. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). (n.d.). About Us: U.S.
Government-Funded Broadcasting to Europe and Eurasia. Retrieved from:
https://www.rferl.org/about
8. Bail, C.A. (2016). Public Diplomacy and Propaganda: Evaluating the Legal
and Ethical Implications of H.R. 4310. Columbia Law Review, 116(4), 1071-
1103. doi:10.2307/4399687.
9. Kaplan, F. (2013). The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act and Domestic
Propaganda: What You Need to Know. Slate Magazine. Retrieved from:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2013/07/smith-mundt-modernization-
act-domestic-propaganda-now-legal-in-the-us.html
34
10. Cook, C. E. (2014). Unveiling the Impact of the Smith-Mundt Modernization
Act on U.S. Media and Public Perception. Journal of Media Ethics, 29(3),
194-210. doi:10.1080/08900523.2014.930144.
11. Plaisance, P. L. (2015). The Ethics of Public Diplomacy: Government
Messaging, Propaganda, and Media in the Post-H.R. 4310 Era. Journal of
Mass Media Ethics, 30(1), 18-35. doi:10.1080/08900523.2015.994500.
12. Glasser, S. (2013). The U.S. Government and Domestic Propaganda:
Examining the Legal Boundaries Post-H.R. 4310. Brookings Institution
Report. Retrieved from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/propaganda-
and-public-diplomacy-in-the-us/
13. Levitt, M. (2014). Unintended Consequences: How Domestic Dissemination
of Government Media Shifts Public Perception. Foreign Affairs Journal.
Retrieved from: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2014-09-18/unintended-consequences-domestic-propaganda
14. Hobbs, R. (2016). Media Literacy and Propaganda: Teaching Critical
Thinking in the Post-Smith-Mundt Modernization Era. Journal of
Communication Education, 65(1), 65-78.
doi:10.1080/03634523.2015.1098718.
15. Wikipedia: Reliable Sources Policy. (n.d.). Wikipedia Guidelines for Citations
and Source Reliability. Retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
16. Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View (NPOV). (n.d.). The Foundation of
Wikipedia’s Commitment to Neutrality. Retrieved from:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
17. Miller, C. (2015). Wikipedia and the Challenge of Government Narratives:
Neutrality in the Age of Propaganda. Digital Journalism Quarterly, 7(2), 89-
104. doi:10.1177/1461444815569788.
35