Washington Post

[Commentary] Censorship and propaganda were once regarded as sources of shame, even in authoritarian settings, and the officials who carried out these shabby projects were shadowy figures unknown to the outside world. In the 21st century, however, things have changed.

Ironically, elements of democratic culture have contributed to the rise in modern propaganda. Propositions that there is no such thing as objective truth and that history is nothing more than a contest between competing narratives owe their popularity to radical theorists and even some journalists. While accusations that the press is biased are common fodder in American political campaigns, the exaggerated and repeated charges of media bias expressed during the presidential campaign reinforced the propagandist’s depiction of a world in which truth is determined by which side argues the loudest and formulates the cleverest lies. Others have cynically made use of the too-trusting model of Western journalism, which, in an effort to see both sides, has treated patently false assertions as symmetrical with legitimate views or facts. The struggle over the future of global democracy is still in its early stage. Right now, unfortunately, it is democracy’s adversaries who are advancing the tawdry case for propaganda and censorship with self-assurance, and freedom’s champions whose response is mired in bewilderment and hesitation.

[Arch Puddington is distinguished fellow in democracy studies at Freedom House.]

[Commentary] For years, members of Congress have fumed about what they regard as ineffective US public diplomacy, including the failure of broadcasting operations such as the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to match the reach and apparent influence of networks such as Russia’s RT and Qatar’s al Jazeera. A frequent and arguably fair focus of criticism has been the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the body created to supervise government-funded media outlets while serving as a firewall between them and the political administration of the day.

A radical change to that system is now coming — and it looks like one that Vladi­mir Putin and Qatar’s emir might well admire. An amendment quietly inserted into the annual National Defense Authorization Act by Republican House leaders would abolish the broadcasting board and place VOA, RFE/RL and other international news and information operations under the direct control of a chief executive appointed by the president. The new executive would hire and fire senior media personnel and manage their budgets. The damage to US interests could be considerable.

A new decision, United States v. Ashmore (W.D. Ark. December 7, 2016), raises an interesting question at the intersection of new technology and constitutional rights: If the government violates a suspect’s Miranda rights, interrogating him without reading Miranda warnings, and during the interrogation obtains the suspect’s passwords that are then used to access his phone and computer, are the phone and computer admissible in court?

The district court held that the passwords themselves must be suppressed but that, on the specific facts of this case, the evidence on the devices should not be suppressed. I think that’s the right result, although the court reached that result for the wrong reason. And I think that the government should win on much broader grounds than the court realized.

The parent company of CBS and Viacom is urging the two companies not to merge, reversing course on a major proposal that had been portrayed as a potential boon to both companies. In a letter to the boards of CBS and Viacom on Dec 12, National Amusements — a privately held entertainment firm that owns controlling shares of both subsidiaries — said that now was “not the right time” to merge the companies.

Pointing to recent changes in Viacom's management, NAI said it was convinced that the struggling cable and film company boasted “forward-looking thinking” and had a compelling strategic plan. Since 2014, Viacom's stock has fallen roughly 60 percent, while shares of CBS are at about the same level they were two years ago. “CBS continues to perform exceptionally well under Les Moonves,” NAI's letter read, “and we have every reason to believe that momentum will continue on a stand-alone basis.”

[Commentary] Donald Trump is America’s first Twitter president. The tweet has become an accelerant for his bullying style. Tweets allow little room for argument and yet reach millions with every missive. The wonderful thing about the digital revolution is that Trump has no monopoly on this vast and mighty tool; it is in everyone’s pocket. But Trump, with his 17 million followers, has perfected a powerful strategy. He uses tweets like a class bully with a spitball. The technique is to catch the intended target off-guard, hit them in the back or side of the head. Some people use Twitter to raise questions, express anger or make fun. Trump loves the imperative voice, and Twitter enables it nicely. The imperative is a special grammatical mood for commands, instructions and requests, and if you use an exclamation point, then the thought becomes a shout. Mix this with Trump’s volatile moods, personal authoritarianism, high self-regard and loose command of facts, and you have a captivating form of political communication. Trump eschews complexity. Twitter has no room for complexity. Trump loves a megaphone. Twitter is a giant amplifier. His idea of being boss is throwing down his decisions — “You’re fired!” — but the presidency actually involves intricate relations with other parties. Twitter, on the other hand, is perfect: Why allow Congress or your critics to squeeze into your car when all you want is to be alone at the wheel?

Soon-to-be House Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR) and Rep John Yarmuth (R-KY) want to repeal a long-standing ban on media consolidation, calling it a “disco era” rule that prevents struggling local media outlets from surviving in an increasingly-competitive market for information. Their legislation takes aim at a 41-year-old rule that prohibits a company from owning both a newspaper and a radio or television station in the same market. Critics of media ownership consolidation have included President-elect Donald Trump, who during his campaign lashed out at the proposed deal to combine AT&T with media titan Time Warner. Repealing the media ownership ban is necessary to help smaller voices stay economically competitive, according to proponents.

But critics of consolidation, such as Trump, have worried that the trend could lead to the crowding out of conservative voices. Trump's previously stated opposition to media consolidation raises questions about his position on the bill from Reps Walden and Yarmuth. Although the media cross-ownership ban applies only to ownership of newspapers and broadcast media, not cable, the walls that have traditionally divided these companies into silos are rapidly collapsing.

Donald Trump ran one of the most unorthodox -- and successful -- political campaigns in modern history. One aspect of the campaign that hasn't received much attention is the Trump ad strategy: How did the Trump media team sell one of the best known and least traditional candidates in history to a skeptical public? GOP media consultant Larry Weitzner was at the center of that effort. The CEO of GOP ad firm Jamestown Associates, Weitzner crafted the Trump TV message.

[Commentary] There are an estimated 1.5 trillion objects around the world that could one day connect to the Internet, everything from simple housewares to automobiles. In the so-called Internet of Things, each of them will be capable of sending and receiving data just as our laptops, smartphones, tablets and TVs do today. But if Internet-connected wearables or smart home devices didn’t make your holiday shopping list this year, it may be because of growing concerns about how careless the makers seem to be with the data their devices collect.

If IoT manufacturers and programmers don’t collectively get their act together, they may find themselves forced to work with a one-size-fits-none set of rules passed and enforced at the leisurely pace of governments. That will surely slow already sluggish consumer adoption, and raise even more anxiety among potential IoT users.

[Larry Downes is a project director at the Georgetown Center for Business and Public Policy]

On a sweltering day this summer, a handful of protesters gathered outside an AMC movie theater in Times Square, holding red signs proclaiming “AMC = American Movie Communists.” They were opposing the giant movie theater company AMC’s $1.2 billion purchase of a rival cinema chain, Carmike, that has theaters in 41 states. The deal, which is still subject to government approval, would make AMC the largest theater chain in the US. The protesters targeted AMC's Chinese owners — the sprawling Chinese real estate and entertainment company called Dalian Wanda that acquired the American movie chain in 2002, creating the world's largest theater empire. The protest suggested the Carmike acquisition would further extend Beijing’s hidden control over American mass media. But the protesters had not gathered on their own volition. They were being paid to be there by a Washington lobbying firm, Berman and Company, waging a war against Chinese acquisitions of American movie theaters.

[Commentary] I’m not going to sugarcoat this: For policy experts, the next four years of the Trump Administration will be a waking nightmare. This is for two reasons. The first is that President-elect Donald Trump’s team has few if any policy wonks. The second is that this puts the average policy wonk in a no-win situation.

But, what if the Trump Administration turns out to be pretty good at governing? Trump has spent the past year and a half defying most political experts and winning the greatest natural experiment in American political history. What if he and his team prove to be better at governing than wonks expect him to be? What if it turns out that the country is already trending in a very positive direction and even the federal government can’t screw that up? Or what if disruption by inexperienced policy principals is just what the bureaucracy needs?

[Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University]