Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virginia Radio Station Broadcasting Chinese Propaganda (reuters.com)

Posted by samzenpus on from the better-than-spam dept.

An anonymous reader writes: An investigation by Reuters has uncovered a radio station located just outside Washington, D.C. that broadcasts dedicated Chinese propaganda to the U.S. capital and the surrounding area. In 2009, under new ownership, Virginia-based station WAGE erected new broadcast towers, amplifying its signal by ten times, and changed its call letters to WCRW, for "China Radio Washington." All WCRW programming shares a common theme, with newscasts that avoid any criticism of China and are critical of Beijing's political enemies; for example, a report on pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong last year did not explain why people were in the streets, and said only that the demonstrations had "failed without support." WCRW's American owners claim they have no input on content and are only rebroadcasting programming provided to them by a state-sponsored Chinese company to which they lease the airtime. U.S. law requires that anyone seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a foreign government must register with the Department of Justice, but according to Reuters, government officials didn't even know WCRW existed until Reuters told them about it.

31 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. Well duh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    "U.S. law requires that anyone seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a foreign government must register with the Department of Justice, but according to Reuters, government officials didn't even know WCRW existed until Reuters told them about it."

    Like anyone in Washington does their job.

    1. Re:Well duh by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "U.S. law requires that anyone seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a foreign government must register with the Department of Justice, but according to Reuters, government officials didn't even know WCRW existed until Reuters told them about it."

      Like anyone in Washington does their job.

      They're too busy trying to influence American policy and public opinion on behalf of our own government.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    2. Re:Well duh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "U.S. law requires that anyone seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a foreign government must register

      How can this possibly be compatible with the US Constitution? Anyone should be free to say whatever they want.

    3. Re:Well duh by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only reason i can remotely think of in this particular case is that the people are a middle man for the chinese government. The chinese government does not have constitutional rights in this country, therefore their talking heads dont.

      dont know if that is correct, but its the only reasoning I can think of that makes sense.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:Well duh by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You are not allowed to say anything you want whenever you want. Stop quoting the constitution like you've actually read it let alone like you understand it. At no point has that ever been the case. Ever.

      Public speech IS controlled. And here, it's not prevention of said speech it's just registration ... You know ... Like so many other freedoms we have require some documents because some whacko does something to ruin it for the rest of us

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    5. Re:Well duh by EvilSS · · Score: 2

      "U.S. law requires that anyone seeking to influence American policy or public opinion on behalf of a foreign government must register

      How can this possibly be compatible with the US Constitution? Anyone should be free to say whatever they want.

      It's the "on behalf of a foreign government" part that makes it legal. We, like most countries, have laws in place to put checks on foreign political influence over our own government. Your personal beliefs and speech are protected but if you are essentially a citizen proxy for a foreign power that's a different situation.

      --
      I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
    6. Re:Well duh by Spy+Handler · · Score: 4, Funny

      You are free to say whatever you want. However the gov't has unlimited moderation points and can put you at -1.

    7. Re:Well duh by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason i can remotely think of in this particular case is that the people are a middle man for the chinese government.

      Sorry, my bad. I complete missed the modification to the first amendment. It has now been changed to read: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, unless they are middlemen for the Chinese government.

      I am so glad that the government censors are protecting me from speech that they may disagree with.

    8. Re:Well duh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      Possibly the power of the government to regulate trade with other nations?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    9. Re:Well duh by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Constitution refers to "We the People of the United States..." There is no reference to the people of China. And the rights under the Constitution should not be asserted as to belong to anyone other than a US citizen.

      Now, a corporation is not a citizen, but if it is made up of US citizens, then you have an issue where regulating a US corporation's speech may be preventing US citizens from expressing their opinion, which would be unconstitutional.

      So the position you seem to think is odd makes perfect sense.

      Of course, corporations having the ability to pretend to be a citizen, by dint of having citizens employed by it, may well be a problem, but that situation is on significantly more firm ground than letting foreigners spread propaganda without having to at least acknowledge their influence. After all, the corporations have their influence right out there in the open and we do make corporations register their donations. You can find out what the corporations are supporting, if you want to.

    10. Re:Well duh by Brymouse · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Constitution protects rights of the people and lists powers granted to the government by the people, not the other way around.

      All people have inalienable rights, and the Constitution protects these rights. It does not grant any rights to the people.

    11. Re:Well duh by AK+Marc · · Score: 2
      "Congress shall make no law" has no exception for Chinese, as you assert.

      And the rights under the Constitution should not be asserted as to belong to anyone other than a US citizen.

      Some rights are guaranteed to citizens. Others to residents. And others to everyone (though, obviously not enforced everywhere). Read it. The people, citizens and such are worded differently in different sections with different meanings.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:Well duh by sabbede · · Score: 2

      Agents of foreign governments are not party to the Constitution or its protections. Their rights are governed by international treaties and conventions. Individuals can come here and say what they will, but governments are a very different matter. How foreign powers interact with the American people is not a free speech issue, it's a foreign relations issue.

  2. so... by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The government is not even monitoring the radio waves in/near the capitol? Thats what I took from reading this. that is not a very smart thing

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:so... by MountainLogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, the FCC is monitoring radio waves in the capitol and the rest of the country, but is less likely to monitor the content broadcast on the radio waves unless here is a complaint.

    2. Re:so... by jandrese · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The FCC operates on a complaint driven model. They don't tend to notice until someone writes a letter. They don't have the budget to hire airwave cops to drive around looking for violations all over the country. As far as the FCC was concerned this was just another properly licensed radio station until someone complained.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:so... by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      It's radio... no one else is listening either.

  3. You're doing it wrong by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dummies, if you want to influence Washington, you don't put up radio stations, you bribe politicians directly. The Supreme Court made doing so legal.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:You're doing it wrong by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

      you bribe politicians directly. The Supreme Court made doing so legal.

      No they didn't. The Citizens United decision prohibited the government from restricting donations to independent PACs, not directly to politicians. If you oppose Citizens United, you should explain why based on the facts. Misrepresenting it as something it is not, does not help your cause.

    2. Re:You're doing it wrong by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In layman's terms, they're still required to do the "wink wink, nudge nudge" part, and per Citizens United, that means that because there is no direct transfer of funds, or quid pro quo, then that makes everything alright.

      The problem is that it's very easy to disguise certain levels of collusion that isn't supposed to happen, and given the ridiculous/ludicrous levels of money being tossed around, it strains credulity for everyone except the Supreme Court apparently to say there isn't something dirty going on.

      Let me put it another way. If Billionaire Bob decides to donate $50 million to the "Fund Attack Ads Against Candidate Alice's Opponents" PAC, do we really think that means Alice won't notice, or that it's not really a donation to Alice because FAAACAO PAC is a theoretically independent organization that just happens to be run by Alice's longtime best friend, who she totally never talks to about anything election related? Unless Eve happens to overhear them talking and tells the press about them colluding, but by then the election is probably long over, and the FEC has been pretty toothless of late... but that's another complaint.

    3. Re:You're doing it wrong by mrchaotica · · Score: 2

      Misrepresenting it as something it is not, does not help your cause.

      Pot, meet Kettle. "Independent PACs," my ass!

      They only look "independent" because the candidate doesn't control them... just pay no attention to the man behind the curtain who's controlling both the PACs and the candidate.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    4. Re:You're doing it wrong by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

      Let me put it an other "another way".

      Let's suppose Fire_Wraith really thinks Jeb Bush sucks a donkey. So he wants to let everyone know that a vote for Jeb is one step toward the end of civilization. Under the constitution and federal election laws, Fire_Wraith can go out to the town square and scream at the top of his lungs on the topic all he wants. He can even publish ads in the newspaper and on TV. Or put up a web page. As much of his time and treasure as he'd like to spend on the issue, he can spend.

      In this way it is just like any other issue Fire_Wraith cares about. He could be advocating for parental rights for Transgender divorcees, or anything else his heart desires. The FEC only takes note when he's dealing with a federal election in some way - and he can't coordinate his activities with those campaigns without calling it a contribution and being regulated.

      Now, here's the other shoe to drop: What if I think Fire_Wraith is the smartest guy ever and I'm totally on his side. I want to join in his efforts. So I offer to pay for half of his advertizing and help write the ad copy. I'm doing the same thing that he was doing before. So is he. Only now we are doing it together.

      Pre Citizen's United we suddenly were running afoul of federal law. Just because we were pooling our resources for common cause.

      Even today Fire_Wraith and I would run into difficulties because of campaign laws. It happens all the time, all around the country and it has nothing to do with corporate oligarchies. Let's say instead of Bush, Fire_Wraith and I were worried about something happening in our town and we got together with a bunch of people from the neighborhood to do something about it. We put our heads and wallets together and get a bunch of yard signs printed up. Ooops. We just violated campaign finance laws. We are now a PAC and have to get ourselves all legal and regulated and stuff. So even though we were only able to scrape together $382.78 for the yard signs (and coffee and donuts for the meeting), we are required to file complicated paperwork and collect information for the regulators on all of our contributors and all of our expenditures. Even though this would cost way more than we are spending on our actual political activities, and even though we could barely muster the energy to get the yard signs deployed.

      This is what campaign finance laws look like in the real world. Often a group like ours would skate under the radar and not be bothered by regulators. Unless, of course, somebody got their undies in a bunch and decided to do something about it. The example above is based on a real story - I think it was Colorado a few years back. Some neighborhood group was opposed to something the city was doing and tried to oppose it by pooling their resources. The powers on the other side used the levers of government to silence them - audits and subpoenas and prosecutors all drowned the group, costing them many, many times what they were planning to spend on stopping their government.

      This can reach extremes when your political opponents happen to work for government as prosecutors or regulators. In this case a prosecutor used his power to silence (and bankrupt) someone who was raising money for the opposing party. Someone who ultimately was found to be operating perfectly legally, but was harassed and silenced for 5 years, using campaign finance laws.

      There's a lot to worry about here, not just on the "corporations are evil" front.

    5. Re:You're doing it wrong by Cytotoxic · · Score: 2

      Probably not the pols.... but probably directly targeting the bureaucracy and all of the NGO's and lobbyists sucking at the government teat in Washington. A little good will might go a long way. And if that good will happens to work at the department of commerce or the state department, well, so much the better.

      There's a reason the USA came up with Voice of America after all. And it wasn't to change the hearts and minds of politicians and dictators around the world.

  4. Sounds a lot like NBC, CBS and ABC. by r-diddly · · Score: 5, Interesting
    - avoids any criticism of [the US] - CHECK
    - critical of [Washington's] political enemies - CHECK
    - for example, a report on pro-democracy protests in [New York and nationwide] [in 2011] did not explain why people were in the streets, and said only that the demonstrations had "failed without support"

    On the other hand, one key difference is that the Chinese propagandists claim they're just passing along government propaganda, whereas the American ones deny they are.

  5. How you distinguish Real Americans from the fakers by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 2

    Is the station owned by an American? Did they pay their FCC licensing fees?

    If so, then who cares? Free speech, bitches. Anyone who has a problem with this doesn't deserve to live here.

  6. Pot, Kettle, Black by misophist · · Score: 2

    How is this any different than the broadcasts that Voice of America does all over the world? If these broadcasts are objectionable, then the government should jam them. Oh, but we get so upset when other countries jam VOA......

  7. We the sheeple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Would be good to have a website that gauged (with examples for their criteria and reasoning) all the biases and clear editorial intents of various media sources:

    NBC - Democratic Party 110%
    Fox - Republican Party 89%
    CNN - Democratic Party 77%
    ABC - Mostly Democratic Party 62%
    WCRW - Chinese Communist Party 110%
    New York Times - NSA/Pentagon/Democratic Party 22%/22%/87%

  8. Re:Nor did anyone else. by jandrese · · Score: 4, Funny

    Right wing nutcases thrive on AM radio. The format helps filter out anybody with opposing viewpoints or unfortunate access to factual information.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  9. Re:Similar to VOA/Radio Free Europe? by jandrese · · Score: 2

    Willingness to partake in somewhat expensive and likely ignored propaganda is a winning long term strategy? Or it is just because they don't broadcast their political power struggles to the world?

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  10. same ol' same ol'. by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 2

    Apparently it is difficult for them to separate Chinese communist propaganda and lies from the normal content coming out of DC.

  11. Can't be working that well, then by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An investigation by Reuters has uncovered a radio station located just outside Washington, D.C. that broadcasts dedicated Chinese propaganda to the U.S. capital and the surrounding area.

    If it takes an investigation by Reuters before anyone's even aware of your radio station, you're not doing a very good job.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.