Now, though, an update to the Cold War era law known as the Smith-Mundt Act means that content from outlets like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe — which create shows in 61 languages for more than 100 countries — can flow to American ears. The new law, which lets the US Archives and the State Department distribute the programming, also says that no funds shall be used to “influence public opinion in the US.”

The new rules raise an interesting debate about government media in the internet era. Is the content, as Cold War supporters of the original law claimed, propaganda that should not be directed at Americans? Or is it a legitimate and useful news source? A government source told Foreign Policy that the content is not propaganda but objective news that can counter-balance toxic, jihadist broadcasts aimed at diasporas like Minnesota’s Somali community.

“Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia … It was silly.”

Meanwhile, government-funded broadcasting is long-established in other English-speaking countries like Canada and Great Britain, where the BBC is not only a feature of public life but an important source of diplomatic power too.

In any case, the plurality of voices in the internet age means it’s harder for any single outlet to have the impact of World War II era propagandists like Tokyo Rose, whose habit of playing U.S. hits made her broadcasts popular with U.S. servicemen.

(Image by Marina99 via Shutterstock)

A federal judge last week wrote that he was “concerned” Oracle and Google had paid journalists and bloggers to comment on their highly-publicized intellectual property trial and ordered them to provide a list of names. The responses are now in.

Oracle’s list is headed by patent propagandist, Florian Mueller, a long-time Microsoft consultant whose FOSS Patents blog regularly posts articles slanted against Google (see “Oracle Java patent rises like Phoenix from the ashes”). Mueller, who has no legal training, works with his clients’ lawyers to issue authoritative-sounding pronouncements about patent cases, according to a longtime lawyer we talked with who consults with journalists and technology companies.

In an email to paidContent after publication of this story, Mueller rejected the notion that he works his clients’ lawyers: “I develop and author my blog posts on lawsuits involving Microsoft based on the court documents I download from official, neutral sources, or based on what I hear when I personally attend court hearings or announcements of decisions. I absolutely positively do not work[] with lawyers of [Microsoft or any other client] to issue authoritative-sounding pronouncements about patent cases.”

Oracle and Mueller have attempted to defend the latter’s behavior by noting that Mueller issued a brief disclosure at the outset of the trial. Mueller did not, however, flag the conflict of interest in subsequent posts and typically does not disclose his affiliations when speaking to other media outlets. Oracle does state “Oracle retained him after he had begun write about this case; and that he was not retained to write about the case.”

Google’s filing says it did not pay anyone to report or comment on the case nor engage in any quid pro quo with those who did.

In addition to providing brief disclosures related to the trial, both sides appear to have used the submissions for strategic advantage.

Google uses its filing to describe its extensive contribution to universities and researchers, and to call attention to its transparency policies. The appendix to its filing includes a list of trade associations, non-profits and researchers to whom Google has given money.

Oracle uses the bulk of its response to accuse Google of skullduggery: “a network of “direct and indirect  “influencers” to advance Google’s intellectual property agenda. This network is extensive .”

Neither side offers any insight into the relationship between money and media.

Oracle lost the case that was dubbed “the World Series of IP” and the two sides are now fighting over costs.

Both filings are below.

Google Shill List

Oracle Shills

(Image by Iwona Grodzka via Shutterstock)

The unusual request comes months after the “World Series” of intellectual property trials in which Oracle unsuccessfully sued Google for billions.

The trial was remarkable not only for the large damage figures but for Oracle’s decision to hire Florian Mueller, a self-described “patent analyst” who also takes money from Microsoft. In his FOSS Patents blog, Mueller wrote a series of one-sided posts over the course of the trial such as “Oracle Java patent rises like Ph0enix from the ashes.”

Despite a lack of legal training, Mueller holds himself out as a patent expert to the media and typically does not disclose that he is paid by the companies he reports on (he disclosed an Oracle relationship briefly at the outset of the trial but did not do so subsequently or to other media). Mueller has also blocked me and other journalists who have questioned his impartiality from viewing his Twitter feed.

Alsup does not provide detailed reasons for his order, which was first reported in a tweet by Reuters reporter Dan Levine, but does state that the information would be useful on appeal:

to make clear whether any treatise, article, commentary or analysis on the issues posed by this case are possibly influenced by financial relationships to the parties or counsel.

In the larger picture, Alsup may be calling attention to the growing phenomenon of astro-turfing — individuals or groups who receive money to pose as voices of the public interest. The Federal Trade Commission has in the past fined a company for failing to disclose paid endorsements. An FTC official told paidContent earlier this year that endorsers must disclose all material facts, including when they comment about a competitor.

Here is Judge Alsup’s order:

Blogger Order

(Image by Imagelabs via Shutterstock)