Dr. Helle Dale, the Heritage Foundation

BBG Watch had reported earlier on the self-censorship by the Voice of America Russian Service to comply with restrictive media laws in Russia with regard to pre-election news coverage. This was done to keep rebroadcasting on a local AM transmitter in Moscow controlled by the Russian government. Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation has just published an article on the same problem.

Russian Roulette at Voice of America – Helle Dale, Heritage Foundation

Depending on Russian government-funded media to broadcast news from Voice of America (VOA) is about as brain-dead as depending on Russian spaceships to send American astronauts into space or depending on Russian fuel supply for the U.S. ground and air forces in Afghanistan. The outcome will surely not be in America’s interest.

And yet, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has contracted with Voice of Russia for rebroadcasting VOA programs in English. The BBG has closed down most of its own radio transmitters around the world and even closed down VOA’s Russian-language broadcasting in 2008. The board’s reasons are, firstly, to cut costs and, secondly, to move away from radio toward other more glamorous media, like satellite television and the Internet. The fact remains, however, that most of the BBG’s global audience are still radio listeners, and the way U.S. radio programming now gets on the air is through contracts with local broadcasters. Unfortunately, relying on others for rebroadcasting U.S. programs gives them de facto control of programming content and leads to self-censorship.

Helle C. Dale is the Heritage Foundations Senior Fellow in Public Diplomacy studies.

BBG Watch Commentary

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which makes these decisions, ended all direct shortwave radio broadcasts by the VOA Russian Service in 2008. But the problem goes even deeper. Media freedom activists and independent journalists in Russia have accused the VOA Russian Service of having a “pro-Putin bias” and downplaying of reporting on human rights issues.

New media scholar Nikolay Rudenskiy is author of ‘pro-Putin Bias in VOA’ study

The BBG fired and pushed out experienced VOA Russian journalists, many longtime US citizens, and replaced them with poorly-paid and untrained contractors hired directly in Russia or shortly after they arrived in the United States, some of them only on temporary visas.

Some of these full-time contractors, whom the BBG executive staff shamelessly exploits by denying them basic employment rights and benefits, posted on the VOA Russian Service website a fake interview with a Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

Russian Accuses Voice Of America Of Fake Interview – NPR

The interview, designed to embarrass Navalny, was probably crafted and passed on to these contract employees by the Russian secret services or their agents. The new VOA Director David Ensor has taken some actions to prevent similar missteps in the future, but he or anybody else at VOA can do only so much against the BBG and IBB bureaucracy and their policies and plans, which are killing U.S. international broadcasting and sound journalism.

Some of the most recent plans of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) executive staff have included terminating all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese to China, ending VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts and creating a CEO position which would not be subject to presidential appointment and confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Some of these plans of BBG and IBB executives (China and Tibet) were killed by Congress and by BBG members themselves, but others designed to limit Congressional and public scrutiny of the incompetent BBG staff are still on the table.

Voice of America radio to China – the sounds of news silence from Broadcasting Board of Governors
by Ann Noonan, Executive Director, Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB – www.cusib.org)

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and its International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) management team have finally accomplished their goal of cutting into Voice of America (VOA) Mandarin radio broadcasting into China, sub silentio.

As of May 6th, Voice of America’s 2-hour live Mandarin radio morning (Beijing time) broadcasts have been replaced with repeat programming from the previous day. These repeat broadcasts come without live newscasts. There are no timely, current news reports in the previously-taped taped content — not even a five-minute live news update.

All this is happening as Chinese and Tibetan radio listeners and rest of the world await news of the fate of blind Chinese activist Chen Guangcheng and learn daily about new violations of human rights in China and Tibet.

While the International Broadcasting Bureau Director Richard M. Lobo and his managers may want to quash any inquiry about these VOA Mandarin Service radio broadcasting changes by accusing those expressing concerns of spreading baseless rumors, news silence is in fact what is happening. This report may be the first time that some individual members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors are even hearing about this change with its nuances and implications.

While these broadcasting changes may potentially save the BBG some unknown amount of money to add another hour of satellite television program in Mandarin at some future date and to simulcast it on shortwave radio, activists inside China, who need constant radio news updates especially now during this critical time with the Chen affair and all the repercussions for his family and supporters, understandably may feel abandoned.

Some believe that these Voice of America Mandarin Service broadcasting changes put the BBG in contempt of a Congressional directive. Last year, the Rohrabacher Amendment passed with full bipartisan support to keep VOA China broadcasts on the air and to prevent BBG/IBB executives from eliminating VOA Mandarin and Cantonese radio and TV programs and transferring news reporting to the highly-controlled and blocked Internet, as these managers had proposed.

And then there are those like Director Lobo and his team who might argue that the BBG has not actually jettisoned the radio time and that they haven’t cut anything because they are merely repeating the previous programming.

However smooth that rationalization sounds, without a newscast and with only repeats of often outdated content, there is now a gap of 17 hours in live VOA Mandarin radio news at a critical time with the Chen affair.

It is a well-known fact that if the news, information, and commentary are old, listeners are going to switch elsewhere to get the information they want and need. They could still listen to Radio Free Asia (RFA), but since RFA programs are even more heavily jammed by the Chinese authorities than VOA radio, these listeners may be left with nothing but official regime propaganda.

These repeats of old VOA programs without the news are a far cry from live broadcasts from a studio with up-to-the-minute breaking news. Just a few days ago, the VOA Mandarin Service managed to reach Chen Guangcheng by phone and interviewed him about threats to his family and supporters. With the latest elimination of live programs, radio listeners in China may have to wait almost a full day to hear from VOA about such threats and the US government’s official responses.

With Chen Guangcheng’s future uncertain and the US reputation tarnished by the handling of his case, could there possibly be a worse time to implement such a drastic change?

Ann Noonan has been active in human rights organizations, including those working for religious freedom. She is the former President of the New York Chapter of the Visual Artists Guild. In 1999, Ann founded Free Church for China, an NGO which researches and documents religious persecution in the PRC. Ann was also a Senior Advisor at the Laogai Research Foundation, an NGO founded by another CUSIB member, Harry Wu, to gather information on and raise public awareness of the Laogai system of prison labor camps in China. Ann Noonan has been active in promoting women’s rights and religious freedom worldwide. She serves as the CUSIB’s Executive Director.

Victor Ashe

The bipartisan effort to stop the closure of the Greenville shortwave radio broadcasting facility was led BBG’s senior Republican member Ambassador Victor Ashe. He was assisted by North Carolina congressmen from both parties: U.S. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., U.S. Rep. G.K. Butterfield, D-N.C., and U.S. Rep. David Price, D-N.C. They received strong support from numerous human rights and media freedom advocacy groups, including the independent and nonpartisan Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB).

Rep. Walter B. Jones

Other members of Congress from both parties also joined forces last year to prevent the BBG executive staff from ending shortwave radio broadcasts and satellite television transmissions by the Voice of America to China. The Greenville station is not used for transmitting radio programs to Asia but serves mostly Cuba, South America, and Africa. It is, however, the only remaining U.S. government-owned shortwave broadcasting facility on U.S. territory. Other BBG-operated shortwave transmitters are based abroad and leases for these stations may be terminated by foreign governments due to domestic or foreign pressure.

Rep. G.K. Butterfield

Victor Ashe has also led the fight within the nine-member presidentially-appointed bipartisan board to save broadcasts to China and Tibet from the new round of cuts proposed by the same BBG executive staff for the FY 2013 BBG budget. He received strong support from BBG’s Democratic member Michael Meehan. Another Democratic member Susan McCue also voiced strong support for continuing VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet.

Rep. David Price

In the end, even those BBG members who initially sided with the executive staff and supported the cuts voted to restore funding to continue broadcasting to Tibet and China, just as they had agreed earlier to save the Greenville facility. Some BBG members may have been persuaded to change their vote by a powerful plea from Holocaust survivor Mrs. Annette Lantos. She is a highly-respected human rights campaigner and the wife of the late Democratic Congressman Tom Lantos who was one of the strongest voices in Congress in defense of human rights around the world.

The effort to restore the original name of the Greenville station is seen as a symbolic gesture to stress bipartisan support for U.S. international broadcasting and as part of a larger fight to keep U.S. radio and television news flow to countries without free media. President John F. Kennedy dedicated the facility in 1963 and Edward R. Murrow was a member of his administration. Edward R. Murrow’s son, Casey Murrow, attended the rededication ceremony as did Congressman Jones, Victor Ashe, and International Broadcasting Bureau Director Richard Lobo.

A team of BBG/IBB executives has been pushing for ending many direct-to-home radio and TV broadcasts in favor of using the Internet even to countries like China and Cuba which censor and block online news from Western sources and from their own dissidents. Some of the BBG’s strategic planners and their private consultants have been also advocating downplaying of human rights reporting and expanding English lessons and other non-political programming as a way of reaching a larger audience.

While shortwave radio listening has been declining around the world, it is still a vital link for regime opponents in many countries and those who cannot afford the Internet or don’t want to use it to get uncensored news for fear of being monitored by the local authorities. The saving of the U.S. facility in North Carolina is seen as a challenge to some of the strategic planners at the BBG. Critics have accused the BBG and IBB executive team of mismanagement and diverting money from broadcasting to pay for their bonuses, travel, and expensive outside contractors. These executives have been rated in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) employee surveys as being the worst leaders and managers in the federal government. They have proposed in recent years the elimination of hundreds of journalistic and broadcasting positions while expanding their own bureaucratic staff. The BBG has one of the lowest employee morale among all government agencies.

Ashe has been the most outspoken BBG member demanding greater transparency and accountability at the agency. He has come out recently against the staff’s plan to merge the so-called surrogate broadcasters, which include Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN). Critics describe the merger plan as a bureaucratic power grab to limit public and congressional scrutiny. Ashe has asked for public comments and listed his personal email. According to sources, he is also in favor of holding congressional hearings on the proposed merger and other plans developed by the BBG and IBB staff.

Members of Congress from both parties have always been the strongest supporters of U.S. international broadcasting, particularly to countries without free media. In the past, they have often come to the defense of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America against attempts by bureaucrats of both Republican and Democratic administrations to blunt human rights reporting and to close down various language broadcasting services in favor of questionable short-term gains.

Despite the setback on the Greenville station and broadcasts to Tibet and China, BBG/IBB executives still want to drastically reduce Voice of America English and Spanish broadcasts and to limit news to countries like the Russian Federation, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Turkey, Greece, and Georgia. We hope that both Republicans and Democrats in Congress will once again extend their protection to what is one of America’s most effective and least expensive national security and public diplomacy assets. U.S. government-funded international broadcasts are simply too important to be turned over to unaccountable bureaucrats just because they want it and hope that no one will notice. We do.

###

The official BBG announcement:

BBG Rededicates The Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) rededicated its Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station on May 2 during a ceremony in Grimesland, N.C., that honored Murrow, the renowned broadcaster and director of the USIA (1961-1964), and recognized World Press Freedom Day.
Speakers included Congressman Walter Jones; Casey Murrow, son of Edward R. Murrow; BBG Governor Victor Ashe, and International Broadcasting Bureau Director Richard M. Lobo. Speaker Bios

Edward R. Murrow’s legacy as a journalist and his rich understanding of the importance of press freedom as part of the bedrock of democracy along with the key role of U.S. international broadcasting as a model of a free press will be highlighted in the ceremony to be held in the lead-up to World Press Freedom Day, May 3rd.

The transmitting station, a 24/7 broadcast facility, supports the mission of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to “inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy” through about 2,200 hours of transmissions each month.

The Murrow Transmitting Station

The Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station is the largest BBG transmission facility in the United States. It is a 24/7 shortwave facility, broadcasting about 2,200 hours each month. Over 80 percent of these transmissions are Radio Martí Spanish-language broadcasts to Cuba, and the balance is Voice of America programming to Latin America as well as VOA English, Portuguese, and French to Africa.

The station is located on 2,715 acres of land and is equipped with eight high-power shortwave transmitters, including five 500 kW and three 250 kW transmitters. The station has nearly 40 broadcast antennas in an arc around the main building to provide the maximum flexibility in reaching audiences overseas.

President John F. Kennedy formally dedicated the station on February 8, 1963, and in October 1968 it was named the “Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station” in honor of the renowned wartime broadcaster and director of the USIA.

Edward R. Murrow

Edward R. Murrow was a pioneering newsman whose distinctive baritone voice and devotion to the truth forever shaped the field of broadcast journalism. Beginning with his ever-calm reporting of the bombing of London during World War II, Murrow’s career spanned 25 years in both radio and television with CBS, then three years as director of the U.S. Information Agency.

Called the “Father of Broadcast Journalism,” Murrow began his broadcasts during the war with a matter-of-fact statement: “This…is London.” He survived the bombings, flew dozens of combat missions, and was among the first civilians to enter liberated Nazi death camps.

After the war, he hosted news and interview programs at CBS, including a 1954 broadcast that took on, and ultimately undid, the red-scare campaign of Senator Joseph McCarthy. He ended his career at CBS in 1961 when President Kennedy named him to head the U.S. Information Agency (USIA), where he brought his dedication to truth and accuracy to the field of public diplomacy. He died of cancer at 57 in 1965.

Broadcasting Board of Governors

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent federal government agency that oversees all U.S. civilian international broadcasting. Our networks—the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio and TV Martí, Radio Free Asia (RFA), and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks’ (MBN) Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa—serve as indispensable sources of news for people who often lack access to independent information.

They inform, engage, and connect with international audiences across television, radio, Internet, and mobile devices in 59 languages in more than 100 countries.

In 2011, the BBG had one of its most successful years ever; our broadcasts reached a record 187 million people every week, up 22 million from 2010. We reach people in their languages of choice; in countries where independent journalism is limited or not available; and where governments jam broadcasts and censor the Internet. The International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) provides transmission, marketing, and program placement services for all BBG broadcast organizations.

For more information, please call 202-203-4400 or email pubaff@bbg.gov.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent federal agency, supervising all U.S. government-supported, civilian international broadcasting, whose mission is inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. BBG broadcasts reach an audience of 187 million in 100 countries. BBG networks include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Martí).

by The Federalist

Let’s get right down to the nitty-gritty:

Against every major American rival or adversary (China, Iran and Russia being the Big Three), the BBG/IBB is a big-time loser. It does not matter what the medium. It does not matter what the “platform.” The BBG/IBB “agnostics” have failed miserably. The results are the same.

The “BBG Strategy” is a strategy of defeat. These internationalists/globalists are just that: defeatists. They are embarrassed by the American historical record of greatness and the inspiration that greatness gives to others. They are not up to the task. They have reduced US international broadcasting to something third rate. They are not creating, as they claim, a “global news network.” They are getting out of the serious news business, as anyone in the VOA Central Newsroom knows all-too-well.

In place of the solid program requirements of the VOA Charter, the BBG Strategy (their “flim flam strategic plan”), has reduced content of VOA programs: more superficial, less long form and in-depth, leaving audiences with something less than a complete or substantive treatment of major world issues. The broadcast staff is overextended. Expected to do “more with less,” the actual result is “less with less,” in terms of both quality and quantity.

And worst of all, they want to “expand and elevate” social media and expect the American taxpayer to foot the bill. That is what the BBG/IBB “strategists” are all about: ripping off the American taxpayer, trafficking in “lifestyle” trivia and mediocrity and giving themselves bonuses in the process.

Try as they might, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and their bonus-mongering International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) staff can’t shake the obvious: they are trying to take the US Government out of the business of international broadcasting. In doing so, they are left to defend the indefensible, putting up a self-serving sales pitch on their “BBG Strategy” website.

One of the cornerstones of what the BBG/IBB does is use semantics and half-truths to argue its case.

Let’s consider some of their arguments:

We’re Not Eliminating Radio

Most assuredly, they are. In the FY2013 budget proposal, the BBG/IBB wants to eliminate or reduce 14 of 43 Voice of America (VOA) language services and their radio broadcasts. They want to make additional cuts to language services of the various grantee operations. For VOA, the reduction represents a loss of over 30% of its radio broadcasting capabilities. They are not expanding radio broadcasting operations. They are cutting them. Indeed, when the BBG/IBB shut down VOA Russian radio broadcasts in 2008, a remark attributed to a senior agency official was, “We want all of VOA to be like the Russian Service in five years.” That means: no radio.

We know these BBG/IBB types very well. When they want something, they bite down hard and don’t let go. You can sense the psychological lockjaw to their thinking. They have wanted to make serious cuts to radio operations for years. By far, this is the largest attack against radio by these bureaucrats in the history of the agency. If they get these cuts, they will want more, using the same justifications and tricked up “data” to rationalize their case. They want out of radio in a big way. That is the intended outcome.

The Chinese and Radio

The BBG/IBB concedes that the Chinese are “interested” in shortwave radio.

No.

The truth of the matter is the Chinese government is committed to radio.

According to the BBG/IBB, the Chinese government has established a network of shortwave transmitters nationwide. The BBG/IBB notes that the Chinese use the same frequency that the BBG/IBB uses.

The BBG/IBB acknowledges that the Chinese are effective in jamming (or blocking) foreign broadcasts and “do so with great effect.”

In short, the BBG/IBB is on the defensive in China. This admission of Chinese effectiveness is saying that the BBG/IBB does not have effective countermeasures in place to overcome the Chinese success in jamming programs.

And ironically, the countermeasures taken by the Chinese government are the clearest acknowledgement that they take these VOA broadcasts seriously, when it seems the BBG/IBB does not.

The Chinese have also invested serious money, to the tune of about $7-billion dollars, in their overseas media operations. The BBG/IBB acknowledges that the Chinese want to be a big-time international media player.

Typically, the BBG/IBB is behind the curve. The Chinese are big-time media heavyweights. They have made their overseas media presence felt, including brand-new facilities in DC’s Chinatown, right across the National Mall from the BBG/IBB in the Cohen Building.

The BBG/IBB then turns around and dismisses the Chinese radio effort as a loss leader: something they are willing to do, “to accept fractional returns on its investment.”

If the BBG/IBB believes its own rhetoric, the Chinese have already won a great victory.

The BBG/IBB can’t see the obvious: With one stroke, the Chinese have created a successful countermeasure: they have established a domestic network using the same frequency as that used by the BBG/IBB and have blanketed the country to reach all its population. The Chinese government would not be making this substantial investment if the BBG/IBB broadcasts had no merit. They have made that investment to counter the news and information provided by US Government international broadcasting assets. And they wouldn’t be making that investment if audiences for shortwave radio programs were “so low,” as the BBG/IBB claims. In a country of 1.5 billion people, even so-called “low” percentages still translate into BIG population numbers.

Satellite Jamming and the Internet

The BBG/IBB goes on to argue that satellite jamming occurs only with “rogue states” (i.e., those pesky Iranians). The Chinese have yet to do so.

This confuses action with capability. The Chinese no doubt make daily threat assessments. That the Chinese have not done something does not equate with the lack of the capability to do something. If a judgment is made that the nature of a threat increases, no doubt the BBG will be very surprised with what the Chinese can do or are willing to do to protect their interests.

The BBG/IBB is not even paying attention to its own employees. We remember quite well an articulate, demonstrative argument offered by members of the VOA China Branch in 2011 when the BBG/IBB wanted to wipe out VOA Mandarin and Cantonese broadcasts. When it comes to capabilities of the Chinese government, a staffer correctly observed: “They can do it and they will do it.”

The BBG/IBB avoids arguing that their Internet content can’t be blocked. That’s because the Chinese, among others, have demonstrated they are more than capable of blocking, controlling and monitoring the Internet. Indeed, they have even created their own search engines and other common Internet features for use by their own population. They block. They control. They filter. The more successful the Chinese are in developing and expanding their own Internet model, the less effective will be the Internet outsiders, including the BBG/IBB, in developing a following.

And the BBG/IBB is missing the boat in another big way: the Chinese look inward for answers, not necessarily to some outside source. The Chinese leadership isn’t stupid. It is well aware that the needs of its people have to be met. It has made a conscious decision to put economic development as its top priority which in turn impacts on the effort to improve Chinese standards of living. It is not willing to turn loose the “Wild West” of the Internet on its citizens and risk what the government sees as great strides in Chinese development, stability and projection of its power.

We’re not defending what the Chinese are doing. We’re are analyzing their actions and assessing the impact of their decisions.

Like we said, the Chinese have already won a great victory. They see the BBG/IBB actions as a lack of resolve, a manifestation of weakness and lack of commitment. They’d be right on all counts.

And it doesn’t hurt to have about 7 times the money as the BBG/IBB (the kind of money which the agency will never see anytime soon) for the Chinese to make their model work.

And after all of this, one should pay close attention to the robust discussion going on inside China over the ouster of party leader Bo Xilai and the detention of his wife who is implicated in the killing of a British business consultant. Some of that discussion is taking place on the Chinese Internet, even in the face of government efforts to shut down or block certain sites.

In short, the Chinese are demonstrating that they don’t need the BBG/IBB to tell them what to think or how to conduct discussion and debate over topical Chinese issues. They are doing it for themselves.

The BBG/IBB Strategic Train Wreck:

One of the things the BBG/IBB “brain trust” has really excelled in is moving US Government international broadcasting into a no-win position.

Let’s go back to 2008 when the BBG/IBB dumped its VOA Russian broadcasts.

You know what that represents?

The BBG/IBB unconditionally surrendered to the Russians in the arena of international broadcasting.

Within weeks of that decision, the Russian military went on the offensive against the Republic of Georgia. It wasn’t just a purely conventional military operation. The Russians also used sophisticated cyber warfare assets to interdict Georgian and other websites.

And since, the Russians have expanded their broadcasting operations directed toward North America across all media: print, radio and television.

These guys don’t mess around.

And as we have seen with the VOA Russian website, it is all-too-easy to be compromised by false interviews and blogs that are easily taken over by anti-American, Russian ultra-nationalist postings. It’s a great deal for the Russians – whether government or non-government – to use a US Government website to fry the Americans.

These guys aren’t stupid. On the other hand:

At the same time the BBG/IBB was taking Russian broadcasts out of the strategic US Government broadcasting equation, they were also going after the VOA Georgian Service. Remember what we said earlier about the BBG/IBB: they bite down and don’t let go when they’re after something. They want to give up the Georgians and have once again put VOA Georgian on the chopping block.

It may have also escaped the attention of the BBG/IBB that there is a major conflict going on in Syria. The Syrian government has been tossing ordnance (artillery fire) into neighboring Turkey.

Guess what?

The BBG/IBB wants to give up its VOA Turkish service.

If there ever was a really strategic country in the Middle East, Near East or anywhere that has a convergence of critical strategic interests, it’s Turkey. And it’s been that way for two thousand years.

Of course, history is the thing the BBG/IBB knows the least and cares about even less.

And they’re giving up on Spanish to Latin America, including Cuba.

Who is filling the void?

Those pesky Iranians!

And they’re giving up on broadcasts to Tibet.

Need we say more about the defeatists and capitulators of the BBG/IBB “strategy?”

These are the same people that make gratuitous statements about “supporting freedom and democracy.” In view of what the agency is doing, that statement is BBG/IBB hypocrisy in action.

The actions of the BBG/IBB are a statement of its own. Their actions and intended objectives are saying that people and places are not important to them. Worse, they are saying that these people and places are not important to the United States Government.

And ultimately, the BBG/IBB demonstrates that it lacks the fortitude to stay with its mission. The Chinese had it right when one of their state newspapers called the decision to abandon Mandarin and Cantonese broadcasts last year “mission unfinished.”

So here is where things stand:

The Russians know they have won a great victory.

The Chinese know they are well on the way to winning a great victory.

The Iranians are poised to have a field day in Latin America.

And don’t even bring up that “Arab Spring” nonsense. All those American taxpayer millions spent on broadcasting to the Arab and Muslim world over the last decade and the end result is heading toward something wholly unsettling to American interests.

It is no wonder that the United States is one, big-time loser in the arena of global public opinion. If you’re scoring results, these BBG/IBB people are 0-4 in big league play.

Another thing:

Let’s go back to that $50-million dollar contract with the Gallup polling organization.

The more we think about it, the more we see that contract as less of a vehicle for research and more of an attempt by the BBG/IBB at a public relations device – an attempt to use “data” to validate a dysfunctional “strategic plan.” It’s more of the same from the BBG/IBB: beating themselves senseless expecting a different result.

Like we said, they bite down and don’t let go, even when what they are doing compromises US national and public interests and rips off the American taxpayer in the process.

The BBG/IBB has set in motion a process in which the ultimate outcome is to abandon the agency’s mission. There will be no turning back. To do so would be an admission that they are wrong. To repair the damage would cost the American taxpayers many more millions of dollars.

Either way, to continue the dysfunctional plan or to take remedial action to repair the damage from that plan, the BBG/IBB folks don’t care.

No accountability.

No responsibility.

The ultimate expression of arrogance and the corporate “strategy” which they have adopted.

The Federalist
April 2012

Sorry to say but most of the criticism of BBG strategists and their ideas have little to do with shortwave broadcasting. When looking at these opening statements from the BBG blog post, only parts of them are true:

The BBG Strategy Blog takes a look shortwave, one of the hottest topics in U.S. international broadcasting [NOT TRUE]:

Once the only tool, shortwave is now just one of many in the distribution toolbox. [TRUE but no one disputes that] But when, where, and how much the BBG should use SW has become a hot topic… [NOT TRUE]

Shortwave. It’s among the most hotly debated topics inside and outside the BBG. [NOT TRUE] Once the single go-to method of distribution, the medium is now just one of many tools employed by BBG broadcasters.[TRUE, but no one disputes that]

Sorry to disappoint BBG strategists, but shortwave is NOT a hot topic.

The hottest topic right now is their plan to eliminate Voice of America radio broadcasts to Tibet and to close down the VOA Cantonese Service: shortwave radio, satellite television, and Internet. Last year, it was their plan to kill all VOA Mandarin radio and television, as well as VOA Cantonese radio, television and Internet. That BBG plan was killed in unanimous bipartisan votes in Congress.

Think of the impact of the latest proposal to deprive Tibetan Buddhist monks and others of VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts, which NPR reports are being listened to secretly, while Tibetans are self-immolating to shock the conscience of the world and the Chinese government is increasing arrests and repression. The idea to end these broadcasts came from BBG strategists.

The hot topic is not shortwave per se, although it is part of it; it is the judgement and the understanding of the mission on the part of BBG strategists. Add to this their continued insistence on eliminating broadcasting services while keeping their own jobs and expanding their bureaucratic operations and outside contracting.

Isn’t there an inherent conflict of interest in their program cutting proposals?

Another hot topic is the continued elimination of the Voice of America brand-name.

Yet another hot topic is their understanding of whom U.S.-funded international broadcasts and new media programs should serve and to what purpose.

Should these programs target mass audiences or try to serve those who are most in need of hard-hitting uncensored news?

What compromises should the BBG make vis-a-vis repressive regimes to achieve a mass audience through local distribution of its programs?

Should BBG broadcasters accept requests from BBG strategists and consultants not to call the Russian attack on Georgia “an invasion” and to make their programs “less hostile” to various regimes because audience research clearly shows — or so they claim — that audiences don’t like such strong on-air criticism?

And what about highly questionable BBG research among intimidated populations in countries like China? On the basis of this research, which shows numbers well below even the margin of error, BBG strategists draw strategic conclusions. U.S. taxpayers will pay Gallup $50,000,000 in research costs. Can imprisoned populations be surveyed and provide honest answers?

These are some of the hot topics rather than shortwave.

Contrary to what the BBG article is trying to convey, critics of BBG strategists don’t think shortwave is the ultimate answer for U.S. international broadcasting.

The real debate is not about shortwave at all. It is about broadcasting, both radio and television, and about serving disenfranchised and repressed groups-audiences, many living in great poverty.

The debate is also about U.S. national security interests and the ability of the BBG to respond to crises and inevitable cyber attacks and Internet censorship. Such a response cannot be done without some secure shortwave capability. That’s where shortwave comes in. But the U.S. government cannot respond to major crises abroad, address people in war zones and to communicate with the most oppressed and the poorest groups without having broadcasting in the first place.

So the debate is primarily about strategy, mission and preserving broadcasting. Only secondarily, it is about preserving some shortwave capability where it is needed or may be needed.

Radio/TV broadcasting backed up with some shortwave capability is a strategic weapon against countries like China and Russia. So is the Voice of America radio and television brand-name. You don’t just give up such an asset for nothing. You don’t betray your loyal audiences. If a radio broadcasting service is closed down, you can’t just resurrect it overnight. Killing broadcasting by USG sends a strong strategic signal of US indifference and weakness.

Ultimately, the multi-platform, multi-media delivery is what the BBG needs if it wants to have an effective strategic weapon against undemocratic regimes. You can’t go for a mass audience in such countries because you can’t get it without seriously compromising your message.

Radio/TV broadcasts, but particularly radio, insure that we stay on the message. This also means content for a far better, news-oriented online presence. Otherwise, the whole BBG should just produce English lessons with high school bathroom humor. They may be creative and funny and pass the censors in China. It’s fine to have them if you also have something else. The same with program delivery: you can’t rely on just one platform.

Then, we can get into the argument whether Voice of America should only produce online entertainment while the surrogates produce real radio news.

This is what BBG strategists are pushing for some of the most strategically important VOA services while they want to eliminate completely many others. This is against the law and intent of Congress. The Voice of America cannot be just a voice of Hollywood. The law clearly states that VOA must represent all of America and the whole spectrum of American opinions.

If BBG strategists want the surrogate broadcasters to represent the United States, they should ask the Congress for permission and perhaps be told that the surrogate broadcasters should change their names to Voice of America.

Their article is intellectually dishonest because by trying to limit the debate to shortwave only it hides the fact that BBG strategists want to eliminate the Voice of America radio and television brand-name in China, Russia and in many other countries around the world.

This “strategy” distorts America’s image and is against the law which established the VOA Charter. The article also hides the tremendous waste of U.S. taxpayers’ money through the plan designed to divert government resources from producing programs to hiring more bureaucrats and contractors.

This is how the debate needs to be framed. Reducing it to just shortwave is a trick designed to make BBG critics look like dinosaurs.

Well, it’s not going to work. People are not so stupid not to be able to see through a bit of propaganda that is just a bit too clever to be credible.

Shortwave is not a hot topic.

The hot topic are BBG strategists themselves. They are the strategic dinosaurs.

And let us not forget this little fact. In the Office of Personnel Management government-wide surveys, BBG employee rate the management team, which includes BBG strategists, as the worst managers among all federal agencies in terms of leadership and management knowledge.

Is there anything else than this little fact that would better explain the recommendation these strategists made to BBG members to end VOA shortwave radio broadcasts to Tibet and to fire seven VOA Tibetan journalists as Tibetans in Tibet are setting themselves on fire?

Research does show that VOA Tibetan television program has a slightly bigger reach than radio. But that is in Nepal where private satellite dishes are not banned and the Internet is not censored as it is in Tibet and China.

So what were these strategists thinking? There is a hot topic.

Should the United States silence the Voice of America Tibetan radio as proposed by the BBG strategists? The BBG chief strategist says: “Where our brands resonate with audiences, we want to preserve them. Where they don’t, we have the flexibility to invent new ones.” The Dalai Lama said that Voice of America Tibetan radio is “vital medicine” for Tibetans, and the Tibetan people consider it as one of the most valuable and priceless gifts from the people and government of the United States to them.

The real hot topic and choice are these two distinct visions.

By the way, the BBG blog post is dated April 12, 2012, and yet the comments on the post are closed. We wonder why. May be the recent wave of repression in Tibet in China and the outrage in America and around the world have made BBG strategists slightly insecure. On the other hand, they have never been known for lacking confidence in their abilities and judgement.

Broadcasting Board of Governors

Negative Impact Through Disintegration

by The Federalist

In late March, the Broadcasting Board of Governors/International Broadcasting Bureau (BBG/IBB) announced that it is partnering with the Gallup organization on “research.”

Gallup is a venerable polling and survey research company.  It has been around for a very long time, much like the Nielsen organization which also has done research for the BBG in the past.

Over a period of five years, the “partnering” contract awarded by the BBG/IBB could cost the American taxpayer $50-million dollars, at $10-million dollars per year.

Inaugurating the partnership, the BBG/IBB issued a press release on the subject of how global publics perceive the media where they live.  Let’s examine the press release and some of the statements and materials it contains.

According to BBG Governor Michael Meehan:

“This partnership with Gallup comes at a critical juncture for U.S. international broadcasting… Research is key to knowing our audience so we can serve them better and be even more effective with the limited resources we have.”

This is indeed a critical juncture for US international broadcasting, made more so by proposals put forward by the BBG/IBB and the Obama administration to substantially reduce or eliminate 14 of 43 Voice of America (VOA) language services.  That represents over 30% of VOA broadcast operations.  As we see it, the BBG/IBB doesn’t really care or want to know about its audiences.  It is abandoning those audiences in what has always been the core foundation of VOA broadcast operations.

Next up from the press release:

“BBG Director of Strategy and Development Bruce Sherman noted that the agency had conducted audience studies through other means for years.  But he added, ‘Gallup’s industry-leading research will play a key role in helping the BBG accomplish the objectives in our new strategy, Impact through Innovation and Integration.’”

In the press release, Sherman doesn’t explain “audience studies through other means for years.”

Unless the agency was using signal flags and Morse code, the methodology throughout the world of pollsters is fairly standard: phone calls and face-to-face interviews randomly or with focus groups.

What might be more the case is the BBG/IBB doing what it has done for years: bringing on consultants or pollsters looking for someone to validate a desired BBG/IBB outcome.  It’s the BBG/IBB version of Albert Einstein’s (attributed) definition of insanity: “Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result.”

And with the agency poised to make substantive cuts to its core base audience, the real title for what the BBG/IBB is doing should be: “Negative Impact Through Disintegration,” because that is the ultimate consequence of the agency’s “new strategy.”

The press release goes on to roll out some current Gallup research on perceived media freedom.  Working off that research, the press release states:

“With few exceptions, perceived media freedom is highest in developed countries in Asia, Europe, and North America.”

This is all fine and good.  The problem is, as a general rule, VOA’s intended audiences are in places where things are a whole lot less free beyond the parameters noted above.  In so many words, this speaks to things that are known.  At $50-million dollars, that’s a pretty steep price tag for knowing the already knowable.

But wait, there’s more:

“The Gallup research is largely consistent with earlier studies of press freedom and with the BBG’s strategic plan to promote global media freedom and provide a credible source of uncensored world news.”

Here’s the rub: if this research is largely consistent with earlier studies, including those obliquely referenced by Sherman, why is the agency taking it to the American taxpayer for a $50-million dollar contract for what amounts to a reaffirmation of what is already obvious?  You can’t fault Gallup for picking up a cool multi-million dollar contract, at $10-mill a pop for each of five years.

However, there is a lot to question of a BBG/IBB that appears to be either asleep at the switch or oblivious to known realities.  And it could also be that the BBG/IBB is intentionally ignoring these realities.

As to “promoting global media freedom,” we can add that to the other BBG/IBB mantra of “supporting freedom and democracy.”  You can’t be doing a very good job of either when you take a sledgehammer to the operation and reduce your known audience by about 30% in a part of the operation (radio) that represents 50% of your known core audience.  The BBG/IBB uses phrases like these to get congressional buy-in to use American taxpayer dollars for “Negative Impact Through Disintegration.”

Moving on:

“The BBG is partnering with Gallup to conduct its global audience research program, which will inform current and future operations of its broadcasts in 59 languages to more than 100 countries.”

Let’s quickly revisit the statement up above about cutting broadcast services.  It’s not only VOA where there will be cuts, but also in US Government grantee broadcasting entities also under the BBG/IBB.  Thenumbers above will have to be revised downward if the FY2013 budget proposal goes forward.  Less broadcasting equates with reduced effectiveness.

When you talk about the BBG/IBB, you are talking about an agency that costs about the same and does less with diminished impact and effectiveness.  That’s kind of crazy, from the American taxpayer perspective.  But Einstein’s definition of insanity appears to be an operative methodology embraced by the BBG/IBB.

In short, why is it that the BBG needs to spend $50-million dollars on what is evident and obvious?

The American people would be better served if the agency spent that $50-million dollars on the language broadcasts it intends to reduce or eliminate, including broadcasts in English, particularly in the face of increased broadcasting to North America by China and Russia.

And the Congress would be best served by hammering the BBG/IBB on how it goes about spending (which equates with wasting) American taxpayer dollars.

Finally:

“The Gallup results are based on telephone and face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults, aged 15 and older, conducted in 133 countries between February and December 2011.”

Again, this is standard operating procedure in the polling universe.

The full press release is attached for your complete reading pleasure.

US international broadcasting has been around for 70 years.  That means there is a lot of known historical context.  If you know that, you know that the BBG/IBB is trafficking in a lot of nonsense in order to cloak a dysfunctional “strategy” that is way off the rails from the agency’s core mission.  It is not interested in historical context or institutional memory.

Don’t forget: this is yet another manifestation of what Secretary of State Clinton meant when she said, “We are losing the information war.”  The value of this press release is that it is an apt demonstration of how the BBG/IBB is losing the contest of global public opinion and spending oodles of your American taxpayer dollars doing so.

This is your BBG/IBB:

“Negative Impact Through Disintegration!”

The Federalist

(Part of the BBG Watch Collective)

April 2012

I strongly urge the Broadcasting Board of Governors to reverse cuts to Voice of America Tibetan, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Burmese, and Lao broadcasting services.

These VOA services offer uncensored news and hope to nations ruled by communist and authoritarian regimes. It’s the least the United States can do for these oppressed nations.

People who are denied freedom need VOA radio broadcasts and America’s moral support. As great and as needed as Radio Free Asia is, it can’t offer what VOA represents to those who lack political freedoms. I say this from my own personal experience and from years of covering pro-democracy and dissident movements abroad.

Voice od America broadcasts offer not only uncensored news. They offer hope that some day these countries will experience freedom and democracy with America’s continued support for these ideals and principles.

I would like to offer the following analysis to guide some of these important decisions by BBG members who are the guardians of U.S. international broadcasting.

It would have been inconceivable during the Cold War to eliminate Voice of America broadcasts to communist-ruled nations and to say that Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts would be enough. As long as these nations were ruled by communist dictators and were subject to Soviet domination, Voice of America broadcasts in their languages were preserved.

The BBG should adopt the same rule, which I would call the Baltic principle of U.S. international broadcasting.

It is the same principle that guided US diplomatic relations with certain countries annexed by the Soviet Union. The United States never recognized the forcible incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union and throughout the Cold War allowed the pre-war Lithuanian, Latvian, and Estonian embassies to operate in Washington.

Just as the American non-recognition of an illegal Soviet invasion and the U.S. diplomatic support for the continuity of the independence of the Baltic States, Voice of America broadcasts have the same moral, symbolic and practical meaning for the Tibetans, the Chinese and other nations that have lost their freedom.

It’s a politically sound principle that would win the BBG approval in Congress, among human rights organizations and other  groups and communities supporting U.S. international broadcasting. Right now, the Broadcasting Board of Governors is at war with its natural and strongest supporters.

The BBG operates now on the commercial audience research principle. It’s a completely wrong approach because U.S. international broadcasting was not created to be commercially-driven.

Of course the BBG can reach a much larger audience in China or any other undemocratic country if it compromises with the local regime and makes its programs politically meaningless. That’s how the commercial principle works.

But even more dangerous is the bureaucratic control of the BBG by a small group of unelected officials who deny Board members critical information and make important decisions affecting national security and public diplomacy.

These executives don’t subscribe to the moral principles of international broadcasting and U.S. foreign policy. Their only and favorite solution to budget constraints is to cut critical language programs while leaving the bureaucratic structure untouched.

BBG members should be the guardians of moral and foreign policy principles. These principles are the only ones supported by Congress and the American people.

These principles are also the only ones that have deep meaning to the oppressed people in Tibet and China. For them, VOA broadcasts are the symbol of freedom and America’s moral support. They would like to keep it that way. The Broadcasting Board of Governors must not let them down.

Ted Lipien

I also strongly support keeping Voice of America broadcasts to other nations, particularly to Latin America, as well as preserving robust VOA broadcasting in English. These broadcasts also advance principles of democracy and are the best investment in American public diplomacy. They are far more important and valuable to the United States than the jobs of the Broadcasting Board of Governors bureaucrats who push for these cuts and reductions in VOA programs.

Here are some of Dr. Dale’s main conclusions and recommendations:

1. Keeping U.S. international broadcasting a priority in an age of budget constraints is a challenging task. Broadcasting to Iran presents a particular challenge.

2. The leading sponsor of global terrorism and an aspiring nuclear power, Iran has 74 million people, 60 percent of whom are under age 30—many of which are opposed to the regime in Tehran and hunger for news of the outside world.

3. Tragically, America’s principal instrument for communicating with Iranians, Voice of America’s Persian News Network (PNN), is not up to the task.

4. PNN is riddled with problems—inadequate language proficiency among staff members; poor morale; focus on Internet communications, which reach far fewer Iranians than do TV and radio; and anti-American and pro-Tehran reporting.
5 It is incumbent on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the leadership of Voice of America to implement reforms that will improve performance and morale at PNN.

How the U.S. Can Reach Iran

PNN presents a complex portrait: On the one hand, its contribution has undeniable importance in support of U.S. foreign policy and U.S. national interests. On the other, the actual implementation of PNN’s mandate is clearly flawed. Communication difficulties, internal culture, and status as part of a government agency have hindered its ability to achieve its full potential and to provide a meaningful and fulfilling professional environment for its employees, both Iranian and American. To make PNN an effective part of a comprehensive U.S. strategy toward Iran, the BBG should:

Restructure the PNN workplace. Professional management training for supervisors is a must, as is increased vertical communication within the network and greater transparency in hiring and promotion.

Improve the hiring process to make sure that Persian-language and English-language capabilities exist at all levels of production and management.

Write new guidelines applying to contract employees to ensure equitable treatment and accountability for all.

Create a board of Farsi-speaking advisers whose purpose it will be to monitor broadcasts and provide feedback on PNN program content.

Demand that PNN editors and producers use the resources of U.S. taxpayers to provide more professional, diverse, and technologically proficient programming, anchored in American values and aligned with U.S. national interests.
Congress should:

Exercise its power of oversight and request that the Foreign Relations Committees in the House and Senate hold regular hearings on issues relating to U.S. international broadcasting.

The Obama Administration needs a consistent policy that supports the human rights and democratic aspirations of Iranians—and U.S. international broadcasting has a major part to play in this context. When the content of U.S. international broadcasting takes an anti-American or pro-Tehran slant, it can be confusing for Iranian audiences and democracy activists who are looking for support from the outside world, especially from the United States. It is incumbent on the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the leadership of Voice of America to implement a series of reforms to improve the performance and personnel morale at PNN. An essential part of the very mission of Voice of America depends on it.

Read the original article: Why America Has Trouble Reaching Iran: VOA’s Persian News Network in Dire Need of Reform by Helle Dale, The Heritage Foundation.

Tibetans, human rights organizations, media freedom groups, and experts disagree with the BBG assessment. According to them, there are very few countries in the world where the population needs both Voice of America and surrogate radio broadcasts more than the oppressed Tibetans living in Tibet under the Chinese regime’s rule.

In Tibet, Internet access is blocked to VOA and RFA websites and Tibetans cannot easily receive satellite television without risking arrests and fines. Private satellite TV dishes are banned in China without a special license. The BBG’s argument that VOA satellite TV in Tibetan would be sufficient is based on satellite TV viewing by Tibetan refugees living outside of Tibet, not in Tibet.

According to BBG’s own researchers, results of a BBG-commissioned refugee survey in Nepal are not projectable to any population. And yet a BBG spokeswoman claims that VOA Tibetan TV and web content are the way to go, ignoring the fact that these two media cannot serve Tibetans living in Tibet. They can only be received reliably outside of Tibet.

What the BBG is in fact saying is that Tibetans in Tibet do not need Voice of America if they have Radio Free Asia. While RFA performs an extremely useful role, to claim that Tibetans in Tibet do not deserve to get Voice of America American, international and Tibetan news and the support of the American people that these VOA broadcasts imply is simply inhumane.

Radio Free Asia cannot replace Voice of America in Tibet. But because the Tibetans are so oppressed by the Chinese authorities, in addition to VOA they also need RFA as a surrogate broadcaster. The same is true for VOA and RFA Cantonese and for broadcasts to Vietnam and other countries ruled by communist or other authoritarian regimes.

What American taxpayers don’t need are constantly growing numbers of BBG executives creating highly-paid government positions for their friends, expanding their bureaucracy, giving themselves $10,000 bonuses and signing a $50,000,000 audience research contract with the Gallup Organization that won’t produce reliable results for nations such as Tibet, China, Iran, and Cuba. The BBG executive staff can do all of this by cutting programs that actually inform foreign audiences.

Shortwave radio broadcasts, even though thy are being jammed by the Chinese authorities, are getting through and are the only reliable source of uncensored news from the United States for the desperate people in Tibet living under severe repression.

Information from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) 2010 Annual Language Service Review Briefing Book.

According to the State Department’s 2009 report, “The government’s human rights record in Tibetan areas of the PRC remained poor and the severe repression of freedoms of speech, religion, association and movement that increased dramatically following the March 2008 Lhasa riots and subsequent unrest that occurred across the Tibetan Plateau continued during the year. Authorities continued to commit serious human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary arrests, extrajudicial detention and house arrest. The preservation and development of Tibet’s unique religious, cultural and linguistic heritage remained a concern.”

Further restricting freedom of speech, authorities routinely monitor all electronic communications including telephone conversations, fax transmissions, email, text messaging and Internet communications. Authorities also open and censor domestic and international mail. Security services routinely monitor and enter residences and offices to gain access to computers telephones and fax machines.

A few months after the 2008 protests, authorities said there would be severe penalties for spreading and listening to ‘rumors.’ Several Tibetans were sentenced to lengthy prison sentences for unlawfully providing intelligence’ to organizations outside of the PRC.

Although Internet use in the PRC is increasing with the China Internet Network Information Center (CNNIC) estimating some 384 million users by the end of December 2009, authorities take extreme measures to prevent Tibetans from receiving information originating outside of the PRC. The sophisticated control and surveillance system for Internet content, the so-called “Great Firewall”—is highly proficient. The PRC is now the world’s biggest prison for cyber-dissidents with a total of 57 currently held, five of whom are Tibetans.

Political conditions in China’s Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) make it impossible to conduct any research to measure RFA’s or VOA’s audience there. Any performance data herein are results of a refugee survey in Nepal and not projectable to any population.

International radio broadcasts are still subject to considerable and, arguably, more intense jamming, particularly VOA and RFA Tibetan and Chinese broadcasts, as well as Voice of Tibet’s Tibetan language broadcasts.

Authorities also target satellite use. For example, in June 2009 in Tibetan areas of southern Gansu Province and the Kardze (Ganzi) Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan Province, police confiscated or destroyed satellite dishes suspected of receiving VOA Tibetan-language television, as well as VOA and RFA audio satellite channels. Recognizing the power of satellite television, authorities are rolling out alternative strategies, such as providing free cable connections or small Ku-band satellite dishes (which are intended to thwart reception of foreign channels).

On March 7, 2012 the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) plans to mark the 70th anniversary of the Voice of America (VOA) and its 70 years of international broadcasting on behalf of the US Government and the American people.
 
It is a hollow and somewhat hypocritical moment because the BBG and its International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) minions are the spearhead of the Obama administration’s FY2013 budget proposal to decimate 33% of the VOA’s broadcast operations.
 
No doubt, the BBG/IBB will try to make a spectacle of things.  But it will be the hypocrisy that people will remember most, long after things get wrapped up in the Cohen Building auditorium.  It will less of a celebratory event and more like a death watch.
 
An institution of government like VOA rarely recovers from this kind of decimation.  The effect on employee morale and productivity is likely already noticeable.  People are going through the motions, coming to work, doing their jobs but hardly with the kind of robust enthusiasm of the past when employees knew the mission, understood the mission and knew they were making a substantive contribution to vital US national interests.
 
All of these things are in the past.  Now, the BBG/IBB, enthusiastically embracing bonus-mongering and self-interest, has also embraced a corporate mentality that reduces employees to collateral damage in their grand designs.
 
This is at the center of just about everything that is wrong with this agency and is a potent contributor to the agency’s diminished effectiveness.  These guys (the BBG/IBB) have lost the big picture focus.  They traffic in a whole lot of empty words and phrases that have no meaning in terms of execution of the agency’s mission.  
 
In its effect, these guys are engaged in is a phony sales job with the Congress and the American taxpayers.
 
Anything remotely resembling the demolitions effort represented in the administration’s cuts embraced by the BBG/IBB takes the United States out of any meaningful presence in international broadcasting.
 
If one were to talk directly with the agency’s employees, the message would be this:
 
Make no mistake about it – the effort to reverse this proposed destruction is going to be one, tough fight because of the size and scope of what the BBG/IBB wants to do.  For the purposes of this fight, one has to be of the mindset that you have no friends on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building.  Senior officials cannot and will not be of any value in this fight.  They have a different agenda.  There may be those who do not agree with the big rollout of the demolitions project, but they are effectively muzzled and of no use.
 
In order to win this fight for the mission of the agency, you have to be totally committed to it.  That is particularly true for all the employee unions and their representatives.  The employees must do their part as well.  It’s time to step up and not sit back in the shadows hoping that someone else is going to do all the heavy lifting and prevail.
 
This is your last stand and you must think of it that way.  Any substantial success by the BBG/IBB in pulling this off and the days of VOA are numbered.  Forget the Third Floor talk that there is still a place for radio at VOA.  That’s a crock.  There will be no turning back.  The mission will not be rescued.  The agency will be permanently broken and rendered ineffective in the most important strategic demographic there is: the global publics in the arena of international broadcasting.
 
So get with it.  You have to make the case that you’re worth saving.  If you are in denial about what is going on around you, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
 
There is support for you in this fight and those forces are already in motion.  Some are above the radar.  Some are operating below the radar – the ones whose actions and initiatives the agency cannot anticipate or counter.  There are people who don’t like the BBG or the IBB bonus-mongers.  They do have an abiding respect for the agency, its mission and its employees who have been under assault for a long time.  They are motivated to “level the playing field” on your behalf for no personal or professional gain.  And you are lucky to have them on your side.
 
The BBG/IBB is already prepared to lay out and ramp up its justifications for the cuts it is making.  You have to be prepared to counter these arguments effectively.  We are not going to walk through every issue represented by these cuts, but here are some general observations:
 
You can start out with a big one: the world is globalized.  Every part of the world is strategic.  There are a whole lot of global players who view the world that way, even if the BBG/IBB doesn’t.  It’s a chess game with major consequences.  One misstep and you can end up a big-time loser.
 
Start with some good visuals.  Use a map and take that map when you go and pay a visit to people outside the building who have an interest in the issue of US international broadcasting.  People have to see what you’re talking about.  Look at the places/countries that are targeted to be cut.  See who their “neighbors” are.  Look at the strategic trade routes that traverse through these areas, the major ports, bodies of water.  Think of the consequences if these areas are “zoned out.”
 
The BBG/IBB is tone deaf, dumb (really dumb) and intentionally blind to history.  All the places targeted by the BBG/IBB for cuts have history.  Long history.  Some treat the last couple of millennia as if it were yesterday.  You have to know the players and know their history.  They see themselves in an historical context.  The BBG/IBB mindset is inside the Beltway.  You have to look and think globally and demonstrate how the BBG/IBB is on a fool’s errand.
 
We know what the BBG/IBB doesn’t want to do: radio in 14 of 43 VOA languages and other reductions among the grantees.  Let’s take a look at what they do want to be doing.
 
They want to spend $9-million dollars on television to Egypt.  This is supposed to accomplish what?  Anyone in the American government who believes that the Egyptians are interested in seeing things our way needs to do some serious recalibration.  This is another one of those audiences that is lost to the US.  Forget all the Western-media hyped “Arab Spring” nonsense.  The region is embroiled in revolution.  The wind isn’t blowing in the direction of American-style democracy.  The real deal is something else.  The players to be watching are the Egyptian military, a tradition-based, conservative organization and the Muslim Brotherhood, formerly and long-oppressed and now rejuvenated.  These organizations will not go quietly into the night.  They will not turn the country over to some flash mob in the streets of Cairo.  We are likely to see a country guided by its traditional beliefs.  It may be “democratic,” but most assuredly it won’t be passive, particularly with regard to its policy toward Israel.  $9-million dollars is chump change as far as television is concerned.  Some people on the Third Floor believe they can do television cheaply.  In reality, what they are doing is cheap television badly.
 
By the way – Egyptian authorities recently arrested 16 Americans working for non-governmental organizations and charged them with “subversion.”  There’s your “Arab Spring” in Egypt.  They have been spirited out of the country after the US Government paid $300-thousand dollars bail for each one.  Some might look at this as less of bail money and more of a ransom payment.  And it could be the precursor of other things to come.
 
And here’s another thing. VOA reports are calling uprising leaders in Yemen “citizen journalists.”
 
You know what this is?  It’s taking a side in sectarian violence. Glorifying a participant as a “citizen journalist” is a crock.  That person referred to as a “citizen journalist” is an Islamic revolutionary, not a reporter. That’s what’s going on.  Get real.  This kind of “angle” to a story buys a lot of trouble.
 
And buying more trouble is a “Faces of the Fallen” feature being kicked around in the VOA Newsroom regarding the conflict in Syria.  It’s not even an original thought, since the Washington Post has long run such a feature with regard to American military personnel killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
 
But the essential point remains the same as the Yemen “story:” the VOA is taking sides in a sectarian conflict.  The VOA is no longer a neutral observer of events, a balanced chronicler of these events.  In sectarian violence – particularly in the Middle East – there are no winners.  These kinds of conflicts have a long, long shelf life where the name of the game is to get even when the opportunity presents itself.  It has been embedded in Middle East history for well over a thousand years.  It’s a fact.
 
Advocacy in a sectarian conflict comes with consequences.  In the immediate sense, it could endanger agency personnel in the field.  More broadly, it could provoke attacks against other Americans as soft targets for terrorists.
 
What the BBG/IBB is doing is bad, stupid, reckless and irresponsible.
 
We may view certain regimes as despicable and their actions heinous.  But for the work of VOA, the agency must appear outwardly neutral and stick to fair and balanced reporting of events.
 
And then there are those pesky Iranians.  The latest in that saga is the BBG/IBB wants to take the Persian News Network (PNN) program “Parazit” and move it to the VOA New York News Bureau.  This is going to cost money.  How much money remains to be seen.  That’s one issue.  The other issue is: of what value does this program have to the agency’s mission as regards Iran?  Okay, it’s a campy satire program that has gotten the agency some media exposure.  The exposure is over.  Now what?
 
With no disrespect to the people who do the show, the question is: what is this supposed to accomplish?  Yes, people back in Iran – the 6% who may or may not be watching PNN – might be getting a good laugh at some of the things the “Parazit” producers target.  But at the end of the day, things are getting really tense between Iran and the West – and with Israel in particular.  Recent elections in Iran find the hard-liners making substantial gains.  These are the guys who are the most belligerent toward Israel and the West.  The audience that is laughing now may find itself getting in the way of some heavy ordnance and becoming collateral damage.
 
 
So, let’s put a question to the BBG/IBB “brain trust:”
 
Do you think that war with Iran is a good idea?
 
The Iranians play hardball.  They have assets prepositioned all around the globe.  One of their nuclear scientists gets assassinated and then the next thing you see is the Iranians retaliating with their own hit squads going after soft targets of their suspected adversaries, particularly the Israelis.
 
Remember what we talked about some months ago: six minutes to Armageddon.  That’s flight time for an Iranian ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead to reach Israeli territory.  That causes a whole lot of sleepless nights in the higher echelons of the Israeli government in Tel Aviv.  And it probably does the same in Washington, DC if you pay attention to the high-level delegations going back and forth between the two countries.  The Israelis most certainly have a plan in place for a preemptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities.  That plan is being revised and refined.  The Israeli government has already told the United States that it won’t be consulted if the plan goes operational.  The only question is when it will be executed.  It’s not even a question of “if.”
 
The point is this – “Parazit” is entertainment.  It isn’t news.  The Iranians aren’t watching PNN for news.  For that they turn to the BBC.  “Parazit” is supposed to be a “hook” to get Iranians to watch PNN news programs.  Obviously, it isn’t working.  And there is no absence of hard news coming out of Iran and the rest of the Middle East.
 
The BBG/IBB “brain trust” also wants to “elevate and expand social media.”  That is revealing.  “Social media” is entertainment, not substantive news and analysis.  It is Internet-based.  Among other things, there is the inherent vulnerability of the Internet to cyber-countermeasures.  Some of these operations are individuals or non-government organizations.  Some, however, are state-sponsored.  In addition, governments, including those in the West, are taking a look-see at what people are viewing on the Internet, often without the user’s knowledge.  And in other cases, it is just plain unavailable, inaccessible and/or unaffordable.
 
Clearly, the BBG/IBB wants to “elevate and expand social media” because at present it is the weakest link in their media assets.  It has the smallest audience by far, according to the agency’s own research – a paltry 10-million compared to 100-million plus for radio and similar numbers for television.  And let’s not forget, the global population is around 7-billion.
 
And didn’t the agency recently get burned badly by a phony “interview” with a Russian opposition leader that got posted on the VOA Russian Service website?
 
This is clearly the direction the agency wants to go in: to be an entertainment source, not a source for news and information.  If the BBG/IBB wants to do that, it should do it on its own dime and not at public expense because they are not doing what they are charged to do: international broadcasting.  And in the case of the VOA, executing its mission via the VOA Charter.
 
And forget that nonsense that the BBG/IBB wants to be a “leading global news network.”  That’s cheap talk designed to get the Congress to pony up big taxpayer dollars.  In reality, it’s the –
 
Global Nothing Network.
 
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the best thing that can happen for US national and public interests is to make the BBG/IBB “advisory,” find them office space in the far reaches of the Washington suburbs and forget about them.
 
For those supportive of the VOA, its mission and employees, there are some good issues to bang on.  You don’t tap these issues gently.  You pound on them relentlessly.  You give Congress and others a good reason never to want to hear the BBG/IBB and US international broadcasting mentioned in the same breath.
 
You let the fat cats and the bonus-mongers of the IBB know that you’ve come to play hardball.
 
If you want to see the 71st anniversary of your language service: it’s time to get busy.
 
And remember this: there is nothing more insidious than having an institution with 70 years of serving US national and public interests destroyed from within.  Your so-called “leaders” have spoken:
 
The mission is expendable.  You are expendable.  
 
The Federalist
March 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

BBG Ready to Drop the Ax on Cantonese and Tibetan Services
By Ann Noonan

March 5, 2012

In December 2011, the Broadcasting Board of Governors issued a proclamation in observance of Voice of America’s 70th anniversary of Mandarin and Cantonese Services, boasting: “Mandarin and Cantonese language services have been key components of U.S. international broadcasting for all these 70 years and have brought news to China where the free flow of information is restricted.” A copy of their proclamation is available on the BBG website.

On December 6, with bipartisan support from senators and congressmen who signed a resolution to keep VOA China alive, the VOA China Branch celebrated its 70th anniversary at a festive reception in the Rayburn Building on Capitol Hill. Attendees also celebrated the exemplary work of both the VOA Mandarin and Cantonese Services in bringing news and information to the people of China over the past decades.

Instead of using these opportunities to promote the successful language services and wishing the Voice of America staff continued success and growth, the public-relations opportunities were used to puff up the BBG’s image and award BBG management with $10,000 bonuses — while quietly planning to cut (off) Voice of America services from the airwaves.

During this same time, as Beijing embarked on an effort to obliterate the Cantonese language in its own domestic media, the BBG and their International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) inquired with Voice of America’s Cantonese Service staff about what kind of equipment they might have at home to use for work, suggesting that they would provide training in early 2012 for those staffers to work from home. The management selected Voice of America’s Cantonese Service to participate in a “re-location operation” exercise in case there might be a dirty-bomb attack in the Cohen Building and the Voice of America’s Cantonese staff were unable to go to work. Almost as soon as that conversation began, it ended.

This information is not available on their website.

What is available on their website is their FY2013 budget, wherein the BBG proposes to completely eliminate the Voice of America’s Cantonese Services to China. The BBG proposal completely disregards congressionally-mandated Public Law 94-350 which directed VOA to inform the people in China who speak Cantonese by providing them with news broadcasts that promote freedom and democracy. It also disregards pleadings from inside China, where postings such as these are made at great risk:

I have listened VOA in Chinese for more than 28 years, it will break my heart if the government cuts the radio broadcast China branch.

And: 

As college students growing up in China, we relied daily on VOA for objective news and different world views. Stopping broadcast would mean that a window to the outside world would be shut. It is a huge loss for long term as well.

Last year the U.S. Congress soundly defeated similar attempts by the BBG to cut VOA Chinese services, but even during this election year, the BBG seems undeterred and emboldened. The latest BBG cuts were announced to the Voice of America staff on February 13, one day before China’s next president met with President Obama in the White House.

The BBG FY2013 budget also dropped the ax on Tibetan Voice of America radio broadcasts to Tibet. This comes as a real surprise, as American compassion for the people of Tibet and respect for their spiritual leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, is at an all-time high.

Last March, the BBG/IBB celebrated Voice of America Tibetan services by marking their 20th anniversary. The BBG celebrated VOA’s invaluable weekly 42 hours of Tibetan-service radio. VOA’s website reported how “in Tibet, as in other parts of China, citizens have limited access to objective news.” This year National Public Radio reported that “The [Buddhist] monks [in Tibet] listen secretly to Voice of America’s Tibetan service news every night, despite feeling almost physical pain at the bleak news.”

BBG proposals to cut Tibetan services disregards another act of Congress, Public Law 101-246, signed into law on February 16, 1990, “to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet”

One Tibetan rights leader stated: “It appears they want to run the VOA as a soulless business (for private gain) rather than as a government initiative (for public good) and that’s sad.”

The BBG proposals to isolate Tibetans and Cantonese-speaking Chinese must be demoralizing and discouraging to VOA staff.

And so the fight is on. Let’s hope that once again, the U.S. Congress will prevent these cuts from taking place. Let’s also hope that the Broadcasting Board of Governors will use what remains of their tenure to clean house and get rid of the management staffers who seem to oppose their own mission: to promote freedom and democracy and to enhance understanding by broadcasting accurate, objective, and balanced news and information about the United States and the world to audiences abroad.

— Ann Noonan is the executive director of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting.

In her “Quieting the Voice of America” article, Dr. Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation argues for strengthening U.S. international broadcasting to countries without free media and reforming the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal agency that manages VOA.

Link to the full article by Helle Dale, Heritage Foundation:

Quieting of the Voice of America

BBG Watch has also been warning for some time that under the Broadcasting Board of Governors priorities, its programming, marketing, and staffing policies, the Voice of America Russian Service has developed a “pro-Putin bias.” This bias was described in the BBG’s own study commissioned from a noted independent Russian journalist and new media scholar Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy.

BBG Watch recommends reading Alexandr Solzhenitsyn’s 1982 article in National Review, “Soft Voice of America”, and the 2011 study of the Voice of America Russian Service website done for the BBG by Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy. Link to the Study.

February 17, 2012
For Immediate Release

Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Opposes Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget Proposal for FY2013

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) has issued the following statement after a careful review of the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 161-page Budget Proposal for FY2013:

“The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting is outraged by the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget for FY2013 that proposes to cut and reduce Voice of America (VOA) English and foreign language programs and positions, as well as programs and positions at Radio Free Asia (RFA) and at other U.S. government-funded international broadcasting entities managed by the BBG.

We oppose the BBG’s efforts to eviscerate core news services provided by the Voice of America and other broadcasters while using U.S.-taxpayer resources to inflate the ranks of the BBG management.

The VOA Tibetan Service was created by an Act of Congress signed into law on February 16, 1990 ‘to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.’ Less than one year ago the Voice of America was celebrating the importance of Tibetan radio broadcasts, marking the 20th anniversary of the first VOA Tibetan radio program.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors now wants to eliminate completely these critical radio broadcasts from their budget and leave funding only for a television program which most people in Tibet are unable to receive. This BBG action would defeat the purpose of the Federal law sponsored by Rep. Dante B. Fascell (Public Law No: 101-246) which established the VOA Tibetan Service.

We also adamantly oppose the BBG’s plans to cut the entire VOA Cantonese Service, which includes the VOA Cantonese weekly program, ‘American Report’ viewed in Cantonese‐speaking areas of China.

We expect that there will be a public outcry for these services to remain. Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Burma, Georgia, Greece, Laos, Russian Federation, Turkey and Vietnam are some of the other countries to which the BBG wants to reduce information programs. The Caucasus region, including Chechnya, and Central Asia are also targeted by the BBG for program cuts and reductions.

CUSIB also questions the BBG’s ‘over-arching strategic objective … (T)o become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016…’  This proposal also seems to be in direct conflict with Congressional intent as it will divert scarce resources from serving those who are most desperate to receive uncensored news and information.

In a memo to BBG staff, the BBG wrote: ‘We realize that some of these proposed changes will create anxiety.’  On the contrary, these BBG proposed changes will re-ignite passion of every journalist and human rights activist and incite and re-inspire them to preserve those programs that support journalism for media freedom and human rights.”

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is an independent, nongovernmental organization which supports free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries without free media.

For further information, please contact:

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB)
New York, New York

Ann Noonan, co-founder and Executive Director
Tel. 646-251-6069

Ted Lipien, co-founder and Director
Tel. 415-793-1642
Email: contact@cusib.org
www.cusib.org
 

###

Text of Public Law 101-246 establishing the Voice of America Tibetan Service:

SEC. 234. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO TIBET.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall establish through the Voice of America, a service to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.
(b) AMOUNT OF PROGRAMMING- For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, programming broadcasts to the people of Tibet pursuant to this section shall occur for not less than two hours each day.
(c) REPORT- As soon as possible in the fiscal year 1990, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive written report detailing the implementation of the programming provided for in this section.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- In addition to funds otherwise available under subsection (e), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Voice of America for purposes of carrying out this section $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991.
(e) TRANSFER AUTHORITY- The Director of the United States Information Agency may transfer to Voice of America Tibet Service such amounts appropriated for the `Television and Film Service’ for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 as exceed the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such fiscal year for such Service.

SEC. 235. VOICE OF AMERICA’S THAILAND RADIO FACILITIES.

The Director of the United States Information Agency may enter into a contract for the construction of the Voice of America’s Thailand radio facilities for periods not in excess of 5 years or delegate such authority to the Corps of Engineers of the United States Department of the Army if there are sufficient funds to cover at least the Government’s liability for payments for the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded plus the full amount of estimated cancellation costs.

SEC. 236. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, the Voice of America shall provide not less than 12 hours of programming each day for the People’s Republic of China.
SEC. 237. VOICE OF AMERICA EQUIPMENT ABROAD.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America should take every step necessary to ensure that existing Voice of America equipment abroad is properly maintained and enhanced to prevent deterioration.

February 17, 2012
For Immediate Release

Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Opposes Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget Proposal for FY2013

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) has issued the following statement after a careful review of the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 161-page Budget Proposal for FY2013:

“The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting is outraged by the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget for FY2013 that proposes to cut and reduce Voice of America (VOA) English and foreign language programs and positions, as well as programs and positions at Radio Free Asia (RFA) and at other U.S. government-funded international broadcasting entities managed by the BBG.

We oppose the BBG’s efforts to eviscerate core news services provided by the Voice of America and other broadcasters while using U.S.-taxpayer resources to inflate the ranks of the BBG management.

The VOA Tibetan Service was created by an Act of Congress signed into law on February 16, 1990 ‘to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.’ Less than one year ago the Voice of America was celebrating the importance of Tibetan radio broadcasts, marking the 20th anniversary of the first VOA Tibetan radio program.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors now wants to eliminate completely these critical radio broadcasts from their budget and leave funding only for a television program which most people in Tibet are unable to receive. This BBG action would defeat the purpose of the Federal law sponsored by Rep. Dante B. Fascell (Public Law No: 101-246) which established the VOA Tibetan Service.

We also adamantly oppose the BBG’s plans to cut the entire VOA Cantonese Service, which includes the VOA Cantonese weekly program, ‘American Report’ viewed in Cantonese‐speaking areas of China.

We expect that there will be a public outcry for these services to remain. Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Burma, Georgia, Greece, Laos, Russian Federation, Turkey and Vietnam are some of the other countries to which the BBG wants to reduce information programs. The Caucasus region, including Chechnya, and Central Asia are also targeted by the BBG for program cuts and reductions.

CUSIB also questions the BBG’s ‘over-arching strategic objective … (T)o become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016…’  This proposal also seems to be in direct conflict with Congressional intent as it will divert scarce resources from serving those who are most desperate to receive uncensored news and information.

In a memo to BBG staff, the BBG wrote: ‘We realize that some of these proposed changes will create anxiety.’  On the contrary, these BBG proposed changes will re-ignite passion of every journalist and human rights activist and incite and re-inspire them to preserve those programs that support journalism for media freedom and human rights.”

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is an independent, nongovernmental organization which supports free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries without free media.

For further information, please contact:

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB)
New York, New York

Ann Noonan, co-founder and Executive Director
Tel. 646-251-6069

Ted Lipien, co-founder and Director
Tel. 415-793-1642
Email: contact@cusib.org
www.cusib.org
 

###

Text of Public Law 101-246 establishing the Voice of America Tibetan Service:

SEC. 234. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO TIBET.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall establish through the Voice of America, a service to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.
(b) AMOUNT OF PROGRAMMING- For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, programming broadcasts to the people of Tibet pursuant to this section shall occur for not less than two hours each day.
(c) REPORT- As soon as possible in the fiscal year 1990, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive written report detailing the implementation of the programming provided for in this section.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- In addition to funds otherwise available under subsection (e), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Voice of America for purposes of carrying out this section $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991.
(e) TRANSFER AUTHORITY- The Director of the United States Information Agency may transfer to Voice of America Tibet Service such amounts appropriated for the `Television and Film Service’ for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 as exceed the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such fiscal year for such Service.

SEC. 235. VOICE OF AMERICA’S THAILAND RADIO FACILITIES.

The Director of the United States Information Agency may enter into a contract for the construction of the Voice of America’s Thailand radio facilities for periods not in excess of 5 years or delegate such authority to the Corps of Engineers of the United States Department of the Army if there are sufficient funds to cover at least the Government’s liability for payments for the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded plus the full amount of estimated cancellation costs.

SEC. 236. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, the Voice of America shall provide not less than 12 hours of programming each day for the People’s Republic of China.
SEC. 237. VOICE OF AMERICA EQUIPMENT ABROAD.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America should take every step necessary to ensure that existing Voice of America equipment abroad is properly maintained and enhanced to prevent deterioration.

February 17, 2012
For Immediate Release

Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Opposes Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget Proposal for FY2013

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) has issued the following statement after a careful review of the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ 161-page Budget Proposal for FY2013:

“The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting is outraged by the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget for FY2013 that proposes to cut and reduce Voice of America (VOA) English and foreign language programs and positions, as well as programs and positions at Radio Free Asia (RFA) and at other U.S. government-funded international broadcasting entities managed by the BBG.

We oppose the BBG’s efforts to eviscerate core news services provided by the Voice of America and other broadcasters while using U.S.-taxpayer resources to inflate the ranks of the BBG management.

The VOA Tibetan Service was created by an Act of Congress signed into law on February 16, 1990 ‘to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.’ Less than one year ago the Voice of America was celebrating the importance of Tibetan radio broadcasts, marking the 20th anniversary of the first VOA Tibetan radio program.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors now wants to eliminate completely these critical radio broadcasts from their budget and leave funding only for a television program which most people in Tibet are unable to receive. This BBG action would defeat the purpose of the Federal law sponsored by Rep. Dante B. Fascell (Public Law No: 101-246) which established the VOA Tibetan Service.

We also adamantly oppose the BBG’s plans to cut the entire VOA Cantonese Service, which includes the VOA Cantonese weekly program, ‘American Report’ viewed in Cantonese‐speaking areas of China.

We expect that there will be a public outcry for these services to remain. Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Burma, Georgia, Greece, Laos, Russian Federation, Turkey and Vietnam are some of the other countries to which the BBG wants to reduce information programs. The Caucasus region, including Chechnya, and Central Asia are also targeted by the BBG for program cuts and reductions.

CUSIB also questions the BBG’s ‘over-arching strategic objective … (T)o become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016…’  This proposal also seems to be in direct conflict with Congressional intent as it will divert scarce resources from serving those who are most desperate to receive uncensored news and information.

In a memo to BBG staff, the BBG wrote: ‘We realize that some of these proposed changes will create anxiety.’  On the contrary, these BBG proposed changes will re-ignite passion of every journalist and human rights activist and incite and re-inspire them to preserve those programs that support journalism for media freedom and human rights.”

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is an independent, nongovernmental organization which supports free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries without free media.

For further information, please contact:

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB)
New York, New York

Ann Noonan, co-founder and Executive Director
Tel. 646-251-6069

Ted Lipien, co-founder and Director
Tel. 415-793-1642
Email: contact@cusib.org
www.cusib.org
 

###

Text of Public Law 101-246 establishing the Voice of America Tibetan Service:

SEC. 234. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO TIBET.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVICE- Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall establish through the Voice of America, a service to provide Voice of America Tibetan language programming to the people of Tibet.
(b) AMOUNT OF PROGRAMMING- For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, programming broadcasts to the people of Tibet pursuant to this section shall occur for not less than two hours each day.
(c) REPORT- As soon as possible in the fiscal year 1990, the Director of the United States Information Agency shall submit to the Congress a comprehensive written report detailing the implementation of the programming provided for in this section.
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS- In addition to funds otherwise available under subsection (e), there are authorized to be appropriated to the Voice of America for purposes of carrying out this section $1,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991.
(e) TRANSFER AUTHORITY- The Director of the United States Information Agency may transfer to Voice of America Tibet Service such amounts appropriated for the `Television and Film Service’ for each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991 as exceed the amounts authorized to be appropriated for each such fiscal year for such Service.

SEC. 235. VOICE OF AMERICA’S THAILAND RADIO FACILITIES.

The Director of the United States Information Agency may enter into a contract for the construction of the Voice of America’s Thailand radio facilities for periods not in excess of 5 years or delegate such authority to the Corps of Engineers of the United States Department of the Army if there are sufficient funds to cover at least the Government’s liability for payments for the fiscal year in which the contract is awarded plus the full amount of estimated cancellation costs.

SEC. 236. VOICE OF AMERICA BROADCASTS TO THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA.

For each of the fiscal years 1990 and 1991, the Voice of America shall provide not less than 12 hours of programming each day for the People’s Republic of China.
SEC. 237. VOICE OF AMERICA EQUIPMENT ABROAD.

It is the sense of the Congress that the United States Information Agency and the Voice of America should take every step necessary to ensure that existing Voice of America equipment abroad is properly maintained and enhanced to prevent deterioration.

Snapshot of Voice of America website under cyber attack by Iranian hackers.

Voice of America (VOA) Director David Ensor is taking on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and its Iranian Cyber Army!  Well, not exactly but close, at least symbolically.
 
As addressed in a recent BBG Watch article, Voice of America (VOA) director David Ensor has posted comments on his blog critical of Iran’s jamming of VOA Farsi television programs intended to reach Iranian audiences by satellite.
 
BBG Watch points out, Mr. Ensor and/or the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) can complain all they want, but absent an effective back-up plan, US international broadcasting is being stymied by the Iranians.
 
This is more than communications warfare.  This is the Iranians – and others – waging a form of economic warfare against the United States.  Satellites cost money.  Airtime on satellites costs money.  Producing programs that few if anyone is able to watch costs more money, along with equipment, personnel salaries, etc.  It’s an effective tactic, especially when the United States is not flush with cash these days and won’t be for the foreseeable future.
 
The Iranians are not likely to back down from what they are doing.  And from their perspective, the fact that Ensor gives them some free attention and publicity may be seen as validating the effectiveness of their actions.  It’s all about perception.  The perception the Iranians are trying to create is that the United States is weak and powerless to stop them from what they are doing.  And to a certain extent, they are correct.
 
As to an effective BBG/IBB back-up plan to deal with the situation -
 
There is no effective back-up plan.
 
The ultimate objective of the agency’s “flim, flam strategic plan” is to be wholly reliant on the Internet as its sole source platform for audio, video and text.  This “plan” is inherently vulnerable.  Iran, China and other nations have the capability to control or take down the Internet and other forms of communication technology at will and have done so.  In places where we have strategic interests (Russia, China and Iran), US international broadcasting is right on the cusp of being rendered irrelevant.
 
The only effective plan for US international broadcasting begins with radio:
 
First, radio goes everywhere.  Attempts to jam radio broadcasts over shortwave are not wholly or uniformly effective.  That makes radio the core strategic asset of US international broadcasting.
 
Second, radio signals cover the greatest expanse of territory.  They can blanket a country if not entire geographic regions.  The more territory you cover, the more listeners you can reach, the better investment of American taxpayer dollars.
 
Third, radio is the most affordable at the receiving end.  The first order of business should be making maximum use of the medium that is able to reach the largest number of people by the cheapest means available for the audience.
 
Everything after this is extra.  For the person at the receiving end, the other mediums of television and the Internet start ratcheting up affordability, accessibility and connectivity.
 
Of course, in the mindset of the BBG/IBB, the first thing to get rid of is radio!  They want you to believe that radio is old-fashioned.  Tell that to people who listen to Washington, DC radio station WTOP and rely upon it for all kinds of relevant news and information.  That kind of reliance is no different when applied to international audiences.  If the radio programming is compelling, people will listen.
 
Instead of expanding the audience for US international broadcasting, the agency’s “scam plan,” at its ultimate goal, has the effect of narrowing the potential audience.  Either the majority general population hasn’t the per capita income to purchase the technology, can’t get connected to the technology or is at the mercy of a national government’s ability to block connectivity and expose individuals to retaliation, arrest or other punitive measures.
 
Why does BBG/IBB research show that radio has far superior numbers to its Internet operations?  Read the paragraphs above.  The BBG/IBB is going out of its way to cripple the effectiveness of US international broadcasting.
 
It is unlikely that the Iranians will be much disturbed by Mr. Ensor’s blog and will likely continue to commit itself to continuing the disruption of VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) programs.
 
But there’s more to what the Iranians are doing:
 
Recently, the Iranians have expanded their global broadcasting outreach to include television broadcasts in Spanish.
 
More than likely, this is a gesture of solidarity with the regime of Hugo Chavez, the Iranians ally in Venezuela and Latin America.  It’s a slick maneuver on the part of both the Iranians and Chavez, the second greatest irritant to the United States in the Southern Hemisphere next to Fidel Castro.
 
Chavez sees himself as the likely ideological successor to Castro and no doubt wants to build upon that image.  That makes his connection to the Iranians very disturbing.  As part of its nuclear ambitions, the Iranians are known to be working on increasing the range of their ballistic missiles.  The last thing the United States needs is a surprise coming out of the Southern Hemisphere, a scenario in which Iranian ballistic missiles are forward deployed to Venezuela.  Chavez is certainly capable of making that kind of deal with the Iranians.
 
At present, we don’t know much about what the BBG/IBB is doing in its broadcasts to Latin America.  It’s off the radar – and with the BBG/IBB that’s never a good thing.  We hear of protests outside the offices of Radio/TV Marti in Miami with Cuban expatriates unhappy with what they see as the agency going soft on the Castro regime.  That could be an outward indication of an eroded effectiveness of the broadcasting effort to Latin America in general.
 
At the end of the day, here’s the deal:
 
The Iranian government is very determined to achieve its national goals and objectives.  It looks for openings, opportunities.  Latin America is on the Iranian radar.
 
The BBG/IBB represents just the opposite – a lack of determination and commitment compromising the nature and effectiveness of the US Government international broadcasting effort.
 
See the big picture:
 
The BBG/IBB: strategically outmaneuvered once again.
 
The Federalist
February 10, 2012
 
 

Snapshot of Voice of America website under cyber attack by Iranian hackers.

Voice of America (VOA) Director David Ensor is taking on Iran’s Revolutionary Guards and its Iranian Cyber Army!  Well, not exactly but close, at least symbolically.
 
As addressed in a recent BBG Watch article, Voice of America (VOA) director David Ensor has posted comments on his blog critical of Iran’s jamming of VOA Farsi television programs intended to reach Iranian audiences by satellite.
 
BBG Watch points out, Mr. Ensor and/or the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) can complain all they want, but absent an effective back-up plan, US international broadcasting is being stymied by the Iranians.
 
This is more than communications warfare.  This is the Iranians – and others – waging a form of economic warfare against the United States.  Satellites cost money.  Airtime on satellites costs money.  Producing programs that few if anyone is able to watch costs more money, along with equipment, personnel salaries, etc.  It’s an effective tactic, especially when the United States is not flush with cash these days and won’t be for the foreseeable future.
 
The Iranians are not likely to back down from what they are doing.  And from their perspective, the fact that Ensor gives them some free attention and publicity may be seen as validating the effectiveness of their actions.  It’s all about perception.  The perception the Iranians are trying to create is that the United States is weak and powerless to stop them from what they are doing.  And to a certain extent, they are correct.
 
As to an effective BBG/IBB back-up plan to deal with the situation -
 
There is no effective back-up plan.
 
The ultimate objective of the agency’s “flim, flam strategic plan” is to be wholly reliant on the Internet as its sole source platform for audio, video and text.  This “plan” is inherently vulnerable.  Iran, China and other nations have the capability to control or take down the Internet and other forms of communication technology at will and have done so.  In places where we have strategic interests (Russia, China and Iran), US international broadcasting is right on the cusp of being rendered irrelevant.
 
The only effective plan for US international broadcasting begins with radio:
 
First, radio goes everywhere.  Attempts to jam radio broadcasts over shortwave are not wholly or uniformly effective.  That makes radio the core strategic asset of US international broadcasting.
 
Second, radio signals cover the greatest expanse of territory.  They can blanket a country if not entire geographic regions.  The more territory you cover, the more listeners you can reach, the better investment of American taxpayer dollars.
 
Third, radio is the most affordable at the receiving end.  The first order of business should be making maximum use of the medium that is able to reach the largest number of people by the cheapest means available for the audience.
 
Everything after this is extra.  For the person at the receiving end, the other mediums of television and the Internet start ratcheting up affordability, accessibility and connectivity.
 
Of course, in the mindset of the BBG/IBB, the first thing to get rid of is radio!  They want you to believe that radio is old-fashioned.  Tell that to people who listen to Washington, DC radio station WTOP and rely upon it for all kinds of relevant news and information.  That kind of reliance is no different when applied to international audiences.  If the radio programming is compelling, people will listen.
 
Instead of expanding the audience for US international broadcasting, the agency’s “scam plan,” at its ultimate goal, has the effect of narrowing the potential audience.  Either the majority general population hasn’t the per capita income to purchase the technology, can’t get connected to the technology or is at the mercy of a national government’s ability to block connectivity and expose individuals to retaliation, arrest or other punitive measures.
 
Why does BBG/IBB research show that radio has far superior numbers to its Internet operations?  Read the paragraphs above.  The BBG/IBB is going out of its way to cripple the effectiveness of US international broadcasting.
 
It is unlikely that the Iranians will be much disturbed by Mr. Ensor’s blog and will likely continue to commit itself to continuing the disruption of VOA’s Persian News Network (PNN) programs.
 
But there’s more to what the Iranians are doing:
 
Recently, the Iranians have expanded their global broadcasting outreach to include television broadcasts in Spanish.
 
More than likely, this is a gesture of solidarity with the regime of Hugo Chavez, the Iranians ally in Venezuela and Latin America.  It’s a slick maneuver on the part of both the Iranians and Chavez, the second greatest irritant to the United States in the Southern Hemisphere next to Fidel Castro.
 
Chavez sees himself as the likely ideological successor to Castro and no doubt wants to build upon that image.  That makes his connection to the Iranians very disturbing.  As part of its nuclear ambitions, the Iranians are known to be working on increasing the range of their ballistic missiles.  The last thing the United States needs is a surprise coming out of the Southern Hemisphere, a scenario in which Iranian ballistic missiles are forward deployed to Venezuela.  Chavez is certainly capable of making that kind of deal with the Iranians.
 
At present, we don’t know much about what the BBG/IBB is doing in its broadcasts to Latin America.  It’s off the radar – and with the BBG/IBB that’s never a good thing.  We hear of protests outside the offices of Radio/TV Marti in Miami with Cuban expatriates unhappy with what they see as the agency going soft on the Castro regime.  That could be an outward indication of an eroded effectiveness of the broadcasting effort to Latin America in general.
 
At the end of the day, here’s the deal:
 
The Iranian government is very determined to achieve its national goals and objectives.  It looks for openings, opportunities.  Latin America is on the Iranian radar.
 
The BBG/IBB represents just the opposite – a lack of determination and commitment compromising the nature and effectiveness of the US Government international broadcasting effort.
 
See the big picture:
 
The BBG/IBB: strategically outmaneuvered once again.
 
The Federalist
February 10, 2012
 
 

BBG members with IBB Director Richard Lobo and Deputy Director Jeff Trimble

The Broadcasting Board of Governors – International Broadcasting Bureau (BBG/IBB), known to be the worst organization in the Federal Government, added to its reputation on Monday, February 13, 2012 when it announced substantial cuts to its broadcast operations, as part of the administration’s FY2013 budget request to the Congress.
 
A total of 14 out of 43 language operations – around 33% of the Voice of America (VOA) – will be adversely affected.  Some of the services will shut down completely, some will be reduced.  Our focus is on VOA; however, the other entities controlled by the BBG/IBB (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia and Radio and TV Marti among them) also face cuts.  The agency claims that there will be reductions in management; but at this juncture it is a claim only, absent hard numbers yet to publicly identify the number of positions and whether or not the position are encumbered by real, live people.
 
You can be assured that the IBB bonus-managers including our “$10,000 Bonus Man” will not be affected.  They are, after all, the architects of the intentional destruction of US international broadcasting.
 
Thankfully, they are not able to take unilateral action.  Much remains in what will be a vigorous and rancorous contest of wills between the bonus-managers and the people involved with protecting US international broadcasting assets and US national interests.
 
What this proposal means is this:
 
This is a clear and unmistakable statement that US international influence is in decline.  The size and scope of the proposed cuts demonstrates that the BBG/IBB intends actions that will accelerate that decline.
 
The BBG/IBB is taking the United States out of the business of direct international broadcasting.  Its primary target is radio, the medium which still commands the largest share of the agency’s audiences – contrary to claims by the agency that people are turning away from radio.  That is pure nonsense.  It remains the primary medium through which people get useful news and information.  It is affordable.  It is accessible.
 
Sources inside the Cohen Building note that David Ensor, the VOA director, says that radio has a very secure place at VOA, that it is not dying by any means and that it won’t be killed before its time. Before its time? Many others had predicted or anticipated the end of radio. They were all wrong.
 
Unfortunately, the agency’s actions speak a whole lot louder than words, even those from Mr. Ensor who has been more candid than most senior officials in his frank assessments of agency operations.  But, it just does not work in this case.  Sustaining a 33% reduction in its primary operations is not a sign of a healthy and robust future for the agency, its employees and the core audiences that rely on VOA broadcasts.
 
If you are a VOA employee, you should feel betrayed.
 
If you are among the billions of people around the world who rely upon radio broadcasts and are without access to the Internet (the BBG/IBB medium of choice), you should feel betrayed.
 
If you are an American taxpayer, you get the trifecta: your tax dollars go to support a failed agency, with a failed strategy and a bunch of bonus-managers who line their pockets while doing their “corporate” thing and pile-driving the agency and its employees right into the ground.
 
Even if the proposed cuts are reversed by the Congress, the damage to the agency’s image and credibility is permanent.  This kind of intentional breach with the agency’s employees, the agency’s mission and global publics is beyond repair.
 
As Secretary of State Clinton rightly observed, “We are losing the information war.”  The BBG/IBB is responsible for losing this war and they are not going to acquire a sudden change in fortune with these reductions or with its sham of a “strategic plan.”
 
This is nothing less than an intentional act of self-destruction.
 
Which reminds us – forget the other load of nonsense about creating a “global news network.”  Global news networks do not abandon known audiences.  Just ask the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians.  They are going at their international broadcasting efforts full bore.
 
What the BBG/IBB intends to do is abandon radio audiences.  These audiences have and will continue to go elsewhere for news and information when abandoned by the BBG/IBB.  They have done it Russia.  And they will continue to do so if the BBG/IBB succeeds in its demolition strategy.
 
In short, the myopic bonus-managers are intentionally creating strategic vacuums, affording elements hostile to US interests to fill the void.  In the globalized environment of the 21st century, the entire world is strategic.  It’s a chess game with serious consequences.  Not manage the chess board and you become outmaneuvered, cornered and run out of options because you don’t have the assets in place to deal with known or emerging threats.
 
That is your BBG/IBB: inept and outmaneuvered by superior skill sets.  Where do those superior skill sets reside?  See above: China, Russia and Iran.
 
 
Let’s briefly examine some of the things we know the agency wants to do, since they reveal the direction of the agency under the BBG/IBB “flim flam strategic plan:”
 
They want $9-million dollars for TV to Egypt.
 
Here we go again with this “Arab Spring” thing.  Here’s the real deal:
 
The “Arab Spring” is a term of art created by Western media.  There is no such thing.  There is something else quite different.  It’s called revolution.  Revolutions tend to be bloody affairs, particularly in the Middle East.  As Senator John Kerry said last year, “It is too early to be doing a victory lap for democracy in the Middle East.”  Why?  Because, these revolutions go their own way, not necessarily the way the United States wishes they would.
 
In Egypt, the military is in charge.  The Egyptian military is not a liberal organization.  It is traditional, conservative.  It will not go quietly into the night and retreat to its barracks.  It is not about to cede power to mobs on the streets of Cairo.  The military gets it where the Western media doesn’t: this is all about power, who loses it and who keeps it.  They intend to keep it and may find themselves working closely with the Muslim Brotherhood, a well-organized fundamentalist organization that has been waiting a very long time for its moment of prominence and power.
 
This is $9-million dollars wasted because the United States has lost its resonance in the Middle East.  The BBG/IBB had ten years (2001-2011) to get its act together and garner support from the “Arab street.”  That is supposedly the purpose behind Radio Sawa and al-Hurra television.  What do the American taxpayers have to show for the millions of dollars invested in these program efforts?
 
Nothing.  
 
That window of opportunity has closed.  No one knows when it will re-open.  Arab publics remain adamant about leveling the playing field with Israel.  If you think you’ve seen bloodshed up to this point that is nothing compared to the next act in this drama; and that is the next act, after the dust settles from the latest round of groups vying for power across the Middle East, across ethnic and religious lines, among the Arab themselves and of course, the Iranians who are intent upon positioning themselves to command hegemony over the Middle East – and that means not just taking the Israelis out of the equation.  It also means establishing dominion over its Arab neighbors.  Remember, the Iranians are not Arabs.  They have a lot to gain by pulling off their intended goals, big time.  They also see this as their moment to reestablish Iran in the image of its ancient Persian empire.
 
Here’s another thing that the BBG/IBB wants:
 
They want to “elevate and expand social media.”
 
Here’s the deal with that:
 
Social chit-chat may get flash mobs, rioters and looters out in the streets, along with anarchists, pie-in-the-sky true believers and other activists.  So what?  It doesn’t mean a thing and it’s all a crock created by Western media.  You know why?
 
Because at the end of the day, social chit-chat does not equate with governance.
 
The next time you are in a plane flying into or out of Washington, DC airspace, take a look down below.  Do you see verdant grasslands stretching out for miles in all directions?  No.  You see what is referred to the megalopolis: miles and miles of urbanity.  So ask yourself some questions:
 
How does all of that work?  How is it all coordinated?  How do you synchronize the movements and needs of society?  How do you provide for the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter?  In short, how do you maintain civilization without reverting to anarchy?
 
Consider the “Occupy” movement.  There may have been some legitimate issues at the beginning of the undertaking.  But a lot of that got lost when the folks camped out in various cities around the country, including DC.  At the end of the day, what did they contribute to governance?  Not a whole lot.  With regard to DC, they generated a lot of garbage and perhaps helped increase the rodent population (carriers of the plague and other diseases).  But that’s it.  A social experience that devolved into an exercise in collecting trash and eradicating rodents.
 
What do we see from the BBG/IBB in its social media?  Some nice, attractive young woman teaching American slang to Chinese audiences.  Okay, it’s cute, it’s campy.  But at the end of the day, there are about 1.4 billion Chinese in the People’s Republic of China.  What is the contribution to governance?  Not much.  Nothing actually.
 
In things that matter, the BBG/IBB can’t deliver the goods starting with the agency’s mission as codified in the VOA Charter.  Why?  Because it exposes them for all the things they are not doing or have failed miserably in doing.
 
Instead, they try to talk in terms of “supporting freedom and democracy.”  Any organization that initiates an adverse action against 33% of its primary broadcast operations is not in any position to effectively support processes as demanding as “freedom and democracy.”  
 
The BBG/IBB is mouthing words and their actions make them nothing more than mercenary hypocrites.  Remember that “$10,000 Bonus Man” and his cohorts.
 
And forget about this notion that these guys are creating “the world’s leading global news network.”  That is more of the hypocrisy.  The BBG/IBB talks about an audience of 100 million for radio, another 100 million for television and a paltry 10 million for the Internet.  We’re talking a 210 million total out of a world population of 7 billion!  
 
What are these people bragging about?!?
 
These people are not in the business of good governance and delivering an effective mission to justify the tax dollars being used to support this agency.  They are all about putting self-interest as their top priority.  And in doing that, they are destroying the value of the agency’s mission, the work of its employees and surrendering the initiative to other nations or groups with a totally different message than that of the United States.
 
Anyone who is a part of US international broadcasting, anyone who pays for US international broadcasting and anyone who relies upon US international broadcasting should be and has the right to be outraged by the officials of the BBG/IBB responsible for these actions.
 
These characters who fancy themselves as corporatists would likely find themselves fired in the private sector for perpetrating such a fiasco.  
 
The Federalist
February 15, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Tibet activists unfurl a banner from Arlington Memorial Bridge to protest visit of China’s future president that reads 'Xi Jinping: Tibet will be Free'.

This commentary by an anonymous Broadcasting Board of Governors’ journalist analyzes the BBG’s FY2013 budget proposal which calls for silencing Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Tibet as part of cutting America’s broadcasts to three out of five remaining communist regimes.

Silencing Voice of America Radio to Tibet: Has the Broadcasting Board of Governors Gone Mad?

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) budget submission requests cutting seven employees out of 22 in the Voice of America (VOA) Tibetan Service, ending all six hours of daily VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts.

This is happening on the day China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, heir apparent of the communist regime, arrives in Washington on a get-to-know-you visit.

This is happening while Tibet is burning. A day after the 23rd Tibetan monk self-immolated to protest unprecedented Chinese crackdown on their religion.

This is happening one week after CCTV, China’s state TV launched its first live daily broadcast from its brand new 36000 sq ft studio in Washington DC, the first step of China’s $7 billion media offensive in America.

What is the BBG thinking? Has the Broadcasting Board of Governors gone mad?

And, decimating VOA broadcasts to the Laos (4 out of 6 employees), Vietnam (10 out of 15 employees) and Cantonese to China (all 7 employees). Cutting America’s broadcasts to three out of five remaining communist regimes.

While planning all these cuts, the BBG promoted Bruce Sherman, the BBG strategist (or de-strategist) to SES without contest; hiring an SES director for ODDI, Office of Digital Design and Innovation; hiring a BBG communications director, another SES. All three SES positions were created as the Broadcasting Board of Governors was planning to eliminate dozens of rank and file journalists.

Who needs this Board that cannibalizes its own worker bees to feed itself?

BBG members with IBB Director Richard Lobo and Deputy Director Jeff Trimble

Tibet activists unfurl a banner from Arlington Memorial Bridge to protest visit of China’s future president that reads 'Xi Jinping: Tibet will be Free'.

This commentary by an anonymous Broadcasting Board of Governors’ journalist analyzes the BBG’s FY2013 budget proposal which calls for silencing Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Tibet as part of cutting America’s broadcasts to three out of five remaining communist regimes.

Silencing Voice of America Radio to Tibet: Has the Broadcasting Board of Governors Gone Mad?

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) budget submission requests cutting seven employees out of 22 in the Voice of America (VOA) Tibetan Service, ending all six hours of daily VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts.

This is happening on the day China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, heir apparent of the communist regime, arrives in Washington on a get-to-know-you visit.

This is happening while Tibet is burning. A day after the 23rd Tibetan monk self-immolated to protest unprecedented Chinese crackdown on their religion.

This is happening one week after CCTV, China’s state TV launched its first live daily broadcast from its brand new 36000 sq ft studio in Washington DC, the first step of China’s $7 billion media offensive in America.

What is the BBG thinking? Has the Broadcasting Board of Governors gone mad?

And, decimating VOA broadcasts to the Laos (4 out of 6 employees), Vietnam (10 out of 15 employees) and Cantonese to China (all 7 employees). Cutting America’s broadcasts to three out of five remaining communist regimes.

While planning all these cuts, the BBG promoted Bruce Sherman, the BBG strategist (or de-strategist) to SES without contest; hiring an SES director for ODDI, Office of Digital Design and Innovation; hiring a BBG communications director, another SES. All three SES positions were created as the Broadcasting Board of Governors was planning to eliminate dozens of rank and file journalists.

Who needs this Board that cannibalizes its own worker bees to feed itself?

BBG members with IBB Director Richard Lobo and Deputy Director Jeff Trimble

Follow this link:
‘Has Broadcasting Board of Governors Gone Mad?’ BBG wants to cut Voice of America programs to Tibet and other…

In a Washington Times Op-Ed, a Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting member Ted Lipien warned about a pro-Putin bias in the Voice of America Russian programs. Lipien reported that a highly respected independent journalist in Russia hired by the Broadcasting Board of Governors to evaluate the VOA Russian website concluded last year that it has a pro-Kremlin bias and downplays human rights reporting. BBG executives apparently failed to share the results of this study with BBG members.

On January 31, the Voice of America posted on its Russian website an alleged interview with a prominent Russian anti-corruption lawyer, anti-Putin opposition leader and blogger Alexei Navalny but had to remove it and apologize after Navalny said that the interview was “100 percent fake.” Navalny, who is viewed as an enemy by the Kremlin and has been a target of disinformation campaigns by Prime Minister Putin’s supporters, accused the Voice of America of “going nuts” and suggested that all those working for the VOA Russian Service should be let go.

BBG Watch website reported that despite issuing an apology, some staffers who were responsible for posting the fake interview have been telling VOA and BBG management that Navalny did give them an interview through an exchange of emails and then lied about it. BBG Watch reported that these staffers are recent arrivals from Russia who were hired as poorly paid contractors to replace experienced journalists who had been retired or pushed out because they were critical of Putin and may have lacked new media skills.

Asked by BBG Watch for a comment, Lipien said that in his long career with the Voice of America he did not recall a single incident where VOA would air a fake interview with a major anti-communist figure like Andrei Sakharov, Lech Walesa, or Vaclav Havel. “Had we done so due to some kind of secret police provocation, of which there were many, we would certainly not accuse these brave men of lying,” Lipien said.

The fact that this incident happened and that some VOA Russian Service staffers are still engaged in a whispering campaign of accusing Andrei Navalny of lying, as reported by BBG Watch, is extremely disturbing, Lipien said. Voice of America director should have called Alexei Navalny and issued a personal apology, which should have been posted on VOA websites in Russian and English, Lipien suggested. The fact that the Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported on the fake interview incident in both Russian and English, but the VOA English news website completely ignored the story, points to serious problems with Voice of America journalism under the guidance of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. In many ways, it is now much worse than it was when VOA was still part of the United States Information Agency but VOA journalists knew how to use the VOA Charter to demand that controversial stories be covered, Lipien said. BBG Watch has been reporting that BBG

Go here to see the original:
Washington Times Op-Ed warns about pro-Putin bias in Voice of America Russian programs

Russian oppositionist Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is 100 percent fake, Voice of America went nuts, and all those in VOA Russian Service should be let go.

Early last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency which manages the Voice of America (VOA), paid a highly respected independent journalist in Russia a few hundred dollars to review the VOA Russian news website. The journalist wrote a devastating critique, pointing out that the website and related VOA news reporting to Russia, which cost US taxpayers a few million dollars a year, have a pro-Putin bias and downplay human rights reporting. Rather than giving moral support to the pro-democracy, anti-Putin movement in Russia, the Voice of America Russian Service was in essence giving more support to the Kremlin.

BBG executives, who advocated this programming strategy as good for getting a larger audience in Russia on the assumption that strong criticism of Prime Minister Putin would drive site visitors away, apparently hid the study from bipartisan members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. They and top VOA managers assured BBG members and new VOA director David Ensor that the Russian Service was having a great positive impact in Russia. They only failed to tell them on which side.

US taxpayers spent a few hundred dollars on a study that could have save them a few million dollars and could have saved the anti-Putin opposition from further harm from VOA Russian content with a pro-Putin bias if someone within the BBG or Congress paid attention. No one did.

The evaluation by an independent opposition journalist was hidden away, and the VOA Russian was allowed to hire more Russian journalists who used to work for the pro-Putin media in Russia while a few remaining anti-Putin journalists were pushed out or quit in disgust. Opposition leaders and opposition journalists in Russia were wondering what was going on with the Voice of America but generally ignored it until the VOA Russian Service went a step further and published a fake interview with a prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

It appears that a recently hired VOA contract employee who came to the US on a temporary visa produced the interview thorough an exchange of emails with someone in Russia. It was reportedly approved by another recently hired VOA contract employee who used to work for the pro-Putin media. Some thought that the answers could not have come from Navalny, but the interview was posted on the VOA Russian website anyway.

Navalny, who is an anti-corruption lawyer, blogger and a leading opponent of Prime Minister Putin, had enough of this kind of provocation, apparently originated by some Kremlin supporters and then published as genuine by the Voice of America. He wrote in his Twitter account that the Voice of America “went nuts,” and that the alleged interview with him was “100% fake.” Most importantly, he also wrote that someone should tell the people in Washington to let all these guys go.

It was a message of desperation from a pro-democracy leader in Russia that should have already been heard months earlier when another pro-democracy activist told the Broadcasting Board of Governors that the Voice of America Russian Service was doing more harm than good.

But such bad news has always been suppressed by BBG and VOA executives. BBG members apparently did not find out about the fake interview until they read about it on the BBG Watch website. And while David Ensor was praising the Voice of America Russian Service for its innovative programs as he spoke to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA on February 1, the Russian Service was trying to decide how to get out of the journalistic mess it created. Someone apparently failed to tell David Ensor that innovative VOA Russian programs he was praising had a pro-Putin bias and a “fake” interview. He may have also not known that the Russian Service website and blogs have been repeatedly compromised by hackers.

The Russian Service did remove the alleged “fake” interview and posted an online apology to Navalny, but those responsible still kept telling David Ensor and anybody who would listen that they did not do anything wrong and that it was Navalny who was at fault.

They still maintain privately that Navalny gave the interview and then changed his mind and said that he had not. They are in fact accusing a highly respected and brave human rights fighter who has every reason to fear for his life, considering how many opposition journalists and activists have already been killed in Russia, of being a liar. This is how brazen these Russian journalists recently hired to work for the Voice of America Russian Service have become.

We hope that Voice of America director David Ensor and members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will immediately put a stop to this tremendous waste of US taxpayers’ money, undermining of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia, and giving support to the Kremlin in the name of the American people. But considering the track record of the Broadcasting Board of Governors we are skeptical.

That’s why the Congress should launch an investigation to determine why the Voice of America Russian Service was allowed to continue its reporting with a pro-Kremlin bias despite a clear warning from an opposition journalist who is also risking his life fighting censorship in Russia.

Meanwhile, some of those responsible for posting the alleged “fake” interview still maintain that they are not at fault, that they doing a great job, and that it’s Russian opposition figures like Navalny who are a problem. We strongly disagree and urge the Broadcasting Board of Governors to take immediate action.

Members of Congress and American taxpayers who pay for the Voice of America website should read the attached report to determine for themselves whether they should continue to support the current VOA Russian team. Had BBG members read this study in early 2011 and taken some action, the Voice of America Russian Service could have been reformed and could have helped opposition leaders in Russia with reliable news and information rather than causing them harm and embarrassment.

The quote below is from a former Voice of America Russian Service journalist who was forced out for being too critical toward Putin and his rule. In 2008, BBG executives ended VOA radio and television broadcasts and decided to rely only on the Internet for news delivery to Russia. This decision allowed them to get rid of a number of experienced VOA Russian Service journalists.

During the Voice of America Russian Service program review in 2008 conducted by BBG executives just couple of months after the war between Russia and Georgia, experienced VOA journalists who were still there but were later retired or pushed out, were accused of being too harsh on Russians and told by BBG audience research experts NOT to use words like occupation (окупация) because they were offensive to Russians?! And when those seasoned journalists asked what exactly words they have to use in this case they were told just to be quiet!

###

This is a U.S. Government, Broadcasting Board of Governors study of the Voice of America Russian website paid for by US taxpayers. It was done by a highly respected independent Russian journalist who is fighting against state censorship in Russia. The journalist who wrote the report spent some time studying and lecturing in the United States.

 
 
VOICE OF AMERICA RUSSIAN WEBSITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
 
 
A. JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS
 
1.       Accuracy: Is the content on the website factually correct? Did you find any errors in the posted news and feature stories, including the video reports, and photos?
 
I didn’t notice any factual errors that would be of consequence. The scene of David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) was wrongly identified as Washington-based John(!) Hopkins University , instead of SAIS . Kramer’s position in the State Department in 2008-2009 wasn’t indicated correctly either. Blueberry Hills (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html) in Russian is Chernichnye (not Golubichnye) Holmy. There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed. Capitalization and quotation marks are especially erratic. Some stylistic norms should be observed more strictly: for example, March 10 in Russian is written as 10 marta, not 10-go marta (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-RF-Georgia-2011-03-12-117855784.html).
An interesting example of syntax error becoming factual is here:
(http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Libya-Russia-2011-03-18-118246844.html) Due to incorrect Russian preposition, the headline of this news story reads as Why Did Russia Refrain from Adopting the Resolution on Libya . Of course it should be Why Did Russia Abstain from Voting on the Resolution on Libya .

Many Russian users might be unhappy with the ‘politically correct’ spelling of the names of some post-Soviet states: Belarus , Moldova , Kyrgyzstan . Most publications in this country, regardless of political orientation, stick to traditional Russian spelling ( Byelorussia , Moldavia , Kirghiziya). This does not imply any disrespect towards newly independent states.
 
Overall, as far as accuracy is concerned, the website doesn’t seem much worse than most Russian online media outlets.    
 
 
2.      Objectivity/Balance: Is reporting free of bias? Are opposing and/or alternative positions fairly represented and reported on controversial issues.

Before answering this one, I would like to present some general considerations. It seems pretty obvious that, to put it mildly, today’s Russia has big problems with freedom of the press. Even in the Russian segment of the Internet, which is not controlled by the authorities as closely as big TV channels and much of the printed media, objective information and free comment on politically sensitive issues are not readily available. Therefore, in my view, VOA should primarily concentrate on such information and comment which are relatively hard to come by elsewhere for political reasons. This applies to thematic balance (see below) and to representation of various positions as well. Of course I don’t mean to say that Russian official positions on controversial issues could be ignored or underreported; however, it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.
Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias. A telling example of this attitude can be found in the coverage of Vice President Biden’s visit to Moscow . The reporting focused on Biden voicing support for Medvedev’s ‘modernization,’ traveling to Skolkovo etc., all of which was amply covered by national TV channels. But Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-students-2011-03-10-117738384.html) was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’  – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of  ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.    
          
 
 
3.      Comprehensiveness: Given the medium, does the news and information provide the essential elements needed to understand a story? Was there sufficient background, text, photos, and context so that you came away with a good understanding of the information presented?
 
Generally, stories are comprehensive enough. Some other websites (e.g. BBC) would normally provide more background information, but I don’t believe in putting too much strain on the reader. However, omissions occur. A good report on David Kramer’s comments on U.S.-Russian relations in the context of human rights (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) lacks basic facts and figures about Freedom House – not many Russian readers know enough about this organization. Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia ‘ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.   
 
 
4.      Thematic Balance: Is there an appropriate selection of topics on the site, or too much political or non-political coverage?
 
The answer to this question depends on how one understands VOA’s mission. As I see it, the purpose of the VOA Russian website is to provide objective information and free comment, especially where these are limited for political reasons, and to promote American (or, for that matter, universal) values, such as democracy, human rights etc. Based on this, I don’t see much sense in trying to produce a comprehensive picture of all kinds of events all over the world (something like a ‘complete body of all arts and sciences’ at the Academy of Lagado in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’). It appears to me that the site should mostly (by no means exclusively!) focus on selected fields, above all Russian domestic and foreign politics, American life and U.S.-Russian relations. This would imply that political coverage should generally dominate over non-political themes. After all, modern Russians, especially Internet users, are anything but short of information about current developments in science, arts, medicine and other non-political fields and it’s hard to imagine many people turning to VOA’s website for this sort of knowledge.  Besides, the Science, Health and Culture sections of the site do not look appealing at all; they should be either revamped and improved or discarded, and the latter option seems more reasonable, let alone easier.
Needless to say, this suggested ‘rule’ should have exceptions dictated by events. Thus, the current focus on the disaster in Japan is only natural and could even be enhanced. At the same time, a lengthy report on the plight of animals in the Kyiv Zoo (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/ukraine/Kiyev-Zoo-03-12-2011-117857049.html) doesn’t look necessary.    
 
 
5.      Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?
 
My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-opposition-2011-03-10-117733859.html) was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal. (See more below.) 
 
 
B. RELEVANCE
 
1.       Market Focus: Is the content of interest to an Internet audience that uses this language? Which content topics and themes were most appropriate and which ones seemed irrelevant to intended users in the market niche?
 
Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience. This applies more to non-political sections (see above); for example, an interview with a retired American professor of history on Russian movies (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Menashe-book-2011-03-14-117931004.htm) is shallow and superficial. Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Analysis-and-perspectives/Cold-War-book-DC_2011-03-10-117772903.html) lacks substance. A report on Australian Prime Minister’s speech before the U.S. Congress (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-Australia-2011-03-10-117724264.html) may be cogent enough, but is unlikely to capture the Russian audience. Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Caucasus-Corruption-2011-03-09-117655418.html); it is particularly praiseworthy that it offers an American perspective on the issue; Fatima Tlisova is known as a prominent expert on the region, and VOA is lucky to have her as a contributor. The report on David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) and Galina Kozhevnikova’s obituary (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AP-Galina-Kozhevnikova-2011-03-08-117615768.html) are very good, too.
Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported. Thus, the story of an alleged prisoner swap scheme involving Viktor Bout, which featured prominently in independent  Russian media (Kommersant and others), was only reflected in a brief news item (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Bout-swap-2011-03-10-117750703.html) based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html): VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.
As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.    
    Timeliness: Is the content fresh and updated in a timely fashion, in line with your expectations for this type of website?

This is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Russia-Biden-Opposition-2011-03-10-117722039.html) (later the verb in the headline was changed to past tense without changing the content.) On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening. The news on Russia ‘s accession to sanctions against Libya (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/world-news/Russia-Lybia-sanction-2011-03-10-117727733.html) was also reported with a huge delay. On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before. This drastic situation could be reason enough to undermine VOA’s competitive position vis-à-vis ‘native’ online resources. Perhaps the problem is partly attributable to an objective factor – the time zone difference between Moscow and Washington . I don’t know whether this obstacle is insurmountable, but surely something should be done about that.  
   
 
2.      Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?
 
My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/crossfire/) is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Edotorial section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/editorials/) appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia .

The site could potentially excel in offering objective information on different aspects of American life – especially where such information is ignored or distorted by Russian pro-government media. To give just one example: many Russians, even among the educated class, are convinced that all talk about freedom of the press in the U.S. is mere eyewash and media are effectively controlled by the government or business interests. Systematic exposure and refutation of such myths could be one of VOA’s main goals; however, the site doesn’t seem keen on this sort of work. The Otkryvaya Ameriku (Discovering America) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Discovering-America/) could be helpful in forming sound views about American life, but at this point it’s not good enough: stories seem rather superficial, updating rate very slow. It’s unclear why the name of Matvei Ganapolsky (a popular host and commentator at Ekho Moskvy Radio) is seen on top on this page. And finally, this section looks suspicious in terms of ‘pro-American’ bias: seeing headlines like America Is a Land of Great Human Opportunities , America Is No. 1 Country, In America One Always Feels Change for the Better etc., a Russian Internet reader gets the impression of crude propaganda.           
 
 
C. PRESENTATION
 
1.      Usability/Navigation: Is the web site well organized?  When browsing through the site, do you find what you expect? Do you find any pleasing surprises, or do you experience any frustrations as you click?
 
In terms of navigation, the website seems user-friendly enough. Browsing brings no pleasant or unpleasant surprises.
 
 
2.      Appearance: Is the website attractive, uncluttered and contemporary?  Is the layout commensurate with local expectations for this type of website?
 
In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary. On the home page, one would expect more expressive photos and other visual elements, with fewer headlines – especially since, as I said, headlines are rarely catchy enough. I am not happy with the top story in the left corner: as it keeps changing, you don’t immediately see what the top event is at a given moment while the “top news” headlines (glavnye novosti) in the center are far too many and not all of them seem that important. As a result, one cannot get an immediate picture of news stories ranked by importance – something that most other online news organizations provide. As for far too numerous “other news” (drugie novosti), their classification is not consistent: America, World, Russia, Politics and other sections clearly overlap, which is why on the homepage one can often come across the same news story twice or even three times. Such repetitions produce an unfavorable impression. The overall picture is anything but appealing.
Perhaps the layout could be made flexible, enabling the site to emphasize events and issues of extraordinary importance – such as Japan disaster and its implications. 
 
3.      Readability: Is the writing style modern, current and understandable? Are the fonts clear, easy to read, and the right size? Is the font type appropriate for this kind of content?
 
Having commented on this already (see A5), I’d like to add that much of the texts posted on the website are in fact translations from English. This is only natural – but, unfortunately, the Russian style of these translations is not natural enough, which might alienate many readers. A systematic effort is needed to make the language more modern, vivid and expressive – with a special focus on headlines.
The fonts are basically OK if somewhat monotonous; as I said the number of headlines on the homepage could be reduced allowing for larger and more attractive fonts.       
 
 
 
 
D. TECHNICAL QUALITY
 
1.      Functionality: Did the website work as expected? When you clicked on links did they function properly?
 
No particular problem with that.
 
2.      Search: Find a story on the web site using the search box – were you able to find what you were looking for? If not, did the results make sense?
 
 
The search box works all right.
 
 
3.      Photos/Graphics: Did the images on the website enhance your understanding of the stories presented? Do they meet the standards you expect of a news organization publishing on the web?
 
The photos are mostly all right but tend to be ‘conventional’ – very few can really catch the eye or throw more light on the story’s content.  
 
 
4.      Video/Audio: Did streaming elements on the web site and on the You Tube Channel function as expected?  Were the links accurately identified? Did files play on-demand, as expected?  Did the video and audio quality match the standards expected of an international news website?
 
The video and audio quality is good enough. Maybe streaming elements should be indicated more prominently on the homepage.
 
 
5.      Podcasts: Are you able to download and playback multimedia files from the site? Do the format options seem appropriate for this type of website? Describe your impressions about the content and presentation; do they sound contemporary and appealing?
 
Multimedia files work all right, but it seems that their function is limited to supplementing the textual content: few if any of them provide unique information or comment. One would expect them to be more original and appealing. Besides, their visibility on the homepage should be enhanced.
 
 
6.      Branding: Is the site clearly identified? Is it clear what URL you could use to easily return to the site later? Try typing that URL in another browser – does it return you to this site?
 
The URL is clear enough, but VOA (unlike, say, BBC) doesn’t ring a bell to the average Russian user. GOLOSAMERIKI.US is likely to work better than VOANEWS.COM, just as SVOBODANEWS.RU is better than RFE/RL.ORG
 
 
E. UNIQUE VOA QUALITY
 
1.      Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.
 
Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources (http://top100.rambler.ru/navi/?theme=440&page=1) while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.     
 
 
 
2.      What other sites do you follow for news and information? (Please list.)
 
Grani.ru, Gazeta.ru, Lenta.ru, Newsru.com, Echo.msk.ru, Svobodanews.ru, Ej.ru, Openspace.ru, Kommesant.ru, Vedomosti.ru, Washingtonpost.com, Nytimes.com…
 
 
 
3.      Please compare the VOA web site with those other sites. In what ways was VOA’s coverage or approach different from the other sources?
 
I am afraid a comparison by such basic criteria as relevance, focus on most interesting topics, timeliness, journalistic quality and – last not least – presence of renowned contributors would put VOA at a disadvantage.  
 
 
4.      Was there any information in the VOA website that you were unable to get elsewhere? 
 
I don’t think so. Perhaps the VOA website carries some information on America that is hard to come by in Russian online media, but since I can use American sources I didn’t have to rely on VOA. It can be added that as knowledge of English among Russian Internet users is expanding, many of them turn to original sources of international news. Therefore, VOA is likely to face ever tougher competition.
 
 
 
F. AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT
 
1.      Interactivity: Do you see opportunities to comment, offer opinion through a poll, or otherwise participate with or react to the content on the web site? Were the interactive elements in line with what you would expect on this type of web site?
 
The interactive elements are there all right, but it would seem that more often than not the content is not thought-provoking enough to stimulate meaningful discussion. 
 
 
2.      Sharing: Do you see opportunities for sharing this content using social media platforms (like Facebook or Twitter)? Do the options seem appropriate for users of this language? 
 
See above.
 
3.      Blogs: Starting at the homepage, are you able to find a blog? If so, please describe:
 
Alas, my effort was fruitless. I clicked on OUR BLOGS on the homepage only to find myself on a page (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki) where I couldn’t identify individual blogs. I would recommend that most interesting blogs, especially those by notable personalities, be marked by banners on the homepage. 
 
 
(Note:  If you find a blog, please complete the expanded questionnaire at the end of this evaluation.)
 
 
G. ENGLISH LEARNING
 
1.      Are you able to find any tools or products that would help in learning American English?
 
Yes – I located Uroki angliyskogo (English lessons) on the homepage. It took some time though.
 
2.      Does this section seem intuitive, easy to use?
 
No, not really.   
 
3.      If it navigates you away from the main site, are you able to get back easily?
 
Yes.
 
4.      Are you satisfied with the topics in the English learning section? Do you have any suggestions for themes that would be more relevant?
 
Most of the topics seemed far too primitive to me. I imagine most users who would be interested in this section would prefer a more advanced level of learning. However, my opinion on this doesn’t have much value. I learned English a long time ago and my memories of the process are rather vague. Nor am have I ever been involved with language teaching professionally. I guess evaluations by learners and teachers would be more relevant.      
 
 
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF PRESENTATION QUALITY & USABILITY: 
 
What is your overall feedback about this web site?  Do you feel anything is missing?
 
 
 
Please provide at least 3 suggestions for improvement. 
 
At the risk of sounding repetitious, I’d like to stress that a radical change of the VOA website (and such a change is surely needed) must be based on a clearer understanding of the site’s main purpose – its mission, if you will. I see no point in trying to provide an all-encompassing picture of events and developments all over the world: the site doesn’t seem equipped enough to do that, and Russian Internet users are not likely to turn to VOA for such a picture anyway. And, after all, I am not sure that the United States government (or, for that matter, the American people) has an interest in informing this country’s public about everything happening in the world. In my view, the site’s thematic range could and indeed should be narrowed, enabling a better focus on the most relevant fields: a) controversial issues in Russian politics inadequately covered by government-controlled media in Russia; b) news and comments on various aspects of American life, with special attention to promoting American values and refuting widespread misconceptions about the U.S. Of course this shouldn’t look like official propaganda. America ‘s failures and shortcomings, real or alleged, must not be concealed or downplayed – attempts to do that are bound to have a negative impact on the audience.
 
It would seem that the proportion of political coverage should be somewhat higher than it is now. However, there are many non-political – or at least not entirely political – issues in Russia today that could feature more prominently on the VOA website. A systematic effort should be made to use VOA’s unique advantage (so far potential rather than real): its ability to compare and contrast problems and their solutions in Russia and America . This applies to such diverse issues as high school reform, immigration, race and ethnic relations, big city planning, health reform, legal limitations to freedom of assembly and the press, prevention of terrorist attacks, fighting organized crime and corruption, combating hate speech, reform of penitentiary system, etc. Discussion of these and other topics from both Russian and American perspectives could be very stimulating and helpful in enhancing VOA’s competitiveness vis-à-vis Russian online media.
 
History also matters. There is an apparent scarcity of historical themes on the VOA site. Meanwhile, there is a growing interest in public historical debate in Russia , and the site shouldn’t stay away from it. For example, this year will see the 70th anniversary of both Russia’s and America’s entry into World War II – a good occasion to discuss some controversial issues in the war’s history, for instance, the relative importance of the U.S. and the Soviet Union’s respective contributions to the common victory.    
 
I would also suggest that the site do something about the timeliness drawback (see B2). Perhaps it would even require moving part of the working team to Moscow in order to overcome the time zone obstacle (now the normal difference between Moscow and the U.S. East Coast is 8 hours, but soon, with the scheduled abolition of daylight saving time in Russia, it will be 9 hours.) I don’t know, however, whether it’s realistic.
 
I think something should also be done to promote the VOA website in this country. I am not an expert on advertising, but surely there must be ways to make the site better known in Russia – for example, through banner exchange with other online news organizations. Maybe Radio Liberty, whose position in the Internet’s Russian segment is much stronger, could help. Perhaps more cooperation is needed with popular Russian search engines, above all Yandex.ru.
 
And my final suggestion (again, I don’t know if it’s realistic or not) is about personalities. If the VOA website wants to become more popular in Russia , it should have more well-known people among its regular contributors. Familiar names and faces on the homepage, banners etc. seem indispensable for success in the Russian segment of the Internet.
      
 
 
BLOGS  
 
How easy was it for you to find the blogs? Would anything have made it easier?
 
Finding the blogs was anything but easy. I would recommend that a few of them – most interesting and popular – be marked by catchy banners on the homepage so that the user could reach them directly.
 
What is your overall impression of the blogs? What is the first thing that catches your eyes? What item or topic looks the most interesting? Why?
 
My overall impression of this section is rather poor. To begin with, it took me some time to understand that the VOA blogs are organized as a LiveJournal community. This seems an obsolete and ineffective way – and is definitely far from what a Russian Internet user would expect from blogs section on an advanced website. If you look, for example, at the site of Ekho Moskvy Radio (http://www.echo.msk.ru/), you will see that blogs are very prominent on its homepage, forming an increasingly important component of its content. This is primarily due to the fact that most bloggers are, in this way or another, prominent people: political figures, public activists, experts in various fields, arts and media personalities etc. – or perhaps ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, like a Russian tourist in Japan these days. Naturally, their opinions on relevant issues and immediate responses to current events (and this is essentially what blogs are for) evoke much interest from the audience. Now, on the blog page of the VOA website (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki/), all you can find by way of orientation is a calendar, an enormous list of tags (which is no substitute for a concise list of topics and appears pretty useless), and a few most recent blog entries by some obscure authors. Even after you succeed in finding the complete list of blog hosts, or community members (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/friendlist.bml?user=golos_ameriki&nopics=1), you will see a huge list of nicks (not real names!), which is hardly helpful or stimulating either. And even to obtain this info, you will have to register and log in, which is not something everyone is willing to do. 
 
As for the topics, no wonder that some of them are ‘topical’ ( Libya , Japan etc.), but the content is hardly inspiring. At the same time, many entries don’t seem interesting to anyone except those who posted them. Such is, so to speak, the price of freedom – that is, free LJ community status.
 
 
Are the blog topics organized and presented in a clear and useful way?  What do you think of the categories of information, ease of navigation, archives and/or searchability?
 
See above. I can only add that navigation and search seem all right – the problem is that few people in Russia are likely to use these and other tools
 
What do you think of the blog hosts’ writing style and tone?  How well-written are the blog stories? Have they included links to related stories, blogs or sites if you want more information?
 
From what I read I gather the impression that most blog stories are written on a satisfactory level, but few if any of them contain original, much less unique information or ideas that could evoke wide interest or inspire meaningful discussion. It also appears that many blog hosts (as well as authors of comments at the bottom of entries) belong to the Russian émigré community in the U.S. Needless to say, I am by no means prejudiced against those people and there is no way they could be excluded from the VOA blogs. However, I don’t think they are part of the VOA target audience.     
 
What do you think of the overall attractiveness of the blogs – the design/layout?
 
I am afraid the blogs are anything but attractive in terms of design/layout. However, this matters only to those few Russian readers who actually use them.
 
What do you think of the comments at the bottom of each blog entry? Does anyone seem to be moderating the comments?
 
The comments are mostly scanty and uninspiring. Again, given the present situation, it’s hard to imagine many Russian Internet readers who would be keen on using the VOA blogs for this sort of activity. As for moderation, I noticed obscene language in some of the comments. In Russia , it is supposed to be removed, but it must be admitted that this rule is not observed strictly enough.
 
7. Do you think the content of these blogs is unique? Why/why not?
 
I haven’t come across unique content that would be of interest to a sizable audience. It may well be there – but it would take a lot of time, effort and courage to scan all the blogs in search for interesting communications.
 
8. What is your overall impression of the blogs? Do you have any suggestions for improvement, or anything else you would like to add?
 
As I said before, the way VOA blogs are organized doesn’t seem satisfactory. I would suggest that the present pattern – free LJ community – be replaced by a more modern and attractive system, like the one used by Ekho Moskvy, Grani.ru and some other Russian online resources. The key element is enlisting several (not too many – perhaps 20 or 30 could be enough for starters) regular bloggers whose names, status, expertise and other qualities would ensure real interest on the part of the Russian Internet audience. My idea is that such people could be recruited primarily among in America ‘s political, business, academic, journalistic and other circles involved with the U.S. relations with Russia , Russian studies etc. For example, the emergence of Michael McFaul or Richard Pipes as VOA blog hosts would enhance the site’s competitive position immensely. Notable members of Russian émigré community would be most welcome, too. I don’t know how feasible this idea is, but this is something to think about.      
 

Russian oppositionist Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is 100 percent fake, Voice of America went nuts, and all those in VOA Russian Service should be let go.

Early last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency which manages the Voice of America (VOA), paid a highly respected independent journalist in Russia a few hundred dollars to review the VOA Russian news website. The journalist wrote a devastating critique, pointing out that the website and related VOA news reporting to Russia, which cost US taxpayers a few million dollars a year, have a pro-Putin bias and downplay human rights reporting. Rather than giving moral support to the pro-democracy, anti-Putin movement in Russia, the Voice of America Russian Service was in essence giving more support to the Kremlin.

BBG executives, who advocated this programming strategy as good for getting a larger audience in Russia on the assumption that strong criticism of Prime Minister Putin would drive site visitors away, apparently hid the study from bipartisan members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. They and top VOA managers assured BBG members and new VOA director David Ensor that the Russian Service was having a great positive impact in Russia. They only failed to tell them on which side.

US taxpayers spent a few hundred dollars on a study that could have save them a few million dollars and could have saved the anti-Putin opposition from further harm from VOA Russian content with a pro-Putin bias if someone within the BBG or Congress paid attention. No one did.

The evaluation by an independent opposition journalist was hidden away, and the VOA Russian was allowed to hire more Russian journalists who used to work for the pro-Putin media in Russia while a few remaining anti-Putin journalists were pushed out or quit in disgust. Opposition leaders and opposition journalists in Russia were wondering what was going on with the Voice of America but generally ignored it until the VOA Russian Service went a step further and published a fake interview with a prominent Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny.

It appears that a recently hired VOA contract employee who came to the US on a temporary visa produced the interview thorough an exchange of emails with someone in Russia. It was reportedly approved by another recently hired VOA contract employee who used to work for the pro-Putin media. Some thought that the answers could not have come from Navalny, but the interview was posted on the VOA Russian website anyway.

Navalny, who is an anti-corruption lawyer, blogger and a leading opponent of Prime Minister Putin, had enough of this kind of provocation, apparently originated by some Kremlin supporters and then published as genuine by the Voice of America. He wrote in his Twitter account that the Voice of America “went nuts,” and that the alleged interview with him was “100% fake.” Most importantly, he also wrote that someone should tell the people in Washington to let all these guys go.

It was a message of desperation from a pro-democracy leader in Russia that should have already been heard months earlier when another pro-democracy activist told the Broadcasting Board of Governors that the Voice of America Russian Service was doing more harm than good.

But such bad news has always been suppressed by BBG and VOA executives. BBG members apparently did not find out about the fake interview until they read about it on the BBG Watch website. And while David Ensor was praising the Voice of America Russian Service for its innovative programs as he spoke to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA on February 1, the Russian Service was trying to decide how to get out of the journalistic mess it created. Someone apparently failed to tell David Ensor that innovative VOA Russian programs he was praising had a pro-Putin bias and a “fake” interview. He may have also not known that the Russian Service website and blogs have been repeatedly compromised by hackers.

The Russian Service did remove the alleged “fake” interview and posted an online apology to Navalny, but those responsible still kept telling David Ensor and anybody who would listen that they did not do anything wrong and that it was Navalny who was at fault.

They still maintain privately that Navalny gave the interview and then changed his mind and said that he had not. They are in fact accusing a highly respected and brave human rights fighter who has every reason to fear for his life, considering how many opposition journalists and activists have already been killed in Russia, of being a liar. This is how brazen these Russian journalists recently hired to work for the Voice of America Russian Service have become.

We hope that Voice of America director David Ensor and members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors will immediately put a stop to this tremendous waste of US taxpayers’ money, undermining of the pro-democracy opposition in Russia, and giving support to the Kremlin in the name of the American people. But considering the track record of the Broadcasting Board of Governors we are skeptical.

That’s why the Congress should launch an investigation to determine why the Voice of America Russian Service was allowed to continue its reporting with a pro-Kremlin bias despite a clear warning from an opposition journalist who is also risking his life fighting censorship in Russia.

Meanwhile, some of those responsible for posting the alleged “fake” interview still maintain that they are not at fault, that they doing a great job, and that it’s Russian opposition figures like Navalny who are a problem. We strongly disagree and urge the Broadcasting Board of Governors to take immediate action.

Members of Congress and American taxpayers who pay for the Voice of America website should read the attached report to determine for themselves whether they should continue to support the current VOA Russian team. Had BBG members read this study in early 2011 and taken some action, the Voice of America Russian Service could have been reformed and could have helped opposition leaders in Russia with reliable news and information rather than causing them harm and embarrassment.

The quote below is from a former Voice of America Russian Service journalist who was forced out for being too critical toward Putin and his rule. In 2008, BBG executives ended VOA radio and television broadcasts and decided to rely only on the Internet for news delivery to Russia. This decision allowed them to get rid of a number of experienced VOA Russian Service journalists.

During the Voice of America Russian Service program review in 2008 conducted by BBG executives just couple of months after the war between Russia and Georgia, experienced VOA journalists who were still there but were later retired or pushed out, were accused of being too harsh on Russians and told by BBG audience research experts NOT to use words like occupation (окупация) because they were offensive to Russians?! And when those seasoned journalists asked what exactly words they have to use in this case they were told just to be quiet!

###

This is a U.S. Government, Broadcasting Board of Governors study of the Voice of America Russian website paid for by US taxpayers. It was done by a highly respected independent Russian journalist who is fighting against state censorship in Russia. The journalist who wrote the report spent some time studying and lecturing in the United States.

 
 
VOICE OF AMERICA RUSSIAN WEBSITE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE
 
 
A. JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS
 
1.       Accuracy: Is the content on the website factually correct? Did you find any errors in the posted news and feature stories, including the video reports, and photos?
 
I didn’t notice any factual errors that would be of consequence. The scene of David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) was wrongly identified as Washington-based John(!) Hopkins University , instead of SAIS . Kramer’s position in the State Department in 2008-2009 wasn’t indicated correctly either. Blueberry Hills (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html) in Russian is Chernichnye (not Golubichnye) Holmy. There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed. Capitalization and quotation marks are especially erratic. Some stylistic norms should be observed more strictly: for example, March 10 in Russian is written as 10 marta, not 10-go marta (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-RF-Georgia-2011-03-12-117855784.html).
An interesting example of syntax error becoming factual is here:
(http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Libya-Russia-2011-03-18-118246844.html) Due to incorrect Russian preposition, the headline of this news story reads as Why Did Russia Refrain from Adopting the Resolution on Libya . Of course it should be Why Did Russia Abstain from Voting on the Resolution on Libya .

Many Russian users might be unhappy with the ‘politically correct’ spelling of the names of some post-Soviet states: Belarus , Moldova , Kyrgyzstan . Most publications in this country, regardless of political orientation, stick to traditional Russian spelling ( Byelorussia , Moldavia , Kirghiziya). This does not imply any disrespect towards newly independent states.
 
Overall, as far as accuracy is concerned, the website doesn’t seem much worse than most Russian online media outlets.    
 
 
2.      Objectivity/Balance: Is reporting free of bias? Are opposing and/or alternative positions fairly represented and reported on controversial issues.

Before answering this one, I would like to present some general considerations. It seems pretty obvious that, to put it mildly, today’s Russia has big problems with freedom of the press. Even in the Russian segment of the Internet, which is not controlled by the authorities as closely as big TV channels and much of the printed media, objective information and free comment on politically sensitive issues are not readily available. Therefore, in my view, VOA should primarily concentrate on such information and comment which are relatively hard to come by elsewhere for political reasons. This applies to thematic balance (see below) and to representation of various positions as well. Of course I don’t mean to say that Russian official positions on controversial issues could be ignored or underreported; however, it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.
Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias. A telling example of this attitude can be found in the coverage of Vice President Biden’s visit to Moscow . The reporting focused on Biden voicing support for Medvedev’s ‘modernization,’ traveling to Skolkovo etc., all of which was amply covered by national TV channels. But Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-students-2011-03-10-117738384.html) was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’  – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of  ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.    
          
 
 
3.      Comprehensiveness: Given the medium, does the news and information provide the essential elements needed to understand a story? Was there sufficient background, text, photos, and context so that you came away with a good understanding of the information presented?
 
Generally, stories are comprehensive enough. Some other websites (e.g. BBC) would normally provide more background information, but I don’t believe in putting too much strain on the reader. However, omissions occur. A good report on David Kramer’s comments on U.S.-Russian relations in the context of human rights (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) lacks basic facts and figures about Freedom House – not many Russian readers know enough about this organization. Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia ‘ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.   
 
 
4.      Thematic Balance: Is there an appropriate selection of topics on the site, or too much political or non-political coverage?
 
The answer to this question depends on how one understands VOA’s mission. As I see it, the purpose of the VOA Russian website is to provide objective information and free comment, especially where these are limited for political reasons, and to promote American (or, for that matter, universal) values, such as democracy, human rights etc. Based on this, I don’t see much sense in trying to produce a comprehensive picture of all kinds of events all over the world (something like a ‘complete body of all arts and sciences’ at the Academy of Lagado in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’). It appears to me that the site should mostly (by no means exclusively!) focus on selected fields, above all Russian domestic and foreign politics, American life and U.S.-Russian relations. This would imply that political coverage should generally dominate over non-political themes. After all, modern Russians, especially Internet users, are anything but short of information about current developments in science, arts, medicine and other non-political fields and it’s hard to imagine many people turning to VOA’s website for this sort of knowledge.  Besides, the Science, Health and Culture sections of the site do not look appealing at all; they should be either revamped and improved or discarded, and the latter option seems more reasonable, let alone easier.
Needless to say, this suggested ‘rule’ should have exceptions dictated by events. Thus, the current focus on the disaster in Japan is only natural and could even be enhanced. At the same time, a lengthy report on the plight of animals in the Kyiv Zoo (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/ukraine/Kiyev-Zoo-03-12-2011-117857049.html) doesn’t look necessary.    
 
 
5.      Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?
 
My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Biden-opposition-2011-03-10-117733859.html) was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal. (See more below.) 
 
 
B. RELEVANCE
 
1.       Market Focus: Is the content of interest to an Internet audience that uses this language? Which content topics and themes were most appropriate and which ones seemed irrelevant to intended users in the market niche?
 
Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience. This applies more to non-political sections (see above); for example, an interview with a retired American professor of history on Russian movies (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/Menashe-book-2011-03-14-117931004.htm) is shallow and superficial. Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Analysis-and-perspectives/Cold-War-book-DC_2011-03-10-117772903.html) lacks substance. A report on Australian Prime Minister’s speech before the U.S. Congress (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/US-Australia-2011-03-10-117724264.html) may be cogent enough, but is unlikely to capture the Russian audience. Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Caucasus-Corruption-2011-03-09-117655418.html); it is particularly praiseworthy that it offers an American perspective on the issue; Fatima Tlisova is known as a prominent expert on the region, and VOA is lucky to have her as a contributor. The report on David Kramer’s presentation (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/09_03_2011_kramer_reset-117701538.html) and Galina Kozhevnikova’s obituary (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AP-Galina-Kozhevnikova-2011-03-08-117615768.html) are very good, too.
Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported. Thus, the story of an alleged prisoner swap scheme involving Viktor Bout, which featured prominently in independent  Russian media (Kommersant and others), was only reflected in a brief news item (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Bout-swap-2011-03-10-117750703.html) based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html): VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.
As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.    
    Timeliness: Is the content fresh and updated in a timely fashion, in line with your expectations for this type of website?

This is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Russia-Biden-Opposition-2011-03-10-117722039.html) (later the verb in the headline was changed to past tense without changing the content.) On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening. The news on Russia ‘s accession to sanctions against Libya (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/world-news/Russia-Lybia-sanction-2011-03-10-117727733.html) was also reported with a huge delay. On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before. This drastic situation could be reason enough to undermine VOA’s competitive position vis-à-vis ‘native’ online resources. Perhaps the problem is partly attributable to an objective factor – the time zone difference between Moscow and Washington . I don’t know whether this obstacle is insurmountable, but surely something should be done about that.  
   
 
2.      Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?
 
My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/crossfire/) is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Edotorial section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/editorials/) appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia .

The site could potentially excel in offering objective information on different aspects of American life – especially where such information is ignored or distorted by Russian pro-government media. To give just one example: many Russians, even among the educated class, are convinced that all talk about freedom of the press in the U.S. is mere eyewash and media are effectively controlled by the government or business interests. Systematic exposure and refutation of such myths could be one of VOA’s main goals; however, the site doesn’t seem keen on this sort of work. The Otkryvaya Ameriku (Discovering America) section (http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Discovering-America/) could be helpful in forming sound views about American life, but at this point it’s not good enough: stories seem rather superficial, updating rate very slow. It’s unclear why the name of Matvei Ganapolsky (a popular host and commentator at Ekho Moskvy Radio) is seen on top on this page. And finally, this section looks suspicious in terms of ‘pro-American’ bias: seeing headlines like America Is a Land of Great Human Opportunities , America Is No. 1 Country, In America One Always Feels Change for the Better etc., a Russian Internet reader gets the impression of crude propaganda.           
 
 
C. PRESENTATION
 
1.      Usability/Navigation: Is the web site well organized?  When browsing through the site, do you find what you expect? Do you find any pleasing surprises, or do you experience any frustrations as you click?
 
In terms of navigation, the website seems user-friendly enough. Browsing brings no pleasant or unpleasant surprises.
 
 
2.      Appearance: Is the website attractive, uncluttered and contemporary?  Is the layout commensurate with local expectations for this type of website?
 
In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary. On the home page, one would expect more expressive photos and other visual elements, with fewer headlines – especially since, as I said, headlines are rarely catchy enough. I am not happy with the top story in the left corner: as it keeps changing, you don’t immediately see what the top event is at a given moment while the “top news” headlines (glavnye novosti) in the center are far too many and not all of them seem that important. As a result, one cannot get an immediate picture of news stories ranked by importance – something that most other online news organizations provide. As for far too numerous “other news” (drugie novosti), their classification is not consistent: America, World, Russia, Politics and other sections clearly overlap, which is why on the homepage one can often come across the same news story twice or even three times. Such repetitions produce an unfavorable impression. The overall picture is anything but appealing.
Perhaps the layout could be made flexible, enabling the site to emphasize events and issues of extraordinary importance – such as Japan disaster and its implications. 
 
3.      Readability: Is the writing style modern, current and understandable? Are the fonts clear, easy to read, and the right size? Is the font type appropriate for this kind of content?
 
Having commented on this already (see A5), I’d like to add that much of the texts posted on the website are in fact translations from English. This is only natural – but, unfortunately, the Russian style of these translations is not natural enough, which might alienate many readers. A systematic effort is needed to make the language more modern, vivid and expressive – with a special focus on headlines.
The fonts are basically OK if somewhat monotonous; as I said the number of headlines on the homepage could be reduced allowing for larger and more attractive fonts.       
 
 
 
 
D. TECHNICAL QUALITY
 
1.      Functionality: Did the website work as expected? When you clicked on links did they function properly?
 
No particular problem with that.
 
2.      Search: Find a story on the web site using the search box – were you able to find what you were looking for? If not, did the results make sense?
 
 
The search box works all right.
 
 
3.      Photos/Graphics: Did the images on the website enhance your understanding of the stories presented? Do they meet the standards you expect of a news organization publishing on the web?
 
The photos are mostly all right but tend to be ‘conventional’ – very few can really catch the eye or throw more light on the story’s content.  
 
 
4.      Video/Audio: Did streaming elements on the web site and on the You Tube Channel function as expected?  Were the links accurately identified? Did files play on-demand, as expected?  Did the video and audio quality match the standards expected of an international news website?
 
The video and audio quality is good enough. Maybe streaming elements should be indicated more prominently on the homepage.
 
 
5.      Podcasts: Are you able to download and playback multimedia files from the site? Do the format options seem appropriate for this type of website? Describe your impressions about the content and presentation; do they sound contemporary and appealing?
 
Multimedia files work all right, but it seems that their function is limited to supplementing the textual content: few if any of them provide unique information or comment. One would expect them to be more original and appealing. Besides, their visibility on the homepage should be enhanced.
 
 
6.      Branding: Is the site clearly identified? Is it clear what URL you could use to easily return to the site later? Try typing that URL in another browser – does it return you to this site?
 
The URL is clear enough, but VOA (unlike, say, BBC) doesn’t ring a bell to the average Russian user. GOLOSAMERIKI.US is likely to work better than VOANEWS.COM, just as SVOBODANEWS.RU is better than RFE/RL.ORG
 
 
E. UNIQUE VOA QUALITY
 
1.      Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.
 
Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources (http://top100.rambler.ru/navi/?theme=440&page=1) while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.     
 
 
 
2.      What other sites do you follow for news and information? (Please list.)
 
Grani.ru, Gazeta.ru, Lenta.ru, Newsru.com, Echo.msk.ru, Svobodanews.ru, Ej.ru, Openspace.ru, Kommesant.ru, Vedomosti.ru, Washingtonpost.com, Nytimes.com…
 
 
 
3.      Please compare the VOA web site with those other sites. In what ways was VOA’s coverage or approach different from the other sources?
 
I am afraid a comparison by such basic criteria as relevance, focus on most interesting topics, timeliness, journalistic quality and – last not least – presence of renowned contributors would put VOA at a disadvantage.  
 
 
4.      Was there any information in the VOA website that you were unable to get elsewhere? 
 
I don’t think so. Perhaps the VOA website carries some information on America that is hard to come by in Russian online media, but since I can use American sources I didn’t have to rely on VOA. It can be added that as knowledge of English among Russian Internet users is expanding, many of them turn to original sources of international news. Therefore, VOA is likely to face ever tougher competition.
 
 
 
F. AUDIENCE ENGAGEMENT
 
1.      Interactivity: Do you see opportunities to comment, offer opinion through a poll, or otherwise participate with or react to the content on the web site? Were the interactive elements in line with what you would expect on this type of web site?
 
The interactive elements are there all right, but it would seem that more often than not the content is not thought-provoking enough to stimulate meaningful discussion. 
 
 
2.      Sharing: Do you see opportunities for sharing this content using social media platforms (like Facebook or Twitter)? Do the options seem appropriate for users of this language? 
 
See above.
 
3.      Blogs: Starting at the homepage, are you able to find a blog? If so, please describe:
 
Alas, my effort was fruitless. I clicked on OUR BLOGS on the homepage only to find myself on a page (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki) where I couldn’t identify individual blogs. I would recommend that most interesting blogs, especially those by notable personalities, be marked by banners on the homepage. 
 
 
(Note:  If you find a blog, please complete the expanded questionnaire at the end of this evaluation.)
 
 
G. ENGLISH LEARNING
 
1.      Are you able to find any tools or products that would help in learning American English?
 
Yes – I located Uroki angliyskogo (English lessons) on the homepage. It took some time though.
 
2.      Does this section seem intuitive, easy to use?
 
No, not really.   
 
3.      If it navigates you away from the main site, are you able to get back easily?
 
Yes.
 
4.      Are you satisfied with the topics in the English learning section? Do you have any suggestions for themes that would be more relevant?
 
Most of the topics seemed far too primitive to me. I imagine most users who would be interested in this section would prefer a more advanced level of learning. However, my opinion on this doesn’t have much value. I learned English a long time ago and my memories of the process are rather vague. Nor am have I ever been involved with language teaching professionally. I guess evaluations by learners and teachers would be more relevant.      
 
 
OVERALL IMPRESSION OF PRESENTATION QUALITY & USABILITY: 
 
What is your overall feedback about this web site?  Do you feel anything is missing?
 
 
 
Please provide at least 3 suggestions for improvement. 
 
At the risk of sounding repetitious, I’d like to stress that a radical change of the VOA website (and such a change is surely needed) must be based on a clearer understanding of the site’s main purpose – its mission, if you will. I see no point in trying to provide an all-encompassing picture of events and developments all over the world: the site doesn’t seem equipped enough to do that, and Russian Internet users are not likely to turn to VOA for such a picture anyway. And, after all, I am not sure that the United States government (or, for that matter, the American people) has an interest in informing this country’s public about everything happening in the world. In my view, the site’s thematic range could and indeed should be narrowed, enabling a better focus on the most relevant fields: a) controversial issues in Russian politics inadequately covered by government-controlled media in Russia; b) news and comments on various aspects of American life, with special attention to promoting American values and refuting widespread misconceptions about the U.S. Of course this shouldn’t look like official propaganda. America ‘s failures and shortcomings, real or alleged, must not be concealed or downplayed – attempts to do that are bound to have a negative impact on the audience.
 
It would seem that the proportion of political coverage should be somewhat higher than it is now. However, there are many non-political – or at least not entirely political – issues in Russia today that could feature more prominently on the VOA website. A systematic effort should be made to use VOA’s unique advantage (so far potential rather than real): its ability to compare and contrast problems and their solutions in Russia and America . This applies to such diverse issues as high school reform, immigration, race and ethnic relations, big city planning, health reform, legal limitations to freedom of assembly and the press, prevention of terrorist attacks, fighting organized crime and corruption, combating hate speech, reform of penitentiary system, etc. Discussion of these and other topics from both Russian and American perspectives could be very stimulating and helpful in enhancing VOA’s competitiveness vis-à-vis Russian online media.
 
History also matters. There is an apparent scarcity of historical themes on the VOA site. Meanwhile, there is a growing interest in public historical debate in Russia , and the site shouldn’t stay away from it. For example, this year will see the 70th anniversary of both Russia’s and America’s entry into World War II – a good occasion to discuss some controversial issues in the war’s history, for instance, the relative importance of the U.S. and the Soviet Union’s respective contributions to the common victory.    
 
I would also suggest that the site do something about the timeliness drawback (see B2). Perhaps it would even require moving part of the working team to Moscow in order to overcome the time zone obstacle (now the normal difference between Moscow and the U.S. East Coast is 8 hours, but soon, with the scheduled abolition of daylight saving time in Russia, it will be 9 hours.) I don’t know, however, whether it’s realistic.
 
I think something should also be done to promote the VOA website in this country. I am not an expert on advertising, but surely there must be ways to make the site better known in Russia – for example, through banner exchange with other online news organizations. Maybe Radio Liberty, whose position in the Internet’s Russian segment is much stronger, could help. Perhaps more cooperation is needed with popular Russian search engines, above all Yandex.ru.
 
And my final suggestion (again, I don’t know if it’s realistic or not) is about personalities. If the VOA website wants to become more popular in Russia , it should have more well-known people among its regular contributors. Familiar names and faces on the homepage, banners etc. seem indispensable for success in the Russian segment of the Internet.
      
 
 
BLOGS  
 
How easy was it for you to find the blogs? Would anything have made it easier?
 
Finding the blogs was anything but easy. I would recommend that a few of them – most interesting and popular – be marked by catchy banners on the homepage so that the user could reach them directly.
 
What is your overall impression of the blogs? What is the first thing that catches your eyes? What item or topic looks the most interesting? Why?
 
My overall impression of this section is rather poor. To begin with, it took me some time to understand that the VOA blogs are organized as a LiveJournal community. This seems an obsolete and ineffective way – and is definitely far from what a Russian Internet user would expect from blogs section on an advanced website. If you look, for example, at the site of Ekho Moskvy Radio (http://www.echo.msk.ru/), you will see that blogs are very prominent on its homepage, forming an increasingly important component of its content. This is primarily due to the fact that most bloggers are, in this way or another, prominent people: political figures, public activists, experts in various fields, arts and media personalities etc. – or perhaps ordinary people in extraordinary circumstances, like a Russian tourist in Japan these days. Naturally, their opinions on relevant issues and immediate responses to current events (and this is essentially what blogs are for) evoke much interest from the audience. Now, on the blog page of the VOA website (http://community.livejournal.com/golos_ameriki/), all you can find by way of orientation is a calendar, an enormous list of tags (which is no substitute for a concise list of topics and appears pretty useless), and a few most recent blog entries by some obscure authors. Even after you succeed in finding the complete list of blog hosts, or community members (http://www.livejournal.com/tools/friendlist.bml?user=golos_ameriki&nopics=1), you will see a huge list of nicks (not real names!), which is hardly helpful or stimulating either. And even to obtain this info, you will have to register and log in, which is not something everyone is willing to do. 
 
As for the topics, no wonder that some of them are ‘topical’ ( Libya , Japan etc.), but the content is hardly inspiring. At the same time, many entries don’t seem interesting to anyone except those who posted them. Such is, so to speak, the price of freedom – that is, free LJ community status.
 
 
Are the blog topics organized and presented in a clear and useful way?  What do you think of the categories of information, ease of navigation, archives and/or searchability?
 
See above. I can only add that navigation and search seem all right – the problem is that few people in Russia are likely to use these and other tools
 
What do you think of the blog hosts’ writing style and tone?  How well-written are the blog stories? Have they included links to related stories, blogs or sites if you want more information?
 
From what I read I gather the impression that most blog stories are written on a satisfactory level, but few if any of them contain original, much less unique information or ideas that could evoke wide interest or inspire meaningful discussion. It also appears that many blog hosts (as well as authors of comments at the bottom of entries) belong to the Russian émigré community in the U.S. Needless to say, I am by no means prejudiced against those people and there is no way they could be excluded from the VOA blogs. However, I don’t think they are part of the VOA target audience.     
 
What do you think of the overall attractiveness of the blogs – the design/layout?
 
I am afraid the blogs are anything but attractive in terms of design/layout. However, this matters only to those few Russian readers who actually use them.
 
What do you think of the comments at the bottom of each blog entry? Does anyone seem to be moderating the comments?
 
The comments are mostly scanty and uninspiring. Again, given the present situation, it’s hard to imagine many Russian Internet readers who would be keen on using the VOA blogs for this sort of activity. As for moderation, I noticed obscene language in some of the comments. In Russia , it is supposed to be removed, but it must be admitted that this rule is not observed strictly enough.
 
7. Do you think the content of these blogs is unique? Why/why not?
 
I haven’t come across unique content that would be of interest to a sizable audience. It may well be there – but it would take a lot of time, effort and courage to scan all the blogs in search for interesting communications.
 
8. What is your overall impression of the blogs? Do you have any suggestions for improvement, or anything else you would like to add?
 
As I said before, the way VOA blogs are organized doesn’t seem satisfactory. I would suggest that the present pattern – free LJ community – be replaced by a more modern and attractive system, like the one used by Ekho Moskvy, Grani.ru and some other Russian online resources. The key element is enlisting several (not too many – perhaps 20 or 30 could be enough for starters) regular bloggers whose names, status, expertise and other qualities would ensure real interest on the part of the Russian Internet audience. My idea is that such people could be recruited primarily among in America ‘s political, business, academic, journalistic and other circles involved with the U.S. relations with Russia , Russian studies etc. For example, the emergence of Michael McFaul or Richard Pipes as VOA blog hosts would enhance the site’s competitive position immensely. Notable members of Russian émigré community would be most welcome, too. I don’t know how feasible this idea is, but this is something to think about.      
 

A considerable amount of howling has been coming from the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and their International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) bonus-mongers.  The reason for the howling: reports by BBG Watch regarding bonuses, promotions and reorganization.
 
Somehow the BBG, IBB and other senior staff seem to have forgotten that they are public officials.  They need to be reminded who they are working for and that they are not a power unto themselves, as they most certainly like to think they are.  They are paid from American taxpayer money.  Worse, they spend American taxpayer money.  What they do – or don’t do – in their official capacity is open to scrutiny and criticism, particularly when the agency’s record of “performance” requires it.  Unfortunately, it would seem that these same officials have the same level of contempt for the American taxpayer as they exhibit toward the agency’s employees, both staff and contractors.  They might also be of the mindset to go into the BBG chairman’s office, sit behind his desk and put their feet up as a demonstration of contempt – contempt for authority – all authority – above their rank.
 
Part of the howling also has to do with the fact that these same officials are not used to being under such scrutiny.  It’s been absent and is long overdue.  It is made all the more pressing as the agency is poised to spend even more millions of US taxpayer dollars on its seriously flawed “flim flam strategic plan.”  Enough is enough.
 
No matter what these officials do or want to do, anything they intend to do is likely to invite even more scrutiny.  Sound advice to the Third Floor of the Cohen Building would be to put a cork on the ranting and take your medicine.  And get used to being held to a standard other than the usual self-serving, self-congratulatory “press releases” that the agency puts out periodically trying to justify its existence.
 
Speaking of which:
 
The Obama administration wants to do some consolidation and reorganization of its own.  We’re in a national election cycle and people outside the Beltway want to see something done to reduce the size of the Federal Government.  There is a lot of antipathy outside the Beltway toward the Federal Government.  People see it as wasteful and unresponsive to their needs – two categories that the BBG and IBB seem to excel in.  People outside the Beltway don’t know what the place does and don’t care.  What they don’t know, they don’t like.  They don’t see the place as having a material impact on their day-to-day.  It doesn’t put large numbers of Americans to work.  It doesn’t put food on the table.  It doesn’t help put their kids through school.  It doesn’t reduce rising costs on daily necessities.  It doesn’t provide for the national defense.
 
This makes the BBG/IBB vulnerable and expendable.  It is ripe for the picking.  The current administration – caught up in the national election cycle – can make a production out of eliminating it altogether or absorbing it into some other agency, in order to demonstrate for short-term political traction, that it is doing something to eliminate waste in the Federal Government.
 
In today’s world, it’s all about timing, opportunity and perception.  And the timing is bad for the BBG/IBB.  Among other things, the agency has demonstrated itself to be the poorest of poor performers in the annual survey of Federal agencies and has institutionalized and solidified that position.  It is not one of the best places to work in the Federal Government.  What is it?
 
“One of the worst organizations in the Federal Government.”
 
It has assiduously earned that reputation.  
 
It has intentionally constructed, expanded upon and institutionalized that reputation.  
 
It deserves that representation.
 
So, what to do with our poor performer?  There are a couple of scenarios which come to mind.
 
One would be USAID (the Agency for International Development) which has a language component.  Plus, it’s part of the State Department which already has a tepid relationship with the BBG.  If anything, being absorbed into USAID could result in making it more difficult for the BBG/IBB to slip and slide its way with its business-as-usual paradigm.  Nothing would serve the interests over at State better than to clip the wings of the BBG operation particularly among those who believe that “public diplomacy” is an oxymoron.
 
Another possibility would be: the Department of Defense (DOD).  One can really hear the howling now.  However, the fact of the matter is the origins of the VOA were in the War Department, Office of War Information, during World War II.  So, there’s a history, a connection.  Today, DOD runs a variety of multi-language operations.  It certainly has a need for a resource of trained linguists and it has its Armed Forces Network.  Plus, it is at work establishing itself on the property that already has the VOA Greenville transmitter sites.  A perfect scenario, a perfect opportunity, a different culture.  No more BBG.  No more IBB.  And with new bosses, maybe a higher standard of performance.
 
Of course, the doomsday scenario would be to eliminate the BBG/IBB altogether.  That may prove to be a bit more difficult, but not impossible.  As we keep reminding the BBG/IBB: very, very few people outside the Beltway would miss the agency if it were to disappear tomorrow.  Keep in mind that the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy just went good-bye and it was around almost as long as VOA.  Things change.  Things happen.  Things can be made to happen.
 
Speaking of disappearing acts:
 
One of our concerns is the extent to which the BBG has ceded its authority to the IBB.  Certain members of the Board appear to have distanced themselves from their roles and have absented themselves from Board meetings.
 
One’s physical presence speaks volumes.  It demonstrates commitment, especially if one follows up with getting to the heart of various agency problems on all levels.  Physical presence also speaks to keeping an eye on what the senior career staff is up to, what they are doing or what they are not doing.
 
To outward appearances, not doing these things is a lapse in carrying out duties and responsibilities with which Board members have been charged with as presidential appointees.  If there is any agency that needs greater oversight and accountability, this is it.  It is not enough to put matters in the hands of the IBB or a “chief executive officer.”  That doesn’t get the job done with the degree and extent of dysfunction existent inside the Cohen Building.  It also raises the question of why we need the Board in the first place?
 
All of these things make for the kinds of conditions that bode for absorbing the agency’s mission into another entity, hopefully one with a greater sense of accountability to the American taxpayers and a better record of performance.
 
No attempted consolidation – no huge bonuses – no redistribution of assignments among the same cast of managers – no greasy IBB sales pitch – no attempt at rosy “happy talk” by members of the BBG/IBB – no amount of wishful thinking – is going to change the agency from what it has become and the depths to which it has fallen.
 
One should not have confidence in the grand schemes of the BBG/IBB.  They have reduced US international broadcasting to the category of an also-ran.  The actions necessary to restore this effort will not come from within the Cohen Building and cannot be accomplished so long as the current embedded group of bonus-mongers remains in place.
 
As Secretary of State Clinton declared, “We are losing the information war.”
 
These are the people who are losing the information war: members of the BBG, their IBB staff and other senior agency officials.
 
They are not going to change their ways.
 
Time to find them something else to do and preferably somewhere else to do it.
 
The Federalist
January 2012
 
 

If the BBG plan to de-federalize the Voice of America (VOA) is adopted, Americans will have even less to say how their money is spend on spreading America’s message abroad by a proposed new corporate entity. Public scrutiny of U.S. international broadcasting will be drastically diminished.

Removing the BBG and VOA from the public sphere into a corporate commercial sphere is likely to make them even less transparent and less accountable than they are now. It will also make them less able to represent America and American citizens and less able to offer a powerful message of support for free press and democratic values.

As our contribution to what we hope will be an unhampered public discussion, we will include in this section significant articles on the public diplomacy role of international broadcasting. The first link is to an article published last year by former Voice of America director Robert Reilly. His article is available online, link, on the MercatorNet website, which stands for: reframing ethical and policy debates in terms of human dignity, not dollars and cents or political calculation.

Message to US State Dept: evil is evil is evil

Here are some highlights from Robert Reilly’s article:

The State Department should not have been expected to do both diplomacy and public diplomacy, as they sometimes conflict. Public diplomacy attempts to reach the peoples of other nations directly over the heads of their governments. This can make the State Department’s job more difficult, as its responsibility is to work with the heads of those same governments and maintain good relations with them. The two missions should not reside in the same institution. Public diplomacy has suffered as a result. In short, since the dismantling of USIA, there has been no central US government institution within which policy, personnel, and budget could be deployed coherently to implement a multifaceted strategy to win the war of ideas over an extended period of time.

On its part, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) inherited all non-defense government broadcasting, including the Voice of America. The BBG became a stand-alone agency run by part-time board members, most of whom have had no experience in foreign policy or public diplomacy. The eight Board members exercise executive power, to the extent that eight CEOs can, and are not directly accountable to anyone.

Since the professional backgrounds of the governors have been mainly in American mass media, they have sought to replicate that media in government broadcasting by refashioning much of it with American pop culture – Radio Sawa being the primary example. Over the past decade, the BBG has seen fit to eliminate VOA’s services to Brazil in Portuguese, to Russia, to India in Hindi, to the Arabic world, and now to China in both Mandarin and Cantonese. [The plan to end VOA Chinese broadcasts was stopped due to a bipartisan Congressional intervention.] There seems to be a perverse logic at work here, in which it has abandoned attempts to reach the most important audiences in terms of our national strategic interests about who we are, what we are doing, and why.

In the Arab world, the VOA 12-hour, content-rich Arabic service was replaced with a 24-hour pop music station featuring the likes of Britney Spears, Jay Lo, and Eminem. The intellectual premise of this effort, as explained to me by the chairman of the board when I served as the director of VOA, was that “MTV brought down the Berlin Wall.” Radio Sawa has been proclaimed a success in attracting large youth audiences. However, as the dean of journalism in Jordan informed me, “Radio Sawa is fun, but it is irrelevant.” In a war of ideas, performing a lobotomy on your enemy might be a good move. It is almost unheard of to perform a lobotomy on yourself, and then to declare it a success. How would you like to have a superpower adolescent in your neighborhood?

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. This paper was delivered at a seminar on “Fighting the Ideological War: Strategies for Defeating Al Qaeda”, organised by the Westminister Institute on May 25. Robert R. Reilly serves on the Advisory Board of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting.

Dr. Dale also describes the problem of low employee morale, which had been raised at the BBG open meeting last month by BBG member Ambassador Victor Ashe.

“Employees sometimes find Web sites blocked that contain content critical of the BBG. Management is so fearful of leaks to the Hill and the media that employees have occasionally been directed not to bring notepads or pencils to staff meetings. In the case of VOA’s China service, producers were warned by management against covering any congressional hearings relating to the decision to close down the China service. VOA personnel have also been warned against contacting the State Department despite the fact that State is actually a stakeholder in international broadcasting, as the Secretary of State sits on the BBG itself.”

In conclusion of her article, Dr. Dale wrote: “The United States has to retool and reinvigorate its most important communications tools—its international broadcasters—in order to compete.”

Read full report.

A Short Critique of BBG’s Strategic Plan 2011-2016

by Timothy Shamble, AFGE Local 1812 President. He is also a member of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) Advisory Board.

This “new” plan is anything but. It is for the most part just a continuation of past Strategic Plans with its calls to eliminate broadcaster positions, language services, and shortwave radio broadcasts and its emphasis on television. The biggest apparent contribution by the new BBG members to this document is the desire to consolidate the surrogates, greater sharing and cooperation between the various entities, and a change in the stated mission. The old BBG Mission Statement, going back to at least 2002, emphasized news and information.

To promote and sustain freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and information about the United States and the world to audiences overseas.

The new BBG Mission Statement does not emphasize news and leaves out being accurate and objective as a goal. It also ignores the VOA Charter requirements of providing information about the United States.

To inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.

Both mission statements emphasize freedom and democracy which are dirty words to their own management ranks when it comes to how they run their organization.

Some quick observations on areas of emphasis in the new report:

1. Too much focus on TV Just as in 2002 TV is the primary broadcast medium. There are problems with this. Television is extremely expensive to produce. Except for direct satellite TV it is reliant on in-country affiliates for dissemination. That adds more costs and surrenders editorial control. It is also an extremely crowded field with some very competent competitors (as Al Jazerra has proven to be). TV is not the field the BBG should concentrate on. They have no chance of getting the type of funding that would be necessary to compete with the likes of Al Jazeera. Their largest TV product – Al Hurra – has proven to be a huge flop. The BBG’s TV products should be very limited and should be used only for a few target areas.

2. No vision for a global English broadcast and limited use of shortwave radio The one field the BBG has a chance to dominate is shortwave radio broadcasting. That is the field in which they made their mark and it is a field with limited competition. They should reestablish a global English shortwave radio broadcast that is 24/7 and capable of being heard anywhere on earth. English is our mother tongue. It is the primary language for science, the Internet, and diplomacy the world over. It is too important to ignore. The BBG should be actively involved in further development of digital shortwave and stop whining about the lack of digital receivers. To paraphrase a famous movie line – If they broadcast it – the receivers will come.

3. Needed in countries even with “developed, independent media” The BBG’s idea that it is NOT needed has proven to be a big disaster. This was the thinking that led to the elimination of the Russian Service Broadcasts because some on the previous Board believed that Russia had a developed and independent media. No doubt now the current Board members are thinking of eliminating the Greek Broadcasts just as a major economic catastrophe is developing there that could affect the entire globe. It would be good to get our viewpoints heard. But as long as Greece has a developed, independent media then there is no need for us to reach them with our message.

4. The world’s population is aging The concentration on the youth market began back in 2002 as well. Here the BBG is behind the times. Stories have just been released indicating that not only is the world’s population growing to 7 billion but it is also “graying”. There is nothing wrong with trying to reach a young audience but to focus exclusively on this demographic means that you are forever broadcasting to a group that has no power. Trying to reach people in their youth and influence the way they think before they are in a position to exercise any real influence is a very limited plan. At what point to you abandon the youth and target the previously young so you stay in touch with them when they are in a position of power? This myopic plan may be good for selling pop music where a youth market is continually renewed and you don’t need to follow your audience as they age but it is not so good for changing policies.

5. Close cooperation with the State Department What exactly does “close cooperation” mean? Isn’t this a danger that BBG is meant in part to prevent. Are the entities under the BBG to gradually become just the mouth piece of the State Department? Is this what Congress envisioned when the Voice of America was established? This is not something that is designed to ensure our audiences that our broadcasts are independent of and free from government interference.

6. Overlap This idea goes all the back to 2002 as well. There is no real overlap between VOA and the surrogates. These services have different missions and purposes.

7. Embracing audiences’ content and conversationsThere is a role for citizen journalism. That is not nor can it ever be the role of the BBG’s entities. Not if we want our content to be considered as accurate, objective and balanced. How can you double source a lot of what appears on the Internet? Perhaps that is why the new mission statement avoids these terms.

8. Success measured by audience numbers Another blast from the past. The primary measure of success for the BBG is audience numbers. A good measure of success for commercial broadcasters but not for broadcasters such as the Voice of America where selling airtime is not an issue.

9. De-federalization Nothing new here except that in 2002 it was known as “privatizing”.

The report states that one of its challenges the Board will face is that “[e]mployees will naturally worry about their jobs”. You bet employees will! And we will actively oppose the constant elimination of broadcaster and journalist positions while the ranks of high graded positions of advisors and assistants continue to swell. The number of SES and GS-15 positions has grown to such embarrassing numbers that the Agency has begun redacting portions of the staffing pattern from the Union to prevent anyone from actually seeing the actual number of these positions.

As one broadcaster told me he has had enough. “We have been forced to do pieces that are adapted for radio, TV, internet and now cell phones all the while we have seen a loss of colleagues to help us shoulder these extras duties. In the meantime the managers get more and more aides, assistants, and deputies.”

“We had expected more from this new Board. What we wanted was fresh new ideas but instead it seems to be the same old thing.”

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has released what it calls “the framework of its new strategic plan to enhance the global impact of U.S. international broadcasting through innovation and integration.” Apparently, not even BBG members have seen a copy of the full plan, which was developed by the executive staff, but what has been published Tuesday in Washington raises many doubts about the direction of U.S. international broadcasting. Here are some of Free Media Online concerns:

1. Absentee Board During the crucial time in the development of the strategic plan, most BBG members did not show up regularly for board meetings. Starting July 2010, only three BBG members (Ashe, Isaacson, Mulhaupt) have a perfect attendance record. Others were often absent, which may indicate low level of their interest and involvement in what should have been a period of close scrutiny of numerous staff reports and recommendations regarding the strategic plan.

This raises the question whether the BBG bureaucracy has received proper guidance and supervision from the absentee, part-time Board and to what extent the plan reflects the staff’s own bureaucratic interests, which may be incompatible with the expectations of Congress and the American people.

2. No Cost Estimate There is nothing in the plan that would tell Congress and the American people how much it is going to cost U.S. taxpayers. Other than making unsupported and unrealistic claims of expected gains in audience reach, there is also nothing in the plan to indicate what the United States would gain from its implementation in terms of program impact and savings, if any.

3. Failed Management Team The strategic plan was developed by the same BBG executives who proposed to terminate all Voice of America radio and satellite television transmissions to China on October 1, 2011, the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. This proposal was criticized by human rights activists in China and in the U.S. It was rejected by Democrats and Republicans in committees both in the House and the Senate.

The same team had proposed and the previous Board had approved the termination of VOA radio and television to Russia, a decision that — despite strong objections from key members of Congress — was implemented in 2008, just 12 days before Russian armed forces invaded and occupied part of the Republic of Georgia. The team that developed the strategic plan opted for the Internet-only program delivery for VOA in China despite Beijing’s effective Internet censorship and blocking of VOA websites.

4. No One to Explain America to the World The framework of the BBG strategic plan ignores Public Law 94-350, which requires the Voice of America (VOA) “to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and [also to] present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.”

5. VOA Ignored; Its Employees Considered a Liability The BBG’s new mission statement: “To inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy” also fails to reflect Public Law 94-350′s mandate that in addition to providing news, VOA “will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.”

Nor does the new mission statement confirm that “VOA news will be accurate, objective and comprehensive.” In fact, the BBG plan seems to favor de-federalizing the Voice of America, which runs the risk of giving the job of explaining America to the world to inexperienced, poorly-paid and poorly-trained contract employees. The BBG management team has been accused of exploiting contract employees and has been rated in employee surveys as one of the worst in the entire federal system. The issue of employee morale and the poor treatment of contract employees was raised last month at the BBG public meeting by BBG member Ambassador Victor Ashe.

6. News Agency Mission Incompatible with Broadcasting Mission Abroad The BBG’s strategic objective: “To become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016, focused on the agency’s mission and impact” appears highly unrealistic and has the potential of detracting from the mission of specialized news reporting and analysis for individual countries and regions.

7. Unrealistic Goals The BBG’s performance goal “To reach 216 million in global weekly audience by 2016″ also appears highly unrealistic — unless the BBG plans to include the U.S. audience in the count or to change its audience measurement methodology, and even then reaching the set goal is extremely unlikely.

8. Program Content and Program Quality Ignored The framework of the strategic plan focuses on audience reach and technology but completely ignores program content, program quality and impact issues.

9. Costs of New Media Exaggerated; TV and Radio Broadcasting Ignored While the plan rightly focuses on innovation, BBG executives tend to greatly exaggerate the costs of the Internet and new media, which are largely free and used by millions of individuals and institutional content providers, while the number of international broadcasters is limited. The BBG executive staff has been eager to eliminate satellite television and radio broadcasting to key areas of the world and has shown no concern that under their plan 750 million Chinese citizens would have no access to any VOA programs and that 45 VOA Chinese Branch journalists specializing in human rights reporting would lose their jobs.

10. Domestic Distribution A Great Danger to Mission Abroad The BBG’s call to end the legal restrictions on domestic distribution of programs runs a great risk of distracting the BBG from the mission of serving America’s interests abroad. The BBG can barely manage to fulfill its mission now. The quality of many programs is woefully poor. Music has replaced news and information because VOA and other BBG broadcasters lack proper resources. Many programs have already been eliminated, dozens upon dozens of experienced journalists have lost their jobs while the BBG bureaucracy keeps growing and is likely to expand rather than shrink under the new consolidation proposal. This proposal seems a sure way toward expanding the bureaucracy even further and to shifting the focus from international audiences to U.S. political and commercial domestic concerns. The authors of the plan are disingenuous in implying that BBG program content cannot be used in the U.S. Private individuals and commercial media outlets in the U.S. can use VOA programs. The BBG is simply prohibited from actively marketing these programs in the U.S.

Overall, the framework of the BBG strategic plan lacks a clear sense of mission. Its key components will distract journalists and broadcasters from achieving impact abroad. The part-time, absentee Board members failed to scrutinize the plan, which has all the highlights of being produced by in-house bureaucrats trying to protect their jobs and to hide their failures from Congress and the American people. The least BBG members could do is to attend all of their rather infrequent public meetings, analyze closely what their staff is proposing and pay more attention to what members of Congress, independent journalists, and human rights activists are saying.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Voice of America’s hit TV show “Parazit” Wednesday that Iran’s military is becoming increasingly involved in the Iranian economy.

“Parazit,” a satirical Farsi language program broadcast to Iran by VOA’s Persian News Network, has become the most widely watched international program in Iran, despite Iranian efforts to jam the broadcasts.

But the same Broadcasting Board of Governors which manages the Voice of America and pays for VOA television broadcasts to Iran with taxpayers’ money wanted to end VOA television and radio programs to China and to deliver VOA news to China only through the Internet. In their communications with Congress, BBG officials were downplaying the fact that the Chinese government blocks VOA Chinese websites and censors the Internet.

At the same time, BBG officials tried to convince members of Congress that “almost no one” listens to VOA radio in China on shortwave. Congressional staffers did not buy this argument, and Congressmen derided “BBG bureaucrats” for suggesting that their audience surveys in China could be deemed reliable. They told the BBG to pay more attention to the intimidation tactics used by the Chinese regime against the population that undoubtedly prevent many people from admitting that they listen to Western broadcasts.

Few people noticed, however, that BBG members — as well as their executive staff who cooked up the China plan — were completely silent about VOA satellite television broadcasts, which they also wanted to eliminate. Unlike VOA shortwave radio transmissions, which are partially jammed by the Chinese, VOA satellite television broadcasts get through and can be easily watched in China. The BBG proposal would deprive the Voice of America of all of its broadcasting capabilities to China. It was a very curious move.

Taking a bipartisan stand, Congressional committees in the House and the Senate blocked the BBG plan, but the question remains why BBG members and their staffers wanted to end these VOA television broadcasts, which have had more members of Congress as guests than any other VOA program. In any future crisis affecting China or U.S.-Chinese relations, satellite television is likely to play a vital role, as it does now in Iran and as it did during the Balkan crisis and during the Orange Revolution in Ukraine.

It is technically possible for repressive regimes to jam satellite television signals, but interfering with satellite transmissions is a more drastic and more visible step than jamming radio signals or censoring the Internet. Regimes facing a serious crisis usually are not able to do all the blocking and jamming all at once. They do in fact go first after the Internet, as we have seen in Egypt and several other countries in the Middle East during the Jasmine Revolution.

We now learn that the new Voice of America director David Ensor not only does not want to end VOA satellite television broadcasts to China; he wants to expand them. He is absolutely right. Time and time again, the Voice of America played an important news role during political crises abroad and attracted a huge audience when it had satellite television programs to countries like Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Iran.

So why did the BBG executive staff want to quietly end VOA TV to China along with radio? They managed to convince BBG members with little U.S. government international broadcasting experience — BBG Chairman Isaacson knows CNN but is new to U.S. government broadcasting — to go along with this plan until they received a rude awakening in Congress. Politically, their plan was toxic, but they thought that they could push it through as they did with the termination of VOA radio and television to Russia in 2008.

Russia invaded part of the Republic of Georgia just days after the plan was carried out, a few members of Congress complained, VOA lost a sizable audience — and nothing happened. BBG bureaucrats thought they could do the same thing with VOA in China, but they miscalculated. China is not the same as Russia as far as long term U.S. national security interests are concerned.

So why did they want to do this so badly? BBG Watch believes that the answer is very simple, albeit not easily apparent. It has nothing to do with national security or programming strategy and everything to do with bureaucratic interests of certain BBG officials. It also explains the actions of VOA executive staffers who advised former VOA Director Dan Austin to go along with the program cutting plans.

In the case of VOA executive staff, eliminating journalistic positions and programs ensures than their jobs are not put on the line when it comes to budget cuts. They have been very successful in protecting their positions while getting rid of dozens upon dozens of experienced VOA journalists.

Understanding the actions of BBG executive staff requires a somewhat deeper analysis. Audience surveys have shown that historically VOA language services with satellite television capabilities have been able to attract big audiences. These BBG officials, however, want to make sure that the surrogate broadcasters like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia can justify their continued existence.

The surrogate broadcasters do in fact perform a different function than VOA — and an equally valuable one — but because of VOA TV, they often have a smaller audience than VOA. (This became quite obvious when comparing VOA and Radio Liberty audiences in Russia just before BBG officials ended VOA Russian broadcasts.) Eliminating Voice of America television, and in some cases also VOA radio programs, eliminates competition and ensures that the favorite broadcasters of individual BBG staffers and BBG members get their funding from Congress.

Cynical, wasteful, harmful to U.S. interests? BBG Watch believes all of it is true. Unless, of course, killing VOA TV — the goose that lays a golden egg — is the only way to save the surrogate broadcasters from Congressional scrutiny and possible closure. Even that does not justify such a cynical strategy that weakens America’s ability to explain U.S. policies to audiences abroad through the Voice of America. As Secretary Clinton said earlier this year, the U.S. is losing the information war. To win this war, both VOA and surrogate broadcasters are needed. But what’s most needed is a major reform of U.S. international broadcasting, starting with the BBG.

In some cases, the surrogate broadcasters may not have as large an audience as VOA — although one never knows from surveys in countries like China — but they specialize in domestic news in countries without free media. In some cases, surrogate broadcasters do some things better than VOA. Closing them down would be just as foolish as terminating VOA radio and TV to Russia and China.

So where can we find money to keep all of these important Voice of America and surrogate broadcasts going in this difficult budget environment? BBG Watch has an answer. More than a hundred of journalistic and programming jobs have been eliminated at the Voice of America in recent years but the BBG, IBB, and VOA management and administration kept growing to support far fewer programs.

We hear that the same bureaucrats who wanted to fire 45 VOA journalists preparing programs to China are now telling Director Ensor that the only way to pay for the expansion of VOA TV programs to China is by reducing radio broadcasts. We have a better solution. Reducing VOA radio presence in China would be both wrong and foolish and would hurt BBG in Congress, while reducing the number of non-journalistic and non-productive management positions would improve the efficiency of the organization and would do wonders for employee morale.

No one will notice if 20, 30 or even 60 percent of SES and other highest-paid BBG and VOA executives are gone. In fact, their departure will greatly improve employee morale. The absence of their advice will definitely save BBG members from further political embarrassments and David Ensor can get his money to pay for the expansion of VOA satellite television to China. It’s a win-win proposal for the Board and U.S. international broadcasting.

Today’s Pentagon budget must expend billions to cope with new Chinese weapons systems. But we can fund outlets of freedom like VOA and RFA that can eventually reduce that threat by fostering political reform in China for a fraction of the cost.

— Joseph Bosco

Back in March, Joseph Bosco who served in the Defense Department as China country desk officer, wrote an opinion piece for Politico, Launch Twitter in China, in which he made a number of excellent arguments as to why the Broadcasting Board of Governors’decision to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to China is a mistake. It is one of the best media pieces in defense of U.S. broadcasting to China.

“Television and radio,” wrote Bosco, “are still the most effective media to convey dramatic images and descriptions, as well as to provide in-depth discussion, of contemporary historic events. They are also the only contact with the outside world for the millions of Chinese without Internet access.” As China country desk officer at the Pentagon, Bosco participated in VOA’s and RFA’s Mandarin-language programs.

“I can attest to the value of sharing information and ideas directly with Chinese citizens, who want unfiltered communications with the outside world,” he wrote for Politico. In his first appearance on VOA, shortly after the 2001 EP-3 incident, when a Chinese fighter jet harassed and collided with a U.S. reconnaissance flight in international airspace, he told callers pertinent facts that the Chinese government had withheld in its distorted version of the event.

Like many critics of the BBG, Bosco does not deny the importance of new media. But because the Internet and social media sites are censored in China, Bosco — unlike BBG executives — has no illusions that the Internet delivery is enough or that it should be the only option.

Here are some of the points that the former Defense Department official made in his commentary. They are worth repeating as members of Congress are trying to block the BBG’s ill-conceived plan.

It turns out that China has had considerable success censoring the Internet, however. It blocked coverage of the Egyptian crisis, except for the scenes of chaos and violence. Within Egypt, the Mubarak regime managed to shut down the entire system.

Washington should not make Beijing’s task even easier by removing or limiting the most important uncensored communications tool available to Chinese citizens. New technologies should supplement, not supplant, traditional communications that are often more reliable and effective — and sometimes the only international link.

Joseph Bosco previously taught China-U.S. relations at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service. He is now a national security consultant.

This continuing nightmare is revealed in a meeting that David Ensor, the new Voice of America (VOA) director, had with staffers of the VOA Central News Division. A short essay here cannot do justice to the details provided by BBG Watch in Mr. Ensor’s encounter with the staff. Indeed, the meeting went far beyond just the Central News Division but into many aspects of US international broadcasting, including those of the surrogate broadcasters like Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa and al-Hurra television (two of the biggest wastes of money) and others.

Before dealing with this story, we must turn our attention to reports of a bizarre occurrence inside the Cohen Building this week. Some agency employees attempting to access this new website created by former and current BBG employees were greeted with a message:

“Security risk. Blocked for your protection.”

This message appeared sporadically, not uniformly. For example, two people in the VOA Newsroom attempting to access the site could find one being blocked and the other with unfettered access. We know that access was blocked on at least one computer in the VOA Mandarin Service. On the other hand, other employees reported no access problems.

In responding to an inquiry by Free Media Online, an NGO which promotes media freedom and fights press censorship, the agency’s public relations office denied that the agency was blocking access to his site. According to the agency’s IT security team, the BBG Watch website triggered a “site warning,” an automated message by Websense, an Internet security company, and that the warning went to “ALL its customers.” The agency’s IT people also said that users could manually override the blocking by hitting a “Continue” button.

This explanation raises some questions:

First, according to the agency’s IT security team, this warning went to “ALL of its customers.” This does not explain how some computers in the Cohen Building got the warning and others did not. That certainly doesn’t sound like “ALL of its customers,” unless, of course, BBG IT security team does not really secure all VOA computers. That would not be surprising considering their past record.

Second, the agency’s IT people suggest that users could manually override the warning by hitting a “Continue” button. With respect to this explanation, let’s consider this:

This is an agency of the Federal government. A computer workstation is US Government Property. Routinely, Federal employees are advised of the risks to the Federal Government IT infrastructure. They are cautioned – strongly – to avoid precipitating risks to this infrastructure. They are advised of the damage to that infrastructure caused by viruses, spyware and malware. Federal employees are also advised that if they are found to have introduced harmful IT programs into a government computer or computer system they can be disciplined up to and including removal from the Federal Service for cause.

With that in mind, and a “Continue” button staring you in the face, a rather short risk-to-reward assessment tells any rational Federal employee not to put his/her job, career, retirement, etc. on the line and to drop the attempt to view the site.

Let’s also keep in mind that this is the agency that got hacked by the Iranian Cyber Army, a division of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council. “Hacked” might not be the best descriptive term. The agency got creamed – all of its websites and proxies down for five hours, while an earlier attack by a still unidentified source blacked out VOA websites for nearly two days.

As one might wryly observe, maybe this is how the agency is spending “circumvention” money it got from the State Department: a classification engine with a category of “Potentially Damaging Content” described by the agency’s IT security team as a “flaky category for us in the past.” It sounds like it is just as flaky in the present and rather revealing of existent or potential agency IT vulnerabilities.

Perhaps this is what contributes to making BBG Internet operations an inviting target: security protocols described as “flaky” that block legitimate websites and invites users to manually override warnings.

One can only imagine how this episode will be interpreted in places like Iran or China.

Accidental or just plain pedestrian – no matter what the explanation – it is yet another example of dysfunctional outcomes inside the Cohen Building and of the Board’s grand dreams for its Internet strategy.

Back to the Ensor meeting with the VOA Central News Division:

These notes from the meeting are a gold mine of information. They bear careful reading, particularly with regard to the agency’s interaction with the Congress which appropriates and authorizes American taxpayer money to provide for the operation of this agency.

To outward appearances, what is perhaps the most important revelation is this: the BBG doesn’t have a “strategic plan.” It has what might be better characterized as an agenda. The two are most certainly not the same. This agenda intends to create an agency that, among many other things, reduces the power of the Congress, as representative of the American people, to decide what is in the National and Public Interest of the American people when it comes to US international broadcasting.

This agenda is so convoluted and ponderous that the agency can’t figure out how to make it work. Instead of streamlining the organization, the wunderkinds of the IBB propose to remake the various grantees into one gigantic organization, no doubt requiring the expansion of support and administrative staff to figure out how to make it work. Indeed, the BBG is in the process of looking for a consultant to make their “strategic plan” (or rather, their agenda) work. It’s a process that has been tried before with a variety of consultants, large and small, including the well-known Booz-Allen. Recommendations have been buried in a file cabinet somewhere in the Cohen Building; and all the while, the inept bureaucrats demonstrate they lack the capacity to make the agency function effectively.

Mr. Ensor acknowledges that some of the most expensive undertakings of the Board, that of the combined operations of Radio Sawa and al-Hurra television to the Middle East, are not effective. No kidding. If you believe in the so-called “Arab Spring,” or the BBG impact on Arab/Muslim views toward the US, there’s a place for you inside the Cohen Building, or perhaps, the Sawa and al-Hurra facilities in Springfield, VA.

Anticipating the end of VOA Mandarin and Cantonese broadcasts, Mr. Ensor called upon staffers in these services to come up with innovative ideas for satellite television to China. This serves as a perfect example of the fantasy world of the BBG. The Chinese government has made it plain that it is and will continue to block programs of the BBG. The main effort is with VOA and RFA websites. However, the same applies to other forms of communication, including television. The Chinese government has substantial resources at its disposal. Indeed, the BBG has facilitated the efficient and effective use of these resources by proposing the elimination of the radio broadcasts of VOA Mandarin and Cantonese. The Chinese are masterful chess players. It makes the game all the more enjoyable for them when your counterpart makes decisions that take powerful chess pieces off the game board. Advantage: People’s Republic of China.

At worst, this agenda is nothing more than a con game, hawked by IBB staff with a penchant for greasy monologues and oxymoronic phrases. Under scrutiny, the sales job doesn’t hold up. Why?

Things have gone bad and are beyond the point of no return. Mr. Ensor acknowledged as much in the case of VOA Worldwide English. He is right. There is no going back to what used to be and what was effective with global audiences. And it applies to more than just VOA Worldwide English. It applies to the entire enterprise. The agency has lost its resonance. It has been overtaken by events, some geopolitical, some technological. World populations are listening to other messages from other quarters. Momentum has shifted away from US international broadcasting.

Mr. Ensor also repeated the often-used BBG example that all of US international broadcasting is about the equivalent dollar cost of just one F-16 fighter aircraft. As he put it, “we’re a cheap date.” The problem is that we are finding it hard to pay for that one F-16 which protects and defends US interests. If the American people have to make a choice between the F-16 and US international broadcasting, the F-16 wins every time. Indeed, if the Congress or the administration ended all of US international broadcasting today, aside from a handful of academics, bloggers and organizations within various ethnic communities, the painful truth is that the vast majority of Americans wouldn’t miss it and wouldn’t care. Priorities are elsewhere.

These are just a handful of examples of how bad it is for US international broadcasting at the hands of BBG/IBB “decision-making,” and we do use the term loosely.

Mr. Ensor’s tenure with the agency may be brief. Indeed, it may be briefer by the moment because the BBG/IBB has no stomach for the true dimensions of its failures. However, the insights provided by his comments in this meeting with the VOA Central News division may be…

Priceless.

The Federalist
September 2011