Down The Path Called Dysfunctional – Charges of BBG Federal Survey Fraud

FreeMediaOnline.org, Free Media Online Blog, December 22, 2009, San Francisco –

The BBG has long been considered one of the worst managed Federal agencies. The current Bush-era members of the bipartisan Board in charge of U.S. international broadcasting are expected to be replaced soon by President Obama’s nominees who now await confirmation by the U.S. Senate. (You would not know it if you open the BBG website.)

As new BBG members are getting ready to take their positions, the executives responsible for such journalistic and public relations disasters as airing of Holocaust denial propaganda on Alhurra television and discrimination against foreign-born journalists at Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (a case now pending before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg) have been busy making themselves look good to their soon-to-be bosses.

But rather than to improve their management style, the BBG/VOA executive staff used the well-tried method of buying votes that goes back, well, all the way to the Roman times.

“Give them bread and games and they will vote for you.”

We hasten to add that this was not an election fraud, which the last time we checked is still a felony, but a Federal survey fraud. The goal was to make the management look good in a Federal survey that measures employee satisfaction.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) relies on the accuracy and impartiality of these employee surveys to make important decisions about personnel policies. The BBG/VOA executives undermined this process not only at their own agency but for the entire Federal government. Survey results at BBG/VOA can no longer be compared to results at other U.S. government agencies which don’t engage in bribing employees to encourage them to participate.

Giving away prizes is a not-too-subtle form of influencing how employees will vote. Ironically, the same executives, who have no problem ignoring government regulations when they apply to them, have been actively engaged in firing VOA journalists for minor time-and-attendance transgressions. They treat journalists who need to work irregular hours and move around to get their stories as bureaucrats tied to their desks.

What we want to know is whether in addition to pizza, the BBG/VOA executives also provided beer. God forbid if they did, because that would also be against Federal regulations unless they granted themselves a special exemption.

If the soon-to-be active new BBG members in charge of the U.S. international broadcasting empire will not be able to change the management culture at their Agency, we suggest that they pay for regular pizza and beer parties for the BBG and VOA employees. If nothing changes under the new Board, we might as well really go back to the Roman Empire ways of keeping the masses happy.

The following commentary is from The Federalist, one of our regular bloggers who reports on the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the Voice of America (VOA).

Down The Path Called Dysfunctional

Just when you thought that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the Voice of America (VOA) couldn’t become any more dysfunctional than they already are, comes the following:

The VOA Director, Dan Austin, recently issued an email regarding the results of the 2009 Human Capital Survey. This is the annual survey mandated by Congress of Federal agencies, a snapshot of how the employees of the Federal workforce feel about the agencies they work in. In odd-numbered years, the survey is conducted by each Federal agency. In even-numbered years, the survey is conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), even though some Federal agencies, including BBG/VOA contract with OPM to conduct the survey in the even-numbered years.

At the outset, Austin crows about the increased level of participation in the 2009 survey…up to 58 percent as opposed to the 35 percent in 2008. Austin goes on to make a vague reference to “improvements” in some areas, but key issues, including leadership (i.e., Austin, the BBG and the rest of the senior agency officials) remain areas of concern.

What Austin doesn’t say in his email is that senior agency leadership offered a prize for the agency element with the most participants. That prize is…

A pizza party.

A pizza party?!?

This is quite revealing of the senior VOA leadership attitude toward the Human Capital Survey and by extension, the agency’s employees.

The attitude is quite clear: the senior leadership sees the survey as a trivial, nuisance exercise and the employee workforce as if it were a group of children.

Whatever “improvements” have been claimed in Austin’s email, it is evident that even with a sophomoric attempt at “bribing” employees with a pizza party reward, the real numbers of positive direction are insignificant…and are made even more watered down when measured against the increased participation.

The heart of any survey of this kind are what are commonly referred to as “core issues;” namely, how the execution of the agency’s mission is perceived and where the employees see themselves now and in the future. In view of the increasingly bizarre behavior of its senior officials, employees should be concerned.

The Federalist

December 2009

The Humpty Dumpty Strategic Plan for U.S. International Broadcasting

FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog The Federalist Commentary, July 8, 2009, San Francisco — This commentary is by The Federalist, one of our regular contributors with inside knowledge of US government bureaucracy.

The Humpty Dumpty Strategic Plan at the Broadcasting Board of Governors

by The Federalist

Let us refresh our memories…

Last year, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) made the decision to eliminate all Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts to Russia. Not long afterward, Russia invaded the Georgian Republic in a dispute over border provinces. To this day, there are no direct VOA on-air radio broadcasts to all of Russia.

Not long after the initial uproar over this decision, senior VOA officials stopped by the VOA Russian Service to pompously declare that all of VOA would be like the Russian Service in five years…meaning that VOA would be reduced to a collection of Internet websites as part of the Broadcasting Board of Governors/the International Broadcasting Bureau’s glorious “strategic plan.”

Arrogant, pompous and stupid to a fault.

Since then, it has been determined, through BBG’s own research conducted by an independent contractor, that the audience in Russia for VOA programs has been drastically reduced as a result of taking radio and TV programs off the air.

On Wednesday, July 08, 2009 US Government officials announced that a major cyber attack was directed against Federal government websites and others, including those of major financial institutions and multimedia organizations like The Washington Post.

Lo and behold, sources have indicated that many – perhaps – all VOA websites were put out of commission for a substantial period of time. While other Federal agencies and news organizations were quickly able to fend off these cyber attacks, the Voice of America website was out of commission for hours and was still not working late Wednesday afternoon EST.

It is unclear who orchestrated these attacks, although speculation appears to be focused on North Korea.

Let’s speak plainly:

The people in charge of BBG, IBB and VOA represent for American public and taxpayers a dangerous combination of arrogance and incompetence. Those responsible for creating and embracing this porous strategic plan should be fired. Period. It is well known to the agency’s workforce just how inept and incompetent these people are. The seriousness of the problem can be seen in the results of the US Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Federal Human Capital Survey. The agency (BBG) is dead last among comparable Federal agencies and has been hovering around the bottom for the past five years…seemingly content to be populated by a group of senior managers, protecting their big salaries and completely corrosive in their handling of critical government resources. Because the mission of US international broadcasting is all important at the time of terrorist threats and growing anti-Americanism in countries like Russia, this is a very serious lapse for US national security.

The shortcomings of the BBG strategic plan are painfully obvious. The officials running the agency choose to ignore the threat.

This threat itself is no mystery. The ability to disrupt strategic communications was aptly demonstrated by the Russian security services during the Kremlin’s conflict with the Georgian Republic.

This threat is so significant that both the outgoing Bush Administration and the incoming Obama Administration were both briefed on the subject and its possible consequences to communications systems as well as computer systems. These systems are integrated with various parts of US domestic infrastructure, including power plants, power grids, air traffic control systems and nearly anything that his heavily reliant upon computers.

Be assured that the executive staff of the BBG do not want the public to know just how badly they have mangled this aspect of the US international broadcasting operations. Their primary concern seems to be to protect their bloated salaries. It has been commonly said that the Voice of America and other BBG-managed broadcasting entities run in spite of the bungled decisionmaking of the senior management, but VOA journalists and IBB broadcasting engineers can only so much to limit the damage of the BBG’s Humpty Dumpty strategic plan.

It is reckless and irresponsible for a Federal agency to leave itself extremely vulnerable to these cyber attacks and not have a real strategic plan built on the redundancies found in the right combination of radio, television and the Internet.

To be certain, the self-aggrandizers of the BBG/IBB/VOA will try to make the argument that they are saving enormous sums of money by going all-Internet, all the time. On the other hand, since the decisions of these officials have caused substantial reductions in the audiences for these programs, to the extent that VOA no longer has a substantial audience penetration in places like Russia, the argument can then be turned around and the case made to close the agency altogether.

These cyber attacks seems to be beyond the comprehension of the less-than-competent self-promoters of the BBG/IBB. The hackers probe for weakness and vulnerabilities and they found them in the VOA website. They are precursors of worse things to come. And all the while, the senior IBB/VOA management appears to be sitting back hoping that no one will notice.

Well, we did.

And now that you know, it is incumbent upon the Obama administration to do some serious housecleaning of the BBG/IBB/VOA management structure.

Nothing less will do.

The Federalist
July 2009

Mistakes Repeated

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog, February 2, 2009, San Francisco – This commentary is by The Federalist, one of our regular contributors.

Mistakes Repeated

by The Federalist

On January 20, 2009, as the United States inaugurated Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States, the Associated Press reported that Hamas was holding victory rallies in Gaza amid the ruins from its recent combat with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

The idea of Hamas victory rallies may seem ludicrous to some.  However, it is consistent with the ideology of annihilation.  Standing atop a pile of rubble, with destruction all around and over an estimated one thousand civilians killed is seen as a victory because one has survived the onslaught.

It should also be noted that Hamas is not leading the discussion about the cost of its latest intentional provocation of conflict with Israel.  Instead, it is the United States, United Nations and Saudi Arabia that are talking of the cost of reconstruction of Gaza neighborhoods and will no doubt provide the funds.

To all appearances, Hamas’ interests are to reconstitute its forces and prepare the next stage of its conflict with Israel.  It bears no sense of responsibility for the death and destruction inflicted upon Gaza and the Palestinians.  Destruction is a means to an end.  It reinforces anger and rage.  It helps to sustain Hamas’ recruitment needs as it pursues its endless cycle of violence against Israel.  Hamas is in the business of violence and conflict.  It has no plan to sustain nonviolent infrastructure.  Peace means no Hamas or certainly a Hamas of less political potency.

At the same time, polling in the state of Israel shows an alarming trend that the Israeli public feels that there will never be peace between their country and the Arab world.  This is a dangerous turn of events.  It speaks to a narrowing of options, a state of perpetual conflict and reliance upon an increasingly powerful military response to the jihadists in a densely populated region of the world, raising the potential for further noncombatant casualties.

Hillary Clinton is on the job as the new Secretary of State.  There is an acknowledgement that restoring American prestige and image is an important goal of the Obama presidency.  Carrying out this task falls to whoever Secretary Clinton has in the position of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy.

Early indications are that Mrs. Clinton may be leaning toward Judith McHale, a longtime Clinton supporter, Democratic campaign contributor and senior executive with Discovery Communications.

Regardless of who fills this post, it should be understood from the outset that public diplomacy should not be equated with a marketing or advertising campaign.  Democracy is not an easily packaged commodity. We have to demonstrate the framework for democracy, what it is founded upon, what is required to sustain it and how we make it work.  We are advocating a way of life and governance as an alternative to a paradigm that has a long history and a perpetual cycle of violence.

Also important is the realization that we are dealing with confronting an ideology of annihilation manifest in a worldwide, loosely confederated network of terrorists and jihadists.

It seems that US government has an almost Pavlov-like reaction to public diplomacy that sees the task in a marketing or advertising environment.  Taking this approach does not get to the substance of the core issue at hand and will leave us with less than sterling results.

The best piece of advice for the Obama administration’s public diplomacy initiative is to see the world as it is, rather than as we wish it to be.  Public diplomacy should be seen as a facilitator of positive outcomes rather than a shill in a marketing ploy.  We must have a new vision that breaks our own cycle of mistakes repeated.

The Federalist 2009

When A Federal Agency Goes Bad

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, January 8, 2009, San Francisco – This commentary is by The Federalist, one of our regular contributors with inside knowledge of US government bureaucracy.

When A Federal Agency Goes Bad

by The Federalist

“US international broadcasting is being led by people not interested in its mission or sustaining its programs.”

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has released results of its 2008 Human Capital Survey. The numbers are in for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and they are not good. In fact, they are the worst ever.

We have obtained a copy of the survey results. The negative responses are staggering. We will not recite the numbers here. However, it is more than likely that in a ranking of Federal agencies, the BBG (representing all its entities in the survey) will be at or very near the bottom among Federal agencies of comparable size…a place altogether familiar for the BBG because that is where the agency has resided in several annual surveys running.

Why is this important?

Agency employees have overwhelmingly rejected the strategic plan of the BBG and the agency’s senior managers. They do not identify with the BBG world view and rightly so, because it is grossly flawed. Here’s an example, using figures cited recently in the Washington Post:

Over 2 billion people, many of them women or girls, earn less than $2 per day.

Where do these people – often among the world’s most abused and exploited – fit into the BBG’s all-or-nothing Internet strategy? The answer is: they don’t. The BBG’s strategy should be seen for what it is: an elitist strategy designed to abandon the world’s poorest of the poor. The BBG’s strategy, developed in conjunction with its International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) staff, is intended to embrace the haves at the expense of the have-nots.

And you wonder why the US is reviled around the world? And you wonder why you see acts of desperate terrorism directed against perceived symbols of this exploitation and abuse?

Standing up to this abuse of power, agency employees have used one of the few means available to them to show the IBB/BBG for what it is. That instrument is the Human Capital Survey.

Here is what you don’t have at this agency: leadership, competence, advocacy and managers who know and identify with the employees doing the work. On those occasions when the agency functions properly, it is in spite of and not because of its senior officials.

Here is what you do have at this agency: sycophancy, ineptitude, incompetence, self-aggrandizement, self-promotion, a culture of cover-ups and deceit, spending millions of dollars on failed projects at the expense of program operations that do work; in other words, intentionally setting up good programs to fail and last but not least, intentionally terminating broadcasts to known audiences in areas on the flashpoint of broader conflicts.

The next administration is faced with a decision what to do regarding US international broadcasting. One thing is for certain: protecting the status quo, business-as-usual in this agency is unacceptable. If the Obama administration intends to make the US international broadcasting effort successful, it must rehabilitate this agency and that means removing people who are responsible for failed decision-making. It must seek out and attract a new, competent leadership to reinvigorate the agency, restore its effectiveness and help lead the effort to recover the prestige and image of the United States.

If this effort isn’t made and the corrosive environment is allowed to remain in place, the only likely outcome is a further erosion of how world’s populations view the United States. No broadcasting means silence. Silence is seen as abandonment. That silence will be filled by the jihadist message and ideology.

“US international broadcasting is being led by people not interested in its mission or sustaining its programs.”

The Federalist 2009

The Worst of Times

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, January 8, 2009, San Francisco – This commentary is by The Federalist, one of our regular contributors with inside knowledge of US government bureaucracy.

The Worst of Times

by The Federalist

“US international broadcasting is being led by people not interested in its mission or in sustaining its programs.”

This applies to all levels of US international broadcasting, from the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs down to managers within the broadcasting entities, the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).  When it comes to public diplomacy, the greatest detriment to the national and public Interest may, in fact, be these officials.

Time and again, they have demonstrated an extraordinary disregard for the power, consequence, and significance of silence.  In public diplomacy and in international broadcasting, silence equates with failure, abandonment, and a loss of international power and prestige.

These officials have systematically engaged in silencing US international broadcasting assets: in Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, India and Pakistan…all flashpoints for much larger conflicts.  Worse, they do so with extreme arrogance, without regard to painful realities around the world.  They do not understand the necessity of a strategic triad of broadcast mediums that allow for a flexible and fluid response to changing situations.  In their decision-making, they have repeatedly demonstrated that they are shortsighted, unimaginative, and inflexible…the perfect faults to exploit by forces intent upon defeating the reach of US international broadcasting assets and the US public diplomacy effort.  Discrediting the United States is made a whole lot easier by the ineptitude exhibited in these processes.

In the face of deteriorating circumstances, these officials have embraced an all-or-nothing strategy based on using the Internet as their sole source for audio, video and text.

Let us disabuse the notion that this strategy is groundbreaking, trendsetting or staying ahead of the technological curve.  US government computer systems are vulnerable to cyber warfare.  Recently, a high level briefing was provided the outgoing Bush and incoming Obama administrations regarding the vulnerabilities of and threats to US government computer systems.  The threat is real and substantial.

No doubt, those responsible for Internet security for US international broadcasting would claim that its systems are secure.  However, it should be remembered that a culture of deceit permeates many levels of the US international broadcasting entities…the same kind of deceit that attempts to cover up embarrassing failures of its operations, such as with alHurra television, until the cover-up effort was trumped by  the release of the Annenberg Report on alHurra credited to the Obama transition team.  Claims of cyber security for US international broadcasting systems should be met with great skepticism.  Be mindful of the admonition: consider the source.

One more point: the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James Glassman, thinks that “we’re Coke and they’re Pepsi.”  Perhaps Mr. Glassman doesn’t have a television and hasn’t had the opportunity to watch footage of the current round of conflict between Hamas and the Israeli military in the Gaza Strip, or the widening of the conflict by rocket fire now coming from southern Lebanon into Israel.  Or perhaps Mr. Glassman can inquire of Hamas or Hezbollah if they think they are Coke or Pepsi. 

The point is this: the analogy is idiotic…under almost any circumstances but especially those of the present.

These are not the best of times for US international broadcasting.  Maintaining the status quo, through the twits and tweets of a fairy tale world view pontificated by inept political appointees or senior officials covering up the multi-million dollar failures of its high profile projects like alHurra, is the short march to the worst of times.

The Federalist 2009

Thinking About The Unthinkable

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, January 6, 2009, San Francisco – This commentary by The Federalist, one of our regular contributors with inside knowledge of US government bureaucracy, is designed to open a discussion on the Free Media Online Blog about the proper role for US public diplomacy and international broadcasting in dealing with terrorism and threats to free media in Russia and other countries.  The Federalist argues that the current US public diplomacy effort based on the mixture of outdated Cold War models and Web 2.0 marketing schemes cannot be successful in responding to the new realities of the post-9/11 world.  The commentator points out that the tactics of Islamist extremists are consistent and predictable and that they will continue to represent a serious threat.  We would like to hear from others whether the US should build its public diplomacy strategy in response to this kind of threat assessment and whether a new approach to foreign policy by the Obama Administration will open up new opportunities for improving America’s image abroad. We invite your comments, which you may post directly on the blog or email them to: contact@freemediaonline.org.  We welcome full-length articles from outside contributors.

Thinking About The Unthinkable

by The Federalist

If you think about the above phrase coined by the late nuclear war theorist, Herman Kahn, you might find it  both unusually appropriate and alarming when applied to US public diplomacy.

There is a fundamental flaw in the current US thinking about this subject.  We seem to believe that the strategies of the Cold War can be updated to successfully deal with our current adversaries.  Such thinking is wrong and, if it continues, it can have fatal consequences for our future.

In facing Islamic extremism, we are not dealing with a “war of ideas”  typical of the Cold War. Neither are we going to impress our adversaries with “Public Diplomacy 2.0.”

The “war of ideas” terminology aptly described the competition between two economic and political systems, capitalism and communism.  Both were products of Western thought and resulted in a public diplomacy strategy that was successful during the Cold War but is not likely to work against Islamist extremists.

“Public Diplomacy 2.0” describes an approach to public diplomacy that seemingly is more focused on a technological medium (and being social gadflies) and less focused on the underlying issues.

Neither term accurately describes the current world environment.  We are faced not with a war of ideas but a war of beliefs — the worst kind of conflict.  The war of beliefs deals in terms of finality and absolutes.

Americans have become too wrapped around the babble of our own point of view.  We are not listening to our adversaries.  This is a serious lapse that, if not corrected, could prove more disastrous than some of our already well-publicized public diplomacy flops.

Our public diplomacy apparatus still believes we are dealing with a competition between two ideologies.  The current Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James K. Glassman, even talks in analogies of Coca-Cola versus Pepsi.  In doing so, Mr. Glassman makes a good case that he should be replaced.

Al-Qaeda, radical fundamentalists, jihadists and terrorists often use the same technological tools as we do.  However, their message is entirely different from what Mr. Glassman’s analogy seems to suggest.

If one listens carefully to the message of these groups, it’s clear that they do not talk using the terminology of “Coke versus Pepsi.”  Their language is one of annihilation and total war against those they see as a threat to their way of life and their interests.  Americans and other Westerners are seen as nonbelievers or infidels.  We are portrayed as being driven by vice, greed and corruption.  These groups are determined to destroy the Western way of life by any means possible and available.  Generally speaking, they are not interested in talking with us or engaging in a polite discussion over our differences.

When it comes to launching a war, the jihadists have done the math, both on a tactical and strategic level. In responding, we need to reflect on the events of September 11, 2001.  We seem to have forgotten but should remind ourselves that a small number of operatives commandeered four commercial airliners and used them to attack three known sites and a probable fourth.  Three of the four aircraft reached their targets.  Of the three targets, two were completely destroyed and the third damaged.  In each case,  there was a substantial loss of life.  Billions of dollars have been spent in the aftermath of the attacks, both domestically and abroad, to improve defenses against further attacks and presumably to take the fight directly to the terrorists.

Still, the jihadists have done the math…use the smallest number of operatives to inflict the maximum amount of damage, destruction and loss of life. They are likely to use the same tactics again.

Part of the billions of dollars spent has been to upgrade US military and intelligence capabilities to deal with the threat.  Our defense and intelligence agencies point with some pride to the increased level of security we have enjoyed up to this moment.  However, as any analyst knows, understanding the jihadists’ math and developing effective countermeasures is the key to achieving victory or suffering another serious, catastrophic attack.  It is a constantly evolving set of circumstances, until the core threat and its offshoots are completely eliminated.  It requires constant vigilance.

On the tactical level, the concept of  using the smallest number of operatives to inflict the maximum amount of damage is being acted out over and over again.  Witness the recent terrorist attack in Mumbai, India.  A small group of operatives attacked a soft target and inflicted the maximum amount of death and destruction proportionate to their numbers.

Witness also the more recent rocket attacks by Hamas against Israel.  This is another form of the same tactical process.  The Israeli response and the attendant casualties among the Palestinian civilian population are seen as validation of the jihadists’ belief that nothing short of annihilation of the enemy will resolve the situation.

On the strategic level, the jihadists have not deviated from their purpose to bring about the total destruction of the United States.  Destruction of civil society is an acceptable part of this strategy.  The vision that the jihadists have of the United States is not unlike the recently released video game, “Fallout 3.”  This is the America the jihadists want to see.  Acquiring the technology and a deliverable weapon to accomplish this goal is high on the jihadists’ list of priorities.

Seen in this light, the threat from Iran becomes much more real.  It is not merely high-handed volatile rhetoric coming from the Iranian leadership.  That leadership believes in and embraces the jihadists’ strategic concept of annihilation.

We have difficulty in being able to rationally understand this level of rage toward the United States, Israel or other Western societies.  However, we need to see and understand what factors into the jihadists’ calculations as they act upon their sense of rage.  These extremists profess to be Islamists.  Islam is the largest world religion.  Knowing this, the jihadists have drawn the conclusion that, even if they precipitate Armageddon, there is a high likelihood that the group most likely to survive are people who identify with these religious beliefs.  The condition of a post-Apocalyptic world is not a matter of great concern.  The only thing that matters is winning at all costs.

In the United States, most people live in relative comfort.  Many who identify with the religion of Islam comprise some of the poorest of the global poor.  We have a lot to lose.  From the jihadists’ perspective, there is little left to lose in this life.  This is a very appealing message to those whose lives are filled with desperation and who see themselves as exploited by and victims of Western affluence.  The jihadists do not hesitate to draw on examples of over a thousand years of history to point out examples of Western acts against their theology and people.  The jihadists’ philosophy makes heroes out of all those who sacrifice their lives in achieving victory.  Victory is its own reward.

We need to take this threat very seriously.  Up to this point, certain aspects of US public diplomacy, such as “Public Diplomacy 2.0,” have demonstrated that the threat is not being taken seriously.  We have tailored a public diplomacy strategy that seems more like a media advertising campaign during a major sporting event.

In overview, the incoming Obama administration needs to consider several issues:

First, we need to be realistic as to the nature of this threat and its intended outcomes.  This means paying close attention to the message of the jihadists and taking it literally.

Second, the primary objective of US public diplomacy is to deprive jihadists and international terrorism of its most important resource: human capital.  The task is daunting.  The jihadists promise restoring the power of Islam as a global political, social and cultural force to be reckoned with.  The jihadists promise removing the oppressors of downtrodden Muslim people around the world.  The jihadists reinforce this message with action.  Seven years after the attacks of September 11, 2001 the architect of these attacks, Osama bin Laden, remains at-large.  This increases the power of the jihadist message.  If all we have to offer in our public diplomacy effort is the status quo or trite techno-babble, the advantage will remain with the radical fundamentalists.

Third, we need to speak boldly with the international community, our allies, neighbors and those warily watching world events from the sidelines.  We need to appeal to a sense of common purpose to defeat those who intend to bring about the destruction of civilization as we know it.

Fourth, we need to get the Russians back to being fully on board with this effort.  Rather than allow themselves to be distracted by armed or verbal conflict with its neighbors, the Russian leadership faces a much more genuine threat to Russia’s interests.  The United States needs to speak directly to the Russian leadership and to the Russian people through our international broadcasting assets.  It is a serious mistake to be dismissive of the Russian people, their history and their sacrifices…a mistake compounded by the termination of direct Russian radio broadcasts by the Voice of America.  This fatal decision was implemented by the Broadcasting Board of Governors in 2008.

Fifth, we need a thorough rehabilitation of our public diplomacy effort in the Arab and Muslim world.  Current projects such as Radio Sawa and alHurra television are not getting the job done.

Finally, “Public Diplomacy 2.0” should be relegated to the category of fantasy fiction…in much the same way as “Dow 36,000” ( a book co-authored by James K. Glassman).

The Federalist 2008

Transition

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, December 9, 2008, San Francisco – One of our regular contributors offers a unique perspective on the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors and its policies that led to the outsourcing of U.S. international broadcasting to scandal-ridden private entities. One of them, Alhurra Television for the Middle East,  was described in an independent study, which the BBG tried to keep secret, as failing to meet basic journalistic standards.  The BBG is also responsible for the closing of many Voice of America radio broadcasting services, including radio broadcasts to Russia.

This commentary was written before the Broadcasting Board of Governors released the Alhurra report in response to pressures from Congress,  investigative journalists and media freedom organizations. ProPublica.org, a nonprofit investigative journalisim website, reported that BBG Executive Director Jeffrey Trimble delivered copies of the report Wedenesday to Congressional investigators with the House Foreign Affairs Committee who until then had unsuccessfully sought the report for several months.

According to ProPublica.org, Trimble has appeared three times before House committee staff this year to answer questions on Alhurra since a joint investigation of the network in June by ProPublica and CBS’ 60 Minutes. Trimble and BBG members have also ignored Congressional requests and warnings not to end Voice of America radio broadcasts to Russia, which they did secretly 12 days before the Russian military attack on Georgia. It is likely that the sudden decision by the BBG to make the Alhurra report public was due to the arrival in Washington of the Obama transision team members selected to review U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting operations.  

Transition

In the weeks between the November national election and the January inauguration, the incoming administration fans out members of its transition team to the many Federal agencies to obtain an overview of their operations. This tradition is currently underway by the incoming Obama administration.

One of these transition units has been assigned to assess the operations of the US international broadcasting entities under the direction of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).

It is rather doubtful that this team will receive a complete, objective and detailed explanation of what has been taking place under the BBG for the past eight years. This may not be solely related to the Board, but also due to the senior International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) career bureaucrats who act on behalf of the Board, but are also tenacious in protecting their own interests (and careers) above all else.

Therefore, the following is offered as a critique of certain aspects of US international broadcasting under the direction of the BBG that warrant the attention of the transition team.

The BBG “Strategic Plan”

US international broadcasting has suffered from flawed decision-making and strategic misdirection under the BBG/IBB.

A key component to the BBG strategic plan is the intention to move the Voice of America (VOA) in a direction that ultimately results in ending its direct radio broadcasts. In place of these broadcasts, the Board intends to adopt an Internet-only strategy, relying solely upon its websites to provide audio, video and text to potential audiences. This may appear as a state-of-the-art approach, attractive to our technology-driven outlook, particularly inside the Washington Beltway. However, for most global populations, this technology is unaffordable, unavailable or impractical, particularly at the high end of the spectrum using broadband or wireless technologies.

It also ignores the fact that taking a one-dimensional approach makes it much easier to adopt a variety of countermeasures, electronic and otherwise, from simply cutting off access to BBG/VOA websites to more aggressive acts such as hacking these sites in direct cyber warfare. The BBG is wholly unprepared for and dismissive of the scope of this threat.

Since it will take decades for this strategy to reach optimum penetration in the best of circumstances, it provides long-term job security to those who are its proponents. This puts self interest ahead of mission effectiveness or the National and Public Interest.

The transition unit should be concerned that the consequence of this BBG strategy is to eliminate the VOA as an international broadcaster, cutting off existing and potential mass global audiences who have access to relatively inexpensive radios capable of receiving VOA radio broadcasts. The effect is similar to that of an inverted pyramid, where large audiences are eliminated by funneling them through Internet choke points that can be blocked off with minimal effort and maximum effect.

Vacuum of Silence

The transition unit should be concerned that BBG decisions have resulted in a deliberate, self-imposed US international broadcasting communications blackout in key regions of the world.

In the late Summer of 2008, the Board eliminated direct radio broadcasts to Russia. Not long afterward, Russian military units moved against the Republic of Georgia in a dispute over the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The BBG blackout of VOA direct broadcasts to Russia remains in effect. This blackout not only ended radio broadcasts for audiences in the Russian Republic. It also cut off and blacked out radio programs in Russian to the former Soviet republics where Russian is spoken as a second language.

In September 2008, the BBG ended Hindi-language broadcasts to India. Thus, in December 2008 there was a US international broadcasting blackout in Hindi language programming when a terrorist cell attacked civilian commercial targets frequented by Westerners in Mumbai, India. This BBG blackout remains in effect.

The BBG has created a strategic vacuum in US international broadcasting. Its “strategic plan” has placed virtually complete reliance upon non-US Internet service providers (ISPs) to carry its audio, video and text media. These foreign entities can be interdicted by cyber countermeasures or periodic cycles of news and media censorship.

This BBG plan has resulted in a wholesale abandonment of real and potential audiences through direct radio broadcasts…radio broadcasts that were largely under direct and secure US control of domestic and foreign broadcasting transmission facilities. The BBG has broken US international broadcasting’s strategic radio bridge in areas of known conflict, which can quickly escalate into broader confrontations with global repercussions.

Middle East Broadcasting

The transition unit should be particularly troubled with the BBG broadcasting project to the Middle East known as alHurra television.

By all accounts, this multi-million dollar entity is a “broadcast flop.” At enormous cost, this project has failed to achieve any substantive results in terms of changing Arab and Muslim public opinion from its highly negative posture to one that is more amenable to US policy in the region.

The BBG has suppressed a report prepared by the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School, at the Board’s request and at public expense, regarding the operations of the alHurra television network. Suppressing a report on a controversial project is a deliberate attempt to prevent public and broader governmental scrutiny of the operations of the alHurra television station that the BBG oversees.

AlHurra television broadcasts to Arab and Muslims audiences over public airwaves. For the Board to suppress and/or otherwise cover-up a report on the operations of this station leads inexorably to the conclusion that there must be something seriously amiss. One would think that the Board would understand the implication. Apparently, it does not.

A Development on the Transition Team

Dean Wilson appointed to presidential transition team
USC Annenberg School for Communications
December 2, 2008
Dean Wilson will serve several functions in the transition. He will lead a team reviewing America’s international broadcasting services, including the Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors. He will also be an advisor to the transition team working with the U.S. Department of State on public diplomacy issues.
http://annenberg.usc.edu/AboutUs/News/081202WilsonTransition.aspx?p=1

This is of particular note to interested observers of the transition process. It is unclear and unstated what Mr. Wilson’s view is of the BBG action to suppress the Annenberg Report on the controversial alHurra television project.

If previous experience is of any value, in the politics of the BBG it may be observed that nothing happens by chance or coincidence.

From published reports, indications are that the BBG appears to be suppressing the report because it contains observations and conclusions that may reflect negatively upon the operations of alHurra or point to the ineffectiveness of the BBG and its senior career managers to take effective remedial action.

It is in the National and Public Interest that this report be made public.
Clearly, the operative issue of the moment is: what happens to the Annenberg Report in this mix of circumstances and events? Does it remain buried or does it receive public attention, discussion and debate? As long as the Annenberg report remains suppressed, legitimate deficiencies in that operation will remain uncorrected and the damage to US credibility with Arab and Muslim audiences will be perpetuated indefinitely.

The OPM Human Capital Survey

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducts a regular survey of Federal agencies known as “The Human Capital Survey.”

Consistently, the BBG ranks near or at rock bottom among Federal agencies of similar size. Among other things, this survey demonstrates that the employees do not identify with the goals and objectives of the Board. If the Board cannot win over its own employees to its broad strategic vision, it is not likely to be able to achieve satisfactory results with its international audiences. Employees perceive the BBG as intent upon undermining the effectiveness of the agency’s mission, particularly as applies to the broadcasts of the VOA. This is commonly referred to as being set up to fail.

One of the great ironies in all of this is the manner in which BBG decision-making has facilitated the convergence of arrogance, ignorance, political and personal self-interest as the driving forces behind the US international broadcasting strategy.

Thus, the cumulative effects of flawed BBG/IBB decisions results in an undermined US international broadcasting mission. When this happens, the BBG fails a Public Trust.

The entities controlled by the BBG are in serious need of assessment as to their prospects for effectiveness. The current state of the BBG/IBB, which is one of denial of its shortcomings and a “business as usual” posture, hinders this process and is unacceptable to the immediate and long term interests of the United States.

Earning and maintaining US credibility, prestige and respect with the international community appears to be rapidly slipping from the grasp of the BBG.

The Federalist 2008

Reverse Propagation

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, November 5, 2008, San Francisco – This commentary by one of our regular contributors offer a useful perspective on the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors and its policies that led to the closing of many Voice of America radio broadcasting services, including radio broadcasts to Russia.

The BBG strategy clearly abandons the have-nots. In doing so, the BBG dismisses what we have already learned; namely, that trouble often begins in places that are “off the radar screen” and the ability of peoples in these circumstances to wage war, rebellion or terrorism. The consequences of this lesson should have been learned by the BBG on September 11, 2001. Clearly, it has not. The Federalist

Reverse Propagation

The great American showman PT Barnum is said to have made the statement that there’s a sucker born every moment. One is left to wonder who the sucker is in the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) strategic plan. This creation of staffers serving the BBG posits an all-or nothing Internet strategy in which the Internet would be the sole source for all BBG programs…audio, video and text. The BBG would eventually abandon almost all direct broadcasts by radio and television. While this would result in large savings in production and transmission costs, it would pass those costs onto the potential listener or viewer of BBG media

The BBG and the staff proponents of this plan have an “inside the Beltway” myopic view of the rest of the world. That view is high-tech driven where one has virtually instantaneous access to all forms of media. Not only does one have the access, the population set also has the per capita income (or consumer debt limitations) to purchase and maintain state-of-the-art technology.

Well beyond the Beltway, international audiences are less well situated. With a world population numbering in the billions, per capita income levels vary, the ability to purchase the technology that the BBG would require of its audience is limited as would be reliable infrastructure sources of power and energy required to operate and pay for the necessary equipment.

The BBG plan also dismisses any notion of electronic countermeasures to interfere with its Internet-driven product, measures in the 21^st century that replicate, in effect, the radio jamming of the 20^th century.

The BBG is in the formative stages of implementing this strategy. It has deliberately abandoned radio and television audiences in Russia. The decision to do so was made prior to the Russian invasion of Georgia and remains in place to this day.

An examination of the consequences of this plan is in order:

First, the BBG is no longer a serious international broadcaster. It is abandoning mass media audiences in favor of an elitist plan, reliant solely upon people of means to purchase the necessary technology and support (a personal computer with Internet broadband access and a reliable source of power). The question then becomes whether or not the societal elites have an interest in the message that the BBG is offering. The follow-on question is what interest do the societal elites in the target area have with regard to the general socio-political issues in the target area? The divisions between have and have-not in many countries are stark. What interest would the societal elites have in “sharing the wealth,” so to speak?

Second, in adopting this plan, the BBG is committing the Congress and the American taxpayer to a plan that will take decades to reach its optimum potential. This is also assuming a best case scenario, uninterrupted by war, social upheaval or natural disasters. Large segments of the world’s population live well below the poverty level. These populations struggle with ineffective or failed government infrastructures and most contend with a daily struggle over basic necessities…food, clothing, shelter, energy and potable water supplies. Where does the high-tech BBG PC and Internet-driven technology fit in? The answer is that it doesn’t…in the immediate and indeterminate future.

This strategy deliberately abandons existing and inexpensive technologies that are affordable even among struggling populations. Radio continues to be a viable medium serving mass audiences. Unlike the BBG, most serious international broadcasters maintain their radio broadcasts while using the Internet as a complement where access is available. These broadcasters have not executed a wholesale abandonment of known audiences and proven technologies as part of their integrated international broadcasting strategies.

Some historians and economists believe that the next world war will be fought between the Northern and Southern hemispheres…in short, a struggle between the haves and the have-nots. The BBG strategy clearly abandons the have-nots. In doing so, the BBG dismisses what we have already learned; namely, that trouble often begins in places that are “off the radar screen” and the ability of peoples in these circumstances to wage war, rebellion or terrorism. The consequences of this lesson should have been learned by the BBG on September 11, 2001. Clearly, it has not.

If there is one thing that is obvious from the BBG strategic plan it is this: it provides long-term career job security for its proponents on the BBG staff. In each successive budget cycle, one can be certain that the BBG will make a case for more taxpayer funds to justify and support this strategic debacle. The question then becomes whether or not the Congress will exercise proper oversight of BBG activities or succumb to yet another manifestation of “inside the Beltway” myopia. Lack of oversight has put us in the circumstances that we are in today, with a BBG that is out of step with international geopolitical realities and intentionally silencing itself to known audiences.

The Federalist 2008

A Fool’s Paradise

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, October 16, 2008, San Francisco – U.S. public diplomacy and international broadcasting have become a fool’s paradise, putting the “ugly American” stereotype on display.

One example has been discussed at length…the strategic “vision” of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) to adopt an all-or-nothing Internet strategy for its media.  No other international broadcaster of consequence is taking this approach.  One can only be truly amazed at this “Don Quixote” approach to the U.S. international broadcasting mission in the face of today’s social, economic and political realities.
 
Another aspect of the BBG’s faulty world view has also been discussed in depth; namely, the decision to end Voice of America direct broadcasts to Russia, without regard to the political realities of the reconstituted nationalism under Vladimir Putin.

The latest manifestation of the endless reservoir of fantasy is a video contest on the subject of democracy in which the State Department is soliciting amateur video entries worldwide.  It doesn’t matter that this subject gets broad treatment on such video websites like YouTube.  But then again, originality has become one of the casualties in the fool’s paradise of mediocrity in the U.S. public diplomacy bureaucracy.

One can rightfully question what the criteria will be used for evaluating this contest since the U.S. taxpayer will be footing the bill for the prizes.  In searching through YouTube content with “democracy” as the subject, one can find a broad and diverse selection of offerings, some not quite complimentary to the U.S. government perspective.  Will critical video essays on the subject of democracy be among the winning selections?  Probably not.  One can hardly imagine a selection critical of the subject that the State Department seeks to promote.  If that, in fact, becomes the case, then we (i.e., the U.S. Government) will have spent more US taxpayer funds and learned nothing from this exercise.

One is left to wonder who came up with this latest faux pas.  Previous efforts have been made by the State Department to package “democracy” like a commodity, sometimes with the assistance of Madison Avenue or other advertising or public relations firms, where previous Under Secretaries of State have either come from or gone to after serving in this position.

This “Democracy” contest is yet another unbridled display of arrogance and ignorance, in true Ugly American style.  Those who concoct these projects appear to be blissfully dismissive of two processes: 

First, government is an evolutionary process.  Societies are rarely transformed overnight.  They have established cultures, traditions, histories and heritage.  Embracing social, economic and political concepts where they have heretofore not existed can be a difficult proposition, with less than ideal results.

Second, the next crucial component is that of self-determination.  People want to get where they are going in their own time and place.  Forcing something down people’s throats when they are not prepared for it is a prescription for trouble.

This State Department video contest would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad and vacuous.  This is a superficial treatment of a social and political process.  It bears no resemblance to reality.

Incredibly, each in its own way, the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors are poised for failure, not learning from their own mistakes and ill-conceived notions of what is required to engage in meaningful, intelligent and thoughtful interaction with global peoples on the complexities of maintaining a democratic society.

The Federalist 2008/3

Interesting Times

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, October 16, 2008, San Francisco – “May you live in interesting times.”

No one knows with certainty if this proverb is a famous Chinese curse or not.  However, one can certainly accept the fact that these times are indeed interesting…meaning troubled…in many spheres including economics and international broadcasting.  While the fine points of U.S. international broadcasting are debated among a fairly small circle of interested participants and observers, the globalized financial markets appear to be poised on the brink of collapse.

What’s the connection?

Not long ago, a book was published with the title “Dow 36,000.”  This book was authored by James K. Glassman, the most recent chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors and now the current Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.

Depending on your point of view, you may want to laugh or cry.  If you are heavily invested in the stock market, other financial instruments or a disintegrating 401(k) retirement plan, it is likely to be the latter.

A book with an impressive title like Dow 36,000 is indicative of an outlook that goes beyond plain optimism and approaches the realm of fantasy.  It assumes a perfect trajectory of unbounded growth.  It does not take into account, the unknown, the unpredictable, weaknesses of human nature for greed and miscalculation or political and fundamentalist movements which specifically intend to topple our economic system and weaken our ability to project global power.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) seems to embrace the Dow 36,000 philosophy.  Similarly, the BBG makes assumptions based on best case scenarios; for example, rolling the dice on an all-or-nothing Internet-based platform for all BBG media: audio, video and text.  The opening gambit of this wildly optimistic strategic plan is seen in the Board’s unilateral decision to end direct broadcasting by the VOA Russian service.  The plan clearly requires that large costs be passed to the potential “consumers” of the BBG media offerings…a Russian population with presently limited exposure to the Internet except in its major metropolitan centers…a Russian population roiling with the rest of the world in the present global financial crisis…a resurgent nationalistic Russia which has engaged in armed conflict with the nation of Georgia…a Russia whose military campaign against Georgia was assisted by Internet countermeasures employed against Georgian and other Internet websites.

A rosy Dow 36,000 outlook dismisses the importance of history.  History repeats itself.  It is not linear.  It is cyclical.  There have been other economic downturns since the Great Depression of 1929, though not as severe…until now.  The interconnectivity of global economic systems and markets has reached a new pinnacle…meaning, in part, that a severe economic downturn is less likely to be localized and is rather more likely to be globalized.  Such are the circumstances today.

The same holds true for the euphoric, best case scenario model of BBG strategic planning for international broadcasting.  The Board is equally dismissive of historical antecedents, ignores the fact that democracy, capitalism and various other “isms” are evolutionary processes heavily influenced by circumstances specific to the experiences of certain cultures.  For example, anyone with a fundamental understanding of Russian history and the Russian psyche would be aware of the importance Russians hold for strength and leadership.  The Board lacks this form of “fortunate awareness” and clings to the arrogant and misshapen belief that the Russians will naturally embrace our perspective without regard to Russian experiences and interests.

Similar costly errors in judgment can be seen in the BBG programs to the Middle East, especially the Alhurra television project created as the result of an erroneous, superfluous vision of certain Board members regarding the depth of feelings among Arabs and Muslims regarding the substance of Middle East conflict.

In all its component parts, the BBG has become a symbol of the “ugly American,” syndrome, an assumption that the Board and only the Board knows what is best for U.S. international broadcasting.

The BBG is anything but a hallmark of U.S. government functioning at its best.  It is in many ways not much different in philosophy and action from the corporate entities and officers who have propelled US financial interests over a cliff with their own brand of arrogance and hubris.  Like those involved in the financial crisis, the Board no longer functions in the National or Public Interest and imperils both.

The Dow has fallen through “support” at 10,000.  Yes, we do live in interesting times…realities that are far from the market fiction of “Dow 36,000.”

The Federalist 2008/2

Restoring Effectiveness of U.S. Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting

 FreeMediaOnline.org & Free Media Online Blog  The Federalist Commentary, September 25, 2008, San Francisco – Free Media Online Blog welcomes a new guest contributor who provides a unique perspective on U.S. international broadcasting and public diplomacy. The first article from The Federalist deals with the legislation introduced Tuesday by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KA) that would establish the National Center for Strategic Communications, an agency similar to the now defunct U.S. Information Agency (USIA). Brownback’s proposal would abolish the existing Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy at the State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). We invite your comments.

The Brownback legislation is a step in the right direction. It acknowledges the problem. It remains to be seen if elected officials respond to this problem in a manner that restores the effectiveness of US international broadcasting or if the legislation will be undermined by special interests or agendas that perpetuate and expand the known failure of this agency [Broadcasting Board of Governors]. The Federalist 

Restoring Effectiveness of U.S. Public Diplomacy and International Broadcasting

The Federalist 2008/1

The legislation introduced by Senator Sam Brownback is an acknowledgement that US international broadcasting is broken and needs to be fixed and in a dramatic fashion.  The senator’s legislation would dramatically reshape how the US Government goes about the business of public diplomacy.  Not only does the legislation eliminate the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG); it also eliminates the position of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy.  The former has been a hotbed of sometimes vicious partisan bickering and the latter a steady succession of appointees who have searched in vain for an answer, almost any answer, to the woeful state of American prestige abroad.

Without a doubt, this legislation will have opponents.  Most likely to lead these forces will be Senator Joe Biden who has a demonstrated interest in this area of government operations.  He will likely be joined in opposition to the Brownback bill by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, no doubt led by Biden’s former chief of staff, Ted Kaufman.

The dismissive attitude demonstrated that the BBG does not think its Russian audiences are important anymore. … Putin, by training, a KGB professional, understands the importance of being several steps ahead of one’s adversaries. 

At this early juncture, it is unclear who will prevail in the political contest over the fate of US international broadcasting.

At the same time, it is important to make note of the record of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, particularly in recent years.  This Board has presided over a failed effort in the Middle East; namely, the Radio Sawa project and worse, the al-Hurra television project.  The fanciful vision of the Board has been akin to if we put these projects on the air, Arabs and Muslims would be enamored of our program content and we will have miraculously won them over to our point of view.  Wrong, on many different levels.  First and foremost, it ignores the obvious; namely, the ability of Arabs and Muslims to distinguish between their expectations and those of the United States through the BBG programming.  No one makes significant life decisions solely on the basis of what someone puts on the radio or television, particularly if that programming is out of step with the daily realities of the target audience.  The al-Hurra project has been called a “broadcast flop” and indeed it is so, in part for the reason stated above.

Putin can congratulate himself on being able to control the media environment in Russia and portray the military incursion in his own terms, exploiting a void created by the BBG in the absence of direct VOA radio programming to the Russian people.

Next, the BBG made a unilateral decision to end 60 years of direct broadcasting to Russia.  One should not treat lightly the significance of these broadcasts…but the BBG did.  The dismissive attitude demonstrated that the BBG does not think its Russian audiences are important anymore.  Clearly, the BBG is oblivious to the changes underway in Russia under Vladimir Putin.  Putin, by training, a KGB professional, understands the importance of being several steps ahead of one’s adversaries.  If he were a chess player, in dealing with the BBG, he would appear to be a grand master.  He knows the opponent and the opponent’s weaknesses.  He has skillfully manipulated the media environment to limit or outright eliminate the ability of alternative points of view to be heard.  He is also mindful of Russian history, something totally outside the parameters of BBG thinking.  He intends to reestablish Russian prestige both domestically and abroad.  Russians have historically responded to calls upon their national pride, particularly in the hands of a strong leader.

Timing is everything.  While not likely a determinant of the Russian decision to invade Georgia, it no doubt had some bearing accessible information to the Russian people as to how this action was viewed abroad.  Putin can congratulate himself on being able to control the media environment in Russia and portray the military incursion in his own terms, exploiting a void created by the BBG in the absence of direct VOA radio programming to the Russian people.

Lastly, an examination of the BBG “strategic plan” is in order.  This plan is available for public inspection on the BBG website.  The Board is proud of its plan.  It believes that it propels US international broadcasting into the 21st century.  In essence, this plan relies heavily on the use of the Internet as a sole source platform for all VOA program material, audio, video and text.

This would be fine in the environment of a free society with a tradition of free speech and a free press.  However, the places where VOA programming is most important are places where these freedoms are absent or under duress.

This “strategic plan” also passes the cost of receiving US government information onto the consumer.  The Board believes that it is saving large sums of money, particularly transmission costs, by pursuing this strategy.  On paper, this is correct.  However, in turn, the BBG is passing the costs onto the consumer, particularly in places where the average per capita income is at the subsistence level.  The Board’s plan would require individual’s to purchase personal computers and acquire Internet access.  In some cases, the costs of both are prohibitive and in other cases they may be nonexistent, in terms of broadband Internet service.  There is also the matter of regular and reliable electrical service to power one’s PC.

The Board also likes to argue that it is trying to reach societal elites with its programming.  These elites are the “haves” in these socio-political environments.  Thus, the question is, what motivation do these elites have in embracing larger socio-political concepts that would dilute their power to benefit the “have-nots?”

The Board is dismissive of the power of radio to reach mass audiences over large geographical areas.  The Board believes that radio is passé, particularly shortwave radio.  However, radios are abundant throughout the world and are available at far less cost than a PC with broadband Internet service.

This Board’s plan creates serious gaps that can be exploited to influence people’s attitudes toward the United States.  As such, this is a serious issue of national security. … every American adversary can easily identify, locate, attack and dispute (or destroy) BBG communication links with its overseas audiences.

Clearly, this BBG plan is an all-or-nothing strategy.  The “all” is dreamlike wonderful.  The nothing is potentially very dangerous.  Those who oppose US interests and policies look for gaps in how the United States attempts to reach large audiences.  This Board’s plan creates serious gaps that can be exploited to influence people’s attitudes toward the United States.  As such, this is a serious issue of national security.

This strategy facilitates and invites electronic countermeasures in times in crisis.  There is a lesson to be learned for the arrogant BBG in the Georgian-Russian crisis.  When hostilities erupted, Georgian websites were hacked, by persons or entities unknown (but suspected to be the Russian security services).  This electronic attack seriously disrupted information coming out of Georgian websites concerning the crisis. 

It would be foolish for the BBG to believe that, in times of crisis, BBG websites would be left alone or somehow rendered immune from such attacks.  No doubt, the BBG would be wise to take steps to protect its websites from such attacks and most likely does.  However, no amount of effort on the part of the BBG would be 100 percent in the face of a determined and focused attack.

Another aspect of this “all-or-nothing” strategic plan is that it can be argued that the BBG no longer is an international broadcaster.  As the term implies, broadcasting means reaching the widest possible range in audience and geography.  This is no longer the case when a heavy reliance is placed on terrestrial downlinks or Internet service providers, easily identified, in fixed locations.  In short, every American adversary can easily identify, locate, attack and dispute (or destroy) BBG communication links with its overseas audiences.

All aspects of these severe shortcomings in BBG thinking represent the manner in which this body fails to carry out its mission.  It is a failure in an important, though little understood and definitely underestimated commodity of government.  It also is a failure in that the Board has clearly placed political interests above the national and public interest.  The Board relishes the fact that it has screened off public scrutiny of its activities.  This is where the problem begins.  Secret governance is no governance when an agency of the Federal government is understood to be accountable to the Public Trust.  One cannot trust an entity that deliberately shrouds itself in secrecy.  It cannot be relied upon to function effectively.  It cannot be relied upon to be a guarantor of public funds well spent.  The corrosive effect of the manner in which the Board operates speaks for itself.

The Brownback legislation is a step in the right direction.  It acknowledges the problem.  It remains to be seen if elected officials respond to this problem in a manner that restores the effectiveness of US international broadcasting or if the legislation will be undermined by special interests or agendas that perpetuate and expand the known failure of this agency.

The Federalist 2008/1