Read more:
Empowering independent media: U.S. efforts to foster a free press and an open Internet

Dr. Rudenskiy was hired by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in 2011 to evaluate the VOA Russian website. In a report, which was not shared with BBG members, Dr. Rudenskiy concluded that the Russian Service had a “pro-Putin bias” and downplayed human rights reporting.

He wrote in his report that “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.”

Dr. Rudenskiy’s main criticism, however, was directed at what he perceived as a bias in favor of the Kremlin. In his study, he gave several examples of VOA news reports based mostly on Russian official media that lacked an alternative American perspective.

“Vice President’s [Biden] speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event 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.”

Dr. Rudenskiy was a Reagan-Fascell fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, which published the following biographical note about him:

Nikolay Rudenskiy is the deputy editor of Grani.Ru (www.grani.ru), an independent online media outlet. Trained as an ethnographer, he is the author of about 40 scholarly publications and more than 100 journalistic commentaries focusing mostly on public issues in today’s Russia, including defending freedom of the press, exposing persecution of the regime’s opponents and other human rights violations, and combating racism and other forms of bigotry. During his fellowship, Rudenskiy plans to compare and contrast various approaches to the issue of hate speech in Russia and the United States.

‘Pro-Putin bias’ Evaluation of VOA Russian Website by Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy.doc

‘Pro-Putin bias’ Evaluation of VOA Russian Website by Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy.pdf

BBG executives suppressed Dr. Rudenskiy’s study, as they had tried to suppress a similar study critical of Alhurra TV until they were forced by pressure from Congress to make it public.

Dr. Rudenskiy’s study was identified by Ted Lipien, a former VOA acting associate director, in his op-ed “VOA Harms Putin Opposition in Russia” in The Washington Times. The article focused on a fake interview with a Russian anti-corruption lawyer and opposition leaders Alexei Navalny published by the VOA Russian website. The Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny who wrote in his Twitter account that “Voice of America has gone nuts” and that all those working there should be let go.

In an attack on Lipien, “VOA Public Relations” posted a comment which questioned the accuracy of his description of Dr. Rudenskiy’s study in his Washington Times op-ed:

“Mr. Lipien misleads his audience when he alleges a ‘pro-Putin’ bias, something which could not be farther from the truth. Mr. Lipien should know well, the agency he so sharply attacks is the one that every year hires dozens of independent analysts to conduct rigorous ‘program reviews’ of every VOA language service. Mr. Lipien both misquotes and takes out of context a single remark by one of those analysts about one particular story.”

Asked for a comment, Mr. Lipien told BBG Watch that American taxpayers and members of Congress should read Dr. Rudenskiy’s entire study of the Voice of America Russian Service and decide for themselves whether their money is spent well and whether it favors more the Kremlin or the pro-democratic and anti-Putin opposition.” Sources told BBG Watch that some of BBG executives who had earlier advised BBG members to withhold the Alhurra study from Congress met behind closed door on Thursday to draft a response to The Washington Times article.

We provide additional quotes from Dr. Rudenskiy’s study:

“There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed.”

“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.” [rather than only the Kremlin's viewpoint]

“Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias.”

“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 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.”

“Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia’ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.”

“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 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.”

“Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience.”

“Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War lacks substance.”

“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.”

“Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported.”

“A brief news item 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: 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 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.”

“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.”

“On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before.”

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 is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Editorial section appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia.”

“In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary.”

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 while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.”

In January 2010, Dr. Rudenskiy delivered a lecture “Shrinking from Brainwashing: The Russian Media’s Response to Political Challenges” at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, DC.

Link to Video

Shrinking from Brainwashing: The Russian Media’s Response to Political Challenges from National Endowment for Democracy on Vimeo.

Dr. Rudenskiy was hired by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) in 2011 to evaluate the VOA Russian website. In a report, which was not shared with BBG members, Dr. Rudenskiy concluded that the Russian Service had a “pro-Putin bias” and downplayed human rights reporting.

He wrote in his report that “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.”

Dr. Rudenskiy’s main criticism, however, was directed at what he perceived as a bias in favor of the Kremlin. In his study, he gave several examples of VOA news reports based mostly on Russian official media that lacked an alternative American perspective.

“Vice President’s [Biden] speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event 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.”

Dr. Rudenskiy was a Reagan-Fascell fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy, which published the following biographical note about him:

Nikolay Rudenskiy is the deputy editor of Grani.Ru (www.grani.ru), an independent online media outlet. Trained as an ethnographer, he is the author of about 40 scholarly publications and more than 100 journalistic commentaries focusing mostly on public issues in today’s Russia, including defending freedom of the press, exposing persecution of the regime’s opponents and other human rights violations, and combating racism and other forms of bigotry. During his fellowship, Rudenskiy plans to compare and contrast various approaches to the issue of hate speech in Russia and the United States.

‘Pro-Putin bias’ Evaluation of VOA Russian Website by Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy.doc

‘Pro-Putin bias’ Evaluation of VOA Russian Website by Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy.pdf

BBG executives suppressed Dr. Rudenskiy’s study, as they had tried to suppress a similar study critical of Alhurra TV until they were forced by pressure from Congress to make it public.

Dr. Rudenskiy’s study was identified by Ted Lipien, a former VOA acting associate director, in his op-ed “VOA Harms Putin Opposition in Russia” in The Washington Times. The article focused on a fake interview with a Russian anti-corruption lawyer and opposition leaders Alexei Navalny published by the VOA Russian website. The Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny who wrote in his Twitter account that “Voice of America has gone nuts” and that all those working there should be let go.

In an attack on Lipien, “VOA Public Relations” posted a comment which questioned the accuracy of his description of Dr. Rudenskiy’s study in his Washington Times op-ed:

“Mr. Lipien misleads his audience when he alleges a ‘pro-Putin’ bias, something which could not be farther from the truth. Mr. Lipien should know well, the agency he so sharply attacks is the one that every year hires dozens of independent analysts to conduct rigorous ‘program reviews’ of every VOA language service. Mr. Lipien both misquotes and takes out of context a single remark by one of those analysts about one particular story.”

Asked for a comment, Mr. Lipien told BBG Watch that American taxpayers and members of Congress should read Dr. Rudenskiy’s entire study of the Voice of America Russian Service and decide for themselves whether their money is spent well and whether it favors more the Kremlin or the pro-democratic and anti-Putin opposition.” Sources told BBG Watch that some of BBG executives who had earlier advised BBG members to withhold the Alhurra study from Congress met behind closed door on Thursday to draft a response to The Washington Times article.

We provide additional quotes from Dr. Rudenskiy’s study:

“There are numerous if minor errors in spelling and punctuation, which cannot possibly be listed.”

“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.” [rather than only the Kremlin's viewpoint]

“Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias.”

“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 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.”

“Perhaps additional background info, such as Russia’ place in Freedom House international rankings, would have been relevant, too.”

“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 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.”

“Much of the content doesn’t seem of interest to the Russian Internet audience.”

“Many ‘political’ pieces are less than inspiring, too. A brief account of the presentation of a new book on Cold War lacks substance.”

“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.”

“Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported.”

“A brief news item 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: 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 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.”

“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.”

“On the homepage one can see many headlines of news stories dating from a day or even two days before.”

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 is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Editorial section appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia.”

“In my view, the site doesn’t look attractive or contemporary.”

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 while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.”

In January 2010, Dr. Rudenskiy delivered a lecture “Shrinking from Brainwashing: The Russian Media’s Response to Political Challenges” at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, DC.

Link to Video

Shrinking from Brainwashing: The Russian Media’s Response to Political Challenges from National Endowment for Democracy on Vimeo.

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

Independence of surrogate broadcasters and their ability to concentrate their news gathering operations on specific countries with a focus on human rights abuses were the key elements of the U.S. international broadcasting model developed by such giant figures of American foreign policy and public life as General Dwight Eisenhower, the author of the policy of containment George Kennan, General Charles Douglas (C.D.) Jackson who later became President Eisenhower’s advisor on countering Soviet propaganda, the hero of the Berlin Airlift General Lucius Clay, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew, U.S. intelligence specialist Frank Wisner,  CIA Director Allen W. Dulles and many other distinguished Americans. Even young Ronald Reagan was involved in helping to support Radio Free Europe’s independent journalistic activities in defense of freedom. Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton likewise supported the dual model of U.S. international broadcasting with the surrogate radios and the Voice of America operating under different rules and independently of each other, each having a distinct mission that served to advance U.S. interests and to support democracy abroad in different ways.

The current BBG plan to eliminate the independence of surrogate broadcasters, centralize news gathering  –  using centralized controls which made the Voice of America far less effective in Eastern Europe than RFE/RL until the Reagan Administration took office — and eventually to privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti was, by contrast with the earlier plan, developed by anonymous BBG bureaucrats.  They are clearly the only group that will benefit from their own proposal — not BBG members, not BBG journalists, not audiences abroad, not victims of human rights abuses, and certainly not the American people.  Keep in mind that these same bureaucrats proposed earlier this year to end all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to China. Congress wisely rejected their proposal. They now want to do even greater damage to U.S. international broadcasting and public diplomacy abroad.

The BBG also plans to ask Congress to remove the Smith-Mundt Act’s restrictions on domestic distribution of its programs. This proposal is another reason behind the centralization of news gathering. When such a centralized system existed – but only at the Voice of America prior to the 1980s – VOA foreign language journalists literally had to beg the central VOA newsroom for coverage of country-specific and region specific news. The central newsroom at VOA wanted to operate like a newsroom at any domestic American media outfit.

The  surrogate broadcasters, on the other hand, were providing much better, specialized news coverage due to the independence they enjoyed then but may soon lose. The BBG merger plan now threatens to destroy the ability of the surrogate broadcasters to specialize in certain topical and regional reporting.  The BBG proposal will also destroy the current special role of the Voice of America  — as it developed and improved over the years — as the voice of the American people and their public diplomacy messenger abroad. 

What the architects of U.S. international broadcasting wanted to avoid at all cost, BBG bureaucrats want now to put in place for their own benefit and possibly to please the BBG Chairman Walter Issacson, a former CNN executive who has a vision of U.S. international broadcasting as a large CNN-like operation. Having just published a biography of Steve Jobs, he obviously had very little time to think through his idea, although to his credit he has attended all BBG public meetings unlike some of the other members of the part-time Board. The part-time nature of the bipartisan Board may also explain why the bureaucrats and not its members have been in charge of developing the strategic plan.

Chairman Isaacson and the Board may also be facing legal issues of a different nature than those addressed in the Baker & McKenzie report. One of the top BBG executives, who until now enjoyed Chairman Isaacson’s full support and was one of the few who enthusiastically embraced the planned consolidation, reportedly wrote in an email that the part of the organization under his control could use getting rid of “old white guys.” Other executives are known to have reservations about the proposed merger but are afraid to voice them publicly. Much larger public policy issues, however, are at stake.

The Baker & McKenzie analysis does not address any of the public policy issues, and their lawyers would probably would not be qualified to do so.  However, they should have warned Chairman Isaacson and the BBG that any proposal to place essential government functions and public institutions under the control of private corporate bureaucrats will not be nearly as easy as the study seems to suggest from a purely legal point of view. At their last meeting, the BBG promised to release the Baker & McKenzie analysis but so far has failed to do so.  We are making public parts of the report because of its significance for public policy. The analysis was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Interestingly and apparently without intending to do so, the Baker & McKenzie legal analysis gives BBG members, who also serve on the boards of directors of the surrogate broadcasters, very good legal reason not to support the proposed merger that would inevitably harm and diminish these entities. At least two and perhaps three of the eight BBG members, not counting the Secretary of State who is an ex officio member, seem to understand the dangers behind the proposal. Comments made at public BBG meetings suggest that Ambassador Victor Ashe who is a Republican, as well as two Democrats, Michael Meehan and Susan McCue, may have second thoughts about what the executive staff put forward for the Board’s approval.

Perhaps after reading the legal analysis as well as the earlier study done by Deloitte, other BBG members will realize that what they are dealing with are not primarily management and legal issues but public policy issues of great importance for foreign affairs, America’s image and human rights.

This is what the legal analysis points out in the Director Fiduciary Duty section:  

“Regardless of the ultimate transaction structure, the individual members of the Board of Broadcasting Governors, as corporate directors of each of the Private Grantees, owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to each Grantee. The duty of care requires a director to inform himself or herself of the available facts concerning a transaction and its alternatives, and being so informed, to then act with due care in the discharge of the director’s responsibilities. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the best interests of the corporation and avoid self-dealing.”

In the Federal Legal Authority Analysis, the study makes getting Congressional approval for the merger appear painless and easy when in fact — as the BBG found out with their China plan — Congress is not likely to accept an effort by bureaucrats to expand their power if important government functions and foreign policy interests are threatened:  

“In our opinion, subject to the qualifications discussed below, the BBG may continue, without amendment to the International Broadcasting Act, to make grants to consolidated entity equivalent to the grants currently made to the three Private Grantees. This would constitute a reprogramming and the Appropriations Act requires that the Committees on Appropriations be notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. It is our opinion that the reprogramming of funds to provide grant funds to one consolidated grantee would be permissible and consistent with the International Broadcasting Act so long as the consolidated grantee will continue to perform the broadcasting and related functions currently performed by each of the Private Grantees.”

The Labor and Employment section provides an equally upbeat analysis:

“It does not appear that the proposed Transaction would pose any significant legal issues from a labor and employment law perspective with regard to current employees. In the United States, as a general rule, compensation, healthcare, retirement, pension and other benefits currently provided by the Grantees to employees may be changed as long as “vested rights” of employees are respected and the terms of the RFA’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Newspaper Guild-Communication Workers of America (“CWA”) are taken into account as discussed below. To the extent any individual employees or executives are subject to an employment contract, the contractual obligations may result in additional costs in completing the Transaction if the Transaction would trigger a ‘termination.’”

In Transaction Structure section, the law firm gives the BBG various options for executing the merger but without going into any public policy concerns or possible difficulties:

“There are three basic ways that individual legal entities can structure a transaction to consolidate their operations under a single entity. First, one or more of the entities can merge into another existing entity, with that entity surviving; the non-surviving entities cease to exist at the effective date of the merger. Second, the entities can consolidate by each merging into a separate, newly created entity; in such a consolidation, the separate legal existence of each individual entity ends upon the effectiveness of the transaction and the newly created entity inherits the rights and obligations of each entity party to the consolidation. Third, one or more of the entities can transfer some or all of their assets to a single designated entity, either newly created or already in existence; following the sale, each seller entity then dissolves or continues to exist with minimal assets.   It is also possible to use a combination of the techniques described above. For example, one entity might transfer most of its assets to a second entity (while keeping title to an asset that is difficult or time-consuming to transfer), while the third entity is merged into the second entity. Once the first entity’s final asset is able to be transferred to the second entity, the first entity can dissolve.   These structuring considerations are routine and are typically addressed once due diligence has been performed on each participating entity’s assets and liabilities. In determining the appropriate structure for the Transaction the BBG should consider

(i) the corporate governance implications for the surviving entity in its state of incorporation,  

(ii) the difficulty of transferring any important assets held by any of the Grantees,

(iii) the preservation of the brands and individual culture at each Grantee and

(iv) any statutory considerations raised by the relevant Grantee authorizing statutes. We note that, as discussed above, the International Broadcasting Act does not dictate one transaction structure over another. We note that a consolidation structure – one where there is a newly created consolidated entity – is sometimes used to reinforce the collaborative nature of a transaction and avoid the perception that one entity is absorbing another and being favored over another.   Following a merger or consolidation, many companies opt to operate the constituent business operations as distinct divisions within one legal entity. This structure often allows companies to maximize the desired efficiencies while minimizing the impact of the transaction on brand value and operating culture. Thus, there could be a newly created entity with a broader, non-regional name and with three separate operating divisions named RFE/RL, RFA and MBN.”

The law firm does deserve some credit for advising the BBG that it “should carefully consider which transaction structure allows maximum efficiencies while preserving the brand and operating culture of each Grantee.” Of course, the legal analysis does not address the question whether the whole proposal would be good for American taxpayers and American interests abroad. Keep in mind that the BBG has not said how much the implementation of its five year strategic plan will cost. A separate study done by Deloitte indicated only minor savings from the merger itself but did not address any additional spending that BBG executives may be planning, as they most certainly do.

There is very little doubt that the BBG merger and privatization plan will be in the long run far more costly for U.S. taxpayers than the current arrangement. Turning the BBG into another NPR-like structure will not only shortchange foreign audiences and human rights victims abroad, it will also create yet another area of political controversy at home. The Administration and the Congress would be wise to put a stop to this proposal before it even gets off the ground. If, upon further reflection, the BBG would withdraw its plan, it would be even better. If they are politically smart, all BBG members should take that action and save themselves and the American people a lot of headaches and unnecessary expenses such the legal costs involved and the $1.3 Deloitte consulting contract, which includes $150,000 for travel. That money could be better spent on producing radio and TV broadcasts to countries like China and Russia.

Free Media Online president Ted Lipien who had worked for the Voice of America and U.S. international broadcasting for over 30 years in various journalistic, managerial, marketing and executive positions, provided FreeMediaOnline.org and BBG Watch websites with the following analysis:

“The decentralized model of U.S. international broadcasting with independent surrogate broadcasters and the Voice of America, each having a different mission and operating under different rules, served well the needs of the United States Government, the American people and radio listeners behind the Iron Curtain, as it now also serves information needs in countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. It worked initially much better for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, but once the Voice of America’s editorial independence was protected by law in 1976 and VOA news reporting decentralized during the Reagan Administration, the dual arrangement became even more effective in promoting human rights, media freedom and understanding of America.

After the United States Information Agency was abolished and the Broadcasting Board of Governors was created, this successful model was first weakened and may now be completely dismantled, with the Voice of America and U.S. public diplomacy being the primary losers. It would be great to have a BBC-like, journalistically  independent international and domestic multimedia broadcaster, well-funded and easily identified abroad as the voice of the American people and to some degree the U.S. Government but also able to offer targeted and hard-hitting news and commentary to countries without free media.

But for a variety of historical and political reasons, this is not a good model for the United States. Privatization, centralization of news gathering and the removal of at least informal links between the Voice of America and the foreign policy community and U.S. public diplomacy will harm the cause of supporting media freedom, human rights and democracy. U.S. national security interests abroad will also be harmed by this proposal.

Someone, somewhere — whether they are U.S. diplomats, political figures, corporate officers, or journalists — will have to decide what goes into U.S. Government-funded broadcasts and to where they should be directed. No one with any knowledge of the history of successful public diplomacy wants to see interference with journalistic freedom. U.S. ambassadors and other State Department officials should not exercise a veto power over what goes on the air. But a complete divorce of U.S. international broadcasting from the experience of the U.S. Government’s foreign affairs community may not be good either for America and the world. The system of checks and balances that developed between U.S. Government broadcasters and Government officials toward the end of the Cold War, although far from perfect, gave the United States the ability to send both authoritative and journalistically bold messages targeted to specific countries. It might be wise to study this history before deciding on a new arrangement.”  

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” – Deloitte

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” is a conclusion of a consolidation study done by Deloitte, but the consulting firm recommends a quick action on the BBG plan to merge grantee broadcasters. Free Media Online has obtained a copy of the Grantee Merger Assessment done for the Broadcasting Board of Governors by Deloitte. It was announced at today’s BBG open meeting that the report will be posted on the BBG Strategy website. The report makes references to “language duplication” between VOA and the Grantees, which implies that there are no differences in mission between VOA and the Grantees. If VOA and the Grantees have different missions, then “language duplication” is a non-issue. If they have the same mission — which evidently they do not — then the logical step would be to combine VOA and the Grantees. Deloitte, however, did discover that VOA broadcasts may have a national security and foreign policy mission and is advocating a further study of the BBG’s de-Federalization proposal.

Here are some of the main elements of the report:

Key Findings:

Today RFE/RL, RFA and MBN are three separate private 501(c)(3) organizations with combined resources of approximately $240 million and approximately 2,000 full time employees and contractors. All have a common mission to act as a surrogate media outlet in countries that do not have an open media environment; additionally, unlike RFE/RL and RFA, MBN is charged with providing context about America, its people, and policies.

Aside from Arabic services to Iraq, there is no overlap in language services among the Grantees, or in bureau locations. With just a merger of the Grantees, there is no potential to eliminate duplication of language services beyond that already planned. A combined entity framework can set the foundation for achieving substantial synergies with respect to the large overlap with VOA language services, which is unanimously supported by all Grantee Presidents.

There are several potential benefits of a merger of the three grantee corporations:

- It would serve as a first step in the execution of the Board’s Strategic Plan that calls for consolidating and streamlining management and administrative infrastructure. A merger would create a single grantee management team which would facilitate coordination with the BBG in pursuit of its strategic objectives.

- It creates more financial transparency and demonstrates to stakeholders that BBG leadership is committed to allocating resources as efficiently as possible and eliminating waste – potentially garnering support and trust.

- It creates an enforceable structure for more formalized content sharing, advancing the Board’s strategy to harness original reporting from across the language services to create a global news service with rich programming.

- It creates resource savings over time with the elimination of duplicative administrative and technical infrastructures and pooled purchasing power (e.g., for equipment, services, and insurance). This is a key benefit in our current economic environment.

- Positive reaction from Congress if new services, technologies and broadcast medium can be achieved without an increase to the top line.

- Annual run rate savings of $9M, or about 10% can be achieved on approximately $90M of addressable spend which is approximately 38% of the aggregate Grantee budget.

Savings could expand to nearly $14M annually with aggressive facilities consolidation.

Risks of integrating the Grantee corporations include:

- Possible negative reaction from Congress if a merger of the Grantees impedes the flow of content to audiences.

- Uncertain result of merging a partially unionized workforce with non-unionized staff.

- A potentially broader impact of digital and physical security threats in a merged environment if not mitigated.

- Potential disruption to current foreign business licenses and relationships in host countries.

Over five years, the cumulative net savings from merging the Grantee organizations is estimated to be approximately $30M to $40M. There are cumulative savings of $35M to $50M available with one-time costs of $8M to $12M. The savings result from a small headcount reduction of approximately 45-50 resources, plus non-headcount savings related to sourcing efficiencies, and facilities and technology infrastructure consolidation. Longer term, there are opportunities for additional headcount reduction if facilities are more aggressively consolidated.

Conclusions:

Deloitte believes that the merging of the Grantees does have merit, and does make sense strategically and economically. We heard in numerous discussions with leaders across the Grantees that current structure is a product of the evolution of the Agency, is not ideal, and would not be the logical approach if one were starting fresh. We agree with that perspective. The current siloed structure is not an optimal foundation for the new strategic direction envisioned by the Board.

From an operational perspective, we see no roadblocks that cannot be overcome. The vast majority (around 75%) of the resources of the Grantees are devoted to content and programming, so their day to day roles will not change. Merging the administrative processes, policies, and supporting systems will be no more complicated here than in any other merger of a similar scale.

In the current economic environment, continuing to operate three separate organizations with redundant executive management teams, administrative infrastructures, audits, etc. seems to be an inefficient use of taxpayer resources. The potential annual savings of $9M to $14M could be redeployed toward journalistic initiatives that advance the Board strategic vision.

As with any merger there are risks associated with the potential decline in employee morale. These can be mitigated by swift decision-making and a strong change management program.

Delaying a decision about the path forward will create uncertainty which can dampen employee morale. In addition, delays will stall the advancement of the Board’s strategic plan and cause the organization to miss out on significant potential savings.

Recommendations and Next Steps:

We recommend that the Board approve the merger of the Grantees, and proceed with the design of the new organization and the implementation planning. Based on a typical merger timeframe of about 6 months from a decision, we believe that the Board should target a “Day 1” in July 2012.

To pursue the larger savings available by reducing duplication of language services, as noted earlier and broadly supported by Grantee leadership, we recommend commencing a study on the feasibility, benefits and costs of VOA/OCB de-federalization, reportable at the Board’s March 2012 meeting to explore 3 items:

1. The “quick hit” opportunities available from partially integrating some VOA/OCB operations into the Grantee structure without de-federalization. The objective of this study would be to identify initiatives that could be implemented in parallel with the Day
1 of the Grantee merger in July 2012.

2. The next tranche of opportunities that would become feasible in FY13 without de-federalization.

3. The feasibility of VOA/OCB de-federalization, including benefits, risks, and financial implications.

Key Principles:

There were several key principles that were consistently articulated throughout the visioning discussions with the Grantees. These are things that all believed should be the ‘guard rails’ of any potential integration.

There should be no change in the journalistic mission of the organizations – the current markets and audiences should continue to be served with the content appropriate for them.

The existing market-facing brands should remain intact as they are critical to success. The relationship between the brands and the grantee entity is different across the three organizations. For MBN, the brands (Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Afia Darfur) are the externally known identities, while for Radio Free Asia the brand and the organization are one in the same across its market. RFE/RL has individual brands by service that will be critical to maintain.

The new organization should maintain an entrepreneurial spirit and ability to remain nimble; avoiding bureaucracy.

Risks:

There are five primary potential risks that were identified from discussions with the Grantees.

Congressional reaction:

There is uncertainty as to reaction from Congress. The proposed merger has positive actions in doing more with less, but has the potential to disrupt content if not managed carefully.

Cultural differences:

The three organizations have cultural differences. MBN is a primarily a television focused entity and produces content in a single language , Arabic. RFE/RL and RFA are primarily radio entities (though expanding into other media) and produce content in many languages. Because RFA is much smaller in employee count and budget, it sees itself as a more tightly knit community than the others. It also operates with the least sophisticated resources of the three (e.g. production facilities, technical resources). Bringing together the cultures of these three organizations will require a focused change management effort. Mergers bring uncertainty and change, so there is a possibility that employee morale could suffer resulting in an increased risk of employee turnover. Decision-making delays can exacerbate this situation; employees who are uncertain of the path forward and their role (or lack thereof) in the new organization may be more likely to seek other opportunities.

Unions:

A significant portion of RFA’s workforce is unionized, while RFE/RL has 8 unionized employees and MBN has no unions. A deliberate plan is required to ensure that all parties’ interests are represented in the planning.

Security:

Because of the nature of their work, each organization comes under threat (both physical and digital). Today, when one organization is attacked, the others are unaffected. If the organizations are combined, a threat could affect the scope of the entire operation. For example, if systems are combined and there is a digital attack inspired by RFA’s content, programming and employees in the Middle East and Europe could be affected as well. That said, there are mitigation strategies that could be employed to address this risk.

Staff Reductions:

Management Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13-14 high-level management staff positions, including two Presidents, several VPs and other management support roles. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new leadership structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Finance/Admin Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 14-15 finance/admin staff positions, including finance management, accounting, and procurement personnel. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new finance organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

HR Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation is not estimated to reduce overall headcount for HR in the near term, however would likely result in a different mix of positions required -eliminating for example two Director Roles, but increasing the staff at various locations should no facility changes be assumed. The consolidation is likely to require job roles and benefits plans to be redefined and broadly, and HR policy will need to be revisited. If facilities consolidation occurs, there may be an opportunity to reduce 1-2 HR positions.

Facilities Staff Reductions – Real estate consolidation could yield approximately 3-5 facilities staff headcount reductions. In the near term for example, savings would result from offices in the Washington, DC metro area being consolidated. These savings could be realized quickly if existing space is subleased and facilities consolidation begins upon execution of the merger. If facilities consolidation is delayed until the nearest term leases expire, savings will begin to be realized in FY14 and fully realized in FY15.

Communications – Grantee consolidation could eliminate 2-3 communications positions. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new communications organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Technology Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13 technology staff positions . These savings could begin to be realized as soon as the new technology organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging. The location/facilities strategy will affect the degree of opportunity in this area. On-site technical resources are required in facilities where production takes place and where there are significant groups of users. Because of the 24×7 nature of some of the operations, shifts are also required which increases overall staffing needs. With fewer locations, it may be possible to streamline the technical staff by up to 25 resources.

Costs to Achieve Staff Reductions – Estimated costs to achieve the identified headcount reduction savings is approximately $2.1M to $2.8M in severance costs. The timing of the severance costs will depend on the execution date of the merger and how aggressively the organization chooses to reduce headcount.

Observations on De-federalization of VOA/OCB and on TSI

VOA, OCB, and BBG/IBB make up approximately $500M (about 66%) of the overall spend on US International Broadcasting, or more than double the spend of the Grantee organizations combined. A full view of synergies opportunities across US International Broadcasting cannot be understood until these organizations are reviewed as well.

Throughout the assessment period, several themes emerged from the discussion regarding VOA, OCB and BBG/IBB:

While there are almost no content overlaps among the Grantees, there are significant overlaps with VOA. The Grantees believe that magnitude of the synergies available by addressing this overlap is greater than the benefits to be gained by just integrating the three Grantees.

All senior Grantee leadership indicated that the merger of the Grantees had merit if VOA was included due to the potential savings resulting from elimination of language service duplication.

It is unclear whether de-federalizing VOA is actually feasible or even desirable. Additional work is required to determine the pros and cons, and financial impact. Issues that must be included in the study are:

Potential loss of major backers:

BBG funding is for a Voice of America that could be perceived as a governmental, rather than an NGO function.

National security:

If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible.

In the near term, there are opportunities to find efficiencies with VOA, such as co-location to reduce costs. These opportunities are being addressed on an ad hoc basis.

The Grantees have an interest in taking on some of the distribution functions of TSI, especially if TSI is considering outsourcing them to a 3rd party. The Grantees would like to have the opportunity to ‘bid’ on this work before it goes to a 3rd party as they believe they can offer more cost effective solutions. They also would prefer to have great control over the distribution function to ensure their market needs are met.

There is question of whether the TSI backbone transmission infrastructure could be more efficiently operated by a grantee, rather than federal, organization. A reversal of the client/provider relationship between the federal and non-federal organizations could be explored in terms of efficiencies.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), an international media freedom NGO, visited the South Korean capital of Seoul in July to evaluate the level of media freedom and freedom of information in North Korea and published the results of this fact-finding visit, Free Media Online (FreeMediaOnline.org) reported. Entitled “North Korea: Frontiers of censorship,” it looks at the regime’s media control and censorship and the attempts being made by others to increase freedom of information.

Reporters Without Borders concluded that foreign radio stations, broadcasting on shortwave, continue to be the main source of independent information for the North Korean population. The flow of information is also reinforced by NGOs that send material and multimedia content across the border by various methods.

Read the original:
Defending freedom of information against Kim Jong-Il’s regime –RSF

The Reporters Without Borders report states that videos from North Korea collected by the South Korean NGO, North Korea Strategy Centre (NKSC), are used by Radio Free Asia (RFA), Voice of America (VOA) and other foreign media. The report focuses mainly on Seoul-based radio stations operated by North Korean refugees such as Free North Korea Radio, Radio Free Chosun and Open Radio for North Korea. RSF has been supporting these stations since 2009.

Radio Free Asia and Voice of America are also a source of uncensored daily news delivered to North Korea on shortwave. BBG Watch, a U.S. NGO which monitors the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) — a U.S. government agency in charge of RFA and VOA — reported, however, that Voice of America also used what was largely North Korean propaganda video after a VOA correspondent had been allowed to travel to Pyongyang. BBG Watch criticized the Broadcasting Board of Governors for issuing a press release that promoted this VOA video report from North Korea.

Original post:
Two news reports from North Korea offer vastly different accounts

Link to the video on YouTube.

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB), a recently-formed NGO which supports free flow of uncensored broadcast news to countries without free media, also reported on the Voice of America video footage from North Korea.

In his paper LANDSCAPE OF INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING VOA and the BBC at a Crossroads,Heil, a board member of the Public Diplomacy Council, points out that some in Congress are advocating retention of traditional as well as new media in U.S. international broadcasting. He quotes Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an ex-officio member of the BBG, who told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February, “Even though we’re pushing online, we can’t forget TV and radio because most people still get their news from TV and radio.” In the same hearing, Secretary Clinton also said that the U.S. is in an information war and is losing this war.

Subsequently, in a bipartisan rebuke to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which shortly before the onset of the Jasmine Revolution in China had proposed ending VOA Chinese radio and TV broadcasts on October 1, all members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted for an amendment, introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, to keep VOA radio and TV to China on the air.

Heil also quotes the Director General of the BBC, Mark Thompson, who told a London conference (March 2) that he profoundly regrets the proposed BBC World Service cuts:

“The future of news and information,” he said, “is intrinsically
multi-platform, multi-device, and multi-media. No one
medium, neither TV, nor radio, nor print, nor even the web
are sufficient in themselves…those players who control or
have an interest in multiple platforms are capturing the
highest amounts of news consumption.”

Heil also points out the comments of the Defense Department’s former desk officer for China, Joseph Bosco, who likewise stresses the importance and even the distinct advantage of relying on radio and television to reach the Chinese audience:

“The revolutionary events in the Mideast,” Joseph Bosco wrote in
March, “demonstrate that a picture can be worth a thousand
tweets. Television and radio 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.”

Bosco noted that the Pentagon today spends billions of dollars to cope with new Chinese weapons systems, writes Alan Heil. In this multimedia era, outlets like VOA and RFA by reporting events accurately, completely and objectively can, as Bosco put it, “help foster political reform in China for a fraction of the cost.”

In a later post on the Public Diplomacy Council website, Heil alludes to the current BBG’s preference for soft programming, which in some cases can attract larger audiences, especially if undemocratic regimes allow such soft broadcasts on local networks because they don’t view them as politically dangerous.

Although Heil makes no references to the most recent scandal involving BBG members who travelled to Ethiopia to negotiate with the regime’s officials about local placement of soft programming, journalists working for VOA’s Horn of Africa Service were told after the BBG trip to limit political coverage and the service chief David Arnold was dismissed, reportedly at the insistence of BBG member Michael Meehan, after Arnold told his staff that the Ethiopian regime’s officials presented BBG members with a list of broadcasters and radio guests whom they find unacceptable. This led to the largest anti-censorship demostration in VOA’s history. It was organized by Ethiopian American and media freedom organizations in front of the VOA and BBG headquarters in Washington, DC. The Ethiopian regime had earlier charged several VOA Horn of Africa Service journalists working in Washington with treason and threatened them with the death penalty.

Heil points out that while soft programming can be valuable, international broadcasters should pay attention to the real information needs of people in countries like China. In addition to doing humanitarian programming, the Voice of America also must be “credible, hard-edged but accurate in assessing events of the day.”

Ultimately, the “Big Idea” behind U.S. international broadcasting, according to Alan Heil, can be found in two key articles of the 1948 U.N. Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information through any media and regardless of frontiers.” Article 30 adds: “Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.” That’s the really big idea that drives solid, public service multi-platform international broadcasting at its best.

Alan L. Heil Jr. Board member of the Public Diplomacy Council is a 36-year veteran of the Voice of America (VOA). Alan Heil traveled to more than 40 countries as foreign correspondent in the Middle East, and later as director of News and Current Affairs, deputy director of programs, and deputy director of the nation’s largest publicly-funded overseas multimedia network. Today, VOA reaches more than 125 million people in 44 languages.

2010 OPM's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey still shows BBG with lowest scores among U.S. government agencies.

Unless Congress steps in, there is a real danger that a strategic asset of great value to the United States and to freedom-loving listeners around the world will be wasted. The battle for hearts and minds did not end with the Cold War (which broadcasting can help win, by the way). Far from it.

Helle C. Dale, Senior Fellow for Public Diplomacy at The Heritage Foundation has written a number of articles in support of continued use of radio and television by the Voice of America. In her latest article, she points out that the BBG Inspector General argued against the BBG strategy last summer: “Since access to the Internet is more easily controlled than access to shortwave radio, international radio, and satellite—broadcasts such as VOA’s remain the only dependable source of political news, especially during crises.”

How one gets from this analysis to the decision in favor of a wholesale cut in broadcasting remains a mystery, Dr. Dale observed.

Link to Support Continued Voice of America Broadcasting to China

Image from VOA Russian Service web post "What American women think about sex." Such stories are designed to beef up page views.

An independent outside expert evaluation of the Voice of America (VOA) Russian news website content, ordered by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) which manages VOA and other U.S. government-funded radios, suggests that VOA is confused about its mission and fails to counter the Kremlin’s propaganda. The evaluator, a highly respected independent journalist who fights media censorship in Russia, believes there is a deliberate downplaying of human rights news coverage on the VOA Russian website. He also concluded that the VOA Russian Service has a “pro-Russia bias,” or more accurately, a “pro-Putin” bias, and relies too much on Russian sources. A separate internal VOA program review evaluation of the Russian website confirmed a strong desire on the part of the management to offer more coverage of non-political stories.

Free media advocates have long suspected that the BBG’s strategy in recent years has been focused on providing online content, which Internet users in Russia and China would not perceive as overly critical of their countries. As part of the strategy to attract new web users by making programs less controversial and eliminating shortwave radio broadcasts, the BBG has been laying off experienced reporters and replacing them with web content generators without much experience in human rights reporting or familiarity with Western journalistic standards. Reporters specializing in human rights issues were also forced out at the Russian Service of Radio Liberty/Radio Free Europe after private consultants hired by the BBG staff reported that Radio Liberty programs were viewed as too combative in Russia.

The BBG’s latest proposal is to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts (Mandarin and Cantonese) to China in favor of Internet-only news delivery. Free media advocates are concerned that BBG executives and program advisors will force the Voice of America Chinese Branch to follow a similar path as the VOA Russian Service, with layoffs of experienced journalists and downplaying of stories that might offend the communist regime.

VOA Russian on-the-air radio and TV broadcasts were terminated in July 2008. A VOA Chinese satellite TV program set for elimination has the largest number of members of U.S. Congress as studio guests among all VOA broadcasts. Many of the guests have been highly critical of human rights abuses in China.

An independent journalist in Russia specializing human rights reporting was asked by the BBG whether the Voice of America Russian website reported on controversial issues and offered opposing viewpoints. His response was a devastating critique:

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 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 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.

The independent evaluator believes that the Voice of America, and by implication the Broadcasting Board of Governors, are confused about VOA’s mission and tries hard to impress upon BBG and VOA officials that the current mission statement of VOA’s Russian Service, which has no reference to human rights reporting or fighting censorship, may be not be appropriate for U.S. government-funded broadcasts to Russia.

Asked whether there is an appropriate selection of topics on the site, or too much political or non-political coverage, the independent journalist-evaluator questioned whether managers and editors understand the mission of U.S. international broadcasting to countries like Russia.

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.

Asked whether the journalistic quality of the website is at a high professional and informational level, the independent Russian expert pointed out that VOA relies too much on Russian media sources.
 

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 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.

The independent Russian journalist noted that some topics, which the Kremlin does not like to see covered by the Russian media, are also underreported by VOA.

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.

The Russian journalist also questioned the overall usefulness of the VOA Russian website. Here is his response to the question: 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 Editorial 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 Broadcasting Board of Governors’ management of U.S. international broadcasting will be discussed in a Congressional hearing, “Is America’s Overseas Broadcasting Undermining our National Interest and the Fight Against Tyrannical Regimes?,” scheduled for Wednesday, April 6 by Representative Dana Rohrebacher (R-CA), Oversight and Investigations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, under the chairmanship of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. One of the invited speakers is BBG member S. Enders Wimbush, who has been strongly defending the BBG’s Internet-only strategy for the Voice of America in China, most recently in a scathing attack on Free Media Online president Ted Lipien for his op-ed in The Washington Times.

BBG member S. Enders Wimbush: Lipien writes that “the same group of BBG bureaucrats proposed reducing radio to Tibet” and “they cut VOA programs to Russia in 2008.” By “bureaucrats”, he presumably is referring to the BBG professional staff. A casual scan of Lipien’s past writings demonstrates his obsession that this small group of civil servants conspires successfully to manipulate the presidentially appointed board, even on issues that require the board’s authority, like realigning broadcasts. Apparently, in his view, the last appointed BBG had nothing to do with changes to broadcasting to Russia and proposals to change broadcasting to Tibet. It was all “the staff.” This narrative doesn’t pass the reality check. Here’s the real story: the current BBG, not the staff, agreed unanimously–Democrats and Republicans–to the realignment of U.S. broadcasting to China.

In commenting on Governor Wimbush’s response, Ted Lipien said that he is well aware that all current BBG members voted for the Internet-only strategy for VOA in China but does not believe the decision would have been made without a strong push from the BBG executive staff, which had tried earlier to reduce radio broadcasts to Tibet and had been responsible for ending VOA radio to Russia. After VOA radio to Russia was terminated just 12 days before the Russian military attack on the Republic of Georgia, BBG executives refused urgent pleas from VOA Russian Service journalists to resume radio broadcasts to the war zone and to Russia.

“Members of Congress should become familiar with the full text of the VOA Russian website content evaluation by an independent Russian journalist and prevent BBG executives from adopting the same model for China. It will result in downplaying human rights reporting, as it did in Russia, and will reduce VOA potential audience and impact. This is not a choice between radio and the Internet but a choice between maximizing impact through multimedia program delivery and the Internet-only model. The latter deliberately limits the audience in a country known for highly effective Internet censorship.” Lipien said.

This report was first published by FreeMediaOnline.org Truckee, CA, USA, April 6, 2011.

On February 15, 2011, Senator Dick Lugar released a report prepared by the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In his letter accompanying the report, Senator Lugar wrote:

Official U.S. interest in China for political, economic and strategic reasons has been part of our foreign policy for decades. Most Americans, on the other hand, when they have
thought about issues outside our borders, have tended to focus on events in Europe and more recently the Middle East. But no more.

The latest Pew Research poll shows that for the first time Asia has now overtaken Europe, by a wide margin, as the area of the world most important to Americans. This is not that surprising given the extent to which the United States and China are currently entwined in our most complex bilateral relationship. While we are increasingly dependent on each other for credit and markets, we nonetheless eye each other warily as each country copes with the economic challenges confronting it. At the same time, U.S. global strategic dominance will face pressures from China’s growing military expenditures and nascent but rising nationalist sentiment. Greater focus on China is necessary not only to enhance our national and economic security but to improve our ability to compete with China in markets overseas as well.

Another U.S. Deficit -China and America- Public Diplomacy in the Age of the Internet

In his letter accompanying the report, Senator Lugar wrote: “A key component of any nation’s public diplomacy effort is its ability to communicate with the rest of the world — either through people-to-people initiatives or through communications such as press briefings and broadcasting.”

“Tasked with ensuring the U.S. message gets through is the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The Board oversees the operations of the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Network and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, which together broadcast in some 60 languages through radio, TV and the Internet.”

“The Board consists of eight members nominated by the President (four Republicans and four Democrats) with the Secretary of State as the ninth member. The report addresses both the Board’s staffing difficulties, as well as the key issues and countries of concern that will confront the new Board when they are in place. Staff have consulted widely with experts inside and outside the government, former officials, public diplomacy experts in Washington and around the globe, as well as bloggers, journalists and academicians.”

Senator Lugar noted: “As the title of the report suggests, we must not only work harder at gaining broader audiences for our programs, we also face fierce competition to keep our listeners, viewers and readers engaged.”

U.S. International Broadcasting: Is Anybody Listening?

Since its inception in 1990, TV Marti has been the subject of controversy over cost, contracting, internal management and journalistic issues, and the inability of the Miami-based station to reach enough of the population in Cuba to justify the $500 million spent on the operation so far. More

Report Calls Alhurra a Failure

Photo courtesy of 60 Minutes

Update: (6:19 PM EST) The BBG has just posted the USC report along with a statement about its findings. You can find it here. It has also posted a second study by the University of Missouri, which recently won a $500,000 contract to help train Alhurra reporters. In addition, Tish King, the spokeswoman for the BBG, said in an email that USC has now been paid for its study.
A study commissioned by the U.S. government concludes that America’s Arab-language broadcasts to the Middle East fail to meet basic journalistic standards and are seen by few.

The study by researchers for the University of Southern California was based on a review of a full month’s broadcasts by Alhurra, the 24-hour news network created by President Bush to boost America’s image abroad.

“The quality of Alhurra’s journalism is substandard on several levels,“ the researchers wrote. Its broadcasts “lack appropriate balance and sourcing,“ and “relied on unsubstantiated information too often, allowed on-air expressions of personal judgments too frequently and failed to present opposing views in over 60 percent of its news stories.“

“Our diagnosis is that Alhurra is not performing at the level that it needs to reach to be successful,“ the authors said.

A copy of the 70-page report was obtained by ProPublica.

The Bush Administration’s public diplomacy efforts have long drawn criticism from Democrats. President-elect Obama is contemplating major changes in this arena. “I think we’ve got a unique opportunity to reboot America’s image around the world and also in the Muslim world in particular,’’ Obama told reporters Tuesday.

Alhurra is overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors which is in charge of all government broadcasting oversees, including the Voice of America.  After several journalistic missteps, the BBG commissioned the USC study to assure Congress that Alhurra was adhering to a mission of journalistic objectivity. One television report that had particularly upset lawmakers was from an Iranian reporter who told viewers that there was no proof that 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis during World War II.   

BBG and Alhurra executives had told Congress the Iranian report was an aberration and that an independent study would review the network’s content. That study, by USC, was begun in September, 2007 and completed in July. But the BBG had refused to make it public.  

On Oct. 21, the BBG rejected a ProPublica request, made through the Freedom of Information Act, to view the report. Last week, Martha Diaz-Ortiz, a lawyer in the general counsel’s office of the BBG, said the report may never be released to the public. Separately, the BBG also prevented USC from releasing the study, asserting that a contract signed between the two gave USC no legal authority to do so, according to people with knowledge of the discussions.  

USC and the BBG have been locked in a dispute over the report’s content, the methodology of the researchers and payment for the last several months. USC is still awaiting $182,000 from the BBG for the study.

Ernest J. Wilson III

In a surprising twist, the Dean of USC’s Annenberg School for Communication, Ernest J. Wilson III, was named by Obama to lead the transition team for the BBG and other U.S. public diplomacy efforts inside the State Department. Wilson was briefed on the contents of the Alhurra report before departing for Washington last week, according to two people connected to the study, and brought several copies of the report with him to distribute to transition team members.

Four days after Wilson’s arrival in Washington, BBG Executive Director Jeffrey Trimble delivered copies of the report today to Congressional investigators with the House Foreign Affairs Committee who had sought the report for several months. 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.

The investigation and a series of ProPublica articles revealed serious staff problems, financial mismanagement and long-standing concerns inside the U.S. government and Congress regarding Alhurra’s content.    

Those stories led to Congressional inquiries in the House and Senate. The State Department’s Inspector-General has also begun an investigation into the financial dealings of Alhurra’s parent company; the government owned Middle East Broadcasting Network, known as MBN.

In a five-page executive summary, USC researchers said that Alhurra suffers from weak journalism, poor programming and perceived bias.

The researchers, who interviewed viewers in the Middle East, were equally tough on the overall quality of the television production, noting that it had hurt Alhurra’s chances at building an audience.  

“Not only has Alhurra done little to distinguish itself from second-tier Middle East broadcasters in terms of its news agenda, but it has also failed to develop the distinctive style, format and breadth of coverage that might attract a substantial audience.“   

“In short,“ the study authors wrote, “Alhurra has failed to become competitive.“

The BBG set tight parameters for the USC study, telling investigators to focus only on content aired on Alhurra’s pan-Arab station and not to compare it with broadcasts by competitors. Researchers were not allowed to interview Alhurra staff or to select the period of coverage to examine.

USC researchers reviewed content that aired during the month of November, 2007, a period that was dominated by the network’s coverage of a Middle East summit in Annapolis, Md.  Researchers found that the coverage strongly favored U.S. and Israeli government positions. Throughout November, they concluded, the network also strongly supported the Iraqi government, which is currently dominated by Shiite politicians closely tied to Iran.

Such coverage, researchers concluded, has tainted Alhurra in the eyes of potential viewers as American propaganda. “Discussion group participants felt that Alhurra’s reporting, when stacked against its competitors in the region, represented false or tilted perspectives on events, especially with regard to coverage in Iraq and the Israeli-Arab conflict.“

Alhurra was unveiled as a bold foreign policy innovation in 2004. In his State of the Union address, just three weeks before the network went on air, Bush announced that the United States was launching a television station for the Middle East and expanded radio broadcasts in Arabic and Farsi.

The broadcasts, Bush said, would “cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda,“ that his administration had come to blame for the United States’ loss of global support.

Unlike Al Jazeera, Bush said, this new, U.S.-funded network “will begin providing reliable news and information across the region.“

Bush’s proposal amounted to what would become the largest and most expensive effort in America’s long history of public diplomacy

So far, U.S. taxpayers have spent $500 million on the endeavor and the costs are rising. At the same time, viewership polls, including one conducted last year by the University of Maryland, found that Alhurra is one of the least popular stations in the Middle East, with an audience share of just 2 percent. Al Jazeera commands 53 percent of the audience share.

But for Alhurra to fulfill its dual mission of providing objective journalism while promoting U.S. policies, it would need a “significant budget expansion,“ USC researchers concluded. The study also urged improved reporting, “and more professional management.“

“It will also require grappling with political issues involving journalistic independence and the realities of establishing the credibility needed to gain and keep an Arab audience.“

Read ProPublica’s investigation into Alhurra

The Council noted that the Broadcasting Board of Governors “has taken special aim at the Voice of America” by abolishing the VOA Arabic Service and reducing its broadcasts in English to the Middle East and other regions.  The Council also criticized the BBG’s decision to terminate all VOA radio broadcasts in Russian shortly before Russia’s military attack on Georgia last summer. FreeMediaOnline.org reported that one of the BBG members who had voted for cutting VOA radio to Russia, Georgia, and Ukraine was Ted Kaufman, a former chief of staff to Senator Joe Biden.

The Public Diplomacy Council’s recommended steps for a new administration include:

• An immediate restoration of all radio services reduced at the Voice of America in FY 08.  On July 26, 2008, twelve days before Russia invaded Georgia, the BBG silenced VOA Russian radio, and then ignored subsequent appeals to restore it.  On September 30, the Board abolished VOA radio services in Serbian, Bosnian, and Macedonian and in the Hindi service to India, provisionally retaining Ukrainian and Georgian.  This action directly contravened Congressional passage last December of an FY 08 appropriation prohibiting all cuts.  The impact: loss of nine million listeners on the eve of a landmark U.S. presidential election.

 

•   A fundamental restructuring.  The Broadcasting Board of Governors should be replaced by a new nonpartisan oversight commission that would assume more of an advisory role, leaving daily management in the hands of a commission-appointed professional CEO, the VOA director, and the presidents of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, the Middle East Broadcast Networks (Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV), and Radio-TV Marti to Cuba.  Through direct and public reporting on a regular basis, the commission should be accountable to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government for operations of all these networks, including program content.

 

• A long range commitment to consolidation and integration of the networks.  The CEO of international broadcasting should immediately formulate a new strategic plan, 2010-2014, that would include a series of target dates for the consolidation of all five broadcast entities into a single international network.  The goal: cost savings aimed at making U.S. global broadcasting unmatched on the airwaves and in cyberspace.

In implementing the latest round of radio program cuts last summer, the BBG staff led by its executive director Jeff Trimble and most BBG members, both Republicans and Democrats, ignored specific directives from Congress to refrain from reducing VOA radio broadcasts to Russia and other media-at-risk countries. In response to widespread criticism that followed, including articles on the FreeMediaOnline.org website, the BBG suspended its earlier decision to terminate VOA radio broadcasts to Georgia and Ukraine, but the BBG staff continued to resist calls to restore VOA radio broadcasts to Russia. Only recently did the BBG  relent by allowing VOA Russian service to start producing a half hour radio program for the web five days a week. The program is also rebroadcast on an AM transmitter in Moscow, which is still available despite the Russian government’s crackdown on private FM stations which were rebroadcasting VOA Western radio programs.

The BBG staff’s policy of marginalizing VOA radio programming to Russia is still reflected in how the now restored but still significantly shortened radio program can be accessed on the Internet. There is no direct audio link to it on the VOA Russian Service Home Page. Web users can only find the radio program by navigating though the site.  Also, until earlier this week, the link was not being updated and continued to provide audio from a program aired well before the U.S. presidential elections.

In addition to reports on Michael Jackson and Mickey Mouse in line with the BBG’s emphasis on increasing audience reach through entertainment programming, the newly restored VOA radio program “Panorama” does offer on some days more in-depth news analysis and greater range of American opinions in a single broadcast than video clips and short articles which the BBG staff wanted the VOA Russian web site to feature. More recently, the VOA Russian Service has increased the number of longer reports and interviews on political topics, although the overall program content is still not what it was before the BBG-imposed cuts last summer. VOA did not restore its previous hour-long radio call-in program that dealt with political issues in Russia and was popular with independent journalists and human rights activists.

FreeMediaOnline.org offers a more user-friendly way of listening on the web to the newly-restored VOA Russian radio program “Panorama.”  Click here for the radio player in a new window. The Z-Pod radio player also provides an easy way of listening to VOA English News and VOA Special English programs.

This report was first published by  FreeMediaOnline.org and Free Media Online Blog  November 19, 2008, San Francisco.

FreeMediaOnline.org

Link to Helle Dale’s article.