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

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

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

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

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

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

Last
week, Twitter provoked a fierce debate online when it announced a new capability–and related policy–to hide tweets on a country-specific basis. By building this feature into its website’s basic code, Twitter said it hoped to offer a more tailored response to legal demands to remove tweets globally. The company will inform users if any tweet they see has been obscured, and provide a record of all demands to remove content with the U.S.-based site chillingeffects.org.

View original post here:
CPJ Internet Channel: Can selective blocking pre-empt wider censorship?

Follow this link:
Kazakhstan – Make rights key to good relations, says Human Rights Watch

Read more:
Kazakhstan – Twenty-nine IFEX members call for release of independent newspaper editor

See the rest here:
United States – Censored, prosecuted and on terror list, filmmaker denied First Amendment rights

View post:
Belarus – Partner organization targeted by state TV hate propaganda

Read the original post:
Absentee member Michael Lynton pushed to become temporary Broadcasting Board of Governors chair

We hear that a certain member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has been bellowing about BBG Watch, its contributors and people commenting on the posts to the site as “cowards.”  We have a good idea who this is: someone on the board who may be something of a loose cannon and easily manipulated by the bonus-men among the senior staff.
 
If we’re going to be throwing around the “cowards” label, let’s consider a different point of view.  Perhaps a good place to start might be with the Board itself.  The BBG has abandoned much of its authority to step in and deal with a host of problems exacerbated by the bonus-men.  One starting point would be in dealing with the managers responsible for perpetuating a hostile work environment as reflected in the results of every Federal employee workforce survey since the very beginning: at or near the bottom of the rankings and dead last in the category of “leadership.”  As a group, what has the Board done?
 
Nothing.
 
No, let’s correct that.  They have approved the outrageous bonuses to members of the senior staff up to $10,000.  There you have it: the Board is rewarding the senior staff for making the agency what it is:
 
“The worst organization in the Federal Government.”
 
And it’s getting worse by the hour.
 
The Board has facilitated and enabled conduct that makes this agency a rogue operation in the Federal Government, rewarding self-promoters and presiding over a failed mission.  Remember what Secretary of State Clinton said:
 
“We are losing the information war.”
 
At this juncture, that war is lost.  It will remain so as long as the BBG supports and defends the people responsible for a “flim flam strategic plan” and supporting that plan, in part, through a toxic work environment.
 
We read a comment posted to one of the BBG Watch commentaries about the employees being at war with the BBG but some being afraid to speak up in public. One RFE/RL journalist wrote that he was a coward and felt ashamed.

On the other side, we have the career opportunists of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB).  That’s where the real fight is because they lead the do-nothing board around by the nose.  There is nothing to be ashamed of in being engaged in this fight.  The situation requires it.

The employees of the agency are the last line of defense against waste, fraud and abuse.  They are the last line of defense on behalf of the American taxpayer and the national and public interest.  Do not believe for one moment that the people on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building are concerned with any of these things.  They are not.  
 
And remember too that Federal employees have the right to go to Congress for redress of the situation.  You can demonstrate how the agency’s mission is not being met.  You can talk about how the actions and behavior of senior officials are undermining the mission.  You can talk about the alleged “strategic plan” and how it takes the agency out of the business of international broadcasting and diminishes the ability of the agency to reach the maximum audience possible across all population segments.
 
In short, you have a lot to talk about.  So keep talking and keep sourcing information to BBG Watch.  This site will do its share of the heavy lifting so that you don’t have to expose yourselves to retaliation from the agency.
 
Other comments to BBG Watch liken the behavior of senior agency officials to that represented by authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.  That’s right on target, too.  On its face, there is not much that distinguishes these senior officials and their tactics from that which might be called Putin-like. The Russian Boss likes to harangue his opponents.
 
Think this an extreme characterization?  Consider this:
 
Last year, at a public forum on US international broadcasting at the Heritage Foundation, three of the senior bonus-men of up to $10,000 got up and badgered an employee representative who was a participant in the panel.  Their behavior was unprovoked.  Their behavior was willful, deliberate and intentional.  Their behavior was public.  They made it clear that they were proud of who they are and what they were doing and what the record of the agency is.  Their “performance” is memorialized in a video recording of the event and witnessed by everyone in the room.
 
Instead of elevating the discussion of the future direction of US international broadcasting, these characters decided to get down and mud wrestle the topic.  What does this make them?
 
Let’s make it very clear to Members of Congress, the administration and the taxpaying public:
 
If US Government international broadcasting has any redeeming value left – and it isn’t much at this juncture – these people have to go.  Otherwise, it’s a waste of taxpayer money.  What the Congress and the administration need to do – and do it ASAP – is turn the BBG/IBB into an advisory group.  They’ll still be around drawing salaries (an unavoidable waste of taxpayer money in this scenario), but they will be corralled, out of the picture and out of the way where they can’t do any more damage.  You can put the lot of them out in office space at the Dulles Town Center.  A place for them to fade away in deserved and earned obscurity.
 
And no more bonuses.
 
It’s time to turn the mission and the employees over to someone else, either over at State or DOD.  The current operation with the cast of characters in charge is no longer useful or effective.
 
When someone wants to talk about cowards, the discussion begins with the BBG running away from its responsibilities, failing to confront senior managers (including the bullies who intimidate) with their disastrous record and unseemly behavior and failing to take effective remedial action on any issue of consequence to the agency’s mission and the treatment of its employees.
 
The Federalist
February 7, 2012
 
 
 
 
 
 

Alexei Navalny, photo by Alexey Yushenkov

In their private conversations, some staffers in the Voice of America Russian Service are calling an anti-corruption Russian lawyer and opposition leader Alexei Navalny a liar and repeat these accusations, also in private, to top VOA managers who in turn report them to members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, sources tell BBG Watch. They are commenting on an alleged interview with Navalny, posted and then removed from the VOA Russian Service website. Navalny said that he had never given this interview to VOA and called it a 100% fabrication.

Other VOA Russian Service staffers had doubts about the authenticity of the interview, but it is not known whether they voiced them to anyone. Morale among VOA employees is extremely low and many are afraid to voice their objections to management decisions. Many experienced VOA Russian Service editors were retired or pushed out and replaced by recent arrivals from Russia hired as contractors. Some experienced journalists quit in disgust when their warnings that the program content has a pro-Kremlin bias were ignored by the management.

On January 31, the VOA Russian Service posted a fake text interview with Navalny, apparently obtained in an exchange of emails with someone in Russia. They had to remove it the next day and apologize to Navalny, but some members of the Service responsible for putting the fake interview online are now engaged in a whispering campaign calling Navalny a liar. They accuse him in private conversations of giving the interview and then changing his mind. These claims are being repeated in private by top VOA managers to the Broadcasting Board of Governors members. This suggests that they have no intention of reforming the Russian Service and have not learned any lessons from their mistakes. Something needs to be done.

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

Alexei Navalny not only said that the alleged interview was “100% fake, he also said that the Voice of America “has gone nuts” and that everyone in the Russian Service should be let go. The person whom some members of the VOA Russian Service now accuse in private of lying has been risking his freedom and even life as every outspoken anti-Putin journalist and opposition leader in Russia does.

Alexei Navalny is not a coward or someone afraid of telling the truth, and accusing him of such is truly shameful. In April 2011, a VOA English Service correspondent in Moscow James Brooke reported Navalny as saying: “If everyone was scared, we would have a hard time living.” Some of the VOA Russian Service staffers are saying in effect that Navalny is too scared to admit that he had given them an interview. It is well known that after his recent detention, Navalny was avoiding media interviews and that he was a target of disinformation campaigns and postings of fake photos of him by Kremlin supporters.

Alexei Navalny, whom some of VOA Russian staffers who recently came from Russia and at least one of whom worked for the pro-Putin media before being hired by the BBG, now accuse in private of being dishonest, has given his wife a list of telephone numbers to call, just in case he disappears.

We think that these whispering accusations against Navalny are ludicrous and outrageous, especially since they come from some of the Voice of America Russian Service contract employees being paid by US taxpayers to transmit uncensored, accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news to Russia. According to Navalny, who is also a highly popular blogger in Russia, the Voice of America is harming him and the pro-democratic opposition. This view is also shared by another highly respected Russian journalist, also fighting Putin’s censorship in Russia.

We need to get this story out to media and members of Congress. US taxpayers are paying for Voice of America programs that harm the US and the anti-Putin opposition in Russia. An independent journalist in Russia concluded in early 2011 that VOA Russian news have a pro-Kremlin, pro-Putin bias and downplay human rights issues. This study was ordered, paid for by American taxpayers and ignored by the BBG. BBG executives may not have even shared the results of this study with BBG members and new Voice of America director David Ensor.  See:  http://www.usgbroadcasts.com/bbgwatch/2012/02/07/voice-of-america-undermines-anti-putin-opposition-at-us-taxpayers-expense/

We at BBG Watch urge everybody who cares about the Voice of America, about how US taxpayers money is spent, about the vast majority of capable VOA journalists who want to do their job right, and about Alexei Navalny and other leaders and members of the pro-democratic opposition in Russia and elsewhere to call members of Congress and media representatives and urge them to investigate and report on the mismanagement at the Broadcasting Board of Governors and the upper management of the Voice of America.

We want to point out that the Voice of America English news website failed to report on the fake interview story.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leon, RFE/RL insider, wrote this commentary from Prague for BBG Watch:
 
It is worth to note that RFE/RL in its polyglot broadcasts did not mention at all the scandal with Alexey Navalny’s fake e-mail interview – first proudly published and then stealthily pulled by VOA.  VOA’s debacle was broadly reported internationally, especially in Russia. It renders the BBG’s pretenses to portray the present-day RFE/RL as a “surrogate broadcaster” which mends information gaps in target countries, manifestly ridiculous. And that fact was not lost on RFE/RL staff.
 
At RFE/RL, the predominant feeling is that in crisis situations, the BBG’s mode of operations is to withhold the information from Congress, Administration, and public in order to shield its officials from personal responsibility. Otherwise, how to explain that VOA apology to Alexey Navalny and the audience was, for any practical purpose, anonymous – from some faceless “Russian Service”.  Was it a collective apology for collective blunder? Are the VOA Russian staffers dividing between themselves the responsibilities – and the salary – of Russian Service director? Why the apology was published on VOA site in Russian only, so later it had to be translated into English by the Russian news organization RIA Novosti for its report?  Why the VOA director himself did not apologize to Navalny?  After all, Navalny is not just another Russian blogger but internationally prominent opposition figure. Did BBG report on its site how the Voice of America undermines anti-Putin democratic opposition in Russia?
 
What are the personnel consequences, if any, of the VOA’s “exclusive”, which many in Russia — just check Russian blog scene — habitually interpret as some kind of conspiracy?  For it is a public knowledge (not at VOA?) that Alexey Navalny, after his detention last December, shuns mass media and interviewers.
 
Questions asked at RFE/RL — controlled and directed by the same BBG as is VOA, its “sister-broadcaster” — is not just an idle curiosity. RFE/RL old-timers recall that in September of 1992, when BBG did not yet exist and the Radio still was in Munich, its Moscow bureau submitted a report quoting verbatim Alexandr Yakovlev, an ally of Mikhail Gorbachev. Allegedly, Yakovlev criticized Gorbachev publicly and was about to turn his back on him. Yakovlev sent to RFE/RL an indignant letter: he never said anything like that and never talked to the imaginative RFE/RL reporter. The then Director of the Russian Service of Radio Svoboda (as RFE/RL is known in Russia), personally apologized to Alexandr Yakovlev on air; the reporter was fired; Yakovlev granted RFE/RL an exclusive interview. (Later, former RFE/RL reporter developed into well-known Russian nationalist who presently attacks Navalny…)

Already in Prague and under BBG, RFE/RL had more than enough “memorable” editorial troubles. Scandal at VOA dusts them off.    
 
On April 26, 2010 the avalanche of feedback letters to the one-sidedly pro-Turkish  report from Istanbul, “Why so many historians in Turkey study the issue of Armenian genocide,” was, together with the report, removed from the website of RFE/RL Russian Service. But not from the long Internet memory: “How Disgusting!”  “Ashamed of Radio Liberty,” “Shame on you! Shame and disgrace!” “Radio Liberty has long ceased to be the Radio Liberty,”  “One’s heart bleeds to hear and read such a nonsense,” “Confusing is unprofessionalism of Radio Liberty,”  etc.
 
It’s enough to substitute “VOA” for “Radio Liberty”, and analogy with recent scandal at the VOA Russian Service is impossible to overlook.  But here it also ends. The Russian Service director who at the time of ill-fated feed from Istanbul was not even in Prague, in his own name apologized to RFE/RL listeners and readers. However, in today’s parlance ascribed to the “high BBG official” (intermittently called at RFE/RL by his proper name and/or the unflattering nickname), present director of the Russian Service unmistakably belongs to those endangered  “old white guys” who missed the train to impersonal new brave world of BBG-VOA-RFE/RL.
 
Analyzing the causes of editorial unprofessionalism sweeping RFE/RL, the multilingual Armenian Daily AZG (People) wrote:  
 
“It came from indifference. And that, in its turn, stems from the general atmosphere at RFE/RL – the atmosphere of hypocrisy and cynicism … . The editors could not care less. Practically all the staff of RFE/RL language desks and services knows that they are just the rightless mercenaries hired to talk about human rights – on the air for the pay. Everyone at RFE/RL knows that the court case of Armenian Anna Karapetian v. RFE/RL is pending in the Czech Supreme court; and the lawsuit of Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan is submitted to the European Court of Human Rights. Everyone knows that international media cover these court cases regularly – but not the RFE/RL own webpages. Everyone knows that Czech parliament already twice, in connection with Karapetian’s and Pelivan’s lawsuits discussed the issue of national discrimination of RFE/RL foreign employees. Everyone knows that RFE/RL personnel policies are developed and approved by the Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington. Everybody knows that empty words diverge with deeds, and the deeds are drifting from bad to worse.”
 
Would some parts of that analysis be also applied to VOA? In any case: How lucky is BBG that RFE/RL staff is excluded from OMP’s yearly surveys concerning employees’ work-place satisfaction.
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Navalny accused the Voice of America of “going nuts” and said that the alleged “interview with Navalny” was “100% fake.” He also wrote that someone should call someone in Washington and tell them to “let them go.”

The retiring of experienced journalists, relying entirely on very recent arrivals from Russia, Internet only focus and above all ignoring the advice of some of their own employees as well as an independent, pro-democracy Russian journalist hired to evaluate the VOA Russian Service web content have led to the most recent incident.

We republish here a Free Media Online/BBG Watch post which should have been a warning to the BBG and VOA management that the staffing, editorial controls and the operations of the VOA Russian Service need serious reforms. Not only that nothing was done since an independent Russian journalist hired by the BBG issued his warning, the problems have gotten worse. They were never addressed by the BBG and VOA management.

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

BBG Internet strategy downplays human rights reporting

(Originally published April 6, 2011. Since then, VOA has hired even more contract employees in Russia and very recent arrivals from Russia, including one reporter who used to work for the main pro-Putin television channel in Russia, while seasoned journalists, now U.S. citizens, with experience both in Russia and in the United States, were being forced out when they objected to the pro-Putin bias in VOA Russian Service reporting.)

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.

In recent days, the independent employee and volunteer-run BBG Watch website has posted a series of articles based upon a reported horrendous gaffe by the Voice of America (VOA) Russian Service.  An entry appeared on the website purported to be an interview with a noted Russian anti-corruption lawyer, opposition leader and blogger Alexei Navalny. Almost immediately, Navalny called the alleged interview a “100% fake.”  How it got there remains to be seen.  But, the VOA Russian Service, with borsch all over itself, had to pull the piece out and post an apology on its website.
 
This episode serves as a sterling example of everything that is wrong with the BBG/IBB and their “flim flam strategic plan.”
 
Let’s turn back the clock to 2008, when the BBG/IBB made the decision to cut off all direct VOA Russian Service radio and television broadcasts to rely solely upon an Internet website. Experienced journalists were retired and poorly paid, poorly vetted contract employees from Russia were brought in. Some spoke very little English. Some became managers and editors. They hired more of their friends from Russia as free-lance stringers. They were assigned a program advisor who did not read Russian and never specialized in Russian affairs. Remember, this was when Russian military forces attacked the Republic of Georgia.  At the time, a senior agency official stated that it was the desire, if not the intent, to make all of VOA like the Russian Service in five years.
 
Be careful what you wish for.
 
This is not the only instance of shoddy controls over what shows up on the Russian website. There have been complaints about the website being a platform for stories without balance, often reflecting the Kremlin world view or that of Russian ultra-nationalists, some of their comments virulently anti-American.  And now, add to this the website seemingly becoming an invitation for cyber-warfare attacks.  

Operations based in Russia have been effective in going after websites or hacking into email accounts.  On its face, if this wasn’t an instance of sloppy “journalism,” in the hands of a “citizen journalist” that senior agency officials like to glorify as part of their 21st century approach to “news,” it most certainly was an effective cyber-warfare operation.  

Look at the results: successfully perpetrate a fraud on a VOA (US Government) website, have it allegedly be an interview with a known Russian opposition leader who is both feared and hated by the Kremlin, have the views expressed be radically opposite those of the blogger to discredit the blogger and his allies and add further discredit to the VOA Russian Service and the BBG/IBB.  What a deal!
 
Continuing on our journey along the pothole-strewn path of the BBG/IBB “flim flam strategic plan,” we now come to the agency’s recent ceremony marking the 70th anniversary of the VOA.
 
During his remarks, VOA director David Ensor made special note of the VOA Russian Service, praising certain individuals for their leadership, and the service for innovative broadcasting.
 
Wow.  Talk about timing.  Undoubtedly, someone told Ensor to single out the Russian Service in his presentation.  So now Ensor is splattered with that Russian borsch and got himself stabbed in the back by some bad advice – accidentally or intentionally (and don’t rule out the latter).
 
So what comes next?
 
More than likely, there will be a call for an investigation.  It would be nice if the Board stepped up to the plate and asserted its oversight and accountability responsibilities and held their IBB/VOA senior staff to the fire to find out what happened and take corrective action.
 
That may not be the case because here is the way things work inside the Cohen Building:
 
The first order of business is damage control.  No doubt, the Third Floor senior managers are circling the wagons, even more so after allowing Mr. Ensor to appear the fool. They apparently failed to inform right away about the interview incident members of the BBG, some of whom — we are told — found out about it on the BBG Watch website.
 
The next order of business is to do nothing, hoping that this fiasco will blow over.  In pursuit of the “do nothing” approach, they will engage in one of their favorite activities: hold meetings!  This is an example of “motion without movement.”  If they do anything, they will issue some public relations mush that speaks in generalities and not to substance.  In short: no follow-up.
 
Why?
 
Because at the heart of things, this episode – like that of the very successful attack by the Iranian Cyber Army – is an indication that their “flim flam strategic plan” is a sham.  Their goal of an Internet-only based operation is extremely porous and vulnerable.  It is a gold mine for hackers and offensive operations of foreign cyber-warfare specialists to hone their skills and make a US Government agency look like it is run by a bunch of rank amateurs, as certainly seems to be the case.
 
Some people in the senior ranks of the agency fancy themselves as part of the US national security apparatus.  Here’s a message to the Congress and the American taxpayers:
 
Based on the BBG/IBB “flim flam strategic plan,” this agency is a national security liability.  Period.
 
We remember well staff of the VOA China Branch in an open meeting with senior agency officials talking about what foreign entities can and will do in the area of cyber-warfare.
 
As this incident clearly demonstrates: they are doing it now!  We are not talking hypotheticals or projections of possible capabilities.  It’s a fact.  It’s real.  We’ve said it before, having this “flim flam strategic plan” as the intended goal of US international broadcasting is like having a hostile fifth column embedded inside an agency of the Federal government.  It couldn’t be more effective: a home-grown adverse policy goal with a result that undermines the agency’s mission.
 
This has gone way, way beyond just being embarrassing.  It’s a national disgrace, an abuse of American taxpayer money.
 
In the higher echelons of our national government, someone has to make the decision to put this agency under a new authority or some kind of receivership.  Certainly, somewhere there must be individuals capable of running US Government international broadcasting.  They clearly do not reside on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building.  At this juncture, everything these people are doing is suspect.
 
The Federalist
February 4, 2012
 
 
 
 

Sources told us that the alleged interview was conducted by email by a recently hired VOA Russian Service contract employee who came to the U.S. a few months ago. After Navalny called the alleged interview a fake and wrote in his Twitter account that the Voice of America “went nuts” and people there should be “let go,” the VOA Russian Service took the alleged interview off the web and posted online an apology to Navalny and the visitors to the VOA Russian website.

It is not clear who may have sent the email with the alleged interview to the VOA Russian Service contractor or how the apparent exchange of emails happened and with whom. Sources told us that some of the more experienced journalists in the VOA Russian Service had doubts that the interview was authentic because it included statements that would have been unlikely to come form a highly respected lawyer and Russian opposition figure. It is not known whether they have shared these concerns with the Russian Service editors and the VOA management before the interview was approved for posting on the web. It appears that no one at VOA telephoned Navalny to confirm that the answers sent by email were his.

The alleged interview was posted on January 31 and the VOA Russian Service apology was posted on February 1.

Navalny has been a target of various disinformation campaigns in the Russian media believed to be originated by supporters of the Kremlin. They have been known to hack into email addresses and media accounts of anti-Kremlin opposition leaders and to distribute fake documents and photos.

A lawyer, opposition figure, anti-corruption activist and blogger, Navalny is viewed by Prime Minister Putin’s supporters as a major threat.

VOA English Service correspondent in Moscow James Brooke reported recently that “Internet blogger Alexey Navalny ruined the party brand (Putin’s party, United Russia) by saddling it online with an unshakeable label, ‘the party of swindlers and thieves.‘”

Last night, BBG Watch sent an email to the VOA Central Newsroom asking whether the VOA English news website plans to cover the VOA Navalny interview controversy. BBG Watch had reported earlier that some members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), who have the ultimate responsibility over Voice of America, learned about the Navalny alleged interview incident by reading about it a few days later on the BBG Watch website.

We have received no response to our email, but several sources have sent us the text of an email that apparently went out to some editors in the VOA Newsroom in Washington, DC.

Here it is:

“To newsroom editors:

Please do not respond to this request for comment from BBG watch without coordinating with the VOA Public Relations office and your newsroom management.”

Snapshot of a VOA Russian Service blog under porn attack.

One can make a very good argument that going all web and eliminating Voice of America (VOA) Russian radio and TV broadcasts by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) contributed to the fake interview with the Russian opposition figure by the VOA Russian Service. Whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny said he never granted an interview which the Voice of America posted on its Russian website.

One of the worst management teams in the federal government, which now runs VOA through the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) on behalf of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, is primarily responsible for the policies that have resulted in this journalistic fiasco. The blame is shared by the BBG members, IBB director Richard Lobo, and the managers he kept and promoted. Lobo is viewed as an absent manager, as are the members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The organization is run by a group of permanent managers whom most employees view as lacking leadership and management knowledge. They have rated them as the worst managers in the federal government.

Of course, these managers will try to put the blame on some poor contract employee whom they have not checked out, whom they shamelessly exploit, and whom they have not trained. These government officials and executives should accept the full blame themselves. BBG Watch reported on the incident.

Russian opposition blogger Navalny says Voice of America interview with him is fake

Broadcasting, especially radio, needs serious and experienced journalists. It is not easy to fake an audio interview for radio or a television interview. The BBG ended VOA Russian radio and TV in 2008. Experienced journalists either retired or were pushed out. Contractors without much experience and training were hired. They are paid peanuts and are shamelessly exploited. Some are not paid on time. No serious security clearances on them are performed. Many have just arrived from Russia and others live in Russia with their families. What a wonderful opportunity for Putin’s security services to cause mischief.

These former KGB (Putin was one of them) now FSB types have already released a fake photo of the Russian opposition figure with whom VOA published a fake interview. The VOA Russian website has been compromised before and will be compromised again if the BBG doesn’t get its house in order.

All VOA websites were completely hacked and went dark during President Obama’s official visit to Russia and pornographic photo was posted another time on the VOA Russian website. A bogus news item was also posted. Now we have a fake interview with a major Russian pro-democratic opposition figure. What kind of message does it send from the United States to those in Russia struggling for freedom and democracy? Are people in charge of U.S. international broadcasting serious or is this amateur hour?

BBG members should really read this Heritage Foundation blog post: “With VOA Left Voiceless, Obama Fails to Reach Russian Public.” It could tell them something what is wrong with their Internet-only program delivery strategy, their “platform agnostic” strategy. If you want to be agnostic, you better be damn sure there are no KGB gods lurking around the Internet.

The IBB/BBG executive staff and its policies of undermining broadcasting and serious journalism are responsible for all of this. They don’t understand who they are dealing with — former KGB now FSB thugs.

What do they think will happen to VOA websites if there is a real crisis in U.S-Russian relations or an anti-Putin revolution in Russia? Do they know how many readers’ comments on the VOA websites are posted by agents of the Russian security services engaged in psychological operations? Do they have any idea how many of their contractors in Russia have been contacted and intimidated by the secret police? They wanted to go all web with VOA to China but thankfully Democrats and Republicans in Congress stopped them.

What do these Broadcasting Board of Governors executives think the Voice of America Chinese website will look like once the Chinese regime hackers are finished with it if there is a crisis? Eliminate VOA broadcasts, fire 45 experienced VOA Chinese journalists — which is what these BBG managers wanted to do — and what you may get is a fake interview with a leading Chinese dissident and Nobel Peace prize winner Liu Xiaobo.

The leaders of IBB/BBG, Director Lobo, VOA Director David Ensor and above all the presidentially-appointed members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors need to ask themselves this question: can we trust our management team who advised us to adopt the policies that led to the fake VOA interview with Russian whistleblower lawyer, blogger and opposition leader Alexei Navalny? The answer is “No.”

Lobo means wolf (Canis lupus) in Spanish. Wolf (Lobo) is a noble name. It implies strength, intelligence, and action.

Richard Lobo is the Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). He was appointed to his current position by President Obama. Lobo’s wife helps to raise money for the Obama reelection campaign. Richard Lobo is being talked about as a possible replacement for the Boadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Chairman Walter Isaacson who had announced his resignation on January 27. The BBG placed in Lobo’s hands as the IBB director the job of supervising and running the combined BBG and IBB operations. He can’t remember to honor an important anniversary that’s part of broadcasting history.

This brings us to our question: is Lobo really in charge of the agency? Or is it being run, or not run as the case may be, by one of the worst management teams in the federal government? Lobo kept it in place when he took over the IBB/BBG bureaucracy and even rewarded its executives with outstanding performance bonuses. He could become the CEO of the new restructured BBG proposed in the strategic plan developed by these same managers. Perhaps that’s the reason he kept them.

Isaacson’s resignation was announced on January 27. The official BBG website did not have anything about the resignation until February 2, not until after BBG Watch pointed it out as an example of total lack of engagement and interest on the part of IBB managers running this ostensibly journalistic organization.

Our advice to IBB Director Lobo

IBB Director Richard Lobo

Your management team cannot function without an alpha wolf constantly checking on what they are doing or not doing. Since you have kept them, which raises serious questions about your leadership abilities, you have to be on top of them or they will continue to undermine U.S. international broadcasting and destroy whatever support it may still have in Congress.

Keep in mind that the same team advised the BBG to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to China and received a resounding bipartisan rebuke from the legislators who approve BBG’s budgets. These managers proposed to silence VOA to China on the anniversary of the founding of the Chinese communist regime. They should go.

Voice of America’s 70th Anniversary

But it gets better than that. February 1, 2011 was the 70th anniversary of the Voice of America, the IBB/BBG’s biggest and the most important broadcasting entity. And, as you could have guessed, the Broadcasting Board of Governors official website had nothing about the VOA anniversary on February 1. Again, after BBG Watch wrote about it, an item on the BBG website appeared on February 2.

We think it’s becoming clear that Director Lobo is no alpha wolf even if he is a nice “old white guy,” a term used by another top level BBG executive who does not report directly to Lobo to describe some of his own subordinates and which illustrates the appalling state of management sensitivity at the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

We think that Lobo lets his pack of wolves do whatever they want or don’t want to do. What we do know from official government-wide employee opinion surveys is that what these managers do and fail to do has resulted in an agency with one of the lowest employee morale in the entire federal government. That’s why it was such a bad idea for Director Lobo to keep them and reward them. It’s even worse to let them work unsupervised.

Even if Lobo suddenly turns into an alpha wolf, we don’t think he has a chance to reform IBB/BBG and to improve employee morale until he does something about his management team. We think it’s rather obvious that what they care about is themselves, not some broadcasting organization called the Voice of America which happens to celebrate its 70th birthday. Changing the management team at IBB/BBG would do wonders for employee morale and success of U.S. international broadcasting. As with the manager who talks about “old white guys,” sooner or later they will say something, do something, or fail to do something that will harm and embarrass the BBG.

The fact that these managers ignored an important broadcasting anniversary also proves another key point. The part time BBG members themselves are no alpha wolves. They surrendered their responsibilities to Lobo and he surrendered his responsibilities to incompetent managers. The part time Board is not working. IBB/BBG is not working. BBG journalists are paying the price. And, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton observed, “we are losing the information war.”

The Voice of America director David Ensor did mark the 70th anniversary with a speech to employees. Some of the surrogate entities keep good employee morale. That does not include Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty were employee morale is low due to comments like “old white guys” and discrimination against foreign-born journalists which started long time ago and continues to this day.

Going back to Director Lobo, his management team, and members of the BBG. The BBG restructuring plan was prepared by the same management team that came up with the failed China plan and ignored the VOA anniversary. Whose interests do you think they had in mind in proposing to merge the surrogate broadcasters and to de-federalize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti? What do you think will happen to employee morale if these managers led by Director Lobo are put in charge of reorganized U.S. international broadcasting?

Can’t pay their employees on time

We offer this example. A manager’s first responsibility is to pay his employees on time. Some of the full time contract employees at the Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau have had their salary payments delayed, sometimes for several months. This is happening on Director Lobo’s watch. What do you think will happen if the power and authority of the IBB/BBG management team are enhanced under the proposed reorganization plan?

There could be one good news, however, at least for IBB/BBG managers, something they want and plan for. If they manage to de-federalize VOA, Radio and TV Marti and IBB, they will no longer be evaluated in government employee opinion surveys. They will no longer be the worst managers in the federal government. They would no longer face public scrutiny and their restructuring plan is designed to accomplish just that.

Every alpha wolf has to constantly watch his back or his authority may be challenged and he may be replaced. Director Lobo never asserted his authority. He gave it away without a fight to some of the worst managers in the federal government. He joined their ranks. No wonder that these “leaders” of a journalistic organization did not bother for days to report the BBG Chairman’s resignation and failed to note Voice of America’s 70th anniversary.

Lobo should have told the BBG members to issue a special statement on February 1. He should have written one himself but didn’t and none of his managers reminded him that it needs to be done. The independent, nonprofit Committee for U.S. international Broadcasting (CUSIB) honored VOA employees on their birthday, the Broadcasting Board of Governors didn’t. What a shame.

Be an alpha wolf

It may already be too late, but if Richard Lobo cares about his legacy as the IBB Director he needs to become an alpha wolf and act like one. The job of an alpha wolf is to take care of the pack: the rank-and-file employees, journalists and those managers who try to do their jobs well despite all odds and lack of leadership at the top.

Director Lobo has a wife who is close to Michelle Obama. Perhaps he will understand this: what would she do to him if he forgot their wedding anniversary? What would Michelle do to Barack if he forgot theirs? We hope they would do something drastic, and so should Director Lobo.

Be an alpha wolf! U.S. international broadcasting is too important to function without one.

We would also advise BBG members not to relinquish their responsibilities. Tell Director Lobo to clean house, and if he won’t do it, do it yourselves.

Show Director Lobo and your employees that you can also be alpha wolves. But whatever you do, don’t let discredited managers be in charge of the pack. You will regret it if you do.

The official BBG website is also ignoring the resignation of the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson.

The independent Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB), which opposed the BBG’s plan to end VOA radio and television broadcasts to China, issued a special statement to honor Voice of America employees on their anniversary.

February 1, 2012

70th Anniversary of the Voice of America

Today, the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) joins hands with Americans, journalists, freedom fighters, scholars, and elected officials to congratulate Voice of America on their 70th Anniversary. For the past 70 years, Voice of America has served to fulfill a Congressional mandate to provide news broadcasts that promote freedom and democracy from the United States to the world.

As people throughout the world continue to risk their lives for basic human rights, freedom, and the right to participate in governing themselves, we know that they look to our country and Voice of America for inspiration.

We encourage Members of Congress and human rights supporters to remain vigilant to maintain Voice of American radio and television broadcast services as a reliable and authoritative source for news.

We’d like to invite our readers to view the Women’s Rights in China video celebrating Voice of America’s 70th Anniversary in China to thank VOA journalists for their continued radio broadcasts. CUSIB regrets that VOA and Radio Free Asia news websites are blocked by the Chinese government and urges the Administration and the Congress to take measures to overcome such censorship by expanding radio and television broadcasts and using more effective circumvention tools.

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

For further information, please contact:

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

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

Ted Lipien, co-founder and Director
Tel. 415-793-1642

Email: contact@cusib.org
www.cusib.org

There were no references to VOA’s 70th anniversary on the English home page of the main VOA news website, but the Inside VOA website, which offers news about VOA, did have a report on VOA Director David Ensor’s statement on the anniversary.

###

From the Inside VOA website:

PRESS RELEASES AND STATEMENTS

PRESS RELEASE

VOA Looks to Future on 70th Anniversary

Washington, D.C. — February 1, 2012 — Voice of America turned 70 on Wednesday, and VOA Director David Ensor says the international broadcast agency is aggressively moving forward with new programs that ensure it remains an “information lifeline to people in closed societies like Iran.”

Addressing VOA journalists at the agency’s Washington headquarters, Ensor pointed to a television news show for Burma that began airing in January, a popular video blog that has been viewed more than 7 million times in China, expanded TV broadcasts to Iran, and new health programs on radio in Africa.  He also described plans for a Russian language TV program that will harness popular social media programs to make citizen journalists and the audience a key part of the show.

Ensor said the one-time cold war broadcaster is “as relevant today as it was February 1st, 1942,” the date of the first shortwave radio broadcast to Germany.”

Created by the U.S. government in the opening days of World War Two, the Voice of America has evolved into a global multi-media organization, broadcasting balanced and comprehensive news in 43 languages to an estimated weekly audience of 141 million.

The first shortwave radio transmission, spoken in German just weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, began with the words “Here speaks a voice from America.”  The broadcast went on to promise, “The news may be good.  The news may be bad.  We shall tell you the truth.” Ensor, the 28th Voice of America director, says the agency continues to be guided by those words.

VOA radio remains highly popular in many markets, including Somalia, parts of Pakistan and Haiti.  Ensor says the agency is moving forward with new television and Internet programs that target countries like Iran, where the government restricts the free flow of information.

VOA programs are delivered on satellite, cable TV, mobile, shortwave, FM, medium wave, the Internet, and on a network of about 1,200 affiliate stations around the world.  In addition to more than 1,100 employees in Washington, VOA works with contract journalists in trouble spots around the world.  Last month the Taliban claimed responsibility for the murder of a reporter working for VOA in Pakistan.

For more information about this release please contact Kyle King at the VOA Public Relations office in Washington at kking@voanews.com. Visit our main website at www.voanews.com for information about all of our programs.

The Voice of America is a multimedia international broadcasting service funded by the U.S. Government through the Broadcasting Board of Governors. VOA broadcasts approximately 1,500 hours of news, information, educational, and cultural programming every week to an estimated worldwide audience of about 141 million people. Programs are produced in 43 languages and are intended exclusively for audiences outside of the United States.

For more information, call VOA Public Relations at (202) 203-4959.

On Friday, January 27, 2012 Walter Isaacson announced his resignation as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG).  Mr. Isaacson’s stated reason for resigning was to pursue a new book project, closely following his bestselling biography of the late Steve Jobs, the former head of Apple, Inc.
 
We don’t know what Mr. Isaacson’s instructions were from the administration at the time of his nomination, confirmation and appointment.  However, looking back over his tenure, we can offer some comment.
 
As others have noted, this is the only agency of the Federal government that is run by a board.  It’s a bad idea that has since gone really bad.  Many comments have been made over the years about the part-time nature of the board and the fact that it is bipartisan.  In today’s totally partisan political landscape, reaching consensus just among the diverse personalities and political perspectives of individual board members is a tall order, let alone trying to manage the agency operationally.
 
There are many problems facing the agency, some of them self-inflicted.  Two of the big ones that come to mind are the agency’s seriously flawed “flim flam strategic plan,” and the institutionalized hostile and anti-employee working environment.  The pursuit of both, as agency policy, has made optimum conditions for the mission of US international broadcasting almost non-existent.
 
For Mr. Isaacson – and all Board members for that matter – the agency is a no-win proposition.  The agency is a failed agency with a failed mission.  As Secretary of State put it correctly, “We are losing the information war.”  The agency in charge of the information war is the BBG/IBB.  And in Mrs. Clinton’s context, the act of losing is in-progress.  There is no turnaround.  There is not even the hint of a turnaround.  While there are some pockets of the operation that are still hanging on and maintain some resonance with overseas publics, the agency as a whole has taken on the characteristics of an anachronism from the 20th century that has lost its way in the 21st.
 
The Board cannot be singled out for the lion’s share of the blame for where the agency is at present.  For that we must turn to the IBB and other senior agency officials – the full-time, 24/7 opportunists.
 
These careerists have their own agenda, part of which is to obstruct any decisions made by the Board that do not comport with their grand schemes.  These are the people who advocate vigorously for the “flim flam strategic plan.”  These are the people who perpetuate a hostile work environment as evidenced in the negative results of the annual Federal employee survey, from the very first one to the last.  These are the individuals who possess absolutely no positive leadership qualities.  They can’t – because they have exposed themselves as being guided by self-interest.  This self-interest manifests itself in the huge bonuses they hand out to each other, up to the outrageous sum of $10,000 in some cases.  Their self-interest also manifests itself in their all-or-nothing approach to their flawed strategic plan and the sales pitch they use to support it.  Their only interest in the agency’s mission is limited to the extent that they can manipulate it to support their personal self-aggrandizement.
 
Their self interest is also manifest in a mindset that would have a BBG executive sit behind the Board chairman’s desk with his feet up – a deliberate gesture of contempt for the chairman and the board as a whole.
 
What this agency needs isn’t a Broadcasting Board of Governors.  What it needs is a Board for Oversight, Accountability and Responsibility.  However, at this juncture, it may well be too late.  The damage has been done and it is pervasive, toxic.
 
It is too convenient to lay the demise of the US international broadcasting at the feet of one individual.  It lets too many other people off the hook who don’t deserve to be getting a free pass for their role in the demise of US international broadcasting.
 
For those who think they know what the problems are inside the Cohen Building, consider the following:
 
Disabuse oneself of the notion that the BBG has any real power.  It doesn’t.  Board members are political appointees.  Their appointments are limited.  In short, they are transients.  The power rests in the hands of senior agency officials.  These individuals have demonstrated that are guided not by the national or public interest.  They are most certainly not contributing to the national defense or national security.  We can’t say it often enough: they are guided and motivated by their self-interest, particularly monetary self-interest as reflected in their salaries and those huge bonuses they hand out to themselves.  Be assured that they will go to extraordinary lengths to protect their self-interests.  And they are becoming ever more brazen with each reconstituted BBG that comes walking through the doors of the Cohen Building.  They are not beyond denying information requested by board members.  They are not beyond making veiled threats to anyone standing in their way.  They are not beyond engaging in acts that may meet the criteria for misconduct and insubordination.  And they can get away with it because the BBG is not constituted to take them on and remove the offenders.  In short, this agency, with its failed mission, isn’t worth the risk to the present and future political and professional careers of most board members.  At this juncture, most choose to stay away or get away from the toxic environment that these self-serving careerists have made of the agency.
 
For whatever reasons individuals signed on to be board members presiding over a snake pit was certainly not on their “things to do” list.
 
The IBB puts out a constant stream of disinformation and misinformation to disarm the gullible – part of the game they play to divert attention from what they are doing and blaming a variety of others: the BBG, the Congress, the employee representatives, BBG Watch.  They throw stuff out to see what sticks.  And what they throw out and pontificate is bogus.
 
Dealing with this agency and the gallery of characters on the Third Floor requires a political solution.  Part of that solution means abolishing the board.  It’s not working.  The next thing that needs to be done is empower whoever and whatever follows to clean out the house, one official at a time.  Once the ball starts rolling on that process, one would be amazed at what it does to improve the environment.
 
And that happens to be the necessary first order of business with this agency – not reorganization, attempting to privatize the agency or wasting even more taxpayer dollars on an operation that has gone bust and is staying bust with the current cast of characters.
 
There is much more to the story of what has taken place on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building.  It only waits for a time and place for those with knowledge of the details of that story – in documents, emails and the like – to tell it.
 
If the Congress and the administration want to salvage what remains of value in US international broadcasting, the entities need to be re-deployed to another agency prepared to expand its world communications effort.  Sounds like Armed Forces Network to us – one of other alternatives to the corrosive IBB environment.
 
In the meantime, consider putting the criticisms of Mr. Isaacson to rest.  He’s not in the picture.  The agency’s problems have less to do with him and a whole lot more to do with the entrenched group on the Third Floor.  That’s where the focus needs to be.
 
The Federalist
January 31, 2012
 
 

This is a parody intended as a news commentary on the functioning of a public institution funded with U.S. taxpayers money. While some of the statements in the play may appear to resemble loosely some of the statements and reported proceedings of the modern day Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the events described in the play took place 70 years ago, the events and characters in the play are fictional, and any similarity to any current or former U.S. government official or any other person dead or alive is purely coincidental. If you are likely to be offended by this play or any form of parody and satire, please do not read any more text and leave this website.

After the attacks of 9/11, the Broadcasting Board of Governors members and their audience research experts decided to end Voice of America programs in Arabic because they concluded that any reference in the program’s name to America will not be well received by the audience. They created two new programs with different names.

The author dedicates this play to all the Voice of America employees, past and present, to honor the 70th anniversary of the first VOA radio broadcast to Germany, which thankfully went out under the Voice of America name.

Numbers Don’t Lie

January 1942. The presidentially-appointed Broadcasting Board of Industrial and Political Contributors meets in secret on the third floor of the federal building on Independence Avenue in Washington, DC to discuss U.S. radio broadcasts to Europe. Five of the nine board members and several government executives and audience research experts are present.

Chairman Donovan:  I call the secret meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Industrial and Political Contributors to order. All who are in this room have a top secret security clearance. I see that at least five Board members are present  and we have Jack Spender on the phone with us in Georgia,  using a secure line, I should add. So we do have a quorum. Jack, can you hear us?

(Chairman Donovan hears Jack but the rest of the people in the room can’t hear him because the speakers don’t work.)

Board member Spender: Sorry, Bill, that I can’t be with you all. I’m here with Eleanor at a fundraiser for FDR and we’re having helluva time.

Chairman Donovan (muttering to himself): He’s after my job.

Chairman Donovan (loudly): We can’t get the speakers to work in the room even though we are a broadcasting organization. But don’t let these minor technical problems bother you. Jack can hear us just fine and says that he’s working hard to generate public support for our overseas radio programs in support of freedom and democracy. In any case, I’m excited having been told by our very talented technical staff that we are well on schedule to start our first Voice of America radio broadcast to Germany in a few days. That should scare the pants off Herr Goebbels.

Board Member Ivan Turnsky: Chairman Donovan, let’s not rush in and think about it for a moment. I mean the Voice of America. I used to run the largest commercial radio network in this country and we didn’t launch any new program without first doing extensive audience and market research. Don’t get me wrong, I’m just as patriotic as anyone else in this room, but something tells me calling this station Voice of America is a bad idea.

Chairman Donovan: Why so?

Board Member Turnsky: We must be above all be research-driven. Even though this is at least for now the U.S. government, which does things its own inefficient way, we should not discard the vast experience of commercial broadcasting and advertising. They could teach us a lot about psychographics.

Chairman Donovan: So what does a commercial radio and advertising expert recommend?

Board Member Turnsky: I say if you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it well, or not at all. Market research and audience preferences are what this is all about. You give them what they want rather than what you think they want or need. And you find out what they like through market research. As we say, it’s about them, not about you, stupid. I’m not going to play Negro music on a white radio station in Alabama even if my kids in New York like that sort of thing. Research doesn’t support it.

Chairman Donovan: So tell us, Ivan, what do you know that we don’t know.

Board Member Turnsky: I have here in my briefcase a secret research report prepared by our Office of Strategic Planning that clearly proves that the vast majority of people in Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan hate the United States and most things American.

(Turnsky pulls out a report out of his briefcase and waves it.)

If you care about your audience, you can’t give them something they dislike, so I say we should not call it Voice of America. (He read each letter as in A-M-E-R-I-C-A.) And whose Goddamn voice is it going to be anyway? We should look for a neutral name. Something like like Global News Network, for example. I would say it should not even be a U.S. government-run station. We could do it much cheaply using private contractors. I know quite a few who could do it much better and than these government workers. With the money we save, we could pay higher bonuses to our managers and hire even more contractors.

(Chairman Donovan pauses for a moment and appears to listen to a phone receiver still in his hand.)

Chairman Donovan: Jack Spender just told me — we still can’t get him on the speakers — that we’re having a serious problem with paying our contractors on time. Some kind of bureaucratic delays. But Jack also says that with the money saved from not giving them any employment benefits we might be able to offer them free TB immunization shots so they don’t infect our management team. I hope that will be fine with you all.

Board Member Alex Fox: I completely agree with Ivan. Privatize and rely on audience research. We do the same thing in Hollywood. It’s called focus groups. They’ll tell you what your audience wants and doesn’t want. By the way, where is that foreigner you selected to be the Voice of America director? Housemeister, something or other. Isn’t that a Jewish name?

Chairman Donovan: We’re not sure whether he has an American passport yet or a security clearance, so I told him to stay away. Don’t know whether he’s Jewish or not, but aren’t we all Americans. (Donovan hesitates for a moment.) Well, with the exception of Housemeister perhaps until his citizenship status is cleared up. But what does it matter? I think Housemeister could also be a German name.

Board Member Fox: It doesn’t matter to me since I’m also Jewish, but haven’t you heard that the Nazis hate the Jews. And whether we like it or not, most Germans are Nazis. Do you really want to alienate the vast majority of your potential listeners?

Chairman Donovan: OK, OK, I get it, even if I don’t like it. I’ll tell Housemeister to change his name to something American when he gets his papers. By the way, I like Ivan’s suggestion of “Global News Network.” You know, I used to be the CEO of WNN, World News Network. I agree, we shouldn’t let lofty ideals prevent us from maximizing our audience. Whom are we going to influence if no one listens.

Board Member Molot: I think a more neutral approach will also help us in Russia. Who knows, Uncle Joe might even allow us on his state radio network. That would really give us a vast number of patriotic Russian listeners. Board Member Brown and I have just returned from Moscow where we had very productive discussions with Commissar Molotov about placing our health programs on Comintern Radio. Molotov gave us a list of people they don’t want to hear in our programs and we should seriously consider it. I told Molotov, or was it Litvinov, that we are ready to listen to everybody. If the White Russians protest, we’ll tell these fascists to go to hell or go back to Russia to work on collective farms. I hope you all read my memo that we should get Hoover to investigate these White Russians, otherwise they might start to demonstrate in front of our building. Speaking of research, I’m totally convinced that we definitely need to target young Soviet Communists, but what is our target audience in Germany?

Chairman Donovan: I thought it’s anybody who’s opposed to Hitler.

Board Member Alan Smith: You mean the Communists?

Chairman Donovan: I think Socialists might be a better term. We have to be mindful of what people in Congress might think if we talk about Communists, even though Stalin and the Soviets are now our allies. Old prejudices die hard.  We already have some good Communists working for us, but we better not advertise that.

Board Member Fox: I agree that it may be a problem, Mr. Chairman. We don’t want Congressmen Smith and  Mundt to think we want to indoctrinate the American public with FDR’s socialist ideas either. They may try to prevent us from broadcasting on domestic stations, some of which members of our Board own or have an interest in, not to mention all the contractors we can hire to sell these programs domestically. This could be very good  business for us. We can tell the people on the Hill that these broadcasts on American stations will prevent the Japs in Minnesota from becoming the Fifth Column.

Board Member Smith: But aren’t all Japanese Americans already in concentration camps? I think the Administration is doing everything possible to protect real Americans who speak English and have American names.

Chairman Donovan: Well, we can say that we will also  indoctrinate the Krauts in Minnesota and have Japanese programs in those internment camps.

Board Member Smith:  Going back to Socialists, don’t the Nazis call themselves National Socialists, that means Socialists who love their country. We can’t very well tell people in Congress that we’re targeting the Nazis. And by the way, aren’t all German Communists dead or in concentration camps, which have no radios.

Chairman Donovan: You have a good point there, Alan. Wait a second. My staffer has just whispered in my ear that all the Jews in Germany had to turn in their radio sets to the authorities. So what do you think our target audience should be in Germany? If not Communists and Socialists, then who?

Board Member Smith: Bill, it’s even more complicated than that. That’s why we set up the Office of Strategic Planning and they produced for us the five-year strategic plan. You know, like those famous  Soviet five-year plans. According to our own experts, it’s not only that we need to identify our key audience to optimize the programming and presentation to the target audience for each of our markets, we must also use and emphasize the distribution platforms which our target audiences prefer and use.

Chairman Donovan: What do you mean by that?

Board Member Smith: I mean we must be platform agnostic and we must be clever. 

Chairman Donovan: Platform agnostic? You mean we can’t have religious programs because we are U.S. government. I’ve said all along we should privatize. I’ll tell you why. When two of WNN guys I brought on board arranged for an interview with FDR, one of those government workers who fancies himself to be a real journalist refused to do it because he didn’t like the questions we sent in advance to the White House. Imagine that. These government workers couldn’t even get an interview with the New York City mayor if you asked them. And if we’re not a U.S. government operation and on top of that don’t call ourselves Voice of America, the Germans and the Russians can’t say we are a government propaganda station. But what is this platform agnostic business anyway?

Board Member Turnsky: It means that if Communists in Nazi concentration camps have no access to radio, we could for example send them letters with anti-Hitler news from a neutral country like Switzerland. Platform neutral means we don’t care how we deliver or what we deliver as long as it is received.

Board Member Irene Brown: I’d like to say something.

Chairman Donovan: Of course, Irene. Let’s hear from our one and only female Board member. What do you have to tell us.

Board Member Brown: As chairwoman of our New Media Committee, I’m very happy to report that we are working on a number of new and exciting program delivery platforms. We have identified a private firm in California that has developed an innovative invisible ink technology that would be perfect for sneaking in secret messages in letters to German concentration camp inmates. I know some great people at the California firm. As with new technologies, it is very expensive. We may have to cut our radio transmissions to pay for it, but our Strategic Planning Department tells me it is well worth it. We may also have to bring in a few contractors to teach our staff how to write letters with invisible ink. This will cost us extra, but the Nazis will never guess what’s in those letters. It’s a wonderful circumvention technology tool. I also think we should ask the Congress to give us extra money to develop it further.

Board Member Smith: Also thinking out of the box, we could even try to trick the Nazis  by giving free records with English lessons to Voice of Germany and hope that they might use them. Everybody likes to get something for nothing. Of course, we would have to do it through a neutral third party without revealing they come from us. We could even hire a cute  high school or college intern to teach them decadent American youth slang. 

(Chairman Donovan and others are heard laughing after the cute intern comment.)

Board Member Smith:

Over time, the knowledge of these expressions should weaken their fighting spirit. After learning about heavy petting, they might be less likely to volunteer for suicide missions to blow up our schools and hospitals and kill innocent children and patients. You couldn’t market it as Voice of America English lessons, of course, but under a different name they surely would give us a large reach we want in Germany on a real network, a reach we can measure unlike the unknown listeners to these shortwave radio transmissions that the Nazis will most likely jam anyway.  We should, however, put a warning on those letters that if found they can get you a few years in a concentration camp.

Board Member Brown: Our New Media Committee completely agrees. Research shows that almost no one in Germany or Russia listens to shortwave radio. If you have to do radio, domestic AM and long wave state network distribution is the only thing that produces a large audience and we must offer them the right program to get it. That’s why VOA is such a bad name. We can’t use it, especially if we’re thinking about the future. Besides, VOA is only good for radio. The future is in moving pictures, television and most of all in invisible ink. The potential for audience growth is only in new media that young people use. They are the future leaders. It’s useless to target the elites. They’re too small and too old and too scared to use new technologies. They listen to the radio because it’s safe.

Chairman Donovan (exited): I get it. We need to go after German high school and college students and other young Germans. Don’t they say that young people are the future of their nation. It may take 20 or 30 years, but someone who listens to our English lessons or American music today, will be the next Hitler or Goebbels.

Board Member Fox: I’m glad you said that Mr. Chairman. I was going to propose that 60 percent of our program to Germany be music: American, German and other European hits. Music is, as they say, the universal language and does not offend anyone, unless it has obscene lyrics, which we will ban. Speaking about the focus being on the audience. English lessons are fine, but I don’t agree with Irene that we should teach them American slang.  We can’t afford to offend any Germans. Those we offend might later shoot at our American soldiers, and we wouldn’t want that. Our research also shows that young Germans like listening to American jazz more than they like to listen to news programs. If it were up to me, I would call our broadcasts Universal Music Network. We could even drop records with American music from our planes flying over Germany. We must reach our target audiences on their primary platforms or we will fail.

Board Member Turnsky: You’re absolutely right. We’ve done audience surveys and focus groups and the only people who listen to the news are old white guys over 50. I was going to propose that no news segment to Germany or to Russia be more than three minutes long. After that it gets boring. We don’t want to bore our enemies or our friends. I say more music, less boring news and information.

Chairman Donovan: This has been a most enlightening discussion. Let me make the motion that our target audience in Germany and the Soviet Union are the young people with access to radios, record players, or a permanent mailing address, even in a concentration camp or Gulag. Do I have a second?

Board Member Turnsky: I second the motion. I would also propose that we start our broadcasts to the Soviet Union on the anniversary of the Great October Revolution, which I think coincides with the start of our fiscal year. Or is it in November. We’ll ask our Strategic Planning Department.

Chairman Donovan: All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay.

(All Board members say aye.)

I hear no nays. The motion to define our target audience as those 25 and younger is approved.

Board Member Smith: Mr. Chairman, may I also propose the motion that we will remain platform and media agnostic. I’m told by our Strategic Planning Department that everybody will soon be watching this thing called television. We don’t want to tie ourselves to outdated technologies.

Chairman Donovan: I second the motion. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The motion to confirm that we are platform neutral, or should I say agnostic, is approved.

Board Member Smith: This leaves only the name issue. I propose that we drop the Voice of America name as unsupported by research and bad for program placement and marketing. While I like like the Universal Music Network idea, I think Global News Network will be easier to sell to Congress. And while we’re at it, I would also make a motion that music shall be no less than 60 percent of our programs and that no news segment shall be longer than three minutes. And furthermore, let’s agree that the Global News Network should be de-federalized and privatized while we continue to be funded in full by Congress. That will keep the Congress off our backs while they give us the money to do what we want and what is best for our country.  

Chairman Donovan: Do we have a second?

Board Member Brown: I second the motion.

Chairman Donovan: All those in favor say aye. Those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. From now on we will call ourselves the private and independent Global News Network. Let us now stand and sing the national anthem.

Here is the comment by a VOA/BBG insider.

There’s an essential difference between the BBG structure of today, and say, the BBC — one has established truly global credibility, the other (i.e. USIB) still struggles in the muck and mire of the never-ending debate over its mission, its link to “public diplomacy” and U.S. foreign policy objectives, and the role of journalism in all of this.

Formation of the BBG accelerated a process that took us from having one VOICE OF AMERICA, to numerous voices. Though VOA itself was born during World War II, with a specific purpose (though also to tell the truth), by the 1990′s the BBG had encouraged and made possible, with the help of a compliant Congress, creation of the cacophony of USIB that today we all know so well. Not only do we have the main grantee entities, but entities within entities. And the line that for a long while separated so-called surrogate activities was blurred, to say the least, and remains that way today.

Now, under the Isaacson plan, being sold to Congress with the appropriate flood of hosannas, this BBG is trying to make the case that nothing less than a CNNization is the answer to all of the ills seen in today’s USIB. This will be a most interesting discussion, provided members of Congress have the presence of mind to examine the issue with care in an election year.

The “vigorous debate” that Matt calls for is more likely not to happen (except in this and similar blog sites) simply because it is not in the interests of the BBG to allow it.

Board members for the most part (the exception has been Victor Ashe who at least paid some attention to employee morale and other issues) care only about forcing through the Isaacson plan, so they can comfortably return to their own more lucrative pursuits as pundits or CEOs, until they are dragged back for the next BBG meeting in the Cohen building, or in Prague or Miami.

It is an amazing fact that USIB has been run for decades by a board that generally (only in recent years did it open deliberations to the public) has been secretive, and isolated itself from hearing the views of the rank and file.

As for the comment that BBG is “a critical element of America’s foreign policy” — that may be the case. But the $760 million bill of goods the BBG is trying to sell Congress (roughly the current BBG budget figure but multiply this by however many years USIB will continue) is being parading as the creation of some independent global network when in reality everyone knows (except the American taxpayer) that this will be a government-run and influenced information network. We hesitate to use the word propaganda — that still sets off alarm bells — but unfortunately that is exactly what many in the non-government media believe USIB is.

Will there be vigorous debate? We doubt it. Advantage to the BBG here. Ironically, at a time when Americans are so worried about how their money is being spent, it’s all too likely that Congress will hold a single hearing about USIB and the BBG’s management of it, and proceed to lock in the board’s long-term strategic plan.

Ain’t America great?

See the rest here:
Twitter and internet freedom: distinguish democracies from dictatorships

Follow this link:
Victor Ashe says treatment of contract employees by BBG executives amounts to abuse of the system

See the article here:
Will fundraising for Obama get Dick Lobo chairmanship of Broadcasting Board of Governors?

Continue reading here:
CUSIB Statement on the Resignation of BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson

Read more:
Breaking news: Walter Isaacson stepping down as Broadcasting Board of Governors Chairman

Original post:
Russia and the West: why democracy threatens Putin

See original here:
Broadcasting Board of Governors member lashes out against domestic critics, calling them ‘cowards’

See the original post here:
Voice of America hushed up mistakes by former CNN employees

Continued here:
Russia – Office of opposition newspaper destroyed in firebomb attack

Read more:
Russia – Independent newspaper suspends publication in response to pressure

From a BBG Insider:

Come on, Matt…you are far too kind to the BBG, and to Walter Isaacson, who was largely an absentee. Most employees never met him (same is true for other board members when it comes to “connecting” with rank and file). While he was off putting finishing touches to his Steve Jobs biography, morale at 330 Independence Avenue (admittedly never good) and elsewhere in the BBG structure, plummeted. That’s the dirty little secret that news organizations who covered his book launch never covered.

In an ultimate display of insensitivity, Isaacson granted interviews (audiences, like the Pope) to every major TV network and print publication, but only much later with anyone from BBG. He basically gave BBG broadcasters the finger (a few signed copies of his book were offered like crumbs to the masses though a for-charity raffle — not a replacement for true access).

But enough on Isaacon’s book and self-promotion. Still in last place in government employee satisfaction surveys (despite small improvements cited by the board) the BBG under Isaacson embarrassed itself with the China fiasco. It then ran in a panic to repair its relations with Congress, and with VOA Chinese broadcasters. Key officials rushed to a reception on Capitol Hill celebrating what was basically a victory over a BBG blunder. The new VOA director went scurrying to the China division in the headquarters building.

Isaacson’s plan to create a GNN, or Global News Network, is dubious at best. Staff members in Congress need to make sure that there is a thorough airing of views, rather than simply a rubber-stamping of this plan. That means calling to testify not just BBG members, and the usual collection of entrenched Washington policy ideologues, but also actual journalists in the BBG structure who have been subject to the hubris of the board.

BBG will use familiar tactics to ram legislation called the International Broadcasting Innovation Act of 2012 through Congress, sending slick videos and publications to the Hill at a time when members of Congress are preoccupied with election year political battles and re-election. The board has been shrewd, hiring a former staffer for the House Foreign Affairs Committee, most recently at State Department, as the new head of BBG public relations.

BBG, assisted by the report produced by Deloitte at a cost of $1 million or so, has a long term goal of slimming down the U.S. international broadcasting structure to a neat and tidy structure it can more easily control. Beyond consolidation of grantees, which will surely happen, the simple fact is that BBG wants to finally achieve what some in DC have sought for years – to finally and permanently get rid of federal employees in VOA.

Isaacson and BBG, and we might as well throw in to the mix certain newer senior IBB managers (many of them refugees from cutbacks at CNN and other media organizations) also want to persuade Congress that this GNN will become some kind of journalistic miracle, emerging in a beam of sunlight from the previous jumble of international broadcasting duplication.

But let’s look at the facts — Isaacson and the board have approved a plan that will maintain all of the grantee organizations in name/brand, and in organizational structure, though BBG is making a big deal about some steps it is taking that will allegedly streamline staff.

RFE/RL won’t be going away. RFA won’t be going away. And at least for the time being, and especially while it continues to have support on the Hill from Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and like-minded legislators, Radio/TV Marti won’t be going anywhere.

The BBG subterfuge, already being implemented and likely to be touted publicly in coming days, is a plan being implemented to turn VOA into some kind of central gathering, processing and coordination hub for all BBG entities. Remember, RFE/RL, RFA, R/TV Marti (VOA obviously too) have all spent years developing their own separate news operations, methods and sources. These processes will not stop.

In theory, as it has been explained so far this could result in RFE/RL reports appearing on VOA programs, or R/TV Marti material (which since the 1980s has had a very specific surrogate broadcasting purpose) also appearing on VOA. Some questions need to be asked about the propriety of this. All of this will be playing out in months ahead.

Embedded, by the way, in the subterfuge of the Isaacson/BBG plan is what, based on various remarks by BBG and IBB officials, is now the very open acknowledgment, being expressed in increasingly bold terms, that the entire USIB structure is there to “serve national security interests” (an aspect of this emerged in 2011 at an open BBG Town Hall session when one veteran VOA journalist asked board members to explain contacts between the BBG and the U.S. Central Command).

This should not necessarily be a surprise, given the history of how USIB developed since World War II. What is notable is that this “national security” justification for the continued existence of ALL entities under the BBG structure is now a major part of the sales pitch being made to Congress for what sounds (GNN) to the average person like a NON-government CNN-type media conglomerate. It may be that in appearance. But no one should be under any illusions – this is government-funded, government-influenced broadcasting, whether in the long run all the entities retain their brand names or at some point they all literally fall under the GNN label.

Back to Matt’s latest post in which he says “clearly the BBG is neglected, both by the White House, regardless of who is in it, and the Congress, who has failed to demand or push forward nominees.” Agreed – the BBG is being neglected by the White House (though Secretary Clinton, technically a member of the board, drew attention to problems under the BBG in her testimony on Capitol Hill).

However, successive administrations and members of Congress have failed utterly to pay enough attention to what has really been going on at 330 Independence Avenue. Congress should not want to be seen swallowing a bill of goods, especially in an election year dominated by national debate over deficit spending and debt, by rubber-stamping plans of a discredited board and its now outgoing most recent chairman, without adequate hearings (and that means more than just one) seeking a sufficiently-broad range of views.

We have just heard that the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors Walter Isaacson is stepping down from his post at the BBG. He is not responsible for any calls for censorship against BBG Watch and is regarded as a supporter of transparency. Our sources report, however, that the same cannot be said about at least one other member of the BBG. Here is what our sources, which want to remain anonymous, tell us.

This could be a great story for the Kremlin’s external propaganda television channel Russia Today (RT), which is available in English on some U.S. cable systems and has recently hired WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to help Mr. Putin and co. fight the information war, which Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the U.S. is losing.

It seems that rather than worrying about how to counter Mr. Putin’s propaganda, at least one member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency in charge of promoting democracy and free speech abroad through U.S. government-funded international broadcasters like the Voice of America (VOA), is also deeply concerned about Americas who dare to criticize BBG officials for mismanagement and incompetence in carrying out the information war.

BBG Watch sources confirmed that a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors lashed out in private against domestic U.S. critics of BBG government officials, calling these critics “cowards” for using anonymous inside sources and taking advantage of the Internet and social media to anonymously post information and comments.

The BBG’s stated mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

The BBG website states that U.S. international broadcasting serves “as a trustworthy source of news and as an example of a free, professional press in countries that lack independent media.” It also announces that “BBG broadcasters engage with audiences and promote dialogue through interactive programs and social networking.”

What could be only described as a glaring example of hypocrisy in public diplomacy, the same U.S. government official who calls his critics “cowards” then publicly rejoices when critics in Cuba, China, and Russia use anonymous new media to expose human rights violations and organize against their authoritarian regimes. The BBG member referred as “cowards” to American citizens who anonymously questioned the judgement of BBG executives involved with the unsuccessful BBG push in Congress to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress put a stop to the BBG China plan.

This and other BBG members have been publicly calling on Congress to give the agency more money to fight Internet censorship in China and Cuba so that Chinese and Cuban citizens can view Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, and Radio/TV Marti websites and post anonymous news and comments. Congress gave the BBG $10 million for this purpose.

But in private, one BBG member urged his colleagues to do something to counter anonymous U.S. domestic criticism of BBG executives on the independent BBG Watch website run by current and former BBG employees and other volunteers, most of whom prefer to remain anonymous.

Hypocrisy and bad public diplomacy setting a terrible example for pro-democracy and free speech activists abroad — BBG Watch sources say that a presidentially-appointed member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors is guilty on all counts.

This kind of behavior also confirms that BBG employees are absolutely right in trying to hide their identity while exposing poor judgement and mismanagement on the part of top level BBG officials. They have good reasons to fear the anger of this particular BBG member and the anger of BBG executives who no doubt urged this presidential appointee to take some kind of action to counter their critics, some of whom are their own employees who rate them in official surveys as the worst leaders and managers in the entire federal government.

We’re happy to report, however, that there may be still after all some First Amendment protection of free speech at the BBG, although we would not advise the internal critics to reveal their identities just yet. Our sources tell us that other members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, including BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson, who is stepping down from his post, and senior Republican member Victor Ashe, apparently ignored the call for action from the BBG member who was deeply offended by BBG Watch news commentaries.

We are told that Isaacson and Ashe have tried to make the BBG more transparent but have encountered strong resistance from the BBG and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) senior staff and from a few of their colleagues on the Board.

As we pointed out in our earlier commentary,  ‘Old white guys’ meet ‘cute young intern’ and First Amendment at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that anonymous free speech is protected and allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority,” the U.S. Supreme Court said.

China, Cuba, Russia … a Broadcasting Board of Governors member … U.S. Supreme Court. We stick with the last option.

Here is the original post:
France – RSF releases press freedom index for 2011/2012

Read the original here:
Old perestroika journalists need not apply – RFE/RL President Steven Korn defends his record

Read more from the original source:
Have a backup plan: VOA Director David Ensor on satellite TV signal jamming