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.      
 

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.

Snapshot from Alhurra TV report promoting views of Holocaust deniers.

The Federalist calls for translating into English and putting online some of the foreign language reports and commentaries broadcast by the BBG and paid for by American taxpayers. What and how much should be translated and at what cost may be debatable, but it would certainly give the American people and the Congress the level of transparency and scrutiny that the Broadcasting Board of Governors executives fear. These translations, in any case, should be done outside of the BBG. It was not BBG executives and program evaluators, but independent media freedom and independent journalism NGOs that exposed the airing of statements from Holocaust deniers on the BBG-managed Alhurra TV and statements from Russian nationalist extremists on Radio Liberty.

Broadcasting Board of Governors: More of The Battle Rages On
by The Federalist
 
We have an opportunity to expand on a couple of points made in our recent post, “The Battle Rages On.”
 
24/7 VOA English:
 
A BBG Watch reader stated that there are seven 24/7 “streams” of English on VOA.  The reader did not go into detail.
 
If the reader is using the term “streams” to refer to the Internet, the results are somewhat underwhelming.
 
Using the agency’s own data, its audience for radio broadcasts is around 100-million, for television, about another 100-million and for the Internet, about 10-million.
 
In the big picture of the numbers game, the world population is about 7-billion.  Of the 7-billion, around 2-billion is at or below poverty line demarcations.
 
One also needs to keep in mind that the agency’s Internet programs are available in places where Internet use and accessibility is high.  If the best the “streams” could do is 10 million, the results would not at all impressive.  They get lost in the cacophony of the billions. But, 24/7 English audio streams get far less than even 10 million. Most visitors to VOA websites don’t listen to audio.
 
When it comes to the Internet on a global basis, the issues for the user will always be: affordability, availability and connectivity.  Too much of what the BBG/IBB does has an “inside the Beltway” focus.  Most assuredly, the rest of the world isn’t situated in like manner.
 
The American taxpayer should demand – and is entitled to demand – better performance out of the agency.  If marked improvements aren’t forthcoming in a reasonable amount of time, the issue then becomes whether or not the American taxpayer should be expected to continue to fund this exercise.  With the increasing demands of higher priorities, the answer can likely be in the negative.
 
Language Service Websites:
 
This reader also commented on our view that there should be English language texts running concurrently on VOA language service websites in the various vernacular languages.  The reader remarks that to do so would be “too expensive.”  This is an all-too-familiar refrain heard from the BBG/IBB when it doesn’t want to do something that it should be doing.
 
Of course, the first response from us is going to be: “How much is ‘too expensive’?”  The reader doesn’t provide details.
 
When one reads comments posted on various websites that give treatment to US international broadcasting or public diplomacy, one of the charges commonly leveled is that US Government international broadcasting is “propaganda.”  Following right behind that observation comes the opinion that the American taxpayer shouldn’t be funding a government propaganda operation.  Propaganda is a dirty word to many Americans.  It is synonymous with the practices and ideologies of totalitarian regimes.
 
If the cast of characters on the BBG/IBB want the American taxpayers to pony up funding for their operations, they are going to have to become acquainted with and responsive to a higher standard of public transparency.  If they want modifications to the Smith-Mundt Act to make their content accessible to American citizens, this has to be part of the deal.  Any American citizen should be able to view content on any BBG/IBB website in English particularly since these operations are publicly funded.  In our view, they are obligated to do so or they can kiss their “flim flam strategic plan” goodbye.
 
Should the American taxpayer demand higher standards of accountability and transparency out of the agency?  The answer is: YES.  Members of Congress and the American taxpayer should not be satisfied with the usual, self-serving rhetoric coming from the BBG/IBB.
 
The Federalist
January 24, 2012
 
 
 
 

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Chairman Walter Isaacson speaking on January 13, 2012 about the BBG reorganization plan said that he has “changed his mind.” In the battle for public control and oversight of U.S. international broadcasting, Isaacson has modified his plan to remove U.S. government-funded broadcasting entities from public domain due to strong criticism from human rights groups, media freedom advocates, and BBG’s Victor Ashe. Isaacson apparently compromised with Ashe on some of the provisions of the plan, which the critics say could have led to CNN-ization of the Voice of America. Isaacson is a former CNN executive and author of a highly successful biography of Steve Jobs.

BBG Watch sources point out, however, that the battle for public ownership, control, and oversight of U.S. international broadcasting is far from over, with some BBG members and their executive staff still determined to de-federalize and cannibalize the Voice of America broadcasting resources and establish centralized bureaucratic controls over the surrogate broadcasters. The official BBG announcement, see below, does not describe any of the compromises and the modifications in Isaacson’s initial plan discussed during the January 13 BBG meeting.

###

Official BBG Announcement

BBG Calls for Agency Restructuring

Washington, D.C., January 18, 2012 – The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced its intention to restructure U.S. international broadcasting. It will seek legislation that would include establishing a Chief Executive Officer to manage the enterprise. In addition, the Board called for a plan to consolidate the agency’s three non-federal broadcast networks: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

“The Board is ready to strengthen U.S. international broadcasting in part by freeing up resources locked up in inefficient and duplicative administrative structures and reinvesting in programming,” said BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson. “This is a historic agreement by the Board to streamline international broadcasting into one great organization focused on quality journalism with many brands and many divisions but unified as one organization.”

In a resolution passed at its January 13 meeting in Washington, the Board announced its intention to restructure international broadcasting in accordance with its recently released 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. The Board outlined proposed reforms and its intent to develop a draft legislative package to be called the International Broadcasting Innovation Act of 2012 (the “IBIA”). It would establish a CEO who would report to the Board and provide day-to-day executive leadership. In addition the proposed package calls for a new organization that would reflect the optimal mix of federal and non-federal assets in support of international broadcasting; repeals the domestic dissemination ban in the Smith-Mundt Act; and renames the agency to reflect the mission of a unified structure. The restructuring package would be subject to appropriate administration approval and Congressional consideration.

“While there is a compelling case for streamlining the BBG’s complex structure and leveraging the highly professional newsgathering activities of our independent broadcast services, any reform plan will retain and celebrate the individual and historic brands and their journalistic mission,” said Isaacson in summarizing the Board’s recommendations. “We look forward to working with internal and external stakeholders and experts as well as with the Administration and Congress on these proposals.”

During its strategic review process, the Board engaged the services of management consultant Deloitte and external counsel Baker and Mackenzie to gain a detailed understanding of the costs, benefits and legal issues involved. The resulting studies indicated a compelling case and potential substantial savings over five years from eliminating duplicative management and administrative functions and affirmed the legal feasibility of a merger. Further details of the Board’s Record of Decisions and previous discussions can be found below:

Record of Decisions January 13, 2012

2011 Grantee Consolidation Assessment (Redacted)

Broadcasting Board of Governors Grantee Merger Assessment, executive summary

Minutes of November 18, 2011 BBG Meeting

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent federal agency, supervising all U.S. government-supported, civilian international broadcasting, whose mission is inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. BBG broadcasts reach an audience of 187 million in 100 countries. BBG networks include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti).
For more information, please call the BBG’s Office of Public Affairs at 202-203-4400 or e-mail publicaffairs@bbg.gov.

In the battle for public control and oversight of U.S. international broadcasting, Isaacson has modified his plan to remove U.S. government-funded broadcasting entities from public domain due to strong criticism from human rights groups, media freedom advocates, and BBG’s senior Republican member Victor Ashe. Isaacson apparently compromised with Ashe on some of the provisions of the plan, which the critics say could have led to CNN-ization of the Voice of America. Isaacson is a former CNN executive and author of a highly successful biography of Steve Jobs.

BBG Watch sources point out, however, that the battle for public ownership, control, and oversight of U.S. international broadcasting is far from over, with some BBG members and their executive staff still determined to de-federalize and cannibalize the Voice of America broadcasting resources and establish centralized bureaucratic controls over the surrogate broadcasters. The official BBG announcement, see below, does not describe any of the compromises and the modifications in Isaacson’s initial plan discussed during the January 13 BBG meeting.

###

Official BBG Announcement

BBG Calls for Agency Restructuring

Washington, D.C., January 18, 2012 – The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) announced its intention to restructure U.S. international broadcasting. It will seek legislation that would include establishing a Chief Executive Officer to manage the enterprise. In addition, the Board called for a plan to consolidate the agency’s three non-federal broadcast networks: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks.

“The Board is ready to strengthen U.S. international broadcasting in part by freeing up resources locked up in inefficient and duplicative administrative structures and reinvesting in programming,” said BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson. “This is a historic agreement by the Board to streamline international broadcasting into one great organization focused on quality journalism with many brands and many divisions but unified as one organization.”

In a resolution passed at its January 13 meeting in Washington, the Board announced its intention to restructure international broadcasting in accordance with its recently released 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. The Board outlined proposed reforms and its intent to develop a draft legislative package to be called the International Broadcasting Innovation Act of 2012 (the “IBIA”). It would establish a CEO who would report to the Board and provide day-to-day executive leadership. In addition the proposed package calls for a new organization that would reflect the optimal mix of federal and non-federal assets in support of international broadcasting; repeals the domestic dissemination ban in the Smith-Mundt Act; and renames the agency to reflect the mission of a unified structure. The restructuring package would be subject to appropriate administration approval and Congressional consideration.

“While there is a compelling case for streamlining the BBG’s complex structure and leveraging the highly professional newsgathering activities of our independent broadcast services, any reform plan will retain and celebrate the individual and historic brands and their journalistic mission,” said Isaacson in summarizing the Board’s recommendations. “We look forward to working with internal and external stakeholders and experts as well as with the Administration and Congress on these proposals.”

During its strategic review process, the Board engaged the services of management consultant Deloitte and external counsel Baker and Mackenzie to gain a detailed understanding of the costs, benefits and legal issues involved. The resulting studies indicated a compelling case and potential substantial savings over five years from eliminating duplicative management and administrative functions and affirmed the legal feasibility of a merger. Further details of the Board’s Record of Decisions and previous discussions can be found below:

Record of Decisions January 13, 2012

2011 Grantee Consolidation Assessment (Redacted)

Broadcasting Board of Governors Grantee Merger Assessment, executive summary

Minutes of November 18, 2011 BBG Meeting

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is an independent federal agency, supervising all U.S. government-supported, civilian international broadcasting, whose mission is inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy. BBG broadcasts reach an audience of 187 million in 100 countries. BBG networks include the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti).
For more information, please call the BBG’s Office of Public Affairs at 202-203-4400 or e-mail publicaffairs@bbg.gov.

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

Original post:
Isaacson compromises in battle over public control of U.S. international broadcasting

The folks on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building really don’t get it.  They are the gift that just keeps on giving.  When not promoting their bogus “new strategic plan,” they are now trying – vainly – to limit the damage from the publication of cash bonuses handed out to themselves.
 
On December 21, 2011, Richard Lobo, the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) Director, issued a statement regarding these awards.
 
The statement is a recitation of government-wide statistics and other statements which have the net effect of defending the indefensible, rationalizing the bonuses in the seeming context of government business as usual and totally missing the point of the criticisms leveled against the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the IBB for their largesse among the senior ranks.
 
Mr. Lobo’s memo takes the convenient way out, via government-wide statistics.  More than convenience, it is an attempt to give credibility to the agency’s actions.  However, by burying the agency’s actions within the Federal government as a whole, what the memo does is bury the credibility of Mr. Lobo.
 
The issue isn’t the government as a whole.  The issue is this agency and its senior officials.
 
This is the agency which has earned the description, “One of the worst organizations in the Federal government.”  The BBG/IBB continues to deserve that distinction because they have continued, institutionalized and built upon a record for being dysfunctional and ineffective.  Relative to this issue, the agency continues to rank at or near the bottom in the Federal government employee surveys and is dead last in the specific category of Leadership.
 
Under the circumstances, handing out bonuses to senior agency officials has the appearance of rewarding the creation and perpetuation of a hostile work environment.  Actually, it’s more than the appearance.  It’s a fact.  That’s the record.
 
Now, here’s an interesting quote from the memo:
 
“While concerted efforts resulted in improvements in a number of areas, the overall results of the federal employee satisfaction survey remain a serious concern.”
 
This is a load of nonsense.  Miniscule improvements on peripheral matters do not equate with a wholesale sea change in the overall management philosophy inside the Cohen Building.  We know it and so do the agency’s employees.  In fact, the only people to whom the survey results are a serious concern are the employees, not the agency’s senior officials.  Why?  Because to this point, there has been no penalty applied to the managers who perpetuate the conditions that produce the agency’s earned reputation for being one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government.
 
To that end, here is the game the agency plays:
 
Regularly, agency officials meet with employee representatives.  We’ve referred to these meetings before.  We call them “motion without movement.”  The agency’s intent in these meetings is to build a record that it had a series of meetings with the employee representatives.  It is not to show that progress has been made on any major issue.  It is merely to say that it had a number of meetings with the agency’s employee representatives.  That is it.  Nothing more.  And the reason why these meetings produce no constructive results is because the management intent is to stall, delay and otherwise obstruct any progress on issues resulting in a substantive positive outcome for the employees.
 
Agency employees and their representatives have been the last line of defense against the perpetration of waste, fraud and abuse.  They have struggled mightily but have had some noteworthy successes apart from these meetings.
 
However, we would argue that these meetings are a huge waste of time.  They are a waste of the taxpayers’ money.  Having these meetings has had no material effect on the existing paradigm.  The employee representatives would be better served to use their time to great effect with Members of Congress and with the press to get the word out as to what is going on inside the Cohen Building.  “The worst organization in the Federal government” is a label that sticks and has not gone away.
 
Not having these meetings doesn’t make things worse.  When you’re at the bottom in these surveys as the BBG/IBB is – and prefers and intends to remain – things are already worse.  The BBG/IBB is in the business of defining the worst.  Putting the lid on further meetings doesn’t invite legal retaliation by the agency against the employee unions because the context of these meetings does not trump the Federal Labor Relations Statute.  So there – bag it and move on to more productive activities elsewhere and forget the self-interested, self-aggrandizing bonus-mongers on the other side of table.
 
Employees and their representatives should disabuse themselves of the notion that there are common interests between agency officials and agency employees.  There are none.  If senior officials can sell out the employee workforce, they will do it.  In fact, that is an inherent part of their “flim, flam plan:” to privatize the workforce and remove as much if not all of the rights employees enjoy as Federal workers.  And you can best believe that these officials will turn around and use this intended result as a justification for more bonuses in the future.
 
Mr. Lobo’s memo studiously avoids the fact that the Social Security Administration gave out zero bonuses to its Senior Executive Service (SES) officials in FY2010.  In the current fiscal environment and Federal employee raises through cost-of-living-allowances (COLAs) going flat, this is what is commonly referred to as taking the high road and being on the same page with employees.
 
What we know is that senior officials of the BBG/IBB are not on the high road.  They are not on the same page with their employees and they don’t want to be.  To all appearances, the senior managers are trolling the low road.  There are signposts along the low road.  They read: ego, arrogance, self-aggrandizement, contempt, greed, avarice.
 
And let us remember, in the Federal employee workplace surveys:
 
37 out of 37 in Leadership: dead last.  For years.
 
But #1 in putting self-interest ahead of everything else.
 
The Lobo memo makes each point abundantly clear.
 
If you are looking for a mission statement from the BBG/IBB, it isn’t the VOA Charter and it most certainly isn’t “promoting freedom and democracy.”  The real mission statement is:
 
“Self-Interest is Job One!”
 
The Federalist
January 2012
 
 

BBGWatch.com – December 20, 2011 – Victor Ashe, a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), has called for keeping open the radio broadcasting facility on U.S. territory that is capable of transmitting shortwave radio programs to China. Some Obama Administration officials want to shut down the last remaining U.S.–based international broadcast station located in North Carolina. Ashe also called for urgent reforms in the way the federal agency in charge of U.S. international broadcasting operates. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have criticized the BBG for lacking transparency and exercising bad judgement with regard to broadcasting to China.

Victor Ashe’s statement released as a personal wish list for 2012 is unprecedented for a member of the BBG since these presidentially-appointed officials usually do not publicly express their misgivings about how their agency is being managed.

Ashe has become an outspoken critic of the permanent BBG bureaucracy in charge of planning and day-to-day operations of U.S. international broadcasting. He has made his displeasure known by visiting broadcasting services and technical facilities that some of the other BBG members wanted to eliminate based on the recommendations they had received from their executive staff.

It is not clear how the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson and the other members of the bipartisan board will react to Ashe’s statement. Isaacson, the former Chairman and CEO of CNN, former editor of Time Magazine and the author of the best-selling biography of Steve Jobs, is a Democrat. Ashe, a Republican, was the longest serving mayor of Knoxville and the President to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He had also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland from 2004 to 2009.

In his statement, Ashe calls for keeping open the Edward R. Murrow Greenville Transmitting Station in Greenville, North Carolina, which he had recently visited despite objections from some of the BBG executives who want to close it down.

Ashe said in his statement that this facility is the only one on American soil where the U.S. government has jurisdiction. He pointed out that a similar station in the Philippines, operated by the BBG, is barred from transmitting radio programs to China due to the Philippine government’s reluctance to upset the Chinese government. “That could not happen on American territory,” Ashe noted in his statement.

BBG Governor Victor Ashe and VOA Director David Ensor meeting with VOA China Branch employees - BBG photo

Ashe, joined by the Voice of America Director David Ensor, also met last week with broadcasters of the VOA China Branch in Washington, D.C., 45 of whom were at risk of being fired and their radio and television programs terminated. BBG officials wanted to rely only on the Internet to deliver VOA news in Mandarin to China despite the fact that the Chinese government censors the Internet and blocks VOA Chinese websites. BBG officials claimed that the money saved from ending broadcasts and firing journalists would be used to expand online and new media presence in China.

BBG members had initially accepted their staff’s recommendation to end VOA radio and television programs to China on October 1, 2011, but later reversed their decision after a storm of protests by Chinese Americans, human rights organizations, and the action by members of Congress from both parties to block the silencing of broadcasts.

Ashe was reportedly instrumental in getting other BBG members to sign a Certificate of Recognition, which he and Ensor presented last week to the VOA China Branch to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasting to China. Ashe expressed his confidence in Ensor’s leadership.

Earlier, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) public affairs office had refused numerous employee requests to issue a press release about the Capitol Hill reception, hosted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting to China. BBG public affairs experts also ignored an unprecendented video statement in support of VOA broadcasting to China recorded by the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Ashe is said to be also concerned by the way of some of the BBG top managers treat their subordinates and by the second-class status of the agency’s full-time contract employees. In his statement, Ashe refers to the government-wide employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, in which the BBG has been consistently rated as being among the worst-managed federal agencies.

Ashe’s comment about “boorish behavior in the work place” may be a partial reference to a description used by a yet to be identified top official appointed by the BBG who was said to be discussing his desire to promote his favorite employees and contrasting them with “old white guys.” Sources have told BBG Watch that some BBG members wanted to have the official fired for making that remark but could not get a majority vote. The official is believed to be a former CNN associate of the BBG Chairman. Several former CNN employees have been hired in recent months by the BBG. BBG Watch sources describe Isaacson was well-meaning but too removed and distracted by the promotion of his recently published biography of Steve Jobs.

Ashe’s statement points to one success in his efforts to improve employee morale. Due to his recent intervention, contract employees at the BBG headquarters in Washington, D.C. were able to receive flu immunization shots to limit the risk of infection to the entire workforce. Until Ashe raised this issue in an open meeting, BBG executives were preventing these employees from receiving free flu shots, as well as denying them most other usual employment benefits, which these full time contractors still do not get.

In his statement, Ashe called for action and not just words to improve employee morale. Contract employees represent nearly half of the Voice of America workforce.

Ashe also paid a recent visit to Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa headquarters in Northern Virginia and praised Brian Conniff, President of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN), and his staff for their dedication in preparing broadcasts to the Middle East.

Ashe is believed to be the only current BBG member who regularly meets with groups of employees and listens to their complaints.

The BBG is likely to face further scrutiny from Congress in 2012. The same BBG executives who wanted to end VOA radio and television broadcasts to China have proposed a merger of Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and MBN into a large corporate bureaucracy and want to de-federalize VOA and Radio and TV Marti.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a bipartisan board comprised of nine members. Eight, no more than four from one party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio.

BBG Watch (BBGWatch.com), an independent website managed by former and current BBG employees, has obtained a copy of BBG Governor Ashe’s statement, which we post below.

Statement of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) member Victor H. Ashe

I hope that 2012 sees a new era of employee-management relations for BBG. I feel the Governors are becoming increasingly aware that having 45 percent of all VOA employees as contract employees presents major issues of fairness, concern and accountability. It creates two classes of employees for a single work force.

I hope BBG director Dick Lobo will appoint a broad based committee representing all groups to review the issue and make recommendations to the Board. The BBG governance committee must take a hard look at this. The recent flu shot issue which was favorably resolved highlights how foolish the two classes of employees had become as it made no sense to deny contract employees flu shots while offering them to federal employees all working in the same building and office space. How this ever occurred in the first place surprised me.

Surveys have consistently shown bad morale. We must turn this around. Contract employees are not surveyed by OPM. Recently, IBB sent out a limited survey on the contracts themselves but not on general work place issues. While well intended, that attempt falls short of what is needed to gauge employee thoughts. We must make a New Year’s resolution to do better in this area. We must walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

We must also ring the bell that boorish behavior in the work place will not be tolerated. We must be open and transparent in how we deal with it. I am confident that the new engaged leadership of David Ensor will prevail and create a new climate in this field. He is implementing new procedures.

I felt my visit to the Edward Murrow Transmission facility in Greenville, NC on December 7 was a good one and I learned a lot. I am convinced it is a serious mistake to close this facility which is the only one on American soil where the American government has jurisdiction. The station in the Philippines is barred from transmissions to China due the Philippine government’s reluctance to upset the Chinese government. That could not happen on American territory.

The Murrow facility has been hidden from public view and I urge it to be more visible. Its name had become Site B which is effectively nameless. However, President Kennedy had participated in 1962 naming it for Edward R Murrow, one of our nation’s most respected newscasters. The signs should be re-erected in North Carolina and the public of Pitt County invited to visit. We should be proud of the Murrow facility.

On December 14, I spent most of the day visiting and meeting employees of MBN in Springfield, VA and was deeply impressed by Brian Conniff and his dedicated staff. They are outstanding. In March the full Board plans to meet there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Labor and Employment section provides an equally upbeat analysis:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

According to our sources, the email created a panic among BBG members who became afraid of a legal liability if the proposed merger goes forward and male employees who may lose their jobs decide to sue the BBG claiming race and gender discrimination.

Our sources tell us that a BBG member called for an urgent meeting at which the majority of members decided to reverse some recent personnel decisions which might be perceived as being directed against “old white males.” BBG members, who also serve on the boards of the surrogate broadcasting entities, even considered adopting a resolution expressing their opposition to any form of discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, and national origin. In the end — we are told – a resolution was adopted although there was some discussion. One BBG member, who supported the official being discussed, reportedly stormed out of the meeting and had to be persuaded to return.

BBG Watch is not releasing the names of the individuals pending further confirmation of this story. The BBG merger plan remains highly controversial. It was evaluated by the Deloitte consulting firm which urged the BBG to proceed quickly to counter negative employee reaction. Deloitte is set to earn $1.3 million dollars if the plan goes forward.

The Deloitte study promises only minor savings. Our sources also told us that the heads of some of the broadcasting entities which would be affected by the merger informed the Board that they are not completely supportive of the plan as the Deloitte study implies.

The current administrative setup developed after World War II by prominent American foreign policy, military, and intelligence experts and supported by Congress grants the so-called “surrogate broadcasters” maximum programming and administrative independence to allow them to specialize in regional news gathering in support of democracy and human rights and to distance them from the U.S. Government. At the same time, the same group, also with the support of Congress, advocated keeping the Voice of America as the official broadcaster of the United States.

The merger plan supported by the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson also anticipates de-Federalizing and privatizing the Voice of America. Isaacson, a former CNN Chairman, has a vision of turning BBG into a large, centralized news agency. Isaacson also wants to privatize the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), which oversees the operations of Radio and TV Martí from its headquarters in Miami, Florida. Radio and TV Martí provide news for people in Cuba, where media are controlled and highly censored by the authorities. Their de-Federalization would be viewed by Cubans in Cuba, Cuban Americans and many members of Congress as a major victory for the Castro regime.

A similar concept of centralized news gathering and centralized institutional structure was vigorously opposed by the early architects of U.S. international broadcasting as unsuitable for providing news and information to countries without free media. An overly-centralized system was kept at the Voice of America, where it diminished its effectiveness compared to the surrogate broadcasters who enjoyed considerable independence. The U.S. Congress granted VOA full editorial independence in 1976 while confirming its official role of the United States radio for international audiences. The centralized news gathering system at VOA was eventually modified during the Reagan Administration, allowing VOA foreign language services to gain the independence they needed to become more effective broadcasters.

While the surrogate independent radio model had among its early architects and supporters such famous Americans as General Dwight Eisenhower, General Charles Douglas (C.D.) Jackson, the hero of the Berlin Airlift General Lucius Clay, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew, the author of the containment policy George Kennan, U.S. intelligence specialist Frank Wisner, CIA Director Allen W. Dulles, Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane and many other distinguished members, including Ronald Reagan, the current BBG plan was developed by bureaucrats who are completely unknown to the general public, as are most of the BBG members.

BBG Watch has learned that one of the authors of the BBG strategic plan may lose his current position for, among other things, not alerting BBG members to the opposition they encountered in Congress to their proposal to end all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to China. We are told, however, that he will be moved to another job and given a raise at the time when due to his recommendations some VOA foreign language services are being closed down and their American news reporting and public diplomacy functions terminated. Top BBG officials have salaries well in excess of $100,000. One such salary could pay a good part of operating expenses of one small VOA foreign language service.

Only one BBG member Victor Ashe, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Poland, has foreign policy experience. He has expressed his reservations about the merger plan and the Deloitte study. The job of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs who represents Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an ex officio member, at BBG meetings has been recently vacant. Tara Sonenshine, the Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), had been nominated to this position by President Obama but her nomination has not yet been confirmed.

Ironically, all the architects of the current U.S. international broadcasting institutional setup and the members of Congress who supported it have been “old white men.”

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

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

Here are some of the main elements of the report:

Key Findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks of integrating the Grantee corporations include:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations and Next Steps:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Principles:

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

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

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

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

Risks:

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

Congressional reaction:

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

Cultural differences:

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

Unions:

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

Security:

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

Staff Reductions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential loss of major backers:

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

National security:

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

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

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

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

Our regular contributor, The Federalist, also makes other points on the BBG’s audience size announcement.

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: The Numbers Game
by The Federalist

In its press release of November 15, 2011 the BBG claims an audience increase of 22 million to a projected total of 187 million people, based on its “audience data.”

Here is a short primer on “the numbers game.”

Everything starts with the questions asked in the survey. The BBG does not provide a breakdown of the questions asked in the press release or in its “research methodology.” This is important because no one can examine how the BBG collates the responses.

Typically, survey questions will provide a range of questions. Within that range will be responses that would collectively be categorized as positive and perhaps one or two responses that would be categorized as negative. Depending on the intended outcome that the BBG wants to demonstrate, one method used could be to lump all the positives together, particularly if collectively they represent a positive aggregate response.

Everyone inside the Cohen Building knows that surveys are an inexact process. This is especially the case when conducting surveys in authoritarian or controlled societies. A lot also has to do with how the survey is conducted, often over the telephone. If people live in a controlled society, the prudent thing to do is to be judicious in how one responds to anonymous surveys. Thus, depending on how things are going in the target area, the responses could be more or less of an accurate representation of respondent habits.

One would also need to know where surveys were conducted: were they concentrated in major urban population centers or did they include respondents in the interior regions of the countries surveyed?

All this being said, let us work with the numbers the BBG provides.

If the BBG numbers are accurate, an audience of 187 million people is not to be taken lightly (for reasons we will get to below).

At the same time, one needs to look at the big picture in the world of numbers. For example:

The total global population is put at about 7 billion.

Of that number, an estimated 2 billion are at the subsistence level.

In China, latest estimates place the population at over 1.3 billion.

In short, 187 million can get lost in the cacophony of the 7 billion.

Next, one should examine the statements made in the press release in support of its survey findings.

“…in Egypt, where Alhurra TV doubled its weekly audience to 15% in tandem with the Arab Spring…”

The question here is how does this compare to other broadcasters, including the regional leader, al-Jazeera TV? The BBG press release doesn’t say. This is a key point. If the BBG audience is fractionally less than that of al-Jazeera, public opinion has moved away from that projected by the United States. Further, in our view, the so-called “Arab Spring” is over. This number could be artificially inflated by momentary events.

Also, the BBG doesn’t say how Alhurra TV fares in the region as a whole. That would be important to see if Alhurra TV is making inroads elsewhere. Since the BBG press release is silent on the point, we can presume that it is not.

“Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming;”

Those pesky Iranians. They continue to prove themselves adept at interdiction technology.

But beyond that, another question is how much of the audience loss may be due more to lack of interest than as much to government counter-measures? Keep in mind that the BBG claims that its Farsi-language “Parazit” is widely popular in Iran. One would think that if this were indeed true, it would be reflected in its survey results. Coupled with other agency research on Iran, what may be more the case is that the programs no longer have resonance with an Iranian audience. Further, one must also consider the internal conflict with the Persian News Network (PNN) which some writers allege has become a toady for the regime in Tehran.

Also keep in mind that PNN, largely television based, represents a substantial budgetary “gas guzzler” for the BBG.

We’re saving the best for last.

“While radio remains the BBG’s number one media platform, reaching 106 million people per week, television’s growth puts it 97 million people. The Internet audience was approximately 10 million, with the largest online audiences measured in Iraq, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran.”

Bingo!

There’s no “while” about it. Radio is still king.

But most important of all is this:

Even if you take the BBG numbers at face value, when you examine them in the context of the BBG “strategic plan,” you can clearly see its disaster in the making.

If you eliminate radio broadcasting, as it is the clear intent of the BBG strategic plan, you lose over half of your audience. That 187 million becomes 81 million.

The television component is no bargain. It is the most expensive production and delivery broadcast medium, requiring more people, more production time, satellite time and fees, etc. In terms of cost, it is the least sustainable of the media choices available to the BBG. Plus, one should keep in mind, as the BBG press release points out, it is vulnerable to interdiction, both in terms of blocking satellite channels and in terms of downlink requirements at the receiving end. While people use satellite dishes around the world, the fact remains that certain regimes periodically confiscate private satellite dishes, in part just because they can. Also, in those places where the BBG relies upon placement on television stations (they are not really affiliates in the same use of the word here in the US), these stations often walk a fine line with the sitting governments. Put something on the air that someone doesn’t like and good-bye BBG programs or risk the loss of one’s license and even invite some jail time if the regime is offended enough.

Last but definitely not least, its global Internet audience is tagged at 10 million. If the BBG carries through with its plans to use the Internet as its sole platform for audio, video and text, it will have the equivalent of no audience.

About 70 years into US international broadcasting, how long will it take the BBG to move its Internet audience to a size approximating its current radio audience, particularly when one notes the ability of third parties to engage effectively in cyber warfare and/or, as in the case with China, to have well-established controls to block websites the government deems as undesirable. It is complete fiction to believe that the BBG will have at its command an impenetrable cyber defense against these attacks.

And there is another thing. The BBG has to pay to be posted to search engines. Lose the search engines and there goes the recognition and access.

“Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming; and Pakistan, where the media market is increasingly fragmented and use of radio is declining.”

This statement may not be truly representative of the situational reality. The truth of the matter is that all global media markets are increasingly fragmented. This is a significant issue when one considers the BBG claim that its intended outcome is to be “the leading global news network.”

With specific regard to Pakistan, audience loss may have more to do with over-heated anti-American sentiment and a whole lot less to do with the assertion that “use of radio is declining.” It is well known that the Taliban make considerable use of radio in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is well known that the Pakistanis have become increasingly uneasy with unilateral US military actions within this territory. All of these things may have a whole lot more to do with the decline in the BBG’s audience in Pakistan.

Saying that “use of radio is declining” in Pakistan also seemingly contradicts the BBG effort with its “Radio Deewa” and “Radio Aap ki Dunyaa” projects in the region.

Let’s go back to the numbers:

The BBG is laying claim that the intended goal of its “new” strategic plan is to become the world’s leading global news network. What does that mean? How much of that 7 billion in total world population puts the BBG in the hunt to validate that claim? Hovering around 200 million according to its claimed global audience numbers, it’s a long haul to reach anything approximating a reasonable suggestion that the BBG is a “leading global news network.”

And keep in mind that if the BBG carries out its intended destruction of US Government international radio broadcasting, its audience gets cut by more than half. All of those people aren’t going to run to the Internet. That lesson was learned in Russia, contrary to the outrageous claims by the BBG of Russian audience increases. The BBG’s own research showed that its audience in Russia fell off a cliff when it ended its direct VOA Russian radio broadcasts in 2008.

The BBG has set a deadline of 2016 (its Soviet-style five-year plan) to reach its intended goals. Those goals, based on the BBG’s own numbers, would actually represent a substantially diminished audience with the loss of radio broadcasting. VOA director David Ensor essentially reiterated those goals in a recent C-SPAN television interview.

How does this intended outcome benefit the United States? How does this intended outcome represent a judicious use of US taxpayer money? Unfortunately, to all appearances the answer is” it doesn’t.

In the end, audience size aside, it all comes down to effectiveness. The BBG already a sizable “global news network” through its many and varied entities. And still, with all these assets, its penetration of global publics remains challenged.

One last thing: check the numbers of the press release:

106 million radio audience.
97 million television audience.
10 million Internet audience.

Total: 213 million.

That’s more than 187 million at the opening of the press release.

Well, we’ll give the BBG the difference. It’s still not enough to be “the leading global news network.”

Far from it.

The Federalist
November 16, 2011

###

From the BBG official website:

BBG Broadcasts Reach Record Audiences
(WASHINGTON, D.C.—November 15, 2011) U.S. government funded international broadcasters reached an estimated 187 million people every week in 2011, an increase of 22 million from last year’s figure, according to new audience data being made public by the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

“We are pleased that people the world over are responding in unprecedented numbers to our high-quality journalism and active audience engagement,” said BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson. “The ability of our broadcasters to inform, engage and connect audiences through traditional and social media alike lie behind these impressive results and will be essential to driving future audience reach and impact.”

The record numbers, released in the BBG Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), measure the combined audience of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio and TV Martí, Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa). The report details impact on audiences around the globe including people in the world’s most repressive media and political environments.

The BBG’s PAR follows on the heels of BBG’s latest strategic plan, Impact through Innovation and Integration, which sets an over-arching objective of making BBG the world’s leading international news agency working to foster freedom and democracy with the goal of reaching 216 million people weekly by 2016.

This year there were significant audience increases in Afghanistan, where RFE/RL and VOA together reach 75% of adults weekly; in Egypt, where Alhurra TV doubled its weekly audience to 15% in tandem with the Arab Spring; and in Indonesia, where VOA’s aggressive affiliate strategy has boosted weekly audiences to some 38 million adults.

Audiences in many other strategically relevant countries held strong. In Nigeria, VOA retains its position as a news source of record with 23 million weekly listeners. In Burma, VOA and RFA reach 26% and 24% of adults, respectively, amounting to a weekly audience of 10 million.

Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming; and Pakistan, where the media market is increasingly fragmented and use of radio is declining.

While radio remains the BBG’s number one media platform, reaching 106 million people per week, television’s growth puts it at 97 million people. The Internet audience was approximately 10 million, with the largest online audiences measured in Iraq, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran.

Download 2011 Performance and Accountability Report (PDF)

BBG 2011 Audience Overview (PDF)

BBG Research Methodology (PDF)

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

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

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

Read full report.

CUSIB will benefit from Dr. Lenczowski’s public diplomacy expertise and his advice on international broadcasting issues.

As President Reagan’s Soviet affairs adviser, John Lenczowski was instrumental in increasing funding for Voice of America and Radio Free Europe broadcasts to Poland during Solidarity’s struggle for democracy.

He is author of “Full Spectrum Diplomacy and Grand Strategy” (Lexington Books, 2011).

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) describes itself as a nonpartisan, nongovernmental organization working to strengthen free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries with restricted and developing media environments. Its website states that CUSIB supports journalism in defense of media freedom and human rights and works closely with the executive branch, Congress, and media to promote effective multi-channel delivery of news and information to overcome press censorship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to read the original post:
Officials hail Voice of America TV interview in Persian with Hillary Clinton; then what about TV to China?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VOA building in Washington, D.C.

As said before, this alleged “plan” isn’t new. It’s recycled and repackaged a bit, but the goals are the same, the primary one being eliminating US international broadcasting. Whatever is left will be something else, but it won’t be a broadcasting entity. Perhaps it will be a mediocre Internet website, blocked in countries where there is still a substantial radio audience (as in China) and otherwise lost in the cacophony of cyberspace. And that’s on a good day, when the BBG (Broadcasting Board of Governors) websites aren’t being attacked, hacked and otherwise neutralized.

As expected, the BBG has hired a consulting firm to try to map the way for implementing this “plan,” which we see as more of an idea rather than an actual plan with timelines and costs mapped out. It needs a contractor because agency officials can’t get their arms around what they are trying to pull off. That is not a good sign right from the get-go.

How much is this “plan” going to cost? This is the priority question that needs to be asked and to be responded to by the BBG in detail. To this point, what the BBG is doing is masking specifics and asking for a blank check from the Congress and the American taxpayer. The BBG and the IBB salesmen promoting this plan are long on big ideas but short on details – the kind of details needed for the Congress and the American people to decide if the expenditure is worth it.

The BBG talks about a five-year window for this ambiguous “plan” to be rolled out, complete and running. This seems like strangely familiar territory. Another government entity believed in five-year plans: the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union isn’t around anymore. Maybe that should tell the BBG something. But nevertheless, we now have the mindset of the Kremlin on C Street: the Cohen Building, along with a bureaucracy acting not unlike the Politburo. Quite a picture.

Let’s put funding in an important context:

According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) half of American families do not make enough income to file income taxes.

Half.

That’s puts an enormous burden on the other half.

At the same time, the mortgage and foreclosure crises continue to have a crippling effect on many American families.

Meanwhile, “Occupy Wall Street” protests have mushroomed across the country protesting financial practices, unemployment and what is seen as corporate greed. We won’t put a value judgment on the rightness or the wrongness of the protests. However, it is clearly evident that there is a substantial body of discontent and people have mobilized to express it.

On top of that there is the continuing problem with debt, both that carried by the US Government and personal debt on the part of individual Americans.

In short, the United States is in the midst of a very serious, multi-dimensional problem, the kind can be self-perpetuating, the kind that doesn’t go away overnight and the kind that requires some serious reprogramming of how the US Government goes about spending money.

With a problem of this size and scope, it is incumbent upon the Congress to demand an accounting by the BBG as to the price tag of its “new” strategic plan. And that’s the rub for the BBG. It isn’t used to being held accountable for the way it goes about spending public funds. It has gotten into the very bad habit of seeing the Congress (and by extension, the American taxpayer) as an ATM machine.

Lack of accountability and oversight invites waste, fraud and abuse. It is all too easy to hide failures and mistakes in increased funding. It is all too easy to plead for a few more millions to make things right or, in the BBG dreamscape, to make some kind of extraordinary breakthrough, as in the claim to create a “global news network.” In the past these outrageous claims have not been challenged. Worse, the agency hasn’t been held to timelines and price tags in order to allow Congress and American taxpayers to decide if the cost is worth the expense and if the cost is actually accomplishing something substantive.

Global news networks already exist. In head-to-head comparisons, the BBG can’t compete. The best example is in the Arab and Muslim world where al-Jazeera is the recognized leader. The BBG effort, al-Hurra, is not even in al-Jazeera’s rear view mirror.

Outside the Cohen Building, the vast and overwhelming majority of Americans don’t know about the BBG and US international broadcasting. And they don’t care. They have other priorities that cut deeply into their day-to-day, things like food, clothing and shelter, the rising costs of everything, their personal debt and so forth.

To these same Americans, their idea of effective “public diplomacy” is an unmanned drone dropping a Hellfire missile on terrorists in remote locations, disrupting terrorist planning and removing key leadership cadre. It also helps to salve over the wounds many Americans still feel from watching commercial airliners being flown into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and people jumping to their deaths on September 11, 2001. It may have been ten years ago, but for many, it still feels like yesterday.

Mr. Ensor, the new VOA director, equated the cost of all US international broadcasting to the price of one advanced fighter aircraft. Symbolically, he said it represents a “cheap date.” However, Americans know the value of that fighter aircraft (or the drone with the Hellfire missile) and its purpose in defending American citizens, our national interests and the safety of the nation. It is money well spent, particularly when seen effectively carrying out its stated purpose. People flock to air shows all over the country to see these aircraft up close and personal. They can put their hands on it, see it and clearly know what it does.

These same Americans don’t flock to the Cohen Building in big numbers.

In Mr. Ensor’s analogy, even a “cheap date” has to have some intrinsic value. The actions of the BBG over the last ten years and those projected outward for the next five of their Soviet-style five-year plan don’t demonstrate value. If anything, the Board and its IBB apparatchiks have devalued US international broadcasting with oversized claims that don’t have a basis in reality. Remember, Secretary of State Clinton pointedly remarked in congressional testimony, “We are losing the information war.” The agency responsible for losing the information war is the BBG. And there is your devalued “cheap date.”

Call it a “cheap date” or a “new” strategic plan, in either case, the result is the same:

We lose.

By the way, to get the “new” plan from its idea stage to reality could cost over $1-million dollars just in consulting fees alone if the contract with the consultant goes all the way and the BBG doesn’t cut it off. Procedurally, this sometimes happens when a consultant comes up with a different view of reality than that of the BBG.

The Federalist
October 23, 2011

In the October 2011 meeting of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the open session was made notable by remarks from Ambassador Victor Ashe, a member of the board.

Ambassador Ashe commented at some length about the recent employee survey. He noted some slight improvements in the survey results and other observations on employee-related subjects (both career staff and contractors).

Ambassador Ashe distinguished himself by his candor and his concerns. Keep in mind that among the current BBG members, he is the only one to make pointed remarks that put employees in the category of an important agency resource. This contrasts sharply with the impression one gets that the prevailing view among senior agency officials is that employees are expendable collateral, an inconvenient and annoying means to an end.

If this read of the situation is correct, it is quite likely that these other officials would be none too pleased to hear someone on the board speaking on behalf of the employees, both career and contractors, particularly on subjects related to employee morale.

As Ambassador Ashe indicated in his remarks, the contractor part of the staff (also known as “POVs,” purchase order vendors) are (a) a disaffected and unhappy group, (b) make up 45 percent of the total agency workforce and (c) are excluded from participation in the survey. Indeed, the situation being otherwise, if the POVs were able to participate in the survey, the results would likely increase negative responses, wiping out the meager improvements noted in the last survey.

For the career employees, please note: that same unhappiness experienced by the POVs may be visited upon your future, since it is a stated goal of the BBG strategic plan to de-Federalize the workforce completely. Well, almost completely. No doubt the senior staff will exclude themselves from that conversion. You can be certain that they will protect their interests and benefits before that of the workforce. One can imagine the joy, the rapture, on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building: no Federal employees – no survey, and perhaps more fertile ground for senior management bonuses.

Lest one think this is being too harsh, keep in mind that the track record of the agency is clear: meager improvements to survey results taking years to accomplish. This record demonstrates that employee morale and a process to substantively address employee concerns is as low a priority as the agency’s ranking in the survey itself

The Federalist
October 17, 2011.

Read this article:
Employees are expendable collateral — The Federalist

Speaking at an open BBG meeting on October 13, 2011, Ambassador Ashe acknowledged that despite a minor improvement in the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) annual Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey results for the Broadcasting Board of Governors, BBG remains near the very bottom among all federal agencies in terms of employee morale.

Link to the video on YouTube

Ambassador Ashe made his comments after meeting with the Voice of America employees who prepare programs for Africa. He also met with staffers who conduct employee training seminars.

Ambassador Ashe pointed out that 45 percent of all VOA employees are private contractors, whose views about the management are not surveyed by the OPM. He described these contract employees as “generally an unhappy group of people,” who — unlike regular VOA employees — are not entitled to various benefits and do not get regular pay raises. Private contractors working at the Voice of America, also known as POVs (Purchase Order Vendors), cannot even receive flu shots, which are available to other employees.

BBG Watch has learned from reliable sources that some BBG members and their executive staff were unhappy about Ambassador Ashe’s employee morale comments. BBG officials who implemented many of the existing policies have been consistently rated in the OPM surveys as being the worst managers within the Federal workforce.

At the same Broadcasting Board of Governors meeting on October 13, the BBG announced a new mission statement for U.S. international broadcasting operations. It emphasizes engagement with the audiences targeted by the BBG-managed media entities. The BBG also announced a new strategic plan.

The BBG has been criticized in the media and in Congress for proposing, as part of its new strategic plan, to end all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to China and to rely instead on the Internet, which is heavily censored by the Chinese authorities. The BBG plan has been blocked in Congress for the time being. The Senate Committee on Appropriations has criticized the agency management for lacking transparency.

The independent Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB), which was formed recently to promote journalism in defense of media freedom and human rights, announced that it will be reviewing the BBG strategic plan and asking its Advisory Board for opinions and recommendations to make sure that those who are denied access to news and information can receive it easily and safely from the BBG.

See original here:
BBG’s Victor Ashe raises employee morale issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link to the video on YouTube.

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

Read more:
BBG open meeting on October 13 to receive strategic review recommendations after a major rebuke by Congress

Read this article:
Newly-formed Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting vows to defend media freedom journalism

Sure, Democrats and Republicans in Congress do sometimes unite to support some uncontroversial causes or in opposition to human rights violations abroad. This time, however, they united against a federal agency with an annual budget of more that $700 million.

The reason for this unusual bipartisan unity? As China pursues aggressive public diplomacy in the U.S. and internationally and clamps down on dissent at home, BBG bureaucrats had a bright idea to propose the termination of Voice of America radio and satellite television broadcasts to China and the firing of 45 journalists who specialize in human rights reporting.

The BBG did not get anything from China in return but promised to spend money on putting more material on the Internet, which the Chinese censors block whenever users want to access VOA political news in Mandarin and Cantonese. The Congress did not buy the BBG’s argument that the future of VOA presence in China calls for more English lessons that are not currently being censored.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations, following a similar action in the House of Representatives, told the BBG to drop its plan. “While the Committee recognizes that VOA English language and cultural programs are reaching audiences, particularly youth, via the Internet in the PRC, the Committee is concerned with the lack of clarity about the impact of the China broadcast restructuring proposal on all VOA radio and television programs broadcast to the PRC and Taiwan, and the lack of transparency of ‘the optimize BBG transmission’ proposal.”

The committee refused to accept the BBG proposal and included funding for the continuation of VOA broadcasts and transmissions to China and other BBG-managed programs to countries without free media.

Read more in BBG Watch’s post Senate Committee on Appropriations tells BBG: VOA radio and TV to China must continue.

Also worth reading: Senate Committee to BBG: Hands off China Broadcasting by Dr. Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a bipartisan board comprised of nine members. Eight, no more than four from one party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio. The BBG manages all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television.

“I just got here, that’s true, and if I could be two people, one would stay here,” Diane Zeleny said in an email. She also wrote that “there are many challenges, but I think most can be overcome with creativity, dedication and humor… all of which you have in abundance.” Nice words from an accomplished public relations professional, but we don’t think that BBG employees alone can save the agency from itself.

The problem is not public relations experts whom the BBG tries to hire and can’t keep. The problem is the BBG’s distorted sense of mission pushed upon inexperienced members by incompetent executive staff. Of course, if BBG members knew enough about international broadcasting, journalism, human rights, and violations of media freedom in countries like China and Russia, they would not allow themselves to be led astray. Unfortunately, most don’t, and one outside PR expert cannot win against a number of BBG executives with their own bureaucratic agenda against the Voice of America and its journalists specializing in human rights reporting.

Diane Zeleny could not help the BBG because its current strategy of dealing with countries like China and Russia, as well as dealing with Congress, is way beyond help. It’s not Diane Zeleny who should be leaving but those who came up with this strategy.

This is not the first time the BBG tried to get a PR guru to help defend an indefensible position. As the previous board was ending VOA radio and TV broadcasts to Russia in 2008 and firing VOA journalists, BBG members tried to hire Paula Zahn and John Cochran to be their spokespersons. Neither took the job.

The strategy that the BBG should have been pursuing is simple: work closely with Congress on producing uncensored news with a human rights focus — something that BBG journalists would do anyway if not prevented by BBG executives and consultants who want softer news less likely to offend dictators and more suitable for local placement and social media — and deliver them using all available platforms (multimedia).

Rather than compromising with authoritarian regimes to get on their regime-controlled networks, use channels that these regimes cannot control or easily block: satellite TV (can be interfered with but less likely to be jammed than shortwave radio), shortwave radio (can be jammed in some limited areas but never completely), and yes, Internet and social media — but never make them your only program delivery option to countries like China and Russia.

Again, it’s very simple: hard news, human rights, no compromise with authoritarian regimes, multimedia program delivery, non reliance on any single platform, building partnerships with media freedom and human rights NGOs, Congress, independent journalists abroad and your own journalists. Then and only then, the BBG can have a successful PR strategy.

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

— Joseph Bosco

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

“Television and radio,” wrote Bosco, “are still the most effective media to convey dramatic images and descriptions, as well as to provide in-depth discussion, of contemporary historic events. They are also the only contact with the outside world for the millions of Chinese without Internet access.”

As China country desk officer at the Pentagon, Bosco participated in VOA’s and RFA’s Mandarin-language programs. “I can attest to the value of sharing information and ideas directly with Chinese citizens, who want unfiltered communications with the outside world,” he wrote for Politico.

In his first appearance on VOA, shortly after the 2001 EP-3 incident, when a Chinese fighter jet harassed and collided with a U.S. reconnaissance flight in international airspace, he told callers pertinent facts that the Chinese government had withheld in its distorted version of the event.

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

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

It turns out that China has had considerable success censoring the Internet, however. It blocked coverage of the Egyptian crisis, except for the scenes of chaos and violence. Within Egypt, the Mubarak regime managed to shut down the entire system. Washington should not make Beijing’s task even easier by removing or limiting the most important uncensored communications tool available to Chinese citizens. New technologies should supplement, not supplant, traditional communications that are often more reliable and effective — and sometimes the only international link.

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

 Sourced from: BBG Watch

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) wants to end all Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to China on Oct. 1. BBG members should read these recent news stories which may show that they and their executive staff have no first-hand or other direct experience of what life under authoritarian regimes is like and what dissidents, pro-democracy activists, and those who are the most oppressed expect from the United States.

A recent BBG statement on threats to free media around the world did not mention China while at the their last meeting BBG members were ecstatic about a VOA English teaching video in Mandarin, which the Chinese cyber police allowed on the Internet in China.

Apparently, the Chinese censors are not offended by words like “All of the icky stuff that comes out of your face!!, eye gunk, sleepies, earwax, booger, snot, drool, slobber, pimple/zit/blemish” — which the delightful and very talented Jessica Beinecke teaches the Chinese youth to use.

We’re not saying that such videos have no place in VOA programs to China, but BBG members could have perhaps benefitted from also watching this video.

Direct link to this video.

Compare the previous video with the next one, which BBG members loved so much that they forgot to include China in their statement condemning assaults on free media. Quite a contrast!

Direct link to this video.

OK. Keep producing such videos that the Chinese cyber police will allow.

By the way, since this is our first BBG Watch Politburo Media Review, we looked at the Voice of America English website and did not find any China-related human rights stories. But we did find this story, Meet Tara (Again), Graduate Student from China and Fashionista, no doubt highly recommended by your social media private consultants whose only experience of human rights violations was probably limited to being denied computer access by their American parents.

OK, Meet Tara has some redeeming content, although not much. But what will happen, BBG members, to “Free Chen Guangcheng” video and VOA radio and television interviews with those Americans who are trying to help him and thousands of other political prisoners in China?

You want to end VOA satellite TV to China on October 1, as well as radio. Do you really think that the heavily jammed and not very well-known Radio Free Asia is enough? RFA does not have satellite television programs and neither will VOA after Oct. 1.

Does that mean that Voice of America will represent American views on China with content such Yucky GUNK!, since this is about the only material that the Chinese censors will allow on the Internet. And what happens when they ban it when it becomes too popular.

We will be posting these media roundups, which we call BBG Politburo Media Review, to help focus BBG members’ attention on the real information needs of people living under authoritarian and totalitarian regimes.

Just as Soviet Politburo members used to receive digests of Radio Liberty and Voice of America news reports, we believe that BBG members are also entiled to uncensored news that offer a more realistic picture of life outside the Beltway and outside of the United States than they can get from their executive staff, even if such information is already readily available.

National Endowment for Democracy

China’s protests ‘could crystallize into broader movement’

http://www.demdigest.net/blog/2011/09/chinas-protests-could-crystallize-into-broader-movement/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+DemocracyDigest+%28Democracy+Digest%29

Reporters Without Borders

ACTIVISTS ATTACKED WHILE TRYING TO VISIT HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER UNDER HOUSE ARREST http://en.rsf.org/chine-activists-attacked-while-trying-to-20-09-2011,39533.html

Women’s Rights in China

Former Chinese political prisoner says Voice of America must not retreat from China

http://www.usgbroadcasts.com/bbgwatch/2011/08/22/voa-cannot-retreat-from-china/

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers

Personal Prison Prepared for Forced Abortion Opponent Chen http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=419

Amendment for Blind Activist Chen Guangcheng Passes Today

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=316

Urgent: China’s Blind Forced Abortion Opponent Needs Your Help (New Chen Guangcheng Video)

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=296

Obama Kowtows to Beijing — Voice of America Broadcasting into China to be Slashed

http://www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org/blog/?p=80

Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers:

“I believe that the VOA Mandarin Service has been singled out for the chopping block precisely because of its effectiveness – it has been the leading international broadcaster into China for nearly 70 years and has an enormous following inside China. VOA has been a thorn in the side of the Chinese Communist Party by exposing, for example, the persecution of human rights lawyers and the use of forced abortion to enforce China’s hated One Child Policy. My interview about China’s One Child Policy on VOA’s Mandarin Service generated an ardent and wide-ranging discussion, in which people from all over China called in to comment and discuss. The interview gave Chinese citizens a national forum in which to debate passionately held beliefs – an opportunity they otherwise would not have had, but for VOA.”

 Sourced from: BBG Watch

Link to YouTube video.

Meehan said that he refrained from saying anything until the actions (presumably, the removal of reports that he considered misleading and the dismissal of the service chief) were taken by the VOA management. He also said that he is fully committed to press freedom and that charges against him were unfair.

“We’re here to protect the journalistic mission of this place. If not, I could just resign,” Meehan said.

The BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson agreed with Meehan, offered his full support and stressed that the agency is working hard against censorship around the world. The BBG issued a statement about threats to journalists in various countries, including Iran, but it did not mention China, Russia, or Ethiopia. The BBG terminated VOA radio and TV broadcasts to Russia in 2008 and plans to end VOA broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese. The latest BBG plan has generated strong bipartisan opposition in Congress (the full House Committee on Foreign Affairs voted to block it) and was criticized by Chinese human rights activists and U.S.-based human rights organizations.

Ethiopian Americans and media freedom advocates staged the largest ever anti-censorship demonstration in VOA’s history. They were protesting in front of the BBG and VOA headquarters in Washington, DC after news stories about the BBG delegation’s visit to Ethiopia filed by the Horn of Africa service reporters were removed from the VOA website, the service chief was dismissed, and VOA reporters were prevented from covering two Ethiopian American political events, being told instead to focus more on human interest stories.

According to reports in Ethiopian American media, the VOA Horn of Africa service chief was removed after the Ethiopian regime complained to the BBG that he revealed the content of sensitive negotiations between Ethiopian officials and three BBG members: Michael Meehan, Susan McCue, and Dana Perino. The BBG delegation was pushing for placement of VOA radio reports about health on local regime-controlled networks in line with the current BBG marketing strategy which aims to expand audience reach by offering soft programming that could pass government censors in countries like Ethiopia, China, and Russia.

Several years earlier, the Ethiopian regime threatened VOA journalists working in Washington with the death penalty and charged them with treason. These charges were later dropped after protests by the State Department and media freedom organizations.

Michael Meehan, a Democratic Party operative, was nominated to serve on the bipartisan BBG by President Obama and was confirmed by the Senate. In 2010, he was accused of shoving a reporter on who was trying to ask questions of a Democratic U.S. Senate candidate with whom Meehan was walking near the Capital in Washington, D.C. Meehan apologized afterwards and said that he did not know that the person asking questions was a journalist.

–Approval of the merger of BBG and IBB staffs under the IBB director. And approval of revised grant agreements (no specifics given) with the grantee organizations (RFE/RL, RFA, and MBN).

–The BBG has created a Commission on Innovation, with members including James Montgomery of BBC Global News.

–An FM relay (presumably for Radio Sawa) will be set up in Benghazi, Libya, after the transmitter was held up for three weeks by Egyptian customs. An FM relay transmitter in Tripoli, Libya, will follow.

–A “direct-to-home” satellite feed for VOA and RFA Mandarin will be established on Telstar 18, the “number one ranked” satellite in China. The feed will consist of audio and still visuals, some of which will display the URLs of proxy servers to allow access to the VOA and RFA websites.

–USIB news bureaus will be consolidated. This includes VOA and MBN in New York, London, Cairo, and Jerusalem. VOA and RFE/RL “are working towards” co-locating in Moscow in 2012. VOA and RFA “are working towards co-locating in places such as Bangkok.” Governor Victor Ashe mentioned that RFA was subject to a drive-by shooting in Phnom Penh, and the VOA office in Phnom Penh, a mile away, knew nothing about it.

–A consultant will look into the consolidation of USIB.

–MBN president Brian Coniff reported that a new survey in Egypt shows the Alhurra audience has doubled to nearly eight million.

Read full report

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

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

“Security risk. Blocked for your protection.”

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

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

This explanation raises some questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Priceless.

The Federalist
September 2011