Pity those of us who monitor the ups and downs of China’s popular microblog platform, Sina Weibo. For every story its users spread in defiance of local censorship, there follows a clampdown.

Whether it’s the latest strike against rumors, or real name registration, or newly banned keywords, there’s always another restriction in the works as the service struggles to keep a lid on sensitive conversations without driving away its user base. “China tightens grip on social media,” we might report, as the Financial Times did in April. And last October. (The U.K.-based newspaper also noted China’s grip tightening on lawyers in March.) It’s not that these headlines are misleading. They simply show how difficult it is to illustrate the grip that always tightens, but never quite suffocates.

View post:
Blog: Chinese microblog regulates, suspends users–again

Victor Ashe

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

Rep. Walter B. Jones

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

Rep. G.K. Butterfield

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

Rep. David Price

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

The official BBG announcement:

BBG Rededicates The Edward R. Murrow Transmitting Station

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

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

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

The Murrow Transmitting Station

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

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

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

Edward R. Murrow

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

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

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

Broadcasting Board of Governors

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

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

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

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

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

CPJ’s new analysis identifies Eritrea, North Korea, Syria, Iran as worst

Originally posted here:
10 Most Censored Countries

News of blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng has been censored for months. International news reports of his escape last week from incarceration in his home in Linyi, Shandong–apparently to U.S. protection, although his whereabouts remain unclear–has only intensified that censorship. That is unlikely to stop discussion among those familiar with Chen’s case.

Visit link:
Blog: Blind lawyer spurs news blackout in China

One of the organizations protesting the BBG’s decision to terminate VOA Tibetan radio is the Association of Tibetan Journalists based in Dharamsala, India. These Tibetan journalists working in exile have appealed to the United States Congress “to continue its support for the Voice of America Tibetan Radio Service on the grounds of the principles of right to information and freedom of expression.” The appeal was addressed to the House Appropriations Committee.

Open Letter to Members of House Appropriations Committee

25 April 2012

Dear Members of Congress,

This is a letter of appeal requesting your support for the continuation of the Voice of America Tibetan Radio Service broadcast inside Tibet in the FY2013 Budget.

We, the Association of Tibetan Journalists (ATJ) based in Dharamsala, India, appreciate all the efforts and support by the US Government towards the Voice of America Tibetan Section since 1991. However with the current spate of Self-Immolations by Tibetans against the repressive Chinese Government policies we believe that this is not the time or the place where free media and right to information for the Tibetans inside Tibet is cut-off on any grounds whatsoever. Not only that, as reported by Reporters without Borders, Tibetan Writers have been arbitrarily arrested and major blogs like sangdhor.com and rangdrol.net have been shut down. Such is the situation inside Tibet.

Especially in Tibetan Autonomous Areas (TAR), with the massive censorship, Voice of America Tibetan Radio service is one of the most important uncensored media, which is available. Dolma, a recent arrival from Lhasa, Tibet states that, “I and many like me used to listen secretly to VOA Tibetan service to get information not only about the International news but also about what is happening in other parts of Tibet. I feel that VOA Tibetan service not only gives me information but I also learned a lot about Tibetan culture and history”.

We on behalf of the voices from inside Tibet would like to urge the US congress to continue its support for the Voice of America Tibetan Radio Service on the grounds of the principles of right to information and freedom of expression.

The ATJ was established in 1997 and is an independent non-profit organization that aims to facilitate the free, fair and accurate delivery of news and information regarding Tibetan communities both inside and outside of Tibet. We have over 30 members in India and Nepal working for media organizations including Voice of America, Radio Free Asia, Voice of Tibet, Tibet Times and Tibet Express.

Yours Sincerely,

Ms. Lhakpa Kyizom
President, Association of Tibetan Journalists

Mr. Gurbum Gyal
Vice President, Association of Tibetan Journalists

Signed PDF version can be downloaded here: ATJ-Open-Letter

The writer, who uses the pen name Jan Palach, was responding to questions posted earlier by another anonymous RFE/RL employee:

“Is anyone actually noticing the disaster being perpetrated against Radio Free Europe by its new management? Is anyone going to stop this madness?”

The RFE/RL journalist wrote that according to what he had been told, only four BBG Governors are likely to attend the June Board meeting in Prague. That information is subject to change and BBG members may participate in the meeting by telephone. Granted, that is not the same as being in Prague and being able to talk to RFE/RL employees. That requires getting away from the RFE/RL top management handlers who will no doubt hover over the Governors. BBG Watch received reports earlier that RFE/RL President Steven Korn tried to discourage BBG members from going to Prague. He reportedly cited the need to save money. Subsequently, he himself embarked on a number of foreign travels. There was speculation that he did not want Board members to poke around RFE/RL.

The anonymous journalist presents three theories circulating among RFE/RL employees in Prague with regard to what their management is doing and what may be the BBG’s plans regarding the future of RFE/RL. These theories do not necessarily reflect the truth, but they are symptomatic of a work force being kept in the dark and deeply unhappy with their management.

It is not likely that the Obama Administration or BBG Governors have a single master plan for RFE/RL. BBG Governors often do not agree with each other. The Board is bipartisan. Recently, some BBG members have been trying to assert their authority vis-a-vis the BBG and IBB staff and are asking difficult questions.

The BBG executive staff is a different story. They do want to keep as much control and power for themselves and to manage information reaching BBG members. Their plans change depending on what may be in their best interest at any given moment. They also look for a patron among Board members like Walter Isaacson or S. Enders Wimbush. Walter Isaacson is gone and with him went some of his grandiose plans. With BBG members becoming more inquisitive, the BBG executive staff will have a more difficult time building up their bureaucratic empire at the expense of journalism. This may potentially be good news for RFE/RL. Let’s hope it is.

We offer this opinion piece by an anonymous RFE/RL journalist for further discussion.

Does anyone care about Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty?

opinions gathered by anonymous RFE/RL journalist

Is anyone noticing what is happening at RFE/RL? That is a really good question. As I read this site, most of the attention for the past month or so has been on VOA, Tibet and China, so I do not think we on the forefront of anyone’s mind at the Governors or BBG staff. In fact, we were told on Monday that only four Governors are expected to come to Prague in June for that month’s board meeting. This is a very strong signal that at least four members of the board are not that interested in learning how their actions are affecting our work. Perhaps they are afraid to look us in the eyes, after providing us with a management team that places little value on the actual journalism we are presenting to our audiences.

As to the original questions posed I assume by one of my colleagues here at RFE/RL, I have heard three theories as to why our current management behaves the way they do.

The first is that they are truly in over their heads. Our President did some tangential work for CNN and his friend former Governor Isaacson brought him on board because he dreamed of reliving that triumph by creating a new CNN. Once he realized that competing with private news outlets was not what the U.S. taxpayers hired him for, Chairman Isaacson left, and now President Korn is left without clear instructions, and is now looking to find a new path. This would explain his recent attempts at outreach to the RFE/RL staff. If we were not too afraid to give him the advice of the collective experience of hundreds of journalists, we might be able to redirect his efforts more productively.

The second theory is that the current team was chosen to make us more compliant when it comes time to consolidate the operations of the grantees. Maybe after a year or two a senior management team that shows very little interest in our actual work, we will be so happy for the opportunity to work for someone else, that we will willingly embrace the change of management, even if it means a change in the focus of our journalism.

The third theory is the most widespread amongst my colleagues, which is unfortunate as it is the one that most affects morale. The theory goes that President Korn was brought in to close down RFE/RL, and that ignoring our output and shifting our focus from radio to the web, our stories will be lost in clutter of available information on the internet. This assumes that unfriendly governments will not be blocking access to our websites, which is a dubious assumption at best. The overriding sentiment of backers of this theory is that the U.S. Government does not want to continue to fund U.S. International Broadcasting, and they have instructed the BBG to move away from radio and TV, put all of us onto the internet to wither and die on the vine. Then when it is shown that our message is being lost, it will be easy to convince Congress that USIB is no longer needed.

Regardless of the validity of any of the above theories, my colleagues and I will continue to do our best for the audiences in our respective home countries until such a time as we are no longer needed by them or wanted by the BBG.

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

When talking to Congressional staffers about shortwave radio reception in China, BBG executives put together about ten random samples of Voice of America Mandarin shortwave transmissions which showed that between the Chinese government’s jamming and co-channel interference about 95% or more of what VOA broadcasts can’t be heard.

These BBG executives could have just as well do a demonstration for Congressional staffers of Internet access in China to Voice of America Mandarin and Cantonese websites. It would have shown that the Chinese government’s blocking and censorship of VOA Chinese websites is about 99% effective unless one is a computer whiz kid who can access proxy servers before the Chinese cyber police discovers and blocks them.

The truth of the matter is that these BBG executives want to eliminate the Voice of America as a U.S. broadcaster in China and to fire dozens of VOA journalists specializing in human rights reporting. Their argument about developing new media program delivery is a hoax, since using new media is by and large free or inexpensive and the Voice of America Chinese Branch already makes a good use of it. What these BBG bureaucrats want is to take money and resources from serious Voice of America journalism and to use them for themselves and their private contractors.

The demonstration put together by these BBG executives for Congressional staffers was purposely incomplete and misleading. Voice of America shortwave radio broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese can in fact be heard outside of the main metropolitan areas in China and even in some big cities at certain times. National Public Radio (NPR) correspondent reported recently that Tibetan Buddhist monks in Tibet secretly listen every night to VOA Tibetan shortwave radio programs. BBG executives should be asked how these Tibetan monks manage to listen to these shortwave broadcasts if jamming is 95% effective.

Recently, a group of Voice of America radio listeners in China put together a video to show how important these VOA broadcasts are to them and to many disenfranchised and oppressed political, social, religious, and ethnic groups. The Broadcasting Board of Governors wants to pretend that groups like these do not exist and that VOA would be better off producing noncontroversial programs, such as English lessons, that would appeal to a mass audience and be approved by the Chinese censors.

BBG executives are so obsessed with faulty audience research that they don’t see the big picture. English lessons are designed to attract listeners to substantive news on VOA. They are not an end in themselves. These bureaucrats have no idea why Tibetan monks and others in China want Voice of America radio.

Women’s Rights in China (WRIC) NGO has produced a short video showing that both very young and older persons in China continue to rely on Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts for uncensored news and information. Their comments, recorded in China, point to the censorship of the Internet by the Chinese authorities and the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese cannot use the Internet to access VOA websites, which are being blocked in China, or can’t afford to have Internet access of any kind because they are too poor.

The Voice of America celebrated last year the 70th anniversary of broadcasting to China. Its supporters in China seen in this video wish VOA happy birthday, which almost could not have been celebrated as the U.S. agency responsible for these broadcasts wanted to stop them shortly before the 70th anniversary date.

Thanks to numerous protests in China and in the United States, members of Congress from both parties prevented the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from implementing its plan to end VOA radio and TV programs to China on October 1, 2011, which happened to be the anniversary of the founding of communist China. The BBG again wants to end VOA radio and television in Cantonese. BBG executives also want to terminate VOA Tibetan radio programs.

Women’s Rights in China Video was recorded in China by WRIC volunteers. Those appearing in this video have shown a lot of courage by admitting on camera that they are listeners to VOA radio broadcasts, but please note that their names are not used. They know that listening to VOA radio is safer than using the Internet.

Link to the Women’s Rights in China video on the 70th anniversary of Voice of America broadcasting to China.

The BBG staff’s presentation on Capitol Hill was highly misleading. Here are some counter-arguments:

1. Since the samples are all from urban or built-up areas, what about samples from the countryside? What anecdotal evidence do they have regarding jamming from Chinese individuals who have listened to VOA from rural areas that have either escaped or emigrated to the U.S.?

2. What active measures have the IBB taken to overcome jamming? Have they shifted frequencies or bands on a random or radical basis? Have they transmitted from various transmitter sites to change the incoming angle (i.e., North – South, East – West, over the Eural mountains, etc) in order to make jamming more difficult? By not attempting to overcome jamming, isn’t this a form of “surrender” in the War of Ideas? Does the BBG believe we are involved in a War of Ideas with China or that they have a role to play in its prosecution?

3. Have they experimented with “twilight” transmission (within an hour before and an hour after sunrise and sunset) when propagation patterns change and make jamming more difficult?

4. Do they see any potential with digital transmission in the shortwave (DRM)? Have they conducted any experimentation whatsoever with DRM in China?

5. If shortwave transmission to China is so poor, why is the BBG intent on continuing – if not upgrading – RFA shortwave transmission while eliminating VOA transmission?

6. Is the BBG in agreement that VOA and surrogate programming have entirely different purposes and that neither should be “homogenized” nor turned into a hybrid service or not?

7. Have they distributed or proliferated shortwave radio receivers, particularly to individuals in these disenfranchised communities? Do they see any value in giving poor populations more shortwave access?

Finally…

8. Shortwave is the only way to communicate with the economic and politically disenfranchised desparate individuals in China. These are people that suffer the most from human rights abuses and the ones that are most in need of VOA programming. As Dr. Lenczowski so eloquently states, it is VOA programming that helps reduce the “atomization” of politically disenfranchised individuals that are separated from each other by the totalitarian regime and they cannot coalese political power. Most of these individuals continue to live in poor areas where there are no electrical infrastructures in their communities. Therefore, it is impossible to communicate with them on the Internet or via social media since they have no electrical access whatsoever let alone the economic wherewithal to purchase Internet products. Does the BBG still consider this demographic group as a target population for VOA programming or are they only interested in reaching the “movers and shakers” and youth populations that have Internet access in the urban areas?

If the BBG is not interested in continuing an appeal to this particular demographic group, there is a serious disconnect between the BBG leadership and the journalists in the various language services. From my observation, the disenfranchised demographic in our target areas is the one that most of the journalists in most of the language services are most interested in reaching. If this is not the same concern of the BBG then there needs to be a serious re-education of either the BBG leadership or the journalists. If this is the case, this disparity between the preferred target audience of the BBG leadership and the target audience of the majority of the VOA journalists is a contributing factor to the low morale in our building. There is no wonder the BBG ends up at the bottom of the list of Federal government agencies in the Human Capital survey of employees.

This is how Jing Zhang, a former political prisoner in China who now lives in the United States and runs Women’s Rights in China, explained the importance of Voice of America radio broadcasts for the audiences that the Broadcasting Board of Governors wants to forget about:

The Internet offers undeniable advantages. However, it cannot replace radio broadcasting. In today’s China, foreign radio broadcasts in Chinese are still a crucial source of outside information for the majority of the population who lack access to the Internet. Voice of America not only provides indispensable and truthful news reporting, it also upholds the image of the United States and is a valuable antidote to the Great Foreign Propaganda Plan of the Chinese regime. Not only would the elimination of VOA’s Chinese language service be contrary to the spirit and values of America’s Founding Fathers, it would inflict irreparable harm on generations of dissidents and advocates of freedom and democracy, and silence the most vulnerable groups in Chinese society—the women and children.

READ MORE: Former Chinese political prisoner says VOA must not retreat from China of Ms. Zhang’s appeal.

It is one of the primary targets in the proposed 30% reduction in VOA broadcast operations.

It is a place with an estranged relationship with its managers who are seen as defensive at best, vindictive at worst.

It is being saddled with a set of production objectives which are impossible to meet, mainly involving the time-consuming requirements to integrate the disparate needs of radio, television and agency websites.

It is being used as a clearinghouse for commingled content between itself and the agency grantees which have different missions and standards which raises a number of other serious concerns.

The latest reaching the Federalist from various sources:

On Thursday, March 15 (the Ides of March no less), VOA Director David Ensor held a meeting with Newsroom staff. He got an earful. He may not have been happy with what he heard. Nevertheless, he needed to hear it, directly from the staff feeling the consequences of poor/hostile management and the disarray as the direct consequence of BBG/IBB decisions adversely impacting on Newsroom operations.

Ensor should take staff input seriously, rather than accepting the sycophancy coming from Newsroom management.

In the Newsroom and elsewhere in the Cohen Building: threats, intimidation and bullying are poor substitutes for leadership. They have become an institutionalized part of the agency’s management philosophy. It makes the agency what it is: a hostile work environment. These are not qualities. They are liabilities, along with the people who perpetuate their existence. They don’t need to be encouraged, much less condoned or supported. They are not hallmarks for an effective and mission-successful operation. They are the basis for failure.

Mr. Ensor may not have experienced a reduction-in-force (RIF) firsthand. He should be concerned. If you haven’t been through it, it would be unwise to allow one’s ego to dismiss the effects caustically. The effects are felt long before the actual event.

In an agency with a long history and tradition, such an action is a breach of faith with the workforce. Ensor would be well served to remember what he said some months ago in a previous meeting with the Newsroom staff – his comment about the place not being the same with what is to come. Worse, if what the BBG/IBB proposes comes to pass, it would likely be one of the largest RIFs on record in the agency – fertile ground for things to get messed up or manipulated.

In short, Mr. Ensor has it right. It won’t be the same.

It will be worse.

There are certain things which VOA does well. They should be the top priority, rather than the BBG/IBB “flim flam plan” approach of trying to reinvent the wheel. The BBG/IBB likes to throw caution to the wind, rely upon cheesy and arrogant pronouncements and tamper with core operations.

One of the things the agency doesn’t do well is television, with elongated production costs, staff and time requirements. In this regard, too much of what the agency is doing is cheap television done badly. Shortcomings in other areas aside, this is the one thing capable of taking the whole place down. One of the principle fault lines for this is the Newsroom.

It is no secret that we are big believers in radio: it is immediate, it is right now, it is covering the news as it happens. Everything else comes – later.

The message to Mr. Ensor and the BBG/IBB is simple: play to your strengths, not your weaknesses.

Start with the Newsroom. Bag the notion that big cuts to the Newsroom operation will make things better. Forget it. It won’t. Not even remotely.

Beware of cheap television done badly.

The Federalist
March 2012

“For a journalistic organization, it is shameful and exploitative to omit such an essential piece of information,” one former VOA journalist told BBG Watch, “especially since these officials know that supporters of freedom in Tibet, human rights organizations and many members of Congress are trying to stop the BBG from ending Voice of America Tibetan radio broadcasts. Media in communist-ruled countries uses similar techniques to manipulate public opinion.”

See official BBG announcement: “The Dalai Lama: Then And Now.”

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) member Michael Meehan and BBG’s Director of Strategy and Development Bruce Sherman will speak about their embattled federal agency’s new strategic vision for US international broadcasting at a panel discussion later this month organized jointly with Gallup which recently landed a controversial 50 million dollar audience research contract with the BBG. Also see the BBG announcement: “Gallup Joins BBG To Examine Media Freedom.”

The “Media Freedom and Public Confidence: Informing, Engaging, and Connecting the World through the Media” panel discussion will take place March 28, 2012 from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at The Gallup Building at 901 F Street, NW, Washington, DC. Attendance is by registration.

The announcement says that the discussion will focus on how the world’s populations perceive media freedom within their countries. The panelists will also share data on citizens’ confidence in their media.

The joint BBG/Gallup event may offer an opportunity for the public to learn more about the controversial agency which one US Senator described as the most worthless organization in the federal government. Its officials are consistently given the lowest leadership and management ratings in the annual Office of Personnel Management (OPM) employee opinion surveys. Their union reports that employees have no confidence in the strategic plan and reforms announced recently by BBG officials.

BBG employees, their union and human rights groups all point out that while attacks on free press intensify around the world, the BBG is pushing for major cutbacks in broadcasting to countries without free media as part of the proposal for reorganizing US international broadcasting. Critics see it as an attempt by BBG officials to save their bureaucratic jobs at the expense of critical broadcasts and journalistic positions which they want to eliminate to protect theirs from budget cuts. A BBG spokesperson implied that keeping Tibetan and Cantonese radio broadcasts by both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia during a period of tight budgets would be irresponsible.

An anonymous Voice of America journalist said, however, that the decision to end VOA radio broadcasts in Tibetan and to abolish the VOA Cantonese Service suggests that the Broadcasting Board of Governors “has gone mad.” “This is happening on the day China’s Vice President Xi Jinping, heir apparent of the communist regime, arrives in Washington on a get-to-know-you visit. This is happening while Tibet is burning. A day after the 23rd Tibetan monk self-immolated to protest unprecedented Chinese crackdown on their religion,” a journalist wrote.

Bruce Sherman who will speak at the joint BBG/Gallup panel is the chief BBG strategic planner behind unprecedented recent and previous cuts to Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts to Tibet, China, Russia, and Afghanistan as well as major proposed reductions in VOA English and Spanish news programs. The event will offer an opportunity for Sherman and Meehan to explain the silencing of the Voice of America to most of the world and for members of the public to ask questions about the BBG’s strategy and its restructuring plan.

Michael Meehan is one of nine members (there is currently one vacancy) of the bipartisan Broadcasting Board of Governors which manages all civilian US government-funded international broadcasting. The majority of BBG members have approved the latest programming cuts, although senior Republican member Ambassador Victor Ashe has been raising objections about some of the Board’s decisions and plans, including the price tag of the audience research contract with Gallup, and expressing concern about poor management and poor employee morale.

Jim Clifton, Chairman and CEO of Gallup, is scheduled to speak at the event. At about the same time the BBG had voted to approve the 50 million dollar five-year contract with Gallup, it had also decided to end numerous broadcasts, mostly at the Voice of America, and to eliminate positions of over 200 broadcasters and support staffers.

Despite these programming cuts, the BBG’s administrative organization, the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), has added dozens of new positions in the last two years to support far fewer programs. Critics argue that much of the audience research the BBG needs is either free or can be purchased at a much lower cost, while audience research in China and other countries ruled by authoritarian regimes is practically impossible to conduct among the intimidated population without getting highly biased results.

Even when audience research results are accurate, critics argue that by applying commercial marketing analysis to what are unique US taxpayer-supported journalistic programs, BBG and IBB officials have shown their inability to draw program planning conclusions that are appropriate for US broadcasters who are required by law to speak on behalf of the United States and are committed to promoting human rights and democracy.

One critic said that while good audience research is absolutely essential, seeing the larger geopolitical and foreign policy picture combined with the ability to interpret the data for a non-commercial US government-funded broadcaster with a unique public mission are even more important. This ability has been spectacularly absent among BBG strategists, the critic told BBG Watch.

Critics have also accused BBG officials of insisting on programming changes based on audience research results which showed that audiences in countries like China and Russia object to strong criticism of their governments’ human rights records. BBG officials and their private consultants reportedly have made these demands during program and audience research reviews with BBG broadcasters, arguing that suggested programming changes will enable them to improve audience ratings. Some journalists who objected to these orders were dismissed or their programs eliminated by BBG executives. BBG experts reportedly told the Voice of America Russian Service not to refer to the Russian military attack on Georgia in 2008 as an invasion because according to their research audiences in Russia object to such an description.

BBG journalists reported that officials have also transmitted to them requests from repressive regimes and affiliate stations abroad demanding limits on political reporting while asking for less controversial non-political coverage.

The original BBG’s founding mandate was to protect the Voice of America and other taxpayer-supported international broadcasters from frequent past interference with news reporting from the State Department and the White House, but critics charge that interference from the BBG and its audience researchers and strategists can be even more insidious.

In their FY2013 budget proposal, BBG officials insist that there is duplication between the Voice of America and the so-called private surrogate broadcasters such as Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Officials claim that rather than relying of the federally-owned and federally-operated Voice of America, the job of informing audiences about the United States and US policies can be done in many countries by privately-run broadcasters also managed by the BBG.

These plans have met with strong bipartisan opposition in Congress which last year had blocked the BBG plan to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China. Unlike the surrogate broadcasters, the Voice of America has a Congressionally-approved Charter to inform the world about the United States.

Critics describe the BBG cuts to the Voice of America as an indirect attempt to de-federalize it by transferring assets to private broadcasting entities under BBG’s management and lessening Congressional and public scrutiny over all US international broadcasting.

The latest BBG proposal to end VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet and VOA Cantonese broadcasts to China at the time of increasing reports about self-immolating Tibetan monks and people seeking basic human rights in China being sent to languish in the Laogai –- re-edcuation through labor camps — have sparked an outrage among human rights organizations.

The International Campaign for Tibet NGO has included an appeal to Congress to continue VOA radio programs to Tibet. The online appeal has already produced thousands of messages to more than 470 congressional offices, the International Campaign for Tibet reported. One BBG critic said that BBG strategists seem completely unable to understand political and human rights dimensions, such as the suffering of the Tibetans and Chinese dissidents, that audience research in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba cannot properly capture.

Critics also point out that BBG strategists have an unusual record of proposing US broadcasting cuts shortly before major international crises or assaults on human rights. The latest BBG program cutting proposal preceded a major spike in repression in China and Tibet, while the BBG’s 2008 decision to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts to Russia came just days before Russia launched a military attack on neighboring Georgia. In another planning blunder by BBG strategists, the proposed VOA Chinese broadcasting cuts in 2011 were to take effect on the anniversary of the founding of communist China. The latest BBG proposal again calls for ending Voice of America radio broadcasts to Georgia.

In justifying previous and current proposed cuts, BBG officials insist they need to transfer resources from broadcasting to support new media technologies. But critics charge that since many of these technologies are free or inexpensive, the money taken from US government broadcasting to strategically important countries like China and Russia is wasted on the BBG and IBB bureaucracy and lining the pockets of big private contractors while contract employees are being shamelessly exploited.

An anonymous VOA journalist wrote that in addition to ending Voice of America Tibetan radio, BBG strategists are decimating VOA broadcasts to the Laos (4 out of 6 employees), Vietnam (10 out of 15 employees) and Cantonese to China (all 7 employees). The journalist observed that the BBG is cutting America’s broadcasts to three out of five remaining communist regimes. The journalist added that while planning all these cuts, the BBG promoted Bruce Sherman to an SES position, hired an SES director for the Office of Digital Design and Innovation, hired a BBG communications director, another SES. All three SES positions were created as the Broadcasting Board of Governors was planning to eliminate dozens of rank and file journalists. “Who needs this Board that cannibalizes its own worker bees to feed itself?” — the journalist asked.

Bruce Sherman and Michael Meehan will have a chance to respond to this and similar questions at the joint Broadcasting Board of Governors and Gallup panel discussion in Washington on March 28.

View more information and register for this event on the Gallup website HERE.

Monday and Tuesday more than a hundred Tibetan-Americans and Tibet-supporters will convene in Washington, DC to raise Tibet with their Senators and Representatives. With a few clicks you can help amplify their message today. Please join us and send a message to Capitol Hill that constituents across the country care about Tibet.

Every message counts! Please send one today—and encourage your friends and family to do so as well by tweeting about #TibetLobbyDay and posting this on Facebook.

To send the letter to your Congressional Representative and Your Senators CLICK HERE.

###

SAMPLE LETTER

Members of Congress,

I write to thank you and your colleagues in Congress for a record of leadership on Tibetan issues and a commitment to provide programmatic and political support for Tibetans in exile and in Tibet.

Tibet is in crisis today. The Tibetan people are taking great risks to speak out for freedom and the return of the Dalai Lama. In response, Chinese security forces have imposed virtual martial law in many Tibetan areas, imposed a communications blackout, and blocked foreign journalists from reporting on the situation. It is vital that Congress and the international community help give Tibetans a voice.

Tibetan-Americans and Tibet supporters live in communities across the country. We recognize that the Chinese government has a well-funded and sophisticated lobby operation in Washington, D.C. But we are empowered by the unflinching courage of six million Tibetans who struggle against Chinese oppression every day and by the leadership of His Holiness the Dalai Lama whose life’s work is the advancement of non-violence, human-dignity and a just solution for Tibet.

Congressional leaders from Speaker Boehner to Senator Feinstein have stood next to His Holiness the Dalai Lama and pledged their solidarity with the Tibetan cause, and Presidents Obama and Bush have publicly supported the Dalai Lama’s approach.

At this time of crisis, concerted Congressional action will signal to Tibetans and Chinese that the world is listening.

You can show your support for Tibet by:
1. (Senate) Cosponsor S. Res. 356, calling on the Chinese government to end its crackdown and address the legitimate grievances of the Tibetan people.
>> Bipartisan resolution (Feinstein-McCain-Lieberman) urges Chinese officials to end repressive policies targeting Tibetans and allow unrestricted access to foreign journalists and diplomats to Tibet.

2. Preserve Voice of America Tibetan radio broadcasting, and sustain funding for other Tibet support programs in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill.
>> VOA radio, proposed for elimination, offers perhaps the only uncensored source of world news in Tibet, due to the Chinese government’s severe restrictions on media.
>> The other small but indispensable investments in Tibetan communities support the Dalai Lama’s vision of preserving the Tibetan identity until a political solution is achieved.

3. Update the Tibetan Policy Act of 2002 to respond to new developments in Tibet and within the Tibetan exile community.
>> New legislation should (a) articulate a relationship with the democratically-elected Central Tibetan Administration, (b) take a clear position that the reincarnation/succession of the Dalai Lama is up to him and the Tibetan people, not the Chinese government, (c) require the State Department to establish a consulate in Lhasa, Tibet, (d) urge a multi-lateral approach to resolving the Tibet issue and (e) include objection to forced resettlement of Tibetan nomads in “Tibet Project Principles.”

4. Advocate on behalf of Tibetan political prisoners, including Dhondup Wangchen, Lobsang Tenzin, Tenzin Delek Rinpoche, Runggye Adak, Norzin Wangmo and Gendun Choekyi Nyima (Panchen Lama).
>> See www.savetibet.org for more information

5. (House) Cosponsor immigration legislation, H.R. 699 to provide 3,000 immigrant visas to qualified Tibetans over a 3-year period.
>> This bill (Sensenbrenner-George Miller), would further the Dalai Lama’s goal of helping preserve Tibetan culture in exile. Immigrants would be easily absorbed by established Tibetan-American communities.

Thank you for your support for Tibet.

Sincerely,

[ NAME ]

BBG Super Executives out of touch with reality

by Judy

This is the best analysis of BBG that I have ever read!

It would be nice if BBG would return to its basic mission of broadcasting to the world. Does anyone know about the (mostly ignored) VOA Charter? The Charter’s language is specific: “… communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio.” It doesn’t say “the current hot spot” or “the countries that BBG and IBB managers want to visit next” or even “selected parts of the world.” But the Charter is just a silly U.S. Public Law and BBG is above the law. They’re the Government.

BBG’s only important “audience” is within their own building and within eyesight of their building. Their audiences overseas are just incidental, judging by the Board’s actions, and their employees overseas are considered as unwanted nuisances. How much better the world will understand things when all BBG components become poor imitations of YouTube with unverified “news” and garbage from school kids and government propaganda bureaus around the world.

Funny thing is … BBG’s employees have many years of experience and expertise. They know their audiences and they know what’s important. It’s the Super Executives who are completely out of touch with reality. Oh, they have their own “realities” of course: bonuses, fund-raising for a politician, setting up high paying jobs they can step into in a year or two. It’s good to be best friends with deep-pocket contractors and, of course, the President.

If anyone ever wants to actually go back to the Charter, they might consider talking with BBG employees, including those overseas, and State Department and Military members who have lived overseas and know the peoples of various countries.

by Another Voice

I have not seen the case for keeping shortwave alive made so succinctly and powerfully before as in “We Know Who the Enemy Is.”

It suggests a way ahead, one that would preserve shortwave for the tens of millions of listeners in countries that lack reliable free media — and that at the same time, would grow the Internet — because that is where present and future thought-leader and elite audiences will be.

It would eliminate the real dinosaur: the paradigm of broadcast and cable TV.

Because, after all, why IS VOA currently so focused on television?

Could it be simply because the agency is now run by people who used to work in commercial TV — and who lack the vision to see that the very reason they’re not working at CNN or ABC News now is because TV is not where the future is?

The internet is making broadcast and cable TV news obsolescent everywhere.

So, maybe what VOA needs to do is:

1) Preserve and grow the 100-million strong shortwave audiences by offering both short-form and long-form radio news and features, plus music, arts and science programs — not based on TV new’s dumbed-down, ever shallower formulas, but on NPR’s (and the old VOA’s) intelligent, absorbing, engaging, and often deeply rewarding programming — where stories were as long as they needed to be. Or as short.

2) Focus equally on the Internet. Make VOA web sites the platform for magazine and newspaper-style stories, video interviews and features of any length, and five- and ten-minute documentaries, both radio and video.

and:

3) Discontinue the expensive and wasteful emphasis on making each and every story a narrated TV package of three minutes or less. (See the recipe here: http://tinyurl.com/y8ff5nu) Some stories should be text with video. Some should be non-narrated video. Some should be slide shows with text. Some stories should be interviews. All should be on the web.

Reaching hearts and minds with important ideas and valuable culture — not just disposable spot news — used to be VOA’s mission. But the shallow, content-light, formula-driven TV packages that VOA increasingly specializes in must barely register across different cultures, much less reach hearts and minds.

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

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

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

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

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

How the U.S. Can Reach Iran

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Voice of America: Tibetan sources say a mother of four has died after setting herself on fire to protest government policies in Tibetan areas of China

Radio Free Asia: Two Female Tibetans Burn to Death

While National Public Radio reports that Buddhist monks in Tibet listen secretly to Voice of America (VOA) Tibetan shortwave radio broadcasts every night, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has announced recently that it plans to end these broadcasts. “Tibet and China are crucial target audiences for BBG news and information content. But where there are two BBG broadcasters in the same language, we must seek economies,” a BBG spokeswoman said. Anything less, she said, would be irresponsible in a time of tight federal budgets. She did not address the issue of the constantly growing BBG bureaucracy, hiring new highly paid BBG officials, their $10,000 bonuses, and a new multi-year $50,000,000 contract with the Gallup Organization to conduct audience research in countries like China where getting accurate audience data is close to impossible because of fear of government repression.

This is how BBG spokeswoman Ms. Letitia King explained the plan to end VOA radio broadcasts in Tibetan:

“Under the FY 2013 budget request, Radio Free Asia would continue its service to Tibet in three dialects via shortwave and satellite audio while the Voice of America would focus on satellite TV and drop radio broadcasts in Tibetan. As part of this media redistribution, RFA would assume VOA’s prime radio transmission hours, ensuring that the people of Tibet continue to have access to U.S. international broadcast news. This decision was informed by field research showing that Tibetan audiences more often access VOA’s news and information via television rather than radio”

Edite Lynch who comments on this decision by the BBG lives in Canada. Her parents were refugees from totalitarianism.

Broadcasting Board of Governors Needs Sensitivity Training on Tibet

by Edite Lynch

The Broadcasting Board of Governors’ (BBG) plan to end Voice of America (VOA) radio news broadcasts in Tibetan to Tibet is an extremely worrying prospect that will affect everyone who lives there. The Chinese regime wants to commit a cultural genocide in Tibet and slowly rid Tibet of its language, faith and culture. They want create a Chinese enclave. This is a horrifying vision of what can happen to Tibet and its leader, the Dalai Lama.

The members that compose the group called the BBG seem unwilling to listen to many voices reaching out to them to let them know how greatly the basic human rights of Tibetans are being violated.

The members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors require a sensitivity training that would outline for them in very graphic terms exactly what will happen to Tibet and its people, as well as to many millions of others, whose hope for any kind of future at all lies with the American model of democracy, its human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.

It is incredibly incomprehensible that persons who serve on the BBG should present themselves as the exact opposite of what people around the world who live under dictatorships want from America.
Victims of oppression cannot comprehend or accept the false budget restraints on the very issues that give rise to their hope, light and humanity.

The lady who self-immolated herself did not do this to act to be a martyr to a cause and leave her four children to be raised by strangers or God-willing by relatives.

Despair is a powerful reason why human beings self-immolate.

They see no hope, no future for themselves or their children. Has any member or family member or extended family, even a friend of any of these Board members ever been victims of genocide, experienced loss of all and any human rights, even a right to life itself?

Their actions, and their disinterest in the very real issues of truncating the VOA to anywhere where it is vitally needed are extremely worrisome. It is not something that should be undertaken without the most seriousness of thought. These actions are not based on any knowledge of what the end result will be. There is no consideration in these decisions for the humanity of those who will suffer their consequences.

To pretend and actually put forth a claim that the internet is a good alternative is in direct contrast to what every smart government agency knows. The internet is unwieldy and not a reliable tool for broadcasting anything that won’t be subject to local censorship, blocking, cyber crime and hacking by host countries who do not want American news and culture to be heard and thus depriving the people of what they should in all honesty be able to access if they so desire.

Considering the number of decades devoted by America and Americans to the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and learning about how important an asset these radio broadcasts were and continue to be, should play a very large part in any decision making process for the BBG.

It is not humane to deprive of something so essential people who exist and live in far worse conditions than any of us.

So why then, would a Potemkin type illusion be put forth in this instance? Why declare that all of this foolishness is money driven, which in reality is not true.

It is being driven by political machinations, which in and of itself is downright deceitful and not worthy of American justice and liberty.

Justice and liberty is what the American flag has represented to millions around the world and now without a shred of logic or comprehension, this Board, this BBG, wants to decimate and annihilate something that has worked successfully for decades and helped millions.

Shame on the BBG and those who are inciting their actions.

Follow this link:
Russia – Draft electoral law provision threatens freedom of expression

After the budget announcement meeting from two weeks ago, my colleagues and I now know what our President meant when he kept saying that, “Prague would be just fine” after the merger of RFE/RL, RFA and MBN.  What he meant was that after all the reductions coming before the merger, we can hardly expect to lose more broadcast personnel and still maintain the integrity of our broadcasts.  

From what I can tell by his speech, over 80% of the people who will lose their jobs are coming from those who produce news.  This is based on the assumption that the nine management positions that will be cut were actually necessary.  

From what he said, six of these have been empty for quite some time, two were recently let go and one is retiring soon.  So are these really cuts? Or are they just words used to trying to trick us into thinking that our management will be “suffering cuts” along with the broadcasters?   Are we in Broadcasting actually expected to shoulder closer to 90% of the reductions?  

Regardless of the percentage, we are now being asked to produce the same level of content , manage social media sites and write blogs with less people.  Meanwhile the offices on the fourth floor remain fully occupied.

Now to be fair to President Korn, I am sure most of these cuts were in the works before he took the job, and he did say in the meeting that he did not agree with a lot of what was being asked of us in terms of cost savings, and that he will fight to turn back some of these cuts if he can.  If this is true, it will have been the first time that he has communicated a desire to work in the best interests of RFE/RL, as opposed to touting the BBG party line.   

He also recently sent an email telling us that if we have concerns about what is going on, please feel free to stop by and speak to him personally, an open door policy that has not been previously communicated to the staff.   The fact that President Korn’s  open door policy began the day he left Prague for a month notwithstanding, both of these changes  are positive steps, though a long time coming and perhaps too little, too late.  

One can only believe that if he had begun his tenure with the attitude that he was hired to lead us, as opposed to carrying the water for the BBG’s Strategic Plan, we would have a more balanced approach to cost savings.  I am writing this in hopes that President Korn’s actions will match is words, but only time will answer that question.

Read another commentary by Jan Palach: Message to Broadcasting Board of Governors: Yes, some of us are cowards and we are ashamed.

The BBG  executive staff, now part of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) reporting to IBB director Richard Lobo, has been persistent in trying to close down numerous VOA broadcasting services or to reduce their programs. In 2007, these BBG executives wanted to cut the number of hours of radio to Tibet. A demonstration on Capitol Hill by Tibetan Buddhist monks and an unequivocal admonition from Congress thwarted their plans. Last year, Congress again thwarted their plans to end VOA radio and TV programs in Mandarin and Cantonese to China. This year, BBG executives again proposed to eliminate all VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet and to close down the VOA Cantonese Service. Many other VOA broadcasting services are also slated to be cut or reduced, with the loss of 170 VOA positions.

The BBG’s proposal calls for the elimination of VOA radio broadcasts to Georgia, a country facing a major threat from Russia and internal threats to freedom of the press. The VOA Georgian Service had already been slated to be shut down in 2008. “However, the war with Russia saved us within one day,” wrote a VOA staffer. (It did not save VOA Russian radio and television programs, which went silent 12 days before the war started. The BBG staff refused to resume them in response to the war emergency.)  Because of the Russian-Georgian conflict, the Georgian Service was allowed to go from 30 minutes to one hour of daily radio broadcasts. But the BBG staff was determined to eliminate VOA radio to Georgia sooner or later.

For historical reference, this is how the BBG staff treated the Georgian Service in 2008 shortly before and after the Russian invasion of Georgia:

After the Russian-Georgian conflict had started, the BBG “approved continuation of VOA Georgian surge broadcasts for the foreseeable future” — not “indefinitely,” which would have been a proper term to use if the BBG wanted to send a strong message to former President, now Prime Minister Putin and assure VOA Georgian broadcasters that their work is valued and should continue. The press release, drafted by the BBG staff,  reminded instead VOA Georgian broadcasters that all BBG broadcasting to Georgia was to be done by RFE/RL after September 30, 2008. There was not a single word of thanks for their heroic efforts to keep VOA broadcasts on the air. Reduced by the BBG cuts to only a four-person team, they have fought exhaustion, working without any days off since the crisis started.

In their FY2013 budget proposal, the BBG wants to cut four positions from the VOA Georgian Service.

“At this point, we have six positions, although only five are occupied. By this decision, we will be reduced to two staff positions. The VOA Director is saying we will retain several contractors,” wrote a VOA staffer.

“The Budget proposal is calling for a more TV-oriented Georgian Service. We do not know how we can do this with only two people on staff. The Service is demoralised. We feel this is crippling, especially since our staff was completed only a year ago,” wrote a VOA broadcaster.

In December 2010,  the Service started a brand new TV program ( the first TV production by the VOA Georgian Service). It is broadcast on a nationwide public TV channel in Georgia. “It was well received by audiences and journalists,” wrote a VOA staffer.

But, as with many other VOA television programs placed on local networks abroad, there is a problem of journalistic integrity and adherence to the Voice of America Charter, a Congressionally-passed Public Law which mandates accurate, balanced and comprehensive coverage by VOA.

A VOA source reports that the Voice of America Georgian Service has “asked” not to produce Georgia-related political news reports for their television program being placed on the public TV channel in Georgia.

“We believe that this restricts us in communicating with the audience about the most pressing topics,” wrote a VOA staffer, “but for now we seem to be stuck with this affiliate network.”

This is a common problem for many VOA broadcasting services. Local affiliates dictate what kind of programming or reporting is or isn’t acceptable. If VOA does not comply, they take VOA programs off the air. These demands often originate with local regime and government officials who object to VOA news reports and want to ban or restrict them.

Television is particularly prone to this kind of pressure. Radio is less affected, but some local radio affiliates also try to restrict political coverage. “By crippling the Georgia Service by staff reductions, we will no longer be able to provide radio broadcasts, which — unlike television — are a major avenue for our political news reporting,” wrote a staffer. “We can say much more on the radio, and get much more of it out despite attempts to censor our output.”

A Voice of America source close to the situation listed several other factors contributing to the demoralization among the VOA Georgian Service staffers. They are convinced that BBG officials want to cripple VOA broadcasting to Georgia:

- Voice of America  Georgian Service was recognized for its 6o years of broadcasting last December when BBG Governor Victor Ashe and VOA Director David Ensor presented us with a commemorative plaque. We believe that both Governor Ashe and Director Ensor were honestly trying to be helpful and supportive, but no doubt BBG staffers knew at that time what they were planning to do to our staff and our broadcasts and other BBG members went along with their plan without asking questions that ought to be asked.

- Russia continues to occupy 20 percent of the Georgian territory.

- Georgian media is ranked as partly free by Freedom House. The television market is increasingly controlled by the government. In the meantime, the Voice of America Georgian Service is being “asked” not to produce Georgia-related political reporting for its television program. We believe that this restricts us in communicating with the audience about  the most pressing topics, but for now we seem to be stuck with this affiliate.

- The Voice of America Georgian Service represents the only American news media presence in Georgia. Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is obviously not in the same category. Broadcasting to Georgia is in the national security interests of the United States. By crippling the VOA Georgian Service with staff reductions, we no longer will be able to provide radio broadcasts, which — unlike our television program  – are a major avenue for our political news reporting.

- The Voice of America Georgian Service is to lose for staffers. At this point, we have six positions, although only five are occupied.

- By this decision of the BBG, we will be reduced to two staff positions. The VOA Director is saying we will retain several contractors who are exploited, poorly paid and have no rights or benefits. They can also be fired without any recourse at any time. BBG officials also want to fire most of our staffers.

- The BBG Budget proposal is calling for a more TV-oriented Voice of America Georgian Service. We do not know how we can do this with only two staff positions.

- The Voice of America Georgian Service is demoralized. We feel this is crippling, especially since our staff composition was completed only a year ago. 

- In December 2010,  we started a brand new TV program ( the first TV production by the VOA Georgian Service) broadcast on a nationwide public TV channel in Georgia. It was well received by audiences and journalists. 

- We feel the cuts and reductions proposed by the BBG staff are unfair since the Georgian Service has been performing extremely well despite not being given enough time to show its full potential — in radio, TV and web — after our last minute revival in 2008. It is just not fair.

- We feel that the next step of BBG executives, after crippling and reducing the VOA Georgian Service, is its closure. This is happening when media freedom in Georgia is worsening, critical parliamentary and presidential elections are coming up, the government is stepping up pressure on the opposition, and anti-American rhetoric is growing among the society at large. With the Russian elections in March and Putin’s expected victory, the situation in Georgia can only go sour, especially within the Russian controlled territorial enclaves. With Russia’s military presence inside these separatist regions and a potential for instability and conflict affecting U.S. military, political, economic and other interests in the region, Voice of America radio broadcasts in Georgian serve a vital national security function.

Almost every weekday morning, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) sends out “BBG in the Media,” a digest of news and commentaries about U.S. international broadcasting, also referred to as “Media Highlights.” But as in the Soviet newspaper Pravda, some U.S. and international stories just don’t make it into the BBG Media Highlights. They can be classified as “bad propaganda” and as such they must be banned, just as Soviet Pravda ignored any news story that did not meet the Party’s standard of what was “good news” about the USSR and “bad news” about the capitalist world.

For example, the National Public Radio (NPR) reported yesterday that “The [Buddhist] monks [in Tibet] listen secretly to Voice of America’s Tibetan service news every night, despite feeling almost physical pain at the bleak news.” “Protests, Self-Immolation Signs Of A Desperate Tibet,” by NPR’s Louisa Lim.

Good news for VOA? Not really.

You might think that the Broadcasting Board of Governors would highlight this NPR report about the effectiveness and the need for the VOA Tibetan radio broadcasts in Tibet, perhaps even issue a special press release. But you would be wrong.

The BBG has proposed in its FY2013 budget to eliminate Voice of America Tibetan radio programs. Calling attention to the desperate need for these VOA radio broadcasts among Tibetan Buddhist monks and other Tibetans would not be good public relations for this mismanaged federal agency.

The NPR story from Tibet did not make it into the BBG Media Highlights. BBG has gone Pravda, and it’s not the first time. And it’s not just the BBG. In Pravda-like approach to journalism, the Voice of America English website ignored a story about a fake interview with a Russian opposition figure posted by the VOA’s own Russian Service.

But why ignore a story about Voice of America’s success in Tibet? Perhaps images of Tibetan monks hovering around a radio and listening secretly to VOA reminded slick BBG bureaucrats too much of the Cold War. They want everyone to think that U.S. international broadcasting is about modern technology and straightforward reporting using new media for iPhone using consumers. Tibetan monks don’t fall into this category. Any associations with the Cold War and radio broadcasts are “bad news.” Anything that contradicts BBG executives’ thinking and decisions is “bad propaganda.”

Some propaganda, however, merits inclusion into the BBG Media Highlights. It helps if it’s propaganda not of American origin and includes attacks on America, such as those by Putin supporters in Russia or a North Korean tourist guide spewing Pyongyang’s propaganda claims. Then it is not really propaganda, it is a necessary part of “balanced reporting.” Since VOA was criticizing Mr. Putin’s old employer, the KGB, for years and years during the Cold War, it’s time to give the other side a chance to respond.

When a top level Voice of America manager, became impressed a few months ago with a VOA video report from North Korea, he insisted on issuing a BBG/VOA press release. The report consisted mostly of North Korean propaganda, but he thought it was cool to have a VOA reporter in Pyongyang, so it was highlighted by the PR team. The Tibetan Buddhist monks apparently did not meet the standards of what passes at the BBG for “good propaganda.”

Another story that did not make it into the BBG Media Highlights was PRI’s The World report by Mary Kay Magistad “Growing Rift Between Hong Kong and Mainland China” over the use of the Cantonese language. Why? The Broadcasting Board of Governors has proposed in its FY2013 budget to eliminate the Voice of America Cantonese Service. Again, one should not call attention to the fact that both Chinese communist regime officials, and the Obama Administration acting through the BBG, are undermining the Cantonese language and the young people’s movement in Southern China to defend their local culture and democracy.

Yet another report that did not make it into the BBG Media Highlights was RadioWorld story “CUSIB ‘Outraged’ at BBG Budget Proposal.” RadioWorld reported that the nongovernmental Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting was outraged by the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ Budget for FY2013 that proposes to cut and reduce Voice of America English and foreign language programs and positions, as well as programs and positions at Radio Free Asia (RFA) and at other U.S. government-funded international broadcasting entities managed by the BBG.

The BBG Media Highlights also ignored Ted Lipien’s op-eds in The Washington Times, “VOA Harms Putin Opposition in Russia,” and The Washington Examiner, “US Taxpayers Funding Pro-Putin Programs.” They could not ignore, however, an NPR report, “Russian Accuses Voice of America Of Fake Interview,” because it included statements from VOA director David Ensor.

Even during the Soviet times, Politburo and Central Committee members would receive a secretly-prepared digest with real news from the West, including transcripts of reports by Radio Liberty, Voice of America, and BBC. One would hope that in addition to preparing their “BBG in the Media” digest for the less sophisticated general public, the BBG Public Relations Office also provides presidentially-appointed BBG members with a politburo-type secret media digest that includes not just “good news” but also “bad news.” That may not be the case, however, considering the Board’s decision to cancel VOA Tibetan radio programs. BBG members apparently did not know about media reports of a protest by Tibetan Buddhist monks on Capitol Hill in 2007 that forced BBG bureaucrats to drop their earlier plan to reduce radio broadcasts to Tibet.

If BBG executives can put out a press release about a North Korean propaganda video, they should be able to put out a press release about Tibetan Buddhist monks listening secretly to VOA radio. We dare them to do it and then explain to Congress why they want to shut down the VOA Tibetan Radio Service. Perhaps Lynne Weil, the newly-hired Director of Communications and External Affairs who has extensive experience on Capitol Hill and with the State Department’s public diplomacy outreach, can explain to BBG members how to turn a Pravda-like public relations strategy of the current BBG management team into something that might actually work.

Here is another old Soviet-era joke for you that went something like this: Every morning a man would pick up a copy of Pravda at a newspaper stand, look at the front page and then throw the paper with disgust into a trash can. Intrigued by this unusual behavior, the newspaper stand seller asked the man, “Why do you buy Pravda just to glance at the front page and throw it away without even opening it.” “I’m only interested in the front page news,” replied the man. “I’m looking out for a death notice.” “But death notices are not on the front page,” said the seller. “I assure you, the death notice I’m looking for will be on the front page,” answered the man.

Perhaps a perestroika in the ranks of the Broadcasting Board of Governors executives and managers is in order.

Lobsang Gyatso, a 19-year old monk from Kirti monastery in Ngaba, self-immolated on February 13, 2012.

“The [Buddhist] monks [in Tibet] listen secretly to Voice of America’s Tibetan service news every night, despite feeling almost physical pain at the bleak news.” – NPR reporter Louisa Lim

As reported for National Public Radio (NPR) by Louisa Lim, “Protests, Self-Immolation Signs Of A Desperate Tibet,” “The [Buddhist] monks [in Tibet] listen secretly to Voice of America’s Tibetan service news every night, despite feeling almost physical pain at the bleak news.”

In her NPR report, Louisa Lim describes scenes of repression of the Tibetans by the Chinese regime and of desperation among the local population and Tibetan monks:

“‘Too many of our people died this year,’ one monk told me, referring to nearly two-dozen Tibetans who have set themselves on fire as a protest against Chinese repression. Identifying details have been removed to protect those who talked to NPR.”

NPR did not report in this story that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that manages the Voice of America, has just proposed to terminate VOA Tibetan language radio programs. This news has not yet been widely reported by American media. The BBG also wants to close down the VOA Cantonese Service, thus targeting two languages and cultures which are also being suppressed by the communist regime in Beijing. The Voice of America Tibetan Service was established in 1990 by an act of Congress and went on the air in 1991.

This is what one anonymous Voice of America journalist wrote after hearing the news that the Broadcasting Board of Governors was planning to end VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The annonymous Voice of America journalist reported that as Broadcasting Board of Governors executives were planning to abolish Voice of America radio broadcasts to Tibet and fire journalists, they have created several new top level bureaucratic positions for themselves.

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

Critics blame the overall culture of mismanagement and contempt for rank-and-file journalists by a small group of entrenched executives who have just proposed to cut $17 million form the VOA budget. They plan to end VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet, to eliminate the VOA Cantonese Service and to cut more than 200 positions.

Meanwhile, Voice of America broadcasts to Iran and Russia continue to attract negative attention for poor performance and, in the case of the VOA Russian Service, favoring a pro-Kremlin view while ignoring American viewpoints on human rights violations in Russia and Vladimir Putin’s autocratic rule. America’s enemies in Russia, China and Iran have good reasons to cheer. U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Washington Examiner.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is also being criticized for mishandling broadcasting to the Middle East by BBG-run Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa.

A Bloomberg editorial, “U.S. Broadcast for Iran Might Be Free, But Doesn’t Have to Be Cheap: View,” asks: “Programs that go on and on. Shows that lack focus. Graphics and production values that make Iranian state TV look hip by comparison. Why has the U.S.-run Persian News Network been so bad for so long?”

The Bloomberg editorial notes that the Broadcasting Board of Governors just announced a 2013 budget that would cut VOA’s allocation by $17 million. “The network should cancel them [proposed budget cuts] and focus on what it can do well,” the editorial says in reference to the VOA Persian satirical TV program “Parazit.”

The PNN web site is off-putting, the editorial notes. The Bloomberg editorial concludes that “When a well-executed show like ‘Parazit’ can begin to undercut the legitimacy of the Iranian regime, there’s no telling what a superlative network could do.”

Hussain Abdul-Hussain, the Washington Bureau Chief of Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai, who used to work for the BBG-managed Alhurra TV, wrote in The Huffington Post article, “Alhurra and the Arab Spring,” that “VOA Arabic had a respected Arabic Service, but the Bush administration decided to replace” it with Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV, which — he argues — undermined both transparency and accountability.

“There is one thing in common between Congress-funded Arabic TV, Alhurra, and countries of the Arab Spring. Both have unaccountable leaders, who have been in place since forever, and who look like they are staying indefinitely,” the journalist wrote. He also noted that “Since then, the leaders of Alhurra and Sawa, none of them a journalist, have remained in place and have outlasted administrations and Congresses.”

Link to Washington Examiner op-ed by Ted Lipien.

Ted Lipien, a former Voice of America (VOA) acting associate director, has been warning for some time that marketing and staffing policies pushed by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executives have changed the focus of VOA and other BBG broadcasters from serious, accurate and well balanced journalism to ratings-chasing entertainment and sloppy reporting produced by inexperienced, poorly paid, otherwise exploited, unsupervised and unedited contractors, many without any background in American life and media.

In his latest op-ed in The Washington Examiner, Lipien makes this point again. Anticipating the expected line of defense of BBG bureaucrats, who refuse to acknowledge the problem and dismiss a recent “fake” interview on the VOA Russian website and charges of “pro-Putin bias” as atypical, Lipien cites a study by a prominent independent Russian journalist and new media scholar Dr. Nikolay Rudenskiy who found not just one but many examples of the Voice of America Russian Service website giving prominence to pro-Putin and pro-Kremlin views and failing again and again to provide an American perspective on human rights and media freedom violations in Russia.

Lipien was also interviewed by NPR’s Michele Kelemen who reported that a recent webcast on the VOA Russian Service site included a long statement from a Putin supporter in Russia without an effective attempt to counter or balance his pro-Kremlin views.

U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Ted Lipien – Washington Examiner
If American taxpayers had any idea what kind of messages Voice of America (VOA) is sending in their name and at their expense to Russia, they would be hopping mad.

Opposition leaders and independent journalists in Russia have warned that the VOA Russian website has a pro-Putin bias and downplays human rights reporting, but the latest scandal brings the harm to a new level. The VOA site posted a fake interview and embarrassed a leading Russian pro-democracy figure.

The VOA is funded by Americans to broadcast information programs to countries without free media. A leading Russian anti-corruption lawyer and Putin critic, Alexei Navalny, wrote a scathing Twitter comment accusing VOA of “going nuts.”

He dismissed the purported interview with him on the Russian website as “100 percent fake.” He further suggested that someone in Washington should start listening and “let all these guys go.”

The VOA Russian Service removed the interview and apologized to Navalny, no doubt hoping the scandal would soon blow over.

But the story was picked up by RIA Novosti news agency and other Russian media, which reported on it in Russian and English. Significantly, the VOA English website ignored the whole incident.

What we have here is not just an isolated journalistic flop. Russian opposition leaders have known for quite some time there is something fundamentally wrong with the VOA Russian website.

In early 2011, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that runs VOA, commissioned a study from a highly respected independent journalist living in Russia.

He warned that the website favored a pro-Putin line. It even downplayed a human rights speech delivered in Moscow by Vice President Joseph Biden.

The BBG bureaucrats did not highlight this damning assessment to members of the bipartisan board or to the new VOA director, David Ensor. They told them instead that the Russian Service was doing a terrific job.

On the day the Russian Service editors were getting ready to post their apology, Ensor praised them for being a model of innovation.

The fake interview was obtained by a newly hired contractor from Russia through an exchange of emails.

Someone should have known that pro-Kremlin activists have broken into email accounts of many anti-Putin leaders, but an editor, also recently hired as a contractor, gave his approval instead of doing further checking.

Even after the Russian Service apologized to Navalny, some of its staffers continued a whispering campaign accusing him of giving the interview and then lying about it.

A pro-Putin bias and scurrilous accusations against a courageous human rights activist may explain what kind of journalists the BBG has been hiring recently to manage the Russian website.

Some of them had worked for the pro-Putin media in Russia. To make room for these poorly vetted and poorly paid contractors, BBG executives retired experienced editors.

These officials also told the Russian Service not to be too harsh on the Kremlin because, according to BBG audience surveys, most Russians don’t like it. And that’s bad for ratings, they said.

They allowed VOA websites to be hacked a number of times. And, they failed to tell the Board promptly about the latest incident.

The same BBG officials are also responsible for drafting a plan to restructure U.S. international broadcasting that will be soon presented to Congress.

And, guess what, it would give them more control and turn the agency into an NPR-like structure with both international and domestic programs. It amounts to asking American taxpayers to continue paying for Putin’s propaganda.

Their latest proposal calls for ending VOA radio broadcasts to Tibet. Congressional committees with oversight functions need to step in and clean the place up before these failed bureaucrats do even more damage to America’s reputation abroad.

Ted Lipien is a former VOA acting associate director and co-founder of the nongovernmental Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB – www.CUSIB.org).

Link to the original article >> U.S. taxpayers funding pro-Putin VOA programs – Ted Lipien – Washington Examiner

New York, February 16, 2012–The Committee to Protect Journalists is deeply saddened by the death of New York Times foreign correspondent Anthony Shadid, a towering figure in international crisis reporting. Shadid perished following an apparent asthma attack while on assignment in Syria.

Continued here:
CPJ mourns the death of journalist Anthony Shadid

Without the grossly exploited POVs, VOA would be little more than Kafkaesque hallways of frustrated bureaucrats with no one to boss around. – Anonymous VOA journalist

A Voice of America journalist who uses a pen name Mary Jane has posed this problem:

As we stand on the precipice of collapse, crumbling and leaderless, fearing for our jobs while simultaneously wishing to be released from this torturous slow decay, a keen look at our so-called management is due.

Mary Jane promised to provide that look in several installments.

The series is titled “HOWL.”

Part One

“And yet, and yet, the corridors of the third and fourth floor continue to be staffed by those who do little but sign in and sign out, working desperately to be considered FoS (friends of Steve’s) while producing nothing. (Enhancement Team, for instance?) They toil every day, pushing papers, attending meetings, sending emails with words like “workflow” and “high value content,” words never heard at other news organizations, while the services, the actual journalists, are loaded with additional bureaucratic demands assigned by do-nothing managers. Without the grossly exploited POVs, VOA would be little more than Kafkaesque hallways of frustrated bureaucrats with no one to boss around.”

POVs – Purchase Order Vendors – are contract employees who usually work full time and do the same kind of work as regular government workers but at low pay (unless they are friends of top executives) and without any benefits, regular pay raises or most legal protections. Exploiting POVs and cutting broadcasting services have enabled Broadcasting Board of Governors managers to keep expanding their ranks and to protect their jobs.

Without the grossly exploited POVs, VOA would be little more than Kafkaesque hallways of frustrated bureaucrats with no one to boss around. – Anonymous VOA journalist

A Voice of America journalist who uses a pen name Mary Jane has posed this problem:

As we stand on the precipice of collapse, crumbling and leaderless, fearing for our jobs while simultaneously wishing to be released from this torturous slow decay, a keen look at our so-called management is due.

Mary Jane promised to provide that look in several installments.

The series is titled “HOWL.”

Part One

“And yet, and yet, the corridors of the third and fourth floor continue to be staffed by those who do little but sign in and sign out, working desperately to be considered FoS (friends of Steve’s) while producing nothing. (Enhancement Team, for instance?) They toil every day, pushing papers, attending meetings, sending emails with words like “workflow” and “high value content,” words never heard at other news organizations, while the services, the actual journalists, are loaded with additional bureaucratic demands assigned by do-nothing managers. Without the grossly exploited POVs, VOA would be little more than Kafkaesque hallways of frustrated bureaucrats with no one to boss around.”

POVs – Purchase Order Vendors – are contract employees who usually work full time and do the same kind of work as regular government workers but at low pay (unless they are friends of top executives) and without any benefits, regular pay raises or most legal protections. Exploiting POVs and cutting broadcasting services have enabled Broadcasting Board of Governors managers to keep expanding their ranks and to protect their jobs.

The Russian blogosphere erupted with comments today following an announcement
that the board of directors of the iconic radio station, Ekho Moskvy, will be changed. The timing of the development–weeks before presidential elections–and the potential consequences for Ekho’s editorial policy threw listeners into a frenzy of worry and speculation.

Original post:
Blog: Ekho Moskvy board shuffled ahead of Russian election

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

He wrote in his report that “the site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel.”

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

“Vice President’s [Biden] speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’ – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.” [rather than only the Kremlin's viewpoint]

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

“Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’ – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.”

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

“Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?

My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal.”

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

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

“Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus.”

“Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported.”

“A brief news item based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money: VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.”

“As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.”

“Timeliness … is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place.”

“On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening.”

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

Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?

”My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Editorial section appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia.”

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

Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.

”Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.”

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

Link to Video

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

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

He wrote in his report that “the site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel.”

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

“Vice President’s [Biden] speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’ – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.” [rather than only the Kremlin's viewpoint]

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

“Vice President’s speech in Moscow University , in which he criticized Russia ‘s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours’; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia ‘s ‘legal nihilism’ – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.”

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

“Overall Impression of Journalistic Quality: Is the journalistic quality of the website at a high professional and informational level?

My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired (see below.) The language, if mostly grammatical, tends to be bland and colorless, which reduces the appeal very much. This applies especially to headlines: new Russian journalism has developed a special culture of catchy and witty headlines, and an advanced user expects to find them. Many photos lack expression and appeal.”

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

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

“Such examples could be easily multiplied. On the positive side, I would like to mention an excellent article on government corruption in the North Caucasus.”

“Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported.”

“A brief news item based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money: VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.”

“As for the ‘market niche’ mentioned in the question, I’m afraid it can hardly be located at the moment.”

“Timeliness … is probably one of the website’s weakest points. As far as I could monitor, all big ongoing stories (Biden’s visit, Japan ‘s disaster) were reported with long delays compared to Russian online media. The piece on Biden’s planned meeting with human rights activists on March 10 was among top news a few hours after the meeting actually took place.”

“On March 12, information on the explosion at a nuclear power plant in Japan , which was distributed in the morning Moscow time, did not appear on the site till evening.”

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

Usefulness: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?

”My general answer to this one would rather be negative. The site provides quite an amount of diverse information, but not all of it seems relevant to the interests of the audience. A clearer focus on specific issues linked to VOA’s mission is needed. Independent forming of opinions by users could also be encouraged by more perceptive comments by high-level contributors – this is where VOA’s competitive position is rather weak. There are few if any bright columns by good authors; the Poedinok (Single Combat) section is entirely about international politics, doesn’t seem appealing to users and is updated at a slow rate. The Editorial section appears somewhat more useful; I wish it carried more on human rights and democracy in Russia.”

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

Does this site fill a clear niche that positively distinguishes it from others in the target area? Please explain.

”Based on what I said before, my answer to this question is definitely negative. The site provides little if any unique information or bright and perceptive comment, it appears rather mediocre in terms of journalistic quality or design, and it lacks focus on the topics where it potentially could excel. Reaching somewhat beyond the scope of this evaluation, I talked to several people I know in Moscow ; some of them are professionally involved with online media, others are not, but all are avid Internet users. The result of this informal poll was about as I had anticipated: nearly half of the respondents never heard of the VOA website, others just knew about its existence, and only a couple of media professionals had a more or less clear idea about it. I don’t recall VOA being quoted or referred to in the Russian segment of the Internet including social networks or in offline media. On March 18, I found VOA ranking 219th in the Rambler.ru list of online news sources while, for example, Radio Liberty (not exactly the most popular website) ranked 43d.”

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

Link to Video

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

See the article here:
Would Navalny visit Voice of America? Follow up to Washington Times op-ed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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