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

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

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

Alexei Navalny, photo by Alexey Yushenkov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBG Internet strategy downplays human rights reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before answering this one, I would like to present some general considerations. It seems pretty obvious that, to put it mildly, today’s Russia has big problems with freedom of the press. Even in the Russian segment of the Internet, which is not controlled by the authorities as closely as big TV channels and much of the printed media, objective information and free comment on politically sensitive issues are not readily available. Therefore, in my view, VOA should primarily concentrate on such information and comment which are relatively hard to come by elsewhere for political reasons. This applies to thematic balance and to representation of various positions as well. Of course I don’t mean to say that Russian official positions on controversial issues could be ignored or underreported; however, it would seem fair that in news coverage and comment on such issues as YUKOS affair or human rights violations in the North Caucasus some kind of special consideration be given to alternative facts and viewpoints.

Now, my impression is that VOA has been too careful in avoiding anything that might look like ‘anti-Russian’ bias. A telling example of this attitude can be found in the coverage of Vice President Biden’s visit to Moscow. The reporting focused on Biden voicing support for Medvedev’s ‘modernization,’ traveling to Skolkovo etc., all of which was amply covered by national TV channels. But Vice President’s speech in Moscow University, in which he criticized Russia’s leadership on democracy and human rights, was clearly downplayed. The report on this event was titled ‘Joe Biden to Moscow Students: Future is Yours‘; a headline as cheerful as meaningless, reminding of Soviet newspapers. What is worse, the report failed to mention that Biden spoke about the Khodorkovsky case as an example of Russia’s ‘legal nihilism’ – an important fact noted both in Russia and abroad. One might suspect that the omission was deliberate. If so, that could be regarded as a case of ‘pro-Russian’ (or, rather, pro-Putin) bias.

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

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

The answer to this question depends on how one understands VOA’s mission. As I see it, the purpose of the VOA Russian website is to provide objective information and free comment, especially where these are limited for political reasons, and to promote American (or, for that matter, universal) values, such as democracy, human rights etc. Based on this, I don’t see much sense in trying to produce a comprehensive picture of all kinds of events all over the world (something like a ‘complete body of all arts and sciences’ at the Academy of Lagado in ‘Gulliver’s Travels’). It appears to me that the site should mostly (by no means exclusively!) focus on selected fields, above all Russian domestic and foreign politics, American life and U.S.-Russian relations. This would imply that political coverage should generally dominate over non-political themes. After all, modern Russians, especially Internet users, are anything but short of information about current developments in science, arts, medicine and other non-political fields and it’s hard to imagine many people turning to VOA’s website for this sort of knowledge. Besides, the Science, Health and Culture sections of the site do not look appealing at all; they should be either revamped and improved or discarded, and the latter option seems more reasonable, let alone easier.

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

My answer is ‘sorry but no’. The site provides information of satisfactory quality, but it is mostly derived from other sources. Even the report about American Vice President’s meeting with Russian opposition figures was based on Ekho Moskvy and Gazeta.Ru information (VOA’s own interview with Leonid Gozman was added later.) The selection of topics and timeliness leave much to be desired.

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

Regrettably, some interesting topics were underreported. Thus, the story of an alleged prisoner swap scheme involving Viktor Bout, which featured prominently in independent  Russian media (Kommersant and others), was only reflected in a brief news item ( http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/Bout-swap-2011-03-10-117750703.html ) based entirely on Russian sources; an American perspective one could have expected from VOA was lacking completely. The same can be said of the scandal involving Vladimir Putin, Western stars and charity money ( http://www.voanews.com/russian/news/russia/AI-Putin-Concert-2011-03-09-117673903.html ): VOA’s website failed to provide any information or comment from the American side, missing a good opportunity to raise its profile.

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

The Russian journalist also questioned the overall usefulness of the VOA Russian website. Here is his response to the question: Does the content provided on this site increase understanding of topics or events, and does it provide a basis for forming opinions, making decisions and rendering judgments?
 

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

The site could potentially excel in offering objective information on different aspects of American life – especially where such information is ignored or distorted by Russian pro-government media. To give just one example: many Russians, even among the educated class, are convinced that all talk about freedom of the press in the U.S. is mere eyewash and media are effectively controlled by the government or business interests. Systematic exposure and refutation of such myths could be one of VOA’s main goals; however, the site doesn’t seem keen on this sort of work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is:

“To newsroom editors:

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

Snapshot of a VOA Russian Service blog under porn attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                            +420 603 317 078

E-mail: roitmanl@volny.cz

16 January 2012

Addressees– List enclosed:

Administration

Senate

House of Representatives

Information Copies – List enclosed:

BBG

RFE/RL

U.S. Ambassador, Prague,

NGOs, U.S.A.

Media U.S., Czech, Foreign

At Broadcasting Board of Governors and Radio Free Europe/Liberty – Public Diplomacy is Public Scandal at Public Expense

Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) is the largest and highly visible institution of American public diplomacy abroad. In its noble official mission the Radio proclaims:

“To empower people in their struggle against violations of human rights,” “to promote democratic values and institutions,” “strengthen civil societies by projecting democratic values,” “provide a model for local media.”

RFE/RL’s yearly budget provided by Congress via the supervising Federal agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), exceeds 90 million dollars.  As a tool of American public diplomacy, RFE/RL has a simple overreaching goal: to enhance positive image of our country internationally. It is the same goal which Chinese public diplomacy, expensive and successful, has for China, or the Russian one, expanding and hapless, has for Russia.

RFE/RL broadcasts in 28 languages to 21 countries. The impact of RFE/RL’s public diplomacy on international public opinion is reflected by multilingual foreign media for which RFE/RL should “provide a model”. In this case, it turns monolingual:  

“hypocrisy”, “betrayal of ideals”, “violation of human rights”, “lawlessness”, “double standards”, “moral disaster”, “fraud”, “cynicism”, “Guantanamo in Prague”, “public idiocy instead of public diplomacy”, and so on.

Short list of the ongoing international publications is enclosed. In reality, that list, due to the exponential effect of Internet, is endless. By the time you read this letter, it will be even longer.

Over thirty years, prior to my retirement in 2005 as the Radio’s senior commentator, I worked for RFE/RL in New York, Munich, and Prague. During the cold war, RFE/RL was instrumental in combating communist lies and disdain for human rights. What is wrong with RFE/RL at present? Why U.S. public dollars are wasted so detrimentally to American image overseas?

The answer is bewildering, even hard to believe. In Czech courts, the American Radio fights for the right to apply communist law of 1963 written to allow Soviet enterprises to use Soviet laws

in subjugated Czechoslovakia. One of the overlooked relics of communist past, that law still remains on books in the post-communist Czech Republic. However, out of moral and political considerations, not a single American company, not a single foreign enterprise has ever made use of that law. In that, RFE/RL is unique.

The cynical irony of that unflattering uniqueness was not lost on international media. Nationally circulated Czech daily editorialized:

”Prague headquarters of RFE/RL, which pretends to be a messenger of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, behaves as an employer in such a way as if the principles it heralds are relevant “just” for the whole planet but not for what is going on inside that estimable organization itself.”

On December 6, 2011 multilingual Armenian newspaper AZG (People), Yerevan, wrote:

“For RFE/RL with its proudly proclaimed mission, the battlefield for public trust and positive American image abroad should be not in foreign courts but in foreign public opinion. In fact, RFE/RL has lost the court battles from the outset, just by entering the courtroom — on moral and political grounds.”

This year, January 2, The Croatian Times, Zagreb, reported:

“Croatian citizen Snjezana Pelivan officially requests the government of Croatia to support her legal claim against the Czech Republic in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. BBG, which controls and directs all American non-military broadcasters abroad, “makes all major policy determinations governing the operations of RFE/RL” and “provides worldwide personnel management policies, programs, and services.” All foreign journalists, producers, and other specialists employed by RFE/RL in Prague, are provided with uniform work contracts based on American labour laws inapplicable to foreigners outside the United States. Presently, the case of Armenian journalist, mother of three minor children Anna Karapetian, similar to Pelivan’s lawsuit, is again in the Czech Supreme court. It is the sixth time that her claim against RFE/RL will be handled by Czech judges. The case of Snjezana Pelivan has been heard four times. The Czech government… does not dare to interfere with the powerful Broadcasting Board of Governors in Washington and to request an end to violation of Czech legislative sovereignty.”
 
Accompanied by indignant media coverage, internationalization of the scandal widens on daily basis. On January 12, authoritative Prague newspaper Lidove noviny in an article titled “A spectre (ghost) is haunting ‘Free Europe’ ” quoted Snjezana Pelivan:
“Americans spit on this country openly and smile nicely. And Prague wipes itself dry and keeps smiling, too.”
Next day, January 13, that article was translated and republished by popular Russian web-portal, InoSMI. Reaction of Russian readers attests the achievements of public diplomacy performed by RFE/RL – its messenger, tool, and embodiment:
“Such is the real situation of journalists in ‘democratic’ countries,” “Americans spit not only on Czechs,” ”The human rights promoters! Their shity democracy in action, so to speak,” “Indeed, USA turned the democracy and employment rights into some kind of a bedlam,” “Nowhere and never the master was on equal footing with the slave”…
 
That reaction convincingly explains why in present day Russia RFE/RL occupies virtually untraceable 106th position among online broadcasters. Its share of the audience in Moscow is miserable 0 .07%, 52nd place. In Sankt-Petersburg, in some of the most important age categories it is marked by * — as statistically negligent. In Siberian Krasnoyarsk, in the
polling “My beloved Radio”, RFE/RL (” Radio Svoboda” in Russian usage) does not appear at all. It is not to be found also in 2011 rating table for Kiev, Ukraine. American RFE/RL had lost its moral standing and the audience, too.
 
One reads in recently published BBG’s yearly “Performance and Accountability Report”:
“We are proud to report the achievements of the BBG during FY 2011 in furthering our mission as well as wisely and effectively using the resources entrusted to us by the Administration, Congress, and the public.”
To be sure, in BBG report the Pelivan’s and Karapetian’s court cases and international reaction to them are not mentioned. Who is being taken for a ride – the Administration, Congress, and American public? Personally the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serving on BBG and RFE/RL’s Board of Directors ex officio?
 
The latest yearly survey of 37 federal agencies released last October by Office of Personnel Management, again places BBG at the bottom of the list. Senator Tom Coburn called BBG “the most worthless organization in the federal government.”  Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, held last April the hearings titled “Is America’s Overseas Broadcasting Undermining Our National Interest and the Fight against Tyrannical Regimes?” That question was rhetoric. The answer is evident.
 
When BBG spits on your common sense and your intelligence, just as it spits on RFE/RL’s friendly host country, the Czech Republic, the attitude similar to that taken by the Czech government, would not serve American interests.
 
Shameful for America lawsuits in foreign courts should be stopped immediately by peaceful resolutions. Key to curtailing the ongoing court cases and the resulting international media coverage — anti-American but, unfortunately, fair — is in Washington. In White House, State Department, the Congress.  
 
That means: in your hands.
 
It is not up to me to suggest your course of actions.
 
Sincerely,
 
 
 
Lev Roitman
 
Enclosures: As stated    

 
 
Abbreviated List of international publications
(in Czech, Serbo-Croatian, English, Russian, Armenian, etc.)
condemning RFE/RL discriminative policies practiced in the Czech Republic

“Snjezana Pelivan asks Croatian government to support her legal claim in Strasbourg,”
“’Prague winter’ for USA’s Radio Free Europe/Liberty,”
“A Spectre Haunts ‘Free Europe’ ,”
“American Radio Free Europe violates equal rights of its foreign employees in Prague,”

“U.S.-Funded Radio Free Europe Invokes Communist Law to Violate the Will of Congress,”

“Two Women Fighting to Uphold America’s Principles at America’s Freedom Radio,”

“American RFE/RL Fights in Courts against Armenian Journalist. And Scores Against America,”

“From RFE/RL: Immorality as a Matter of Policy,”

“Czech Court Rules Against RFE/RL in Suit by Dismissed Armenian Employee,”

“In handcuffs of ‘Liberty’,”

“Czech Court to American Radio Free Europe: No Use for U.S. Laws in the Czech Republic. Hillary Clinton Will Not Be Asked to Testify,”

“Czech Court Rules RFE/RL Cannot Discriminate Against Its Own Foreign Journalists,”

“Radio Liberty Betrays Its Ideals,”

“Czech Supreme Court Rules Against Radio Free Europe. Karapetian’s Case Returned for New Consideration”,

“It’s the Morality, Stupid,”

“Radio Free Europe – Task for Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg,”

“Radio Free Europe – Guantanamo in Prague,”

“Armenian journalist appeals to Obama to Protect Rights of Foreign Journalists at U.S. Government-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,”  

“Equality With Precondition. Practice of Free Europe Contradicts Its Ideals,”

“U.S. Attorney General is Asked to Investigate Fraud at RFE/RL,”

“Doomsday of Radio Liberty. From Double Standards to Double Morals?”

“A Sense of Betrayal,”

“Czech Politician Accuses U.S. of Discrimination Against Foreign Journalists,”

“On Air in Legal Vacuum,”

“Czech MP Writes to U.S. Counterparts Over Work Conditions in RFE/RL,”

”New Administration Must Undo RFE/RL Anti-Diplomacy Abroad,”

“BBG, RFE/RL: Bring Public Diplomats Instead of Public Bureaucrats,”

“Don’t Feed Kremlin’s Public Diplomacy With U.S. Public Hypocrisy,”

“Public Disaster Instead of Public Diplomacy,”

“Cases of Karapetian and Pelivan as Morality Check for Obama Administration. Radio Free Europe to Face European Court of Human Rights,”

“Czech MP Questions Pelivan Case,”

“Czech Sovereignty Ends at RFE/RL,”

“At Radio Free Europe/Liberty, Bulk of Discriminated Employees is Muslims. Hillary Clinton Serves on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Board of Directors,”

“Free Europe With Its Own Laws in Colonial Czech Republic?”  

“From Human Rights Show to Human Rights Court,”

“Prague Spring Leads to Strasbourg,”

”News Flashes From Radio Free/Radio Liberty. The Face of America Abroad,”

“Czech senator angry about Croat’s lawsuit”…  

Addressees:

U.S. Administration

Barack Obama

Joseph R. Biden

Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton

Honorable Ann Stock

Congress – House, Senate

Honorable Harry Reid

Honorable John Boehner

Honorable Mitch McConnell

Honorable Bill Delahunt

Honorable Brad Sherman

Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin

Honorable Steny H. Hoyer

Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Honorable Trent Franks

Honorable Tom Coburn

Honorable Jon Kyl

House Committee on Foreign Affairs

Honorable Ileana Ros-Lethinen

Honorable Dana Rohrabacher

Honorable Connie Mack

Honorable Howard L. Berman

Honorable Christopher H. Smith

Honorable Jeff Fortenberry

Honorable Donald M. Payne

Honorable  Karen Bass

Honorable Ted Poe

Honorable Russ Carnahan

Honorable Dan Burton

Honorable Tim Griffin

Honorable Gregory W. Meeks

Honorable Eliot L. Engel

Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

Honorable John F. Kerry

Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Honorable Barbara Boxer

Honorable Robert Menendez

Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin

Honorable Robert P. Casey Jr.

Honorable Jim Webb

Honorable Jeanne Shaheen

Honorable  Christopher Coons

Honorable  Richard J. Durbin

Honorable Bob Corker

Honorable Johnny Isakson

Honorable James E. Risch

Honorable Jim DeMint

Honorable John Barrasso

Honorable Roger F. Wicker

Honorable James M. Inhofe

Honorable Tom Udall

Honorable Mike Lee

Honorable Marco Rubio

Information Copies:

BBG

Mr. Walter Isaacson

Ms. Dana Perino

Ms. Susan McCue

Mr. Victor H. Ashe

Mr. Michael Lynton

Mr. Michael P. Meehan

Mr. Dennis Mulhaupt

Mr. Enders Wimbush

Mr. Jeffrey N. Trimble

RFE/RL

Mr. Steven Korn

U.S. Embassy, Prague

Honorable Norman L. Eisen

NGOs, U.S.

Selected Human Rights Organizations

BBG Watch

FreeMediaOnline

Selected Journalistic Organizations

Media

U.S., Czech, Foreign

In the letter, CUSIB’s co-founders Ann Noonan and Ted Lipien pointed out that CUSIB has been adamantly opposed to the BBG’s plan to end Voice of America radio and TV broadcasts in Cantonese and Mandarin to China. They expressed relief that the BBG has discarded this plan. The BBG was forced to abandon its plan due to a strong bipartisan opposition to it in Congress.

The letter also warns against efforts to undermine independence and specialization of the BBG-managed surrogate broadcasters, which include Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV. CUSIB also opposes BBG plans to de-federalize the Voice of America as leading to weakening its role of representing the voice of the American public to audiences abroad and to limiting public and Congressional oversight of VOA broadcasts.

CUSIB also calls for placing all of U.S. international broadcasting content in public domain, including programming from the surrogate broadcasters which is currently copyrighted despite being funded in full by American taxpayers. CUSIB is opposed to granting the BBG authority to actively distribute its programs in the United States but supports some modifications to the Smith-Mundt Act to clarify that all U.S. international broadcasting content is easily available to anyone in the United States who wants to use it. CUSIB is concerned, however, that active BBG involvement in marketing its programs in the United States would seriously undermine its mission abroad.

CUSIB also urged the BBG to improve its treatment of foreign-born journalists, particularly those employed by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in the Czech Republic, and called attention to the unfair treatment of contract employees at the Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau in the United States.

CUSIB’s executive director Ann Noonan has been long active in human rights organizations. Ted Lipien is a former acting associate director of the Voice of America who now runs Free Media Online, a media freedom NGO. CUSIB’s Advisory Board includes journalists, human rights activists, media freedom advocates, and former U.S. government officials.

###

Open ‘Thank You’ Letter to Broadcasting Board of Governors

January 17, 2011

Dear Chairman Isaacson and Board Members:

We would like to thank the Broadcasting Board of Governors, especially Chairman Isaacson and Ambassador Ashe, for extending their invitation to allow our Executive Director to attend Friday’s Board Meeting as your guest. As members of a non-governmental organization that supports media freedom and U.S. international broadcasting, we are grateful that the Board is open to consider the views of those of us involved in the pro-democracy, free press, women’s rights, religious freedom and human rights movements here and abroad. In the great spirit of transparency, thank you.

On behalf of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting, we applaud your decision to discard plans to end Voice of America’s Cantonese and Mandarin radio and TV broadcasts. The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting was adamantly opposed to this plan.

We believe in and support the distinct and special missions of both VOA and surrogate broadcasters. We hope that you will carefully consider any future proposal that might impact on the unique role of VOA’s radio and television broadcasts as a powerful voice of the American people and our elected and non-elected representatives and spokesmen. We also hope that the independence of surrogate broadcasting will be preserved. De-federalization of the Voice of America would weaken its pro-human rights impact abroad and make it less representative of the views and values of American citizens. Centralization of management controls over the surrogate broadcasters could hamper their ability to specialize in human rights reporting and divert resources from those who are the most knowledgeable about the countries and regions to which they broadcast. Please consider these issues carefully.

Any reorganization proposals you may be putting forward should not diminish in any way full public ownership, control, and effective oversight over U.S. international broadcasting. Americans and their elective representatives need to have even greater input than now into how American policies, values and opinions are presented abroad. We are concerned that the BBG reorganization plan may limit transparency and accountability.

In support of transparency and openness, the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting advocates for public ownership of all content produced by publicly funded U.S. international broadcasters. We believe strongly that all such content, not just from VOA but also from the surrogate broadcasters, should be in public domain. We urge you to make this change as soon as possible with regard to the surrogate broadcasters. Their output is currently copyrighted even though it is entirely paid for by American taxpayers.

We support efforts to clarify the Smith-Mundt Act to state that anyone in the United States, as well as abroad, is free to use this content free of charge and to make sure that it is made available to those who may want it regardless of where they live.

We are strongly opposed, however, to any active marketing of such content by the Agency within the United States. We believe that this would seriously distract you from your primary mission of providing news to audiences overseas.

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting supports BBG journalists and other employees whose hard work and dedication help countless millions of people receive uncensored news. We urge you to address the issue of unequal treatment of foreign workers at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty who are denied by a decision of the BBG some of the protections of the Czech labor law. This issue is now before the European Court of Human Rights. We are also concerned that a large number of contract employees at the Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau are denied basic employment benefits and protections.

We would like to invite each of you to visit our website, www.CUSIB.org, and read the letter from one of the world’s top China watchers, Dr. Willy Lam, who wrote about the importance of VOA broadcasts. Please also watch the video we have posted that was recorded by volunteers of Women’s Rights in China at considerable risk to their own lives. This video shows how critical these broadcasts are to the most vulnerable, the most oppressed, and the poorest in the world. Please do not forget about them and about the Internet censorship they face – even as you rightfully try to expand your reach using new media.

It was an honor for our Executive Director to meet the Board Members who attended Friday’s meeting, and we will remain hopeful that you will welcome us to attend your next meeting.

Sincerely,

Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting
Ann Noonan, Executive Director
Ted Lipien, Director
www.cusib.org
contact@cusib.org

New York, January 17, 2012–Unidentified gunmen killed broadcast journalist Mukarram Khan Aatif in a mosque north of Peshawar today, according to news reports. Aatif was a correspondent for private TV station Dunya News and also worked for Deewa Radio, a Pashto-language channel of the U.S. government-funded broadcaster Voice of America, news reports said.

Visit link:
Gunmen kill Pakistani journalist who reported on Taliban

View post:
United States – Reporters Without Borders to close its English-language site for 24 hours in protest against SOPA and…

New York, January 13, 2012–The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns Thursday’s attack in Moscow on Dododzhon Atovulloyev, exiled publisher and editor-in-chief of the Tajik pro-opposition newspaper Charogi Ruz.

The rest is here:
In Russia, unknown attacker stabs exiled Tajik journalist

Cute High School Intern

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) officials have gotten so used to running their small federal agency like their own private country club that they still frequently forget that at least some of their meetings can now be viewed online.

While the video from the last BBG meeting was streamed live, the on demand link to the video has not worked since then.

Last Friday, the American public got a taste of the new corporate culture emerging at the agency in charge of U.S. international broadcasting even prior to the implementation of the current restructuring plan to remove the BBG as much as possible from the government and public sphere.

While the American people might not begrudge a little bit of humor in public meetings, because of its history of discrimination against various groups of employees, the BBG is not exactly the place where joking about young women seems appropriate.

At the BBG meeting on Janurary 13, Radio and TV Marti which broadcast to Cuba and are managed by the BBG, showed a short video of their recent broadcasting achievements. The video was narrated by a young female intern.

After the presentation of the video, which apparently impressed everyone in the room, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty President Steven Korn said that he was planning to hire a cute high school intern to narrate his organization’s next promotional video. People laughed.

While the remark at the BBG meeting was greeted by most in the room as funny, some of those present, perhaps including BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson himself, might have felt just a little bit uncomfortable. Recently hired BBG officials, many of whom happen to be former CNN employees, are known to be prone to making socially awkward comments. We’re not talking here about Isaacson and VOA director David Ensor. But some of the others are apparently not as familiar with the etiquette of working for a public institution.

Old White Guys

As we have reported earlier, one top BBG official wrote not too long ago about “old white guys” in discussing his personnel decisions. BBG Watch sources identified the person as a former CNN associate of Chairman Isaacson. Anonymous sources also told us that some BBG members wanted to have the official fired but the majority decided to let him stay after first reversing some of his personnel actions and reaffirming their commitment to opposing discrimination.

BBG Watch wonders who it might have been.

First Amendment at the Broadcasting Board of Governors

In light of our disclosures of this and other scandals, it’s not surprising that some BBG members and members of their executive staff don’t like BBG Watch.

We have received a credible report that a presidentially-appointed member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors has urged other BBG members to take an unspecified action against BBG Watch for publishing anonymous posts and comments which this member found highly objectionable. Our sources did not report on the nature of the action sought by the BBG member.

There are also no reports that BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson or any other BBG member responded positively to this request. Our sources tell us that the BBG member was particularly incensed that BBG Watch has anonymous sources within the agency. Credible sources told us that this particular BBG member called us “cowards.” (Or was it Prime Minister Putin speaking about his political opponents in Russia? We’re not absolutely sure.)

Another source speculated that some BBG members can be more easily influenced than others by BBG bureaucrats who want to create panic to divert attention from their own mistakes.

Anonymous Speech

We take very seriously any report that a high level U.S. Government official questions the right of free speech, including anonymous speech, or any implication that our media activities may be countered by government action. We have already taken additional measures to protect the BBG Watch website, including creating mirror sites.

We also want to assure all our readers and contributors that we will not be intimidated and plan to continue our investigative reporting and commentary in the same manner as before.

The irony of a Broadcasting Board of Governors member questioning the right of using anonymous sources and anonymous speech to expose bad judgement mismanagement on the part of U.S. government officials is that the BBG’s stated mission is “to inform, engage and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.”

The BBG website also states that U.S. international broadcasting serves “as a trustworthy source of news and as an example of a free, professional press in countries that lack independent media.”

The BBG website also states that “BBG broadcasters engage with audiences and promote dialogue through interactive programs and social networking.”

Questioning the First Amendment protections of free speech would not be good public diplomacy for an agency that is still part of the U.S. foreign policy establishment and is also a journalistic institution.

This particular BBG member perhaps also does not realize that much of the social media content on the BBG websites is in fact anonymous and the BBG has no idea who originates most of the comments. The BBG is in fact engaging in promoting anonymous criticism of autocratic foreign governments by investing heavily in Internet censorship circumvention technologies. In fact, the U.S. Congress gave the BBG $10 million for the project to enable anonymous Internet users overcome cyber censorship in countries like China.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation points out that “anonymous communications have an important place in our political and social discourse. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the right to anonymous free speech is protected by the First Amendment.” A much-cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission reads:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Culture of Fear versus Transparency

BBG Watch anonymous contributors do not particularly like using anonymous sources, but reporting from and about a federal agency where top officials freely use phrases such as “old white guys,” “cute high school interns,” and “cowards,” leaves little room for maneuver. We are satisfied that BBG Watch reporting has already produced important reforms at the BBG.

We are also pleased that BBG Chairman Isaacson and senior Republican member Victor Ashe are supportive of greater transparency within the BBG as exemplified by their efforts to expand public access to BBG meetings. We hope that other BBG members will follow their example if they don’t already. But the culture of fear at the BBG is still extremely strong despite Governor Ashe’s efforts to improve employee morale.

About BBG Watch

BBG Watch is an independent website run by former and current BBG employees and other volunteers. It is sponsored by Free Media Online, a media freedom nonprofit NGO registered as a 501(c)3 public institution. BBG Watch reporting has contributed to a number of reforms at the BBG and saving jobs of journalists specializing in human rights reporting.

We have criticized the BBG decision to end Voice of America broadcasting to China, which was subsequently blocked through bipartisan action in Congress. We have also reported on discrimination against foreign journalists at the BBG-managed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and exploitation of Voice of America contract employees, including long delays in the payment of their salaries. After our reports were published, some of the contractors received their long-delayed payments.

Last week, President Obama signed into law a bill that expands sanctions against Belarus, whose authoritarian leader Aleksandr Lukashenko continues to imprison his opponents and critics. Lukashenko unleashed the latest crackdown hours after the flawed December 2010 presidential vote, which declared him winner of a fourth term. Repression in Belarus is ongoing. Last week, authorities further tightened their grip on the media by restricting access to blacklisted websites. On Monday, a district court in Minsk jailed an independent reporter for filming a one-man protest vigil in front of the KGB headquarters.

See the article here:
Blog: What US can’t accept in Belarus, it supports in Uzbekistan

New York, December 23, 2011 — The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns China’s harsh sentencing of online journalist and activist Chen Wei, who was handed a nine-year prison term on Friday for “inciting
subversion.”

Excerpt from:
Chinese writer-dissident given nine years for online posts

Follow this link:
‘Old white guys’ – National Review links to BBG Watch discrimination and mismanagement story

In the next three months, users of China’s microblog weibo.com — “weibo” is the generic Chinese term for Twitter-like platforms — run by the huge sina.com (the English site is here) news portal, entertainment and blogging site, will have to start providing their real-world identities to the site, instead of simply being able to register. It seems likely the users of competitor tencent.com (English here) will have to do the same, though the government
hasn’t made that clear in recent announcements, dating back to December 16.

See the article here:
Blog: In China, real people vs. Internet minders

View post:
Russia – Meeting highlights common challenges faced by journalists, civil society activists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers is a broad-based, international coalition that opposes forced abortion and sexual slavery in China. According to BBG Watch, an independent media freedom website, CUSIB supports radio and television broadcasting to China by the Voice of America (VOA) and radio broadcasting by Radio Free Asia (RFA) so that news such as this one are not blocked by the Chinese Internet censors and those in China who want to receive uncensored news do not risk being monitored by the cyber police.

“Batman” star Christian Bale traveled nine hours from Beijing to visit blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng. Bale said, “What I really wanted to do was shake the man’s hand and say ‘thank you,’ and tell him what an inspiration he is.”

Bale never got the chance. He was roughed up and forced away from Chen’s village, according to a CNN report.

Bale was in Beijing China for the premier of “The Flowers of War,” a drama about the 1937 Rape of Nanjing. About his attempt to visit Chen, Bale stated, “I’m not brave doing this . . . This was just a situation – I can’t look the other way.”

Congressman Chris Smith with CUSIB Advisory Board Member Reggie Littlejohn in front of a large image of Chen Guangcheng created to support the Chen Guangcheng Sunglasses Campaign to win his freedom

Littlejohn contrasted Bale’s actions with those of Relativity Media. “Christian Bale has used his star power to shine a light on the unjust treatment of Chen Guangcheng. In contrast, Relativity Media filmed “21 and Over” in Linyi, where Chen is languishing under house arrest. They did nothing to help Chen. I hope that moviegoers will demonstrate their concern for Chen Guangcheng at the box office. We encourage people to boycott “21 and Over,” said Reggie Littlejohn.

Christian Bale is not the only one who has focused attention on Chen Guangcheng. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke have both recently spoken on his behalf. “We urge Ambassador Locke to visit Chen Guangcheng,” stated Littlejohn.

The flow of Chinese citizens to visit Chen despite the risk of beatings and detention, and the Chinese and international “Sunglasses” campaigns, have raised the visibility of Chen’s case as well. These campaigns can be found here and here.

Chen Guangcheng exposed the systematic use of forced abortion and sterilization in Linyi City in 2005. For four years, three months, he was jailed, tortured and denied medical treatment. Since his release he has languished under strict house arrest.

Watch the 3-minute Free Chen video here.

Sign a petition to free Chen here.

Stop Forced Abortion – China’s War on Women! Video (4 mins)

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) is an independent, nongovernmental organization which supports free flow of uncensored news from the United States to countries without free media. CUSIB supports Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) radio broadcasts to China as the only effective and safe way of news delivery that can defeat censorship of the Internet and the monitoring of pro-democracy activists by the Chinese secret police.

New York,
December 15, 2011–Today’s murder of Gadzhimurad Kamalov, founder of the independent newspaper Chernovik in the southern Russian republic of Dagestan today is a lethal blow to press freedom, said the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Here is the original post:
Killing of Chernovik founder in Dagestan must be investigated

Oleg Kashin, a correspondent for the Russian business daily Kommersant, by his home on a central Moscow street, a 10-minute walk from the Kremlin. The two had
hidden steel rods in bouquets of flowers.

Visit link:
Blog: Impunity still reigns in beating of Oleg Kashin

See the rest here:
Russia – Global journalists’ community joins IFJ to mark memorial day for dead colleagues

The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting Advisory Board member Reggie Littlejohn testified in Congress as president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, an NGO which works to end forced abortion and human trafficking in China. She and Congressman Chris Smith posed in front of a large image of Chinese human rights activist Chen Guangcheng to support calls to the Chinese government for his release from house arrest as part of the Women’s Rights Without Frontiers’ Sunglasses Campaign. Chen Guangchen is blind and in poor health. CUSIB Advisory Board member Harry Wu, founder of the Laogai Research Foundation, also testified in a hearing which was focused on the plight of imprisoned Chinese Nobel Peace Prize winner Liu Xiaobo.

After the hearing, Congressman Smith attended a reception on Capitol Hill to mark the 70th anniversary of Voice of America broadcasts to China. The reception was hosted by Congressman Dana Rohrabacher who had introduced an amendment to save VOA radio and television programs from being cut by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency which manages VOA. In a special video message, the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, congratulated the Voice of America (VOA) on the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasting to China. The Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting members worked to save VOA Chinese radio and TV programs from being cut by the BBG. Other CUSIB members attending the Capitol Hill reception included: Marie Ciliberti, John Lenczowski, Karl Altau, Timothy Shamble, Ted Lipien and Gary Marco.

Read CUSIB report.
Continue reading here:
CUSIB’s Reggie Littlejohn joins Congressman Chris Smith in calling for release of Chen Guangcheng – CUSIB

Link to the video of the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, congratulating the Voice of America (VOA) on the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasting to China

On Dec. 6, 2011, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher hosted a large reception on Capitol Hill to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasting to China. He had earlier introduced an amendment that saved VOA radio and TV programs to China. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen also attended the reception as did Congressman Chris Smith, also a strong supporter of VOA and an outspoken critic of human rights abuses by the Chinese communist regime. Ros-Lehtinen, Rohrabacher, and Smith thanked VOA China Branch employees for their work.

No current BBG member attended the reception, although all of them had been invited. A former Republican BBG member, Blanquita Cullum, who had published an op-ed in The Washington Times critical of the decision to end VOA broadcasts to China, spoke at the reception about the importance of VOA radio for the victims of human rights abuses in nations governed by dictatorial and authoritarian regimes and for those who experience severe economic hardships and political upheavals.

Sources have told BBG Watch that BBG’s Republican member Ambassador Victor Ashe was planning to attend the Capitol Hill reception but was travelling to Greenville, North Carolina, to visit the BBG radio transmitting station, which BBG executives and some of the other BBG members want to close down as part of their plan to privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti and to merge Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV into a large corporate bureaucracy.

Critics point out that this large bureaucracy would still be funded by American taxpayers but run by some of the current BBG executives with less oversight from Congress and less independence for the so-called “surrogate broadcasters” such as RFA and RFE/RL than under the current arrangement. VOA and Radio and TV Marti would lose their semi-official status, which is feared by authoritarian regimes such as the one in Cuba, but would also continue to be funded by American taxpayers.

Ashe was quoted as saying that his trip to Greenville was very productive and that the transmitting facility is performing a “valuable service.” BBG executives had tried to discourage him from going on this trip. The executive staff had advised BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson, a former CNN executive and author of the best selling biography of Steve Jobs, that Congress would not object to the plan to end VOA broadcasting to China. BBG members seem now split on the wisdom of the advice they have been getting from their staffers.

Ambassador Ashe has been lately critical of BBG plans to reduce VOA radio and television broadcasting to countries without free media. He has been meeting also with groups of employees and raising employee morale issues.

Sources also told BBG Watch that Michael Meehan, one of BBG’s Democratic members, was also planning to attend the reception. The BBG was represented by Jeff Trimble, the Deputy Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), who — according to BBG Watch sources — had earlier advised BBG members to end VOA radio and TV transmissions to China, as well as to Russia in 2008. VOA broadcasts to Russia were terminated and never resumed. Sources also told BBG Watch that VOA Director David Ensor was travelling abroad and could not attend the Capitol Hill reception. Neither VOA nor BBG has issued a press release to mark the 70th anniversary of broadcasting to China or to highlight the unprecedented expression of support for VOA Chinese radio and TV programs from the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and other members of Congress.

Visit link:
Chairman of House Committee on Foreign Affairs says Chinese people need Voice of America broadcasts

It seems Chairman Issacson does not think much of the Voice of America, its public diplomacy mission of presenting important American cultural events to audiences abroad, and of VOA employees who work for American taxpayers under his supervision except when one of his former CNN associates needs a high-paying U.S. federal government job, a VOA employee who does not want to be identified told BBG Watch. The top posts at VOA are now occupied by individuals with professional links to Isaacson and CNN. They in turn are making plans to hire more former and current CNN employees, BBG Watch sources reported.

BBG Watch sources believe that this may also explain partly why Chairman Isaacson and the bipartisan board he leads had agreed earlier to fire 45 VOA journalists who are preparing radio and TV broadcasts to China, which the BBG wanted to end on October 1, 2011. It did not happen because Congressman Rohrabacher and other members of Congress put a stop to the BBG plan. Chairman Isaacson now wants to go a step further and privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti and to curtail the traditional administrative independence granted by Congress to the surrogate broadcasters like Radio Free Asia and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which are also managed by the BBG. The BBG needs money to pay its top officials high salaries and hefty bonuses, BBG Watch sources allege.

Isaacson may not be entirely to blame for these plans. Since he was busy writing Steve Jobs’ biography, they were developed by BBG bureaucrats with their own agenda. Initially, inexperienced BBG members fell for them, but now some, like Ambassador Victor Ashe who angered BBG executives by meeting with a group of VOA Africa Division employees, are asking Isaacson pointed questions in open board meetings and may no longer support some of these plans. Most Republican BBG members — one notable exception, according to BBG Watch sources, is S. Enders Wimbush — are horrified by the behavior of one of Isaacson’s proteges who formerly worked for him at CNN and now occupies a key BBG executive position. The official reportedly wrote in an email that he was promoting female employees to top positions and complained about “old white guys” in his organization.

Even some Democratic BBG members were said to be in favor of firing the official for making this statement, but in the end most Democrats, at least one Republican, and Chairman Isaacson would not agree. Sources told BBG Watch that Dennis Mulhaupt and Susan McCue defended the official, but Michael Meehan, another Democratic member, did not. Ultimately, they voted to reverse some of the personnel actions taken by the official which could be perceived as discriminatory, a source told BBG Watch. They also adopted a resolution opposing workforce discrimination.

In fairness to Isaacson, he was reportedly also horrified by the “old white guys” statement, reliable sources told BBG Watch, but could not bring himself to fire his former associate — something he had no problem to do when BBG executives had asked for his approval to fire 45 VOA Chinese broadcasters and to close down the VOA Croatian Service, BBG sources observed.

Perhaps Chairman Isaacson has after all a good reason to refuse the VOA request for an interview about his book. Since VOA has not yet been privatized, as Isaacson wants it to be, VOA reporters are still somewhat protected from retaliation and could ask him uncomfortable questions about hiring practices, favoritism and closing down of VOA broadcasting services while hiring former CNN employees and giving bonuses to top BBG executives. They could have also asked how the proposed consolidation and privatization could help turn the BBG into a CNN clone to be run by corporate bureaucrats who would answer only to Chairman Isaacson’s trusted former CNN colleagues. These bureaucrats see an opportunity to expand their empire and to limit Congressional oversight, sources tell BBG Watch.

According to BBG Watch sources, the official who had made the “old white guys” statement does not work at the Voice of America or the International Broadcasting Bureau. BBG Watch is still investigating this story.

As these BBG bureaucrats undermine critical programs, weaken U.S. public diplomacy media outreach abroad and eliminate American jobs, they collect large salaries and pay themselves hefty bonuses. BBG official claim that countries like Croatia, a NATO member, do not need U.S. information programs provided by VOA, but they have also tried to cut or reduce such programs to countries ruled by authoritarian regimes, including Russia and China.

BBG Watch wants to thank one of our supporters who provided us with information how American taxpayers can easily check on the salaries and bonuses of BBG officials.

Link to salaries of federal employees, including BBG officials.

“If you go to the website datauniverse.com, then to Federal Employees in the Public Payroll section, then to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, you can see the salary of every employee and, more importantly, if they received bonuses. Nearly every manager on the 3rd floor (that is where most BBG executive offices are located in Washington, D.C.) received a large cash award for FY2010. Seriously, some of these guys make $170,000 a year and then take a 10-thousand dollar bonus! It is shameful.”

BBG executives close down Voice of America broadcasting services, pay themselves hefty bonuses

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) executives, who have closed down the Voice of America (VOA) Croatian radio, TV, and Internet broadcasting service the day before Thanksgiving, have paid themselves tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses over the last two years and are expected to receive more such payouts this year. The BBG has also asked OPM for approval to hire a public relations guru at a salary of about $150,000. The BBG already has a well-staffed public and Congressional relations department.

BBG Watch has also learned that one of the main architects of the closures of foreign language broadcasting services at VOA is to receive soon a $10,000 pay raise. He is a member of the team of executives responsible for an unprecedented bipartisan rebuke to the BBG in the U.S. Congress. Congressional committees blocked the plan to terminate VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China and charged that the BBG lacks good judgement and transparency.

But the Voice of America’s Croatian Service, which did not receive similar attention in Congress, signed for the last time Wednesday, after 19 years of broadcast history that began during the bloody breakup of the former Yugoslavia. Rather than to keep broadcasting to Croatia even at a reduced level to serve U.S. public diplomacy needs, BBG officials closed down the service. VOA Director David Ensor is new to his job and may not yet fully realize that this latest move is part of a strategy of undermining Voice of America’s special role as a news and public diplomacy channel for the United States. One of the BBG’s earliest moves after the 9/11 terror attacks was to eliminate all Voice of America programs in Arabic.

While VOA has each year fewer and fewer broadcasts to be managed, not a single highly-paid VOA or BBG manager has been asked to leave or to take a pay cut. Instead, their numbers keep growing with the money for their salaries and bonuses generated by cutting essential programs and eliminating broadcasting positions within the organization.

A VOA press release states that “VOA Croatian’s five-minute TV NewsFlash was broadcast daily on eight affiliate stations and focused on American news of relevance to Croatian audiences, including business, science, American culture, and politics. The popular Breakfast Show, a roundup of US, Croatian and world news, aired on radio for 19 years, without a single day of interruption. An evening radio show aired on shortwave and ten affiliate FM stations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.”

Executives who ordered the termination of VOA radio and TV broadcasts to China and Croatia have been rated in government-wide employee surveys among the worst managers in the federal workforce. They chose Valentine’s Day to inform VOA Chinese language service journalists that 45 of them will lose their jobs and picked the day before Thanksgiving to close down the Croatian service. They are well known for their holiday surprises for Voice of America employees

Called “VOA Silencers” for trying to fire 45 VOA journalists specializing in human rights reporting at the time of intensified Chinese government crackdown of freedom of expression, BBG executives are likely to collect yet another round of bonuses on top of their large salaries. One of the chief policy planners, who is paid over $150,000 a year, will be getting a $10,000 on top of $2,500 bonus received in FY2010. However, due partly to the fiasco in Congress over the China proposal, he is rumored to be asked to essentially do nothing but to collect his salary. Another official received $160,000 in salary and a $7,500 bonus in FY2010. A marketing specialist made over $165,000 and received an $7,500 bonus. Their boss, whose salary in FY2010 was $170,000, received a $10,000 bonus in addition to all the usual generous benefits that come with federal employment, including subsidized health insurance, vacation, and retirement.

The same officials are denying basic employment benefits to full time contract employees who now constitute 45 percent of VOA workforce. Because some of these executives switch jobs between the BBG, which is a federal agency, and private broadcasting 501(c)3 entities managed by the BBG, some collect hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in combined salary and retirement benefits, all paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

At the time when the U.S. economy is struggling, millions of Americans are unemployed, and millions more could only wish to be making even a small portion of what the Broadcasting Board of Governors executives are making, these officials have been eliminating American jobs and giving money to Internet companies that outsource their work overseas. They are also signing contracts with foreign advertising agencies in countries like Russia to help drive visitors to their websites while firing broadcast journalists and engineers employees by the BBG in the United States. They are planning to shut down the BBG Transmitting Station in Greenville, North Carolina, and to put dozens of Americans out of work at this and at other broadcasting facilities and units.

BBG officials have also signed a contract with the giant consulting firm Deloitte, potentially worth $1.3 million. The contract is designed to give a blessing for their strategic plan, which they had already gotten BBG members to approve. It includes $150,000 in travel expenses. They also want to privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti. This action would put them in charge of yet another bureaucracy which would operate with fewer government restrictions and less oversight from Congress. Radio and TV Marti broadcast news to Cuba. The Cuban regime would welcome their privatization as a sign of the Obama Administration’s diminished support for democracy in Cuba.

BBG executives’ more immediate plan is to eliminate some of the journalistic and administrative independence that made U.S. government-funded stations like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty successful in delivering highly-targeted news and defending human rights abroad. The merger plan would create a large corporate bureaucracy that would manage the BBG’s surrogate broadcasters: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Alhurra TV, and Radio Sawa. A top-ranking BBG official referred to some of the architects of RFE/RL’s surrogate radio operations as “old white guys” and wished for their quick departure.

Some of the members serving on the bipartisan Board, however, have begun to question the advice they are getting from the BBG executive staff. A senior Republican member, Ambassador Victor Ashe, expressed his opposition to extravagant spending by BBG bureaucrats while critical broadcasting operations are being eliminated or reduced and employees are denied basic benefits. During open BBG meetings, he received some support from a Democratic member Michael Meehan. Ashe announced that he plans to visit the Greenville transmitting station despite the objections of BBG officials who want to close it down.

BBG Chairman and former CNN executive Walter Isaacson, who was busy writing a biography of Steve Jobs, has allowed BBG bureaucrats to run the show without much supervision from the part-time Board. They developed a strategic plan to reflect Isaacson’s vision of privatizing the BBG and turning it into a CNN-like news agency. Critics say that the centralization of news gathering proposed under this plan would destroy the independence and the human rights focus of surrogate broadcasters like RFE/RL and Radio Free Asia (RFA).

Critics also say that privatization of the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti would destroy their effectiveness as authoritative voices of the American government and the American people. American taxpayers would still have to pay for this new NPR-like structure, since the BBG staff wants to ask Congress to repeal the Smith-Mundt Act’s restrictions on the domestic distribution of BBG programs while still relying entirely for funding on Congressional appropriations. This is likely to cost U.S. taxpayers even more money than the current arrangement. Critics say that the BBG plan will weaken overseas broadcasts in support of democracy and human rights which are considered one of the essential non-military contributions to the war on terror and to countering anti-American propaganda.

###

VOA/BBG Press Release:

VOA Ends Croatian Broadcasts

Washington, D.C., November 23, 2011 — Voice of America’s Croatian Service signs off for the last time Wednesday, after 19 years of broadcast history that began during the bloody breakup of the former Yugoslavia, and ends with Croatia’s emergence as a democratic member of the European community.

VOA Director David Ensor called the service “a model of journalistic integrity that provided the people of Croatia with fair and impartial news during the dark days of civil war in the Balkans.” Ensor commended the service, which he said, “served as a vital source of independent reporting and insight into American policy.”

Voice of America established its Croatian Language Service on February 20, 1992, a time when the most brutal war since World War II was raging in the Balkans. Spun off from the former Yugoslav Service which had been broadcasting to the area since 1943, VOA Croatian broadcasts began on radio, but were quickly expanded into television. The service was one of VOA’s first to establish an online presence.

VOA Croatian’s five-minute TV NewsFlash was broadcast daily on eight affiliate stations and focused on American news of relevance to Croatian audiences, including business, science, American culture, and politics. The popular Breakfast Show, a roundup of US, Croatian and world news, aired on radio for 19 years, without a single day of interruption. An evening radio show aired on shortwave and ten affiliate FM stations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

In addition to news coverage, VOA Croatian served as a source of entertainment and cultural programming for more than a decade. Nearly 700 episodes of Saturday’s American Cultural Magazine were aired, with stories on leading entertainers, from blues guitar legend B.B. King, to Los Lobos, the Grammy-winning Los Angeles band that performed in Zagreb in 2010.

VOA Croatian Service Chief Zorz Crmaric called going off the air a “bittersweet moment” that comes as the country begins a new chapter in European integration. He noted Croatia is now a NATO member and is scheduled to join the European Union in 2013.

Follow this link to read the original article:
BBG executives close down Voice of America broadcasting services, pay themselves hefty bonuses

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

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

Here are some of the main elements of the report:

Key Findings:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Risks of integrating the Grantee corporations include:

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusions:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommendations and Next Steps:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Principles:

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

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

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

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

Risks:

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

Congressional reaction:

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

Cultural differences:

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

Unions:

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

Security:

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

Staff Reductions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Potential loss of major backers:

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

National security:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The total global population is put at about 7 billion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re saving the best for last.

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

Bingo!

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

But most important of all is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s go back to the numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total: 213 million.

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

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

Far from it.

The Federalist
November 16, 2011

###

From the BBG official website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download 2011 Performance and Accountability Report (PDF)

BBG 2011 Audience Overview (PDF)

BBG Research Methodology (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The total global population is put at about 7 billion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’re saving the best for last.

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

Bingo!

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

But most important of all is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s go back to the numbers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total: 213 million.

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

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

Far from it.

The Federalist
November 16, 2011

###

From the BBG official website:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Download 2011 Performance and Accountability Report (PDF)

BBG 2011 Audience Overview (PDF)

BBG Research Methodology (PDF)

Read original article:
US International Broadcasting and the BBG: The Numbers Game