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

Alexei Navalny, photo by Alexey Yushenkov

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BBG Internet strategy downplays human rights reporting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here it is:

“To newsroom editors:

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

Snapshot of a VOA Russian Service blog under porn attack.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our advice to IBB Director Lobo

IBB Director Richard Lobo

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

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

Voice of America’s 70th Anniversary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can’t pay their employees on time

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

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

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

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

Be an alpha wolf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 1, 2012

70th Anniversary of the Voice of America

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

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

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

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

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

For further information, please contact:

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

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

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

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

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

###

From the Inside VOA website:

PRESS RELEASES AND STATEMENTS

PRESS RELEASE

VOA Looks to Future on 70th Anniversary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Numbers Don’t Lie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Donovan: Why so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board Member Alan Smith: You mean the Communists?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chairman Donovan: What do you mean by that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board Member Smith:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(All Board members say aye.)

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

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

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

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

Chairman Donovan: Do we have a second?

Board Member Brown: I second the motion.

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

Here is the comment by a VOA/BBG insider.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ain’t America great?

From a BBG Insider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Snapshot from Alhurra TV report promoting views of Holocaust deniers.

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

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

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

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

###

Official BBG Announcement

BBG Calls for Agency Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

Record of Decisions January 13, 2012

2011 Grantee Consolidation Assessment (Redacted)

Broadcasting Board of Governors Grantee Merger Assessment, executive summary

Minutes of November 18, 2011 BBG Meeting

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

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

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

###

Official BBG Announcement

BBG Calls for Agency Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

Record of Decisions January 13, 2012

2011 Grantee Consolidation Assessment (Redacted)

Broadcasting Board of Governors Grantee Merger Assessment, executive summary

Minutes of November 18, 2011 BBG Meeting

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

The entities – all the entities – function better as self-contained units, serving their respective missions and intended audiences. — The Federalist

We could not agree more with this statement from The Federalist, one of our regular and popular contributors. A Global News Network envisioned by BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson strikes us as a job creation project for former CNN employees, favorite contractors and other recent hires who speak no foreign languages and have no experience in international broadcasting. But they have to do something, so there you have it.

It will be a major distraction to the mission of serving information needs of foreign audiences. That job requires specialization, not centralization. The merger proposal in its current form is also likely to destroy the effectiveness of the surrogate broadcasters. For Chairman Isaacson’s information, surrogate broadcasters were created because there was too much centralization at the Voice of America. A Global News Network can never provide what these surrogate broadcasters and VOA language services need. We know it from our own experience.

Broadcasting Board of Governors: BBG Plans Hit Major Rocks and Realities in VOA Central News – A Federalist Extra
 
 
 
Note: In this piece, we take a look at the operations of the Voice of America (VOA) Central Newsroom.  This is “getting down in the weeds,” a place we don’t often go.  However, as anyone inside the Cohen Building knows,” the weeds” are where the action is, where the big ideas of the BBG’s “flim flam strategic plan” come into contact with reality.  We examine some key aspects of how the “new world order” as dictated by the BBG/IBB is impacting a core VOA operation and its relationship with the various VOA language services and other entities.
 
—
 
For a long time now, stretching across two stages of what has been called the “reorg” in the VOA central newsroom, discussion has been intensifying about the role the BBG envisions for what was, back to the time of VOA’s founding, the essential core operation of U.S. international broadcasting.
 
Recently, an email from the Central News Director, Sonja Pace, touted the newsroom as an important agency core operation. However, based on what The Federalist has learned, it seems that the VOA Central News operation has been thrust by BBG plans into a barely-controlled chaos as it tries to be too many things to too many people.
 
A view purported to be that of VOA David Ensor is that the 40-plus VOA language services are now each their own newsroom. In other words, each service appears to be expected to generate original material to be available on-demand throughout the agency, including the grantee operations of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Sawa/Al-Hurra television, Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio/TV Marti.
 
Here is where reality intervenes.
 
Consider the internal VOA environment. It is one thing for a language service to provide a report for distribution to all of VOA. It is another thing altogether when breaking news happens and a language service is besieged by the other forty-odd services for material. What appears to be the plan is for material from services to be “re-versioned.”  It is not clear if the bulk of this is to be done by an already over-burdened Central News operation, or if language services themselves are expected to do this.  It could be a combination of the two.
 
Add to this the various grantee operations, each with their own missions, and the editorial direction and perspectives they want to put to stories, although it is now unknown how a revised reorganization creating a so-called “hybrid” amalgamation of grantees and VOA will affect the latest vision of VOA Central News.
 
This latest development aside, what is happening is a division of resources away from the center.  An example would be the preparation of news items for the central news file.

Rather than continuing what was a finely-honed operation in which Central News, with various regional desks prepared news for distribution to language services, the BBG (with its endorsement last year of what newsroom staffers saw as a highly-flawed program review document) is now busy taking apart that system.
 
VOA language services — many utterly incapable of shouldering the news writing burden in addition to translation of news material not generated within a language service — have been ordered to start writing news for the countries or regions they broadcast to. BBG re-negotiated contracts with major news services to accomplish this.  Having direct access to news services without depending on Central News was long a goal of language services — a symbol of their independence, so to speak. The problem is that many are understaffed and under-resourced, due in large part to the deliberate attempt by the Third Floor’s “ideas people” to seemingly undermine and undo language services, at times using highly questionable audience research.  Added to the mix are requirements for doing television pieces and keeping language service websites updated.
 
To appearances and in its effect, in the revamped news environment, language services will be expected to generate their own radio, television and Internet product, and turn themselves into those 43-plus newsrooms in the Cohen building. This appears to be nothing short of a disaster in the making.  It is unclear how the BBG intends to ensure that services are carrying out this new function well, or detect if they are doing so poorly and what is falling through the cracks, the kinds of things that may not register with the Board when they give something their approval.
 
What we understand is that some the language services contributed a lot of vocal support to decentralization finding expression in the “program review” document ultimately adopted by the BBG.  “Program review” is an in-house process in which language services are critiqued.  Various agency elements get involved in the process and congregate around a large table in an agency conference room for a lengthy discussion of conclusions reached.
 
In this case, a prevailing sentiment in the VOA newsroom is that insufficient consultation took place with the staff making up the varied elements of the newsroom.
What appears to have won the day were the views of language services exerted through the program review process, and a desire by other agency officials to “reinvent the wheel” as far as Central News is concerned.
 
 
Further, if there is any hint that senior officials are inclined to buy into the idea of reinvention, other factors start to kick in, not the least of which would be to get enthusiastically supportive of what is being embraced by senior officialdom in the Cohen.  Cautions and reservations are often muted, as one doesn’t want to be seen as being out of sync with Third Floor thinking.
 
Back for a moment to the plan, mentioned in several BBG Watch reports, to create a Global News Network (remember BBG’s annual budget has remained largely static over the years,  now in the mid $700 million range and BBG and IBB officials have been clear that there should be no expectation of larger budgets coming down the pike).  Under that plan (prior to this latest BBG talk of a “hybrid organization”) in theory any material developed by any of the entities should be able to be used by other entities.
 
However, in reality, what appears to be the case is that the entities don’t necessarily want the same product in the same media.  In the obsession with television product, some entities may want a “re-versioned” piece that is formatted for television.  Others may want a piece for the Internet.  And lastly, some might want all three!
 
And then there is always the presence of shifting priorities.
 
We have heard employees describe situations in which they have had to drop everything to produce a television spot, scramble to put a production together, and are then told to drop the piece for some reason or other. In one case, after
hours of work, an order came down from one major non-VOA BBG entity to have a certain report delivered within 30 minutes.  This may not seem like a big deal.  However, the fact is that all the entities have their own broadcast times and program schedules, making requirements or demands easier said than done.
 
The television aspect of what is now being expected has consequences.  It takes more time and more staff to produce a television piece, compared to what can be done in the same amount of time for a radio piece.  One wonders if this aspect of working with these media hasn’t been examined by agency heads, to see what gets the most bang for the buck.  Cross-pollination of media product is not always a seamless process.
 
The Federalist has heard that in the frenzy to produce TV, senior officials ordered Central News to steadily reduce its production of news items, the so-called central file which used to be the “bread and butter” of VOA, in favor of increasing video product.  At times, this created a situation where VOA’s newsroom often did not cover certain breaking news stories.  One has to wonder what happens when production of news stories finally drops to only a few each day, on the assumption that language services will be able to pick up the burden.  
 
The goal apparently is for Central News to decrease production of news items from say, 100 ore more a day, to only a dozen or so.  If this is correct, it’s a broad differential to be placed on the backs of the language services to make up.  That’s one of the things that appears on its face to be out of whack:  previously VOA Central News was supposed to service all language services, not for individual services to attempt to create material for the entire BBG and its entities, but lacking the resources on hand to do so, in a timely manner and to ensure that reports are accurate.  Also, under the goal, explained in the most recent BBG meeting by Walter Isaacson, to create a new “hybrid” agency, individual entities are to retain their brands and identities.  So it appears that, in addition to the 40-plus separate newsrooms in the Cohen building, similar multiple operations in RFE/RL, RFA, etc. will still be busy doing what they have always done to produce material for their programs.  It’s starting to look like that old Abbott and Costello routine of “who’s on first,” etc.
 
For VOA in particular, television is a black hole – gobbling up resources and with a high price tag attached.  Within easy eyesight of Capitol Hill, agency officials seem to be blind to the fact that this is not an era of unlimited resources.  The United States Government is confronted with problems of enormous import to the American people.  It cannot support the blue skies ideas concocted on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building.  
 
It seems to be the view of VOA director David Ensor that television can be done on the cheap.  Most assuredly it can.  However, it is equally likely that the product will be seen as such.  In the increasingly competitive environment that includes not only international broadcasters but capable regional ones as well, a cheap product is going to be outclassed by superior product.  This will make it all the more likely that potential audiences will turn elsewhere as they have in the Middle East and Iran, two key strategic locales for US international broadcasting.
 
VOA Central News and the VOA language services need to have a balanced, symbiotic relationship.  The plan being orchestrated by agency officials is not that relationship.
 
Wasting American taxpayer money in attempting yet another reinvention is not an option for the BBG/IBB.  The taxpayer cannot be treated in the manner of an ATM machine.  Congress and the White House must demand a higher standard of performance and results buttressed by greater oversight and accountability.
 
Nothing else is going to work or work well enough to justify the expense of U.S international broadcasting which, in the hands of the IBB, is open-ended and growing.
 
If there is one thing to be learned from examining this one issue it is that embracing complexity is not a solution to the dilemmas of U.S international broadcasting.  The reorganization plan concocted by the IBB doesn’t make things run smoother or work better.  The entities – all the entities – function better as self-contained units, serving their respective missions and intended audiences.
 
The Federalist
January 2012
 
 
 

No name or email are required to leave comments for this or any other BBG Watch post.

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

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

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.

If the BBG plan to de-federalize the Voice of America (VOA) is adopted, Americans will have even less to say how their money is spend on spreading America’s message abroad by a proposed new corporate entity. Public scrutiny of U.S. international broadcasting will be drastically diminished.

Removing the BBG and VOA from the public sphere into a corporate commercial sphere is likely to make them even less transparent and less accountable than they are now. It will also make them less able to represent America and American citizens and less able to offer a powerful message of support for free press and democratic values.

As our contribution to what we hope will be an unhampered public discussion, we will include in this section significant articles on the public diplomacy role of international broadcasting. The first link is to an article published last year by former Voice of America director Robert Reilly. His article is available online, link, on the MercatorNet website, which stands for: reframing ethical and policy debates in terms of human dignity, not dollars and cents or political calculation.

Message to US State Dept: evil is evil is evil

Here are some highlights from Robert Reilly’s article:

The State Department should not have been expected to do both diplomacy and public diplomacy, as they sometimes conflict. Public diplomacy attempts to reach the peoples of other nations directly over the heads of their governments. This can make the State Department’s job more difficult, as its responsibility is to work with the heads of those same governments and maintain good relations with them. The two missions should not reside in the same institution. Public diplomacy has suffered as a result. In short, since the dismantling of USIA, there has been no central US government institution within which policy, personnel, and budget could be deployed coherently to implement a multifaceted strategy to win the war of ideas over an extended period of time.

On its part, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) inherited all non-defense government broadcasting, including the Voice of America. The BBG became a stand-alone agency run by part-time board members, most of whom have had no experience in foreign policy or public diplomacy. The eight Board members exercise executive power, to the extent that eight CEOs can, and are not directly accountable to anyone.

Since the professional backgrounds of the governors have been mainly in American mass media, they have sought to replicate that media in government broadcasting by refashioning much of it with American pop culture – Radio Sawa being the primary example. Over the past decade, the BBG has seen fit to eliminate VOA’s services to Brazil in Portuguese, to Russia, to India in Hindi, to the Arabic world, and now to China in both Mandarin and Cantonese. [The plan to end VOA Chinese broadcasts was stopped due to a bipartisan Congressional intervention.] There seems to be a perverse logic at work here, in which it has abandoned attempts to reach the most important audiences in terms of our national strategic interests about who we are, what we are doing, and why.

In the Arab world, the VOA 12-hour, content-rich Arabic service was replaced with a 24-hour pop music station featuring the likes of Britney Spears, Jay Lo, and Eminem. The intellectual premise of this effort, as explained to me by the chairman of the board when I served as the director of VOA, was that “MTV brought down the Berlin Wall.” Radio Sawa has been proclaimed a success in attracting large youth audiences. However, as the dean of journalism in Jordan informed me, “Radio Sawa is fun, but it is irrelevant.” In a war of ideas, performing a lobotomy on your enemy might be a good move. It is almost unheard of to perform a lobotomy on yourself, and then to declare it a success. How would you like to have a superpower adolescent in your neighborhood?

Robert Reilly has worked in foreign policy, the military, and the arts. His most recent book is The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. This paper was delivered at a seminar on “Fighting the Ideological War: Strategies for Defeating Al Qaeda”, organised by the Westminister Institute on May 25. Robert R. Reilly serves on the Advisory Board of the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting.

[Update: A comment posted by someone claiming close knowledge of the BBG staff charges that BBG Watch sources are wrong and that neither Mr. Trimble, Mr. Sherman, Mr. Lobo nor even the current members of the BBG had anything to do with the plan to end VOA broadcasts to China, which the current Board did submit to Congress and vigorously defended. (BBG Watch has received a copy of a lengthy memo sent to Congress by one of the current BBG members who strongly defends the decision to end VOA broadcasts to China and cites research and analysis from the BBG staff.) The author of the comment to this story, however, puts the entire blame on former VOA Director Dan Austin and one other VOA manager and claims that the BBG staff, presumably that includes Mr. Trimble and Mr. Sherman, had opposed this plan. BBG Watch sources tell a different story and point out that the same two individuals were also responsible for arguing in favor of ending VOA radio and TV broadcasts to Russia in 2008 and for supporting eliminations or reductions in other broadcasting services to countries without free media. BBG Watch sources do concede, however, that former VOA Director Austin did support the China plan.]

[Correction from IBB Director Lobo: BBG Watch has learned that IBB Director Richard Lobo has corrected a mistake in his memo. Paul Kollmer-Dorsey does not have the tile of General Counsel. He is Deputy General Counsel. The General Counsel position has been vacant for some time.]

Jeff Trimble

Sources describe Sherman and Trimble as being primarily responsible for formulating the plan to end VOA broadcasts to China. The plan had generated strong bipartisan opposition in Congress, which forced the BBG to give up its intention to end VOA radio and TV broadcasts in Mandarin and Cantonese and to fire 45 VOA Chinese Branch journalists, most of whom specialize in human rights reporting.

According to BBG Watch sources, Trimble and Sherman are protected by the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson who wants to de-federalize VOA and Radio and TV Marti and to limit the independence of the BBG-managed surrogate broadcasters: the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa), Radio Free Asia (RFA) and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Lobo had been appointed to his position by President Obama.

BBG Watch sources describe Trimble and Sherman as the chief authors of the BBG strategic plan which calls for these changes. One source told BBG Watch that not all BBG members supported Sherman’s promotion. BBG Governor Victor Ashe, who has become an outspoken critic of the BBG/IBB management team, was — according to BBG Watch sources — opposed to rewarding Sherman and Trimble with these new positions.

Steven Korn

BBG Watch has also received reliable information that the heads of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN) and of Radio Free Asia (RFA), Brian Conniff and Libby Liu, have raised serious reservations about the Sherman-Trimble plan to merge MBN and RFA together with RFE/RL into a large corporate bureaucracy. Critics of the BBG strategic plan point out that the main feature that makes these surrogate broadcasters successful is their administrative and editorial independence, while the BBG strategic plan calls for administrative and editorial centralization and creating a BBG global news network.

The head of RFE/RL Steven Korn, an old friend of Walter Isaacson (they both worked at CNN), is described as the only one supporting the merger without any objections. Sources tell us that Korn has been making controversial personnel changes at RFE/RL designed to protect careers of his favorite subordinates after the proposed merger.

###

From an official IBB announcement:

From: IBB Notices Administration [notices@bbg.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2012 5:58 PM
To: IBB Staff
Subject: Message from the IBB Director

Colleagues:

The merger of the IBB and BBG staffs will become effective on January 15, 2012.
This action reflects the Board’s commitment to streamline and increase the efficiency of agency operations, as called for in the newly adopted 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. The merger will facilitate the development of BBG-wide strategies and objectives, strengthen oversight of program and organizational performance, and enhance collaboration among our Federal and non-Federal entities.

An organizational chart showing the restructured, merged IBB/BBG operation is attached. Here are the key changes:

A new Office of Strategy and Development will lead development and implementation of strategy through coordinated planning, agency-level audience research and impact assessment, program placement, development, and international media training. The Office will work with the broadcast services to align strategy at the Agency and language service levels as well as across entities to enhance performance and meet the goals set by the Strategic Plan. It will incorporate the former BBG Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement, the IBB Office of Marketing and Program Placement, and VOA Business Development. Bruce Sherman will serve as director.

The Office of Performance Review takes on enhanced responsibilities under the continued leadership of Kelu Chao. The Office will continue to conduct VOA and OCB language service research and programming reviews. It will now also be responsible for conducting management analyses of the operational effectiveness of all BBG elements and for coordinating inspections and reviews by the Office of Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office. The Office, together with the performance review elements of the non-Federal entities, will also provide feedback to help shape strategy.

The Office of Communications and External Relations is responsible for communications and outreach activities for the Board and will serve as the Board’s chief advisor for Congressional and external relations. The Office also coordinates communications operations of the BBG’s media networks — VOA, RFE, RFA, MBN, and OCB. The Graphics Unit, under the continued supervision of Tuleda Johnson, will move from the Marketing and Program Placement office to the Communications office. The position of Director of the Office of Communications and External Relations was recently advertised, and I hope shortly to be able to announce the selection of the Director of this office.

The Office of New Media has been renamed the Office of Digital and Design Innovation to better reflect its role in the development and implementation of innovative projects, programs, and services across U.S. international media. The Office will continue to play a key role in expanding the use of the best core technology platforms, as well as assisting entities in executing global digital and brand strategies, but also build out the next generation of digital products that present our content in an increasingly complex media landscape. Rob Bole continues as the Director of this Office.

A Board Operations Staff will be formalized under the direction of the Board Secretary and General Counsel, Paul Kollmer-Dorsey, and will continue to support the Board in its meetings and other operations.

The Secretariat staff and the Analysis and Administration Division will be combined as the Administrative and Secretariat Operations Unit. The Unit will coordinate the development, approval and codification of Agency administrative policies in the form of the Broadcasting Administrative Manual and provide Secretariat services to the BBG, along with the Division’s current functions. Doris Garay-Nellius will head this Unit.

I have designated Jeff Trimble as IBB Deputy Director. Jeff will assist me in overseeing IBB operations, and will carry out special projects at my direction, including the ongoing work to create a BBG global news network, a core element of the new Strategic Plan.

While this merger is a significant step, it is only a part of an ongoing, longer-term restructuring process. In coming months we will continue to study and evaluate this new organization, with an eye toward making further changes to achieve greater efficiencies and otherwise improve our performance. I look forward to your continued cooperation and assistance as we move forward.

Regards,

Dick Lobo
IBB Director

New BBG Organizational Chart

The obvious conflict of interest stemming from the fact that John Lennon and his wife Marie Lennon Skiba have long occupied top SES positions at the Broadcasting Board of Governors has been for years whispered about by BBG employees but nothing has been done to move one of them to another government agency.

BBG Watch sources tell us that both John Lennon and Rebecca McMenamin are generally well regarded by BBG employees who know them. But according to at least one of our commentators, they both lack stature and courage to oppose BBG executives who have been systematically stripping the Voice of America of its broadcasting assets and eliminating VOA programs to key countries like Russia and China.

From: House Announcements
To: IBB Notices
Subject: From the VOA Director
Sent: Jan 6, 2012 1:41 PM

I am pleased to announce the appointment of John Lennon as VOA’s Associate
Director of Strategy and Planning, effective Thursday, January 12. In this new
role, John will work closely with me and senior VOA and BBG management on
planning and implementing our strategic direction. The importance of this job
cannot be overstated, especially as we continue to coordinate our complex,
multimedia broadcasting efforts with the BBG’s strategy for U.S. international
broadcasting. John has more than four decades of experience at VOA and IBB.
For the past four years, he has served as Associate Director for Language
Programming, overseeing programming for VOA’s 43 language services. Prior to
this, he had served as Director of the Office of Performance Review since 2000,
and for extended periods as IBB’s Acting Associate Director for Program
Support. During that time, John expanded the use of audience research and
market analysis in the development of programming initiatives and helped
establish the Office of Marketing and Program Placement. John also has been
Deputy Director of the Latin American and European Divisions, Director of the
South European Division, and Acting Director of WORLDNET Television. He served
at the National Security Council in 1994-95 as a Director in the Office of
Democracy. John’s early career included assignments as a radio producer,
writer, reporter, and editor.

I am also pleased to announce that Rebecca McMenamin will be Acting Associate
Director for Language Programming, effective next Thursday. Rebecca, who began
her career at VOA 26 years ago, most recently served as my Senior Advisor for
Strategy to the VOA Director, working with me and senior management on planning
and implementing changes designed to strengthen VOA’s position as a leading
international broadcaster. Prior to that, she was responsible for leading Voice
of America and other U.S. government funded international broadcasters in the
increasing use of new and emerging digital technologies. Rebecca spearheaded
VOA’s initial digital product efforts, creating the Office of New Media and
overseeing development of a robust mobile platform for BBG, as well as creating
new digital syndication tools and expanding use of social media. Prior to
leading the Office of New Media, she worked in many different areas of VOA,
including four years as Program Coordinator in the Language Programming Office,
four years as Director of the English to Africa Service, Acting Managing Editor
of the East Asia and Pacific Division, and as a reporter and Duty Editor in the
Newsroom.

Please join me in congratulating John Lennon and Rebecca McMenamin on their new
assignments.

David Ensor

Another article, published in Zagreb, Croatia by Croatian Times, also describes examples of discrimination at Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty: Snjezana Pelivan asks Croatian government to support her legal claim in Strasbourg

Snjezana Pelivan

These days, Soviet-style samizdat  is doing the rounds at the Prague headquarters of Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty. It is a press release on the letter to Croatian government by Snjezana Pelivan, a Croatian journalist living in Prague. Her case against the Czech Republic as a country that tolerates the national discrimination practised on its territory by the American RFE/RL, is in the European Court of Human Rights. In her letter, she officially requests the government of Croatia to support her lawsuit in Strasbourg.

Snjezana Pelivan quotes Czech Senator Jaromir Stetina, vice-chairman of the Senate caucus of the governing party, member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Policy, Defense and Security, who described RFE/RL labour policies in the Czech Republic as “patently indecent, unfair, cynical and hypocritical”.

Snjezana Pelivan gives the following example, among others: “A foreign woman working for RFE/RL will receive maternity leave in accordance with the RFE/RL Corporate Policy Manual. It is almost three months shorter than the leave provided by Czech law to anyone else in the Czech Republic, including Czech employees of RFE/RL. But a foreign employee of the Radio has no place to complain – neither to the American courts, nor the Czech ones. In the sovereign Czech Republic, the American RFE/RL is the most sovereign judge in its own court without the right of appeal.”

The article mentions two of the high-level Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty executives, Julian Knapp and John O’Sullivan, who have left the RFE/RL, are about to leave, or whose job titles have been changed. According to earlier reports, some of the recent personnel changes at Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty are due to the reported pressure on “old white guys,” allegedly to make room for promotions for employees who are the favorites of RFE/RL President Steven W. Korn. He is a former CNN associate of the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson.

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

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

A Knoxville magazine website Metro Pulse quoted from BBGWatch.com in its report about Broadcasting Board Governor Victor Ashe’s unprecedented one-man campaign to reform the federal agency in charge of U.S. international broadcasting.

Metro Pulse reported that “A blog [BBGWatch.com report: U.S. official Victor Ashe calls for keeping a radio facility capable of reaching China] that covers the BBG called Ashe’s public dissent ‘unprecedented’ by a member since the members, appointed by the president, do not publicly criticize the running of the agency.” Metro Pulse pointed out that Ashe, who is a former mayor of Knoxville and former U.S. Ambassador to Poland, has been visiting various BBG broadcasting entities and meeting with employees. The report suggest that Ashe “can be expected to continue to be a thorn in the side of his colleagues.”

The article mentions Ashe’s statement in support of keeping open a radio transmitting facility on U.S. territory capable of broadcasting to China.

Metro Pulse also noted Ashe’s successful intervention to make flu shots available to contract employees working at the Voice of America (VOA). “Ashe said the flu does not discriminate between civil service and contract workers. So the flu shots were extended,” Metro Pulse reported.

Read full Metro Pulse story.

Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson, How Many Political Directors (Steves) Do You See at BBG?

We have reported earlier on the placement into high-paying government jobs at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) of former CNN employees, many of whom don’t have any real duties. The BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson is a former CNN executive. These former CNN employees, some of whom — we are told — didn’t even earn a college degree, make about $150,000 a year plus all the generous fringe benefits which come with federal government employment. A great deal, if you can get it.

Shortly after posting our report, and perhaps in response to it, VOA’s Executive Editor, Steve Redisch (formerly of CNN) created a special position of “Political Director” for one of his former CNN colleagues whom he had hired. (We like the title of “Political Commissar” better, it’s more in line with the CNN style of reporting than VOA’s, but we’re sure that Political Director will change that given enough time and de-federalization.)

Redish’s memo (BBG Watch saw a copy but we misplaced it; can anyone send it to us?) seems to suggest that VOA never had anyone in charge of organizing coverage of political events in the U.S. In fact, there are several people who already do this job; this is yet another make-belief position created for former CNN types, BBG Watch sources report.

Let’s be honest, other than Isaacson and perhaps David Ensor (also formerly from CNN), these individuals are not exactly the best and the brightest — far from it. Perhaps this is what the new de-federalized, privatized, merged entity being envisioned by BBG bureaucrats needs to lead it in the 21st Century.

One of Isaacson’s former CNN colleagues, a lawyer by training, wrote an email in which he bragged about promoting his favorites and referring dismissively to “old white guys.” Think of all the lawsuits that will cost the BBG and American taxpayers plenty of money as a result of this email. The majority of BBG members refused to fire him for this comment. And yet, by law, they are required to act in the best interests of U.S. international broadcasting and the BBG.

But one does not need to look so high to see examples of great foolishness. Talk about treating VOA journalists as if they were just hired from the National Park Service of the Social Security Administration and have never before written a news story or conducted an interview.

In the Soviet samizdat tradition, VOA journalists are fighting back with humor. Here is a radio (sorry, new media because of SMS texting) play sent to us by a VOA broadcaster who wants to remain anonymous.

The Literary Adventures of the Steves
Based on the True SMS Messages of the Steves

Act One
A barren hallway in Cohen. A door. Morning.

Steve, leaning against a door, is thumbing his Iphone. He attacks it with both hands, panting. He stops, exhausted, rests and starts again. As before. Enter Steve.
Steve: Nothing to be done.

Steve: I’m beginning to come round to that opinion. Its hopeless. They just don’t get it.

Steve: (resumes texting) Not listening, not listening, that is their problem. We keep telling them what they are doing wrong. (he broods)

Steve: I’m glad to see you back. I thought you wouldn’t come back.

Steve: No one else will hire me.

Steve: So you came back.

Steve: Yes I came back.

Steve: We have a meeting.

Steve: Huh? (still texting)

Steve: We have a meeting.

Steve: Another?

Steve: Yes.

Steve: Let’s text each other.

Steve: Yes. Let’s text each other. (They enter the room and sit.) .
(Transcript of text messages.)

Steve: This meeting is boring.

Steve: Yes you are right. It is boring.

Steve: (touching iPad) Why won’t they stop talking?

Steve: Perhaps they think they have something to say?

Steve: Tee hee.

Steve: Let’s leave.

Steve: Yes. Let’s leave. (They do not move.)

Steve: Do you have a bit of rope? (He glances at the ceiling.)

Steve: No just my belt.

Steve: If she doesn’t stop talking I will take your belt.

Steve: But my pants will fall down.

Steve: Yes. Your pants will fall down.

Steve: Let’s leave.

Steve: Why are we here?

Steve: One hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

Steve: Yes.

Steve: No college diploma.

Steve: I do.

Steve: Yes.

Steve: She is still talking.

Steve: Why are we listening?

Steve: Someday they will get it.

Steve: They will never get it.

Steve: Yes.

Steve: They have never worked for a Real News Organization.

Steve: Yes. They are not like us. We aired the wall coming down.

Steve: What wall?

Steve: The Berlin Wall.

Steve: I was off that day.

Steve: So was I.

Steve: Let’s leave.

Steve: Yes. (They do not move.)

Steve: What are we waiting for?

Steve: We are waiting for them to get it.

Steve: They will never get it.

Steve; Yes. They will never get it.

Act Two

Same Day. Same Meeting. Still texting.
Steve: What are they saying?

Steve: I don’t know. It is boring.

Steve: I feel like singing.

Steve: Sing!

Steve: Why do you always agree?

Steve: Yes. I always agree.

Steve: Why?

Steve: One is not master of one’s opinions.

Steve: Huh?

Steve: I fell better when I’m with you. You feel better alone.

Steve: Huh?

Steve: They just don’t get it.

Steve: Yes. They just don’t get it.

Steve; The news business is hard.

Steve: Only if you think hard.

Steve: I don’t think hard. But given the existence of the need for information as a tool of liberation, quaquaquaqua, we waste and pine, waste and pine.

Steve: Huh?

Steve: Brain burp. Sorry.

Steve: This meeting is boring.

Steve: Yes. It is boring.

Steve: Well, shall we go?

Steve: Yes. Let’s go.

(They do not leave.)

We hope you enjoyed this post. We promise to have more posts like this one in our Hot Tub Blog in 2012. Your suggestions for improving our site are greatly appreciated. We want to take this opportunity to thank those who have already sent theirs.

Please consider making a New Year resolution of contributing your own news tips and hilarious comments to BBG Watch. Send your submissions by email to contact@usgbroadcasts.com. You don’t have to use your real name or even a real email address. In fact, it’s better if you don’t. And Please, DO NOT USE your work computer or any government-issued device to communicate with us. We don’t want to get you in trouble.

Happy New Year to all VOA colleagues from BBGWatcher. It’s not as bleak as it seems. In the first four months since its launch, the BBGWatch.com site has had more than 100,000 hits and was quoted in a national magazine and a newspaper article. That’s something to celebrate, but we are most proud of our readers and contributors. Thank you all!

Celebrate

Remember

Support

Go here to see the original:
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen on 70 years of VOA broadcasting to China

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

Women’s Rights Without Frontiers is launching a Christmas Card campaign in support of Chen Guangcheng. WRWF President, Reggie Littlejohn, stated, “Send a Christmas card to encourage Chen Guangcheng and his family. Let them know that you are thinking about them and support them. Also, let the Chinese Communist Party and the local officials know that Chen has supporters from all over the world.” Reggie Littlejohn is also a member of the Advisory Board for the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB). She has supported the campaign to save Voice of America (VOA) radio ands television broadcasts to China from being silenced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) so that news about the illegal detention of Chen Guangcheng and other Chinese human rights activists could continue to reach millions of VOA listeners.

To participate in the campaign, simply send a Christmas card to Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, P.O. Box 54401, San Jose, California, 95154. WRWF will remove the envelope to protect your privacy and mail the card with your message to Chen. WRWF also plans post the cards on its websites.

This Christmas Card campaign is part of WRWF’s larger, international effort to free Chen. WRWF’s petition to free Chen already has more than 7400 signatures.

WRWF’s Sunglasses Campaign has photos of people wearing sunglasses from five continents, including such nations as Uganda, Argentina, Italy the United States and China.

After a hearing of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China, Congressman Chris Smith supported this campaign by donning shades and posing with Littlejohn next to a large poster of Chen Guangcheng, created from smaller photos of his supporters wearing sunglasses by a noted Chinese political cartoonist. Link

Just last week, Batman star Christian Bale joined the scores of brave Chinese citizens who have made the long journey to Dongshigu village in an attempt to visit Chen. Like them, Bale was roughed up and physically forced to retreat from the village.

“Christian Bale is a hero, a real star. WRWF calls upon more people of influence to use their star power to shed light on the darkness and evil surrounding the brutal treatment of Chen,” stated Littlejohn. She believes that such efforts, both inside and outside China, will increase the chance that Chen will be freed. “We commend Rep. Chris Smith for trying to visit Chen and urge the Chinese government to grant him a visa for this purpose.”

The “old white guys” comment attributed to a former CNN associate of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Chairman Walter Isaacson will just not go away. Nor should it until officials who make such comments are forever banned from U.S. international broadcasting.

Jay Nordlinger, a senior editor of National Review, has linked his recent “Impromptus” column to the BBG Watch story. Nordlinger does not focus on the BBG, but his commentary deals with people who make broad charges based on race, age, and gender.

Interestingly, Nordlinger mentions John O’Sullivan, “who is just leaving Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.” Could O’Sullivan be one of those “old white guys” being pushed out from U.S. international broadcasting prior to the proposed merger and de-federalization so that former CNN executives can give high paying BBG jobs to other former CNN employees and to promote their favorites?

BBG Watch thinks this is exactly what’s going on and we have facts and documents to prove it: BBG executives who have developed the merger/privatization plan are already treating U.S. international broadcasting as their personal fiefdom.

Brazen sexist and racist comments go unpunished, broadcasts to strategically important countries and regions are being cut (China, Russia) while BBG executives give themselves $10,000 bonuses on top of their $170,000 salaries, plans are developed to bureaucratize the surrogate broadcasters and to undermine their independence and effectiveness, and the Voice of America’s unique claim to represent the views and values of the American people and the American government is being threatened by a corporate privatization at U.S. taxpayers’ expense.

BBG executives will no doubt claim on Capitol Hill that their plans and actions are designed to save money and to make U.S. international broadcasting more effective. As to saving money, we hope no one in Congress is foolish enough to believe such claims. They will hire more of their friends and associates and give money to private contractors whom they know because there would be less scrutiny, less transparency and less accountability. U.S. international broadcasting will no longer belong to the American people. The BBG might as well remove the U.S. from their agency’s name.

As to the effectiveness, perhaps if you think that CNN International should be the standard of U.S. public diplomacy, then you might get your wish. Those of us who have lived abroad and watched CNN International think that it is one of the reasons the world needs the Voice of America. To correct the anti-American bias.

As for the “old white guys” of U.S. international broadcasting — don’t count on the Broadcasting Board of Governors to protect you. Some BBG members reportedly wanted to fire the executive who made the offensive comment but in the end they did not get the majority to support them. No doubt employment anti-discrimination lawsuits will follow and the BBG would have no choice but to settle them because of the “old white guys” comment and other examples of discriminatory behavior, with the American taxpayers picking up the tab.

While we are still checking out some details, sources have told BBG Watch that the official who made the “old white guys” comment is a lawyer by training. This certainly adds insult to injury. He must have not been practicing law in the United States for quite some time. We are also told that the BBG paid thousands of dollars to a recruiting firm and by some strange coincidence the firm found a former CNN associate of the BBG Chairman.

If this is the best CNN talent they can get as managers to be in charge of the merged and privatized future corporate BBG entity, then U.S. international broadcasting is indeed in big trouble — that is true whether there is a merger/privatization or not. David Ensor, the new Voice of America director, who is a former CNN correspondent, seems to be an exception and is being praised by some for his independent leadership, but it remains to be seen how far he can go against the BBG bureaucrats who still seem to have Isaacson’s ear when he can get away from promoting his recently published biography of Steve Jobs. BBG’s senior Republican member Victor Ashe is waging a lonely fight against mismanagement and corruption. At least for now, however, the open season for “old white guys” at the Broadcasting Board of Governors seems to be still on.

Also see a BBG Watch report on Ashe’s statement.

Statement from BBG Governor 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.

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.