But based on its latest budget proposal, global news organizations like Reuters and AP would appear to have little to fear. To achieve its goal, the BBG, a tiny federal agency overseeing U.S. non-military broadcasters, first plans to gut its existing news operations, starting with the nation’s flagship overseas broadcaster, the Voice of America.

Just in time for VOA’s 70th birthday, the eight-member Board has proposed to cut news spending by $5.6 million and to eliminate 71 positions in VOA’s Central Newsroom as well as its English News Features and Programs Division.

Yet the BBG still maintains: “VOA Central News will be at the heart of a global newsroom for all U.S. international broadcasting entities.”

Those other entities include Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE-RL), based in Prague. It, too, has a newsroom. But the BBG plans to cut 10 positions there and reduce news spending by $1.2 million.

What about Radio/TV Marti, broadcasting to Cuba out of Miami? Its newsroom would lose $2.3 million and 24 positions.

Radio Free Asia loses news jobs as well. The BBG Budget plan says, “RFA will capitalize on VOA’s assets by utilizing VOA as a Washington Bureau.”

(The controversial Middle East Broadcasting Network, consisting of Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV, is the final element in the BBG family. It escapes relatively unscathed in the latest budget, largely because the Board wants an additional $2 million “to increase its news and information for and about Egypt and Egyptians.”)

An unnamed journalist at VOA, commenting on the cuts on a website run by current and former BBG and VOA employees, asks: “Has the Broadcasting Board of Governors gone mad?”

Alan L. Heil, a former deputy director of VOA and author of Voice of America: A History, compares the budget cuts to reckless surgery of the worst kind. As he puts it, “The overseers have VOA on the operating table for a lobotomy, one that, if not blocked by Congress, would cost the network its journalistic soul.”

The BBG concedes “change on the order we propose is inherently unsettling. There will be resistance within and outside the organization. Employees will naturally worry about their jobs.”

But the eight-member Board, whose bipartisan Governors serve only part-time, claims inefficiency, redundancy, and lack of coordination have kept U.S. broadcasters from living up to potential. They assert integration is “an operational imperative.”

Critics have for years called for integrating U.S. broadcasters and eliminating the costly duplication that has, for example, seen VOA and RFE-RL both broadcast to such countries as Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan. But many of these same critics look at the Board’s plans now as a thinly veiled effort to slowly do away with the Voice of America, whose journalists have long been known for upholding journalistic standards in the face of political pressure from the Board and conservative members of Congress.

Despite the criticism already flowing its way over the proposed cutbacks, especially those targeting VOA, the BBG maintains it is committed “to fostering and promoting high-quality, independent and objective journalism” as well as becoming “the world’s leading international news agency by 2016.”

Curiously, the only Board member to speak consistently of the primary importance of good journalism resigned just before release of the budget proposal. Former Time editor and CNN CEO Walter Isaacson had been Chairman of the BBG. The author of a best-selling biography of Apple’s late founder Steve Jobs, Isaacson said he was embarking on a major new book project. But one wonders.

***

Alex Belida is a former correspondent and news executive who worked in U.S. International Broadcasting for 40 years.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

In the age of instant communication, traditional diplomacy faces systemic changes: information travels faster and wider, institutions and hierarchies lose ground to individuals and informal connections, messages that are meant for a local audience reach beyond borders. Shaping a diplomatic message is increasingly challenging, and requires, in addition to classical diplomatic skills, a specific dose of cultural awareness, the mastering of new technologies, and the urge to address not only the leadership, but also the citizens, in all their diversity. Valero will discuss how the world of diplomacy is adapting to the new media environment and what diplomats, with their experience in building inter-cultural bridges, can bring to the world digital community.

Bernard Valero is the Spokesman and Head of the Press and Communication Office of the French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs. He has held this position since September 2009. Prior to his current position, he served on several occasions in the Ministry’s press and communication department, first as assistant secretary for press from 1998 to 2000 and then as Deputy Director; Deputy Spokesman, from 2000 to 2003. He also served as Press Counselor in Washington from 1995 to 1998.

Respond to the invite here.

Having drafted a new mission statement for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) stressing the primacy of journalistic values and having proposed that a new non-partisan Board be composed mainly of media veterans, let us now focus on a more efficient structure for U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB) that will attract greater audiences.

Instead of the current multi-entity structure, I would integrate VOA, RFE-RL, RFA, MBN and Radio/TV Marti into a single organization, eliminating all language duplication.  This new operation would be headquartered in Washington D.C. at the existing VOA center with satellite production bureaus as needed in strategic locations in addition to smaller news bureaus.

Because VOA is the oldest (70 years) and best known brand, the new consolidated entity would be known as the Voice of America.  If there was compelling reason to preserve any of the other entity names, I would merely re-label existing VOA divisions.  For example, Radio/TV Marti could be part of VOA’s Latin America Division and any shows directed at Cuba could be called “Marti on VOA.”  Similarly, like VOA’s current Persian News Network, we could have “The Middle East Broadcasting Network on VOA.”

In the case of Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty and Radio Free Asia, I would recommend eliminating those names (and any of their subdomains like Radio Mashaal on RFE), though I would consider preserving them in cases where they currently broadcast to countries not targeted by VOA  and research showed a name change would cause audience losses.

(An alternative strategy would be to rename the entire organization “Radio-TV America”  or “RTV America” or another suitable name and drop all past identifications.  But I see no value in this.)

The integration of the entities and the closure of selected facilities (the RFE-RL and RFA offices in Washington, for example, as well as RFE-RL HQ in Prague) would yield substantial cost savings as would personnel reductions stemming from the consolidation of language services and support staff.  It would be absolutely essential to trim substantially the bloated executive ranks, as there would no longer be need for separate entity directors, legal counsels, personnel directors, budget chiefs and the various technical and engineering directors.  This would be essential to keeping peace with the rank-and-file who see in the current environment that working journalists and studio technicians usually carry the heaviest burden when staffs are cut while the managerial ranks inevitably seem to grow.

Crucial to maintaining a credible global image for a reorganized U.S. International Broadcasting system would be the re-establishment of VOA English as a flagship, full-service, 24/7 multi-media operation.  Severe cutbacks over the past decade to VOA English have totally undermined its reach and popularity, suggesting Boards past and present have been and remain determined to eliminate it altogether.  This is a mistake of historic significance for a country whose principal language in English and in an era in which English has emerged as a truly global tongue.

I would also recommend a few additional basic steps.

First, we must have a mandatory training program for all new employees that would help create a culture of accurate, objective and comprehensive journalism in all program contents as well as imbue new hires with the history and traditions of the organization. I would use senior journalists on the staff to run this course.  I would also make sure members of a new BBG as well as the future Director of a new consolidated entity met with each new class.  (Why this is not already being done at VOA, for example, continues to mystify me.  It was tried once, for one two-week session, then dropped. New hires continue to be simply gobbled up by their services or branches, where their training is uncoordinated and uncertain.)

Secondly, if any new entity is to have true audience appeal, it must be generating compelling content of journalistic value.  To incentivize excellence in reporting, interviewing and videography, I recommend a monthly “Director’s Award for Journalistic Achievement,” with substantial cash prizes.  (For the sake of full disclosure, I made such a recommendation when I was still at VOA serving as a Senior Advisor to the Director.  It was never acted on and I never received an explanation why. VOA did away with its quarterly and annual “Excellence in Programming” awards several years ago, replacing it with an annual “Gold Medal” award system that enabled support staff to win recognition but did nothing to enhance good journalism on a regular basis.)

Finally, I would create a workers’ council comprised of elected representatives from the unions, non-union employees and contractors to meet regularly with the BBG and a new Director for USIB.  If the management of USIB ever hopes to restore credibility with the men and women who put programs on the air and the web, then it must listen to them and consider their views in decision-making.

***

Alex Belida is a former correspondent and news executive who worked in U.S. International Broadcasting for 40 years.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

The president’s 2013 budget proposal this week was big news in Washington, but for those who care about public diplomacy and international broadcasting, the most interesting parts involved the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio & TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks of Radio Sawa and Alhurra TV.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees these organizations, has proposed some significant cuts in the overall budget, which is hardly surprising given the nation’s economic problems. But they’ve also proposed sweeping changes in the way they want the broadcasters to operate in the future.

Three aspects of the BBG’s proposal particularly caught my attention:

The first was the lack of recognition of VOA’s historical mission of informing international audiences about the U.S. and U.S. policies, or, put another way, telling them about who Americans are, and what we believe in. The BBG’s newly rewritten mission statement makes no reference to this role, which could well prompt members of Congress to question why they should spend scarce taxpayer dollars on simply supporting another international news service, even a reformed one. VOA was originally created to counter anti-American propaganda, among other reasons, and while many things have changed since those early days of World War II, the need to counter anti-American propaganda has, unfortunately, not. Unless there’s a central and acknowledged role in the BBG’s – and VOA’s – mission for providing accurate, balanced, and comprehensive information about the U.S. and our policies, then it undermines the BBG’s and VOA’s entire reason for being.

Second: The proposed reform of the VOA newsroom. The Board wants to radically change the way VOA’s central news operation does business. In my view, this is a reform that is long overdue. As a journalist who has spent a lot of time in newsrooms during my career, I remember my surprise when I learned how little original reporting was produced in VOA’s newsroom. Most of the employees spent their days rewriting wire service stories into broadcasting copy that was consistent with VOA’s Charter and editorial guidelines. The emphasis was heavily on accuracy and caution, and very little on speed or originality, which is why VOA’s language services now produce much of the agency’s best journalism. The Board has proposed that the newsroom focus on producing original content rather than rehashed wire service stories, which I believe will be critical to VOA’s ability to attract audiences in the international media markets in which it competes. I do have two concerns, however. The severe cuts requested by the Board will jeopardize the newsroom’s ability to produce the mission-critical content I described in my previous point. I also wonder if they have the skills in the current newsroom to produce original, timely content. But this is a reform that is essential.

Third: The proposed cuts to the broadcasting services disproportionately fall on VOA despite the fact that the Board’s reforms will rely more than ever on VOA to generate original content, and despite the fact that most of VOA’s broadcasts have historically reached bigger audiences than its sister services where those broadcasts overlap. When I was the VOA director and the Board said program cuts had to be made, I always urged them to make their decisions based on the relative costs per listener or viewer of VOA’s language broadcast versus the competing broadcast from either Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty or Radio Free Asia (both of which overlapped to some extent with VOA’s language broadcasts). It would have been the most pragmatic way to make such decisions, and also the most easily defended, but politics always interceded in such decisions, and they never did.

I understand and support the Board’s goal of consolidating some elements of the broadcasters in order to reduce the wasteful duplication that has resulted from the creation of a half dozen independent and internally competing broadcasting entities over the years. But what I don’t understand is why they don’t follow this strategy to its logical conclusion and also reduce the number of brands. VOA has historically been the most recognized and respected brand in the entire BBG stable. It sometimes comes as a surprise to Americans (although not to many who have lived abroad) that VOA is well known and trusted by its international audiences. Yet time and again Board members have tried to pressure VOA management to launch programs under other names, thinking that might avoid the assumed taint of being associated with the U.S. government. The fact is, that association is not necessarily bad. VOA’s reputation, which has been painstakingly built over seven decades, is of a broadcaster who tells the truth about everything, including the U.S., and even when the news is unflattering. When we try to hide the association with VOA (or the U.S. government), that only prompts conspiracy theories that the CIA is behind the broadcasts. And in the end, they always figure out it’s coming from us anyway.

Bringing about major changes in international broadcasting isn’t easy, as I know from personal experience. But America’s international broadcasters have no other choice if they want to adapt to the growing competition abroad and the ways people consume information these days. To this end, the Board deserves praise for its willingness to tackle some big issues. But they cannot be fully successful unless they also are faithful to the original mission that the American people and their representatives in Congress have supported and expected for 70 years.

This article originally appeared at the Public Diplomacy Council’s website and is reposted here by permission.  

***

David Jackson is a veteran journalist and former U.S. government official with extensive multimedia communications experience in domestic and international markets.  Jackson was the 26th Director of the Voice of America, from 2002-2006.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

If, as suggested by Congress and proposed in my last posting, the mission of U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB) is to be good journalism in support of freedom of the press and the free flow of information, then those who oversee America’s non-military broadcasting entities need to be selected accordingly.

Unfortunately, to date, few Governors have had serious backgrounds in journalism and foreign affairs and too many have had partisan or ideological agendas.  This needs to change if USIB is to prosper in the future and attract greater audiences.

Let us first stipulate for the sake of practicality that the Broadcasting Board of Governors should be preserved, with some modifications, and not abolished.

Let us then look at the main duties assigned to the BBG by Congress.  While there are many, the key function is this:  “To ensure that United States international broadcasting is conducted in accordance with the standards and principles contained in section 6202 of this title.”

Again, while there are several standards and principles spelled out by legislation, the important ones, in my view, are these:

“United States international broadcasting shall…be conducted in accordance with the highest professional standards of broadcast journalism”

“United States international broadcasting shall include… news which is consistently reliable and authoritative, accurate, objective, and comprehensive”

The law also makes several points often overlooked by critics of objective and balanced journalism, including some members of Congress itself.  It stipulates that U.S. broadcasters will feature “a variety of opinions and voices” from abroad and showcase American thinking that reflects “the diversity of United States culture and society” along with “responsible discussion and opinion” of U.S. government policies.

(Nowhere does it state that Congress only wants to hear voices that support the U.S. government nor does it say Congress only wants to hear foreign voices representing the opposition in repressed countries.)

Having established a clear journalistic mission for the BBG and USIB as well as duties that protect the practice of good journalism, then who should sit on the Board?

Clearly the Governors should be experienced in the fields of journalism and foreign affairs.  But they should also be individuals who, despite the part-time nature of the work, are willing and able to devote themselves more intensely to the BBG’s work.

The current Board members have other jobs – jobs that interfere with their ability to function as effective overseers of USIB.  Walter Isaacson, who just resigned as Chairman of the BBG, is a good example.  While on the Board, he also held down the job of President and CEO of the Aspen Institute and he continued writing, notably his recent best-selling biography of Apple founder Steve Jobs.  He quit the BBG because he said he was embarking on yet another major writing project.  Another example is Michael Lynton, Chairman and CEO of Sony Pictures Entertainment.  He has missed most of the BBG’s monthly meetings.

So who best to replace these appointees?  I would suggest the President (and Congress) look first to the ranks of retirees from the Voice of America and the other USIB entities and consider giving two of the Board’s eight seats to them. Because they already know the playing field, they do not need to rely so heavily on the permanent staff of the BBG (and the IBB, the International Broadcasting Bureau).  Critics have charged those staffers regularly pursued their own agendas and as a result often misled the Governors.

Because retirees also know the players in USIB, they are more likely to be sensitive to the needs and the views of the journalists and others who work at the entities.  This is critical.  For the last several years morale has plummeted at the entities, largely because employees feel ignored.  At VOA, for example, the agency has ranked last or near the bottom in annual workplace satisfaction surveys.  The surveys have shown that while staffers feel their work is important, they have little confidence in their management.

In addition to having two of the eight Board seats reserved for non-partisan USIB retirees, I would propose two seats for retired U.S. public diplomacy specialists, two for appointees representing journalism education and the final two seats for representatives of U.S. news media. I would remove the Secretary of State from the Board and allow the eight other members to elect their own Chairman.

Next: A New Structure for USIB

***

Alex Belida is a former correspondent and news executive who worked in U.S. International Broadcasting for 40 years.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

The FT today reports on the continuing expansion of China’s CCTV in the United States. “China has started to serve US citizens its own side of the story with CCTV America,” writes the FT’s reporter.

CCTV America, from its studio in Washington, D.C., is part of Beijing’s outreach of telling its own story through its own voice.  The expansion has been dramatic and expensive.  They are covering stories of Chinese interest that are not covered by Western media or not covered in a way the Chinese want.  Such is the purpose and advantage of Government International Broadcasting.

Russia Today, or RT, is the Russian Government’s media channel.  It too has expanded significantly in the U.S. to the point surveys should note what cable networks don’t carry RT, rather than inventory what networks do carry it.

Back to CCTV, it was brought to the U.S., and expands in Asia, through IMG, a NYC-based consulting firm.  This is no knock on IMG as they can work with who they want, but where is the U.S. in utilizing the capabilities of America’s varsity teams in expanding capabilities abroad?

From my experience, the reality is that we are limited not by law but by imagination that in turn limits our agility.  What do you think?

See also Chinese state TV tries to woo US and Beijing making its voice heard with push for US media market (both are external links).

Indeed, by the time you read this, Tara’s nomination was already referred to the floor.  Next up: confirmation by the Senate.

How long will the Senate take confirm Tara?  No one knows.  The Senate has all but come to a halt on nominations, allowing only a few through.  One insider labeled the GOP hold on nominations as the “How-Dare-the-President-Make-SoCalled-Recess-Appointments Hold.”

The State Department, in a show of its confidence in the Senate last week, named Amb. Kathleenn Stephens as Acting Under Secretary.  Amb. Stephens, by the way, is a good choice, a Foreign Service Officer with the rank of Career Minister, whose service as U/S will undoubtedly be impacted by the unknown of how long she will serve, an unfortunate and common reality of this particular job.  Place your bets: Will she serve until the election, or beyond, or until the end of the month?

The agenda of today’s business that is chaired by Chairman Kerry:

NOMINATIONS

7.   Ms. Tara D. Sonenshine, of Maryland, to be Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy

8.   Mr. Earl W. Gast, of California, to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development

9.   Ms. Anne Claire Richard, of New York, to be Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration

10.   Mr. Robert E. Whitehead, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Togolese Republic

11.   The Honorable Nancy J. Powell, of Iowa, to be Ambassador to the Republic of India

12.   The Honorable Larry L. Palmer, of Georgia, to be Ambassador to Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Antigua and Barbuda, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

13.   The Honorable Phyllis M. Powers, of Virginia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Nicaragua

14.   Mr. Jonathan D. Farrar, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Panama

Under the Obama administration’s proposed FY 13 budget, the potential damage to the nation’s flagship publicly funded overseas network, the Voice of America, would be unprecedented if Congress approves it.  Contrast the reductions:  VOA faces net cuts totaling $17 million, compared with a reduction of $731,000 for its sister network, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The Voice of America, now in its 70^th year, faces a far larger reduction, proportionally, than either the U.S. international broadcasting administrative support bureaucracy or collectively, the four other networks in the system.  They are:  RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Network, and Radio-TV Marti.  Cuts of VOA staff who actually put programs on the air are the principal targets of the cuts, across the board.  Such hemorrhaging must be halted if the free flow of information from America to the world is to be secured for the millennial generation so curious about our nation and its role in the century ahead.

In effect, many VOA assets are being reprogrammed to enhance consolidation of U.S. international broadcasting and the rapid pursuit of new media formats.  The only encouraging aspect of the budget is the notion that VOA Central News, although greatly reduced in size, will become the site of a global news network incorporating the best reporting of all five publicly-funded overseas broadcasting entities.

The oversight Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has seized on the notion that VOA best serves the national interest by transforming itself to become a Washington bureau in a number of languages and by shifting radio functions and coverage of other world areas to the grantee networks in a number of cases.  This is contrary to a fundamental VOA Charter (P.L. 103-415) obligation to be an accurate, comprehensive and objective source of news (world as well as U.S.).

To be sure, engagement and dialogue, crowd sourcing, and citizen reporting, are powerful potential attributes in the new age.  But the largest and only full service global network, VOA, would lose 170 professional front line broadcasters and producers in the proposed budget if it is passed by Congress.  The new generation, most adept new media practitioners will be at the top of the list to go.  VOA will be gravely weakened in its ability to capitalize on opportunities in the digital age.

Content wise, this would undercut an unmatched foundation (and respected brand name) for take-off.   The BBG’s most recent surveys conclude that VOA has a 75% audience share of all who listen to, watch or consume U.S. international broadcasting in any format each week, 141 million of 187 million people altogether.   Of the total, 104 million still use radio and research has shown that a multimedia approach — including radio — amplifies audience numbers and cross-streaming.

The harm done in the proposed reductions to the English broadcasts of the Voice of America (until 2001, its top priority service) would deprive our flagship official overseas network of a valued role in our own language.  This, as China, Russia, Iran and Qatar expand their English broadcasts in America’s primary tongue to 24/7 coverage.   VOA was on the air in English around the clock a dozen years ago, reliably present in the universal language at any hour of the day or night.

Yet now, the Voice’s future as the second decade of the 21^st century dawns turns out to be dim indeed, unless Congress halts the carnage.  The BBG has it right in one respect:  an impartial, determined CEO with real authority is necessary to consolidate, reduce bureaucratic overload and preserve VOA and its journalistic soul.  By saving frontline multimedia broadcast talent equitably, an empowered day-to-day manager could make publicly-funded U.S. overseas broadcasting  the world standard the nation deserves and must have, for the sake of a safer, more secure planet.

References in support of the above may be found in the proposed FY 13 budget, Pages 7-10 and 22-24.

***

Alan L. Heil Jr. is a former deputy director of VOA, author of Voice of America: A History and editor of Local Voices/Global Perspectives: Challenges Ahead for U.S. International Media.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

Matt Armstrong has asked for a discussion on the future of the U.S. International Broadcasting (USIB) and the structure and purpose of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. For the past quarter century, I have been writing about US international broadcasting at the macro level. The two pillars of my proposals have always been independence and consolidation.

Independence

First, US international broadcasting must be under a bipartisan or nonpartisan board that shields it from direct US Government control and interference. There is no substitute for this. The world’s great public broadcasting corporations, including the BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, are seen as independent and credible news providers because they are managed by boards and not by the governments of their countries.

A government agency cannot realistically be a news agency. One politically appointed manager might be committed to independent journalism, but the next might order the manipulation of content, or the staffing of newsroom management, to support the policies of the president who appointed him or her.  The Voice of America went through such pendulum swings over the decades, to the detriment of its reputation.

The BBG must unambiguously commit to independent and credible news. In this regard, the new mission statement of the BBG is not helpful:

To inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy.

There are many way to “inform.” An advertisement informs. Radio Havana informs. Neither does so objectively. “Inform” needs to be qualified. And “inform” should not be relegated to equal billing with “engage” and “connect.”

“Engage” seems to be a word more associated with the persuasive arts than with journalism. A used car salesman will “engage” you the second you walk on to the lot. The best way to “engage” an audience is to give them something worth the effort of tuning in or logging on. USIB should concentrate on informing accurately, and let the professionals at the State Department’s public diplomacy offices “engage.”

As for “connect,” Facebook, Twitter, T-Mobile, and Sprint already do this. NGOs can bring such connections to more parts of the world. If USIB gets too deeply into the “connect” business, this could deplete the resources needed to be in the “accurately inform” business. Yes, encourage user-generated content (which VOA has done since before the internet). Use some of it in output, but realize that, for the sake of time and reputation, much user-generated content won’t, and shouldn’t, be included in USIB mass media.

“In support of freedom and democracy.” The mission statement moves much too quickly to an ulterior motive. Wonderful as freedom and democracy are, it is not a journalist’s job to support anything. Yes, accurate news and information are necessary to the development and maintenance of democracy. This should be explained in a separate sentence.

For example, we could take the old BBG mission statement, moving its lead to the front:

To provide accurate and reliable news and information about the United States and about the world.

For those who do not understand why accurate and reliable news is a sufficient goal, a second sentence could be added:

To provide accurate and reliable news and information about the United States and about the world. Accurate and reliable news and information are necessary to develop and maintain freedom and democracy.

The BBG’s new mission statement has jettisoned “accurate and reliable” but has kept “support freedom and democracy.”  This could cause confusion among audiences, and among the employees of USIB.

Is this USIB station giving me accurate news, or supporting a US policy goal?

Am I selecting, sourcing and writing this story to give the audience an accurate and complete picture, or to bolster the US government policy goal of fostering freedom and democracy?

To explain the concept of broadcasting news, and just news, here are some talking points:

Q: Why broadcast just the news? Don’t we want to give it a little spin, or be selective in subject matter, to support US Government objectives?

1)  Accurate and comprehensive news brings an audience to US international broadcasting. Audiences abroad seek out international broadcasts and websites to get news that is more reliable, objective, and credible than the “news” they get from their state-controlled domestic media.

2) Accurate news provides the antidote to the misinformation and disinformation of dictators, terrorists and other international miscreants.

3) Reliable and comprehensive news gives people the information they need to form their own opinions about current events and the conduct of their societies.

4) In the long term, accurately informed people will better understand, if not always agree with, US foreign policies and actions.

Consolidation

The second pillar of the reform of US international broadcasting is consolidation. True consolidation.

The BBG has announced a plan for the restructuring of front office management, but one that will preserve the “many brands and many divisions” of USIB. USIB has several entities and, increasingly, entities within entities. With multiple brands, there will be opportunities to preserve the duplication of effort, and the splitting of scarce resources, that keep USIB from realizing its potential. The BBG has announced a goal to become the “world’s leading news agency” by 2016. This is a lofty ambition, but USIB cannot compete with other world news agencies until it quits competing within itself.

A single brand can build the stature necessary to compete against the other big, unified global brands, e.g.  BBC and Al Jazeera. (CNN is another big, unified global brand, but USIB should not compete with CNN, or any other compatriot corporation that is providing accurate and reliable news to international audiences, at no cost to the US taxpayers.)

Consider the BBC: three crisp syllables, pronounceable and recallable by people all over the world, no matter what language they speak. Success for the BBC on TV in Asia reinforces the BBC brand on radio in Africa, and on the internet in Latin America. The BBC brand is therefore more readily recalled in audience surveys, increasing its estimated audience size, and thus enhancing its standing in the international media scene.

Q: Why not a Proctor & Gamble approach to US international broadcasting?

A:  P&G products do different things, from freshening one’s breath to dusting one’s floor. USIB is in one business: credible news.

Q: But VOA reports US and world news, while Radio Free X reports news about X.

A. VOA actually does report about X. Otherwise, VOA wouldn’t have an audience in X.  And, so, USIB has two stations splitting resources and duplicating their reporting about X.

Q: Why not require VOA to report only US and world news and Radio Free X to report only about X, thus eliminating any duplication?

A: Because then the audience would have to tune to two different USIB stations to get all the news. Or they could — and probably would — tune to BBC to get all the news from the convenience of one station. Surveys show, unsurprisingly, that audiences are interested in news about their own countries, and about the world, and about the USA, in proportions that vary from country to country. One station can provide news in the optimum proportions.

Q: But if we eliminate several USIB entities, won’t we also have to eliminate several senior level management structures?

A: Yes.

A new board structure?

BBC has not only a unified international broadcasting structure. It also has a valuable partnership with the domestic BBC. In my Foreign Service Journal paper of October 2010, I propose a similar partnership between USIB and US domestic broadcast news organizations. This would not only enable the exchange of news and journalism resources between US domestic and international broadcasting, but it could also result in a new board without the succession problems of the present BBG.

***

Kim Andrew Elliott reports on international broadcasting at www.kimandrewelliott.com.

Guests posts are the opinions of the respective authors, do not necessarily reflect the opinion of MountainRunner.us, and are published here to further the discourse on activities that understand, inform, and influence.

More to appear on this site about the plan. Feel free to leave comments below or via email.

Update: the link to the plan was fixed.  Such are the challenges of posting on the road (or train or conference room) from an iPad.