VOA Media Watch

Goodbye

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 14:57:00 +0000

It’s time for this blog to go into a self-induced coma. Perhaps to be terminated at a later date.

I had fun writing about various journalism issues. But defending VOA against the many misperceptions out there was, frankly, quite tedious and repetitive – especially in an era where too many people aren’t interested in the facts, only their own beliefs.

The other problem is that it’s really no fun talking to oneself. While I had hoped for a dialogue, there wasn’t any evidence of interest on the part of the readership, even though it numbered in the tens of thousands over the last couple years.

That has been very disappointing. I had expected otherwise.

But I was wrong -- perhaps because, like I just read in a novel, "rationality is the enemy of consciousness."

You figure it out. I can’t.

Wikileaks and The Media

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:43:00 +0000

The release by the Wikileaks organization of tens of thousands of U.S. diplomatic cables, as expected, has created a media frenzy. But it has got me to thinking, what if these were Chinese cables, or Iranian cables or, for that matter, diplomatic communications from any other country than the United States? Wouldn’t we all like to see some of those?

And it has also got me to thinking, how are non-U.S. media reporting on the latest leaks? I noticed an item on the Columbia Journalism Review website on how Arab media are handling the story. It is tantalizingly titled, “Tense scenes in Arab newsrooms right now.”

The title originates from a reference in the item to an article by Marc Lynch of Foreign Policy, who wrote: “I imagine there are some pretty tense scenes in Arab newsrooms right now, as they try to figure out how to cover the news within their political constraints.”

I’d like to hear from readers on how you think your own domestic media are handling the story. Drop us an email.

Resentment is What Generates Ratings?

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:58:00 +0000

It was a week ago that we proposed creation of a network of media watchers. We asked readers in the 15 countries which have sent the most visitors to the VOA Media Watch to sign up. To say the response has been under-whelming would be too generous. In fact, no one has stepped up. That’s right. No one. Not a single message. Nothing.

So maybe we are going about things the wrong way. Let’s try a different tactic. We’ll put up a statement and see if anyone wants to comment on it. Here goes.

Does the following statement describe the content of any of the news outlets you follow?

“…the news exists in order to generate controversy. And controversy exists in order to generate resentment. And the resentment is what generates ratings… Resentment of whom? Well, a cultural elite that is corrupt and maneuvering behind the scenes to exercise power.”

Send in your thoughts (and we’ll reveal the source of the statement). In the meantime, enjoy the video.

We’ve Had Enough And We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:14:00 +0000

Well, that was the title of a posting I wanted to put up this week lashing out at those individuals who make waves by telling lies about VOA, occasionally out of ignorance but usually with malicious intent, hoping that if people hear the lies often enough, they will be accepted as the truth.

But then two things happened. First, I was talked out of it by my editor. And second, I received the latest copy of the Columbia Journalism Review. It contains an editorial decrying a recent media trend in the U.S. “where we increasingly live in separate information silos.”

It laments what it terms “ideological fracturing” in which some news organizations “profit by preaching to their respective choirs.” It says this “massive retreat into ideological niches” isn’t helping the media or the nation address their challenges.

And then the editorial offered some suggestions:

• “Ignore the bias bullies. If you are intellectually honest in your reporting and in story choices, stop cringing every time somebody says you are not.

• “Stand up for facts…

• “Stop groveling…

• “Do what you do best—deep reporting…”

It’s good advice for journalists, wherever they are. So, instead of worrying about the “bias bullies,” I’ll choose to ignore them. And VOA will focus on what VOA does best: serving “as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.”

Notable Quotes: "...an antidote to malicious journalism…"

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:21:00 +0000

My thanks and compliments to columnist and author Thomas Friedman of the New York Times who provides today's notable quote in an item titled "Too Good to Check."

The piece discusses how Anderson Cooper of CNN exposed the falsehood that President Obama's recent trip to Asia cost $200 million a day. Friedman writes: "It underscored just how far ahead of his time Mark Twain was when he said a century before the Internet, 'A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.' But it also showed that there is an antidote to malicious journalism — and that’s good journalism."

The key quote comes at the end:

"When widely followed public figures feel free to say anything, without any fact-checking, we have a problem. It becomes impossible for a democracy to think intelligently about big issues — deficit reduction, health care, taxes, energy/climate — let alone act on them. Facts, opinions and fabrications just blend together. But the carnival barkers that so dominate our public debate today are not going away — and neither is the Internet. All you can hope is that more people will do what Cooper did — so when the next crazy lie races around the world, people’s first instinct will be to doubt it, not repeat it."

Building a Community of Media Observers

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Mon, 15 Nov 2010 13:26:00 +0000

Since the VOANewsBlog began in January 2008, tens of thousands of people from around the world have visited. Excluding the United States, the top 15 countries with the most visitors have been:

1. Vietnam
2. Iran
3. Japan
4. South Korea
5. China
6. Canada
7. United Kingdom
8. Taiwan
9. Germany
10. Russia
11. Thailand
12. France
13. Turkey
14. India
15. Pakistan

As part of our redesign, I’d like to build a community of media observers, starting with these countries, who would comment on the information they receive from VOA and compare it to the quality of information they can obtain from their domestic media. What do they like about VOA news, or dislike? I might from time to time throw out a question to the community for responses and then collate and display the results here. (I won’t censor anyone’s comments, as long as they avoid hate speech, obscenity and the like.)

So how do we build this community? It’s really up to you. If you want to participate, send an email to VOANewsBlog@gmail.com

Please tell me a little about yourself, your background and any media experience you might have. Explain why you want to join up. Please add a comment or observation about VOA News.
So if you want to get involved, send an email to VOANewsBlog@gmail.com

As the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, Walter Isaacson, said in a recent speech: “We have to be able to build online communities with our audience that actively engage them on issues of mutual concern and interest.”

That’s what we’re trying to do here.

And as you have probably noticed, we have renamed the NewsBlog and now call it the VOA Media Watch. And we’ve changed the template. New look. New start. Join us.

Knee-Jerk Critics and Others

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 13:36:00 +0000

A recent post discussed the question of whether our editorial content is automatically suspect because VOA is financed by the U.S. government.

We know the answer is yes, for some people. But additional data, obtained from recent audience research conducted for VOA, suggests at least some of the suspicion is simply “knee-jerk” suspicion, not based on fact.

Take for example the following excerpt from a recent report on a monitoring panel asked to evaluate one of VOA’s language services:

“…despite the respondents’ high ratings for accuracy and objectivity, a minority of panelists expressed some concern about the possible influence of the U.S. Government in the broadcasts. For instance, one panelist opined that VOA tried to hide the drawbacks of American policy in its coverage of Afghanistan. Nevertheless, this same panelist went on to note that VOA’s unbiased look at the challenges faced by a Muslim–American soldier in the U.S. military made up for the shortcomings she perceived in the coverage of U.S. actions in Afghanistan and showed VOA’s concern for Muslims.”

Another audience panel was critical of a perceived bias in the way VOA reported on this year’s devastating floods in Pakistan:

“Some panelists even felt that [VOA] was using the flood as a propaganda tool to make Pakistanis -- who, according to the panelists, view the United States with anger and distrust --better like and appreciate the country.”

One of the panelists in this group admitted he would never view any VOA news item with an open mind, stating “Americans are treated with scorn and derision and we give them no moral weight.”

There is yet another group of audience members -- again, I suspect a minority -- who do not expect VOA to be objective and balanced and indicate they want it to be pro-U.S. all the time. While such comments, in my experience, usually emanate from people here in the United States, this comment came from abroad:

“It is unrealistic for VOA to be a government-owned body and claim to offer ‘balanced’ and ‘unbiased’ news coverage. VOA’s mission is to present the U.S. policies and not the opposition to these policies. Objectivity should not really be a part of the assumption or equation.”

Frankly, I don’t see how we can ever satisfy any of these critics. To those who want “gung-ho, pro-America, slam-our-adversaries all-the-time” programming, I can only say: “Forget about it. We have a Charter and we’re sticking to it. (And besides, we don’t have to bash our adversaries. They do a pretty good job of bashing themselves and all we have to do it report it.)”

For those who don’t believe we can be accurate, objective and balanced, I would only ask: “Please don’t make any assumptions. Take some time to actually watch, listen to or read our content.”

Isaacson: Credibility is the Key

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Thu, 04 Nov 2010 10:52:00 +0000

(This is the fourth excerpt from my remarks to John Brown’s Georgetown University class.)

Walter Isaacson says the fundamental BBG mission, despite all the changes in the global media marketplace, will remain exactly the same: “It’s fostering freedom through credible journalism. It’s just that simple.”

The new Chairman, speaking recently at the Newseum, acknowledged that U.S. international broadcasting is in a difficult position because by law and by tradition it’s tasked with two separate missions that might conflict: first of all, covering the news with the highest journalistic standards and secondly, being a part of America’s public diplomacy by accurately conveying U.S. policies and values to the world.

“Let me say to you,” said Isaacson, “we will stress the primacy of the first of these missions, our mission of being credible journalists, because it is the best – in fact, it’s the only way to carry out the second mission. You can’t do it unless you’re credible and telling the truth, and in the end, the truth is on our side. Credibility is the key to all that we do.”

So, to go back to where we began these remarks and the original question posed, the biggest challenge to U.S. international broadcasting in the 21st century is the same one that it has faced since it began in 1942 – credibility.

(My thanks to John Brown and his Georgetown students for having me as a guest and for providing an engaging Q and A session.)

Firewall or Political Football?

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 11:48:00 +0000

(This is the third excerpt from my remarks to John Brown’s Georgetown University class.)

The Broadcasting Board of Governors is supposed to protect journalists at VOA from being buffeted by political interference by acting as a “firewall.” As a BBG factsheet states, “The firewall safeguards the ability of BBG entities to develop programming that reflects the highest professional standards of broadcast journalism, free of political interference.”

But what if a member of Congress, exercising legislative prerogatives, holds up the confirmation of the entire slate of nominees for a new Board? This actually happened – and the legislator in question was dissatisfied with the tenor of some VOA broadcasts.

Now this legislator would probably argue that his interest was motivated by the need for “Congressional oversight” of a government agency receiving government funding.
But it was viewed in some quarters as political interference. Here is some language supporting that perspective from a Congressional Report on U.S. International Broadcasting issued earlier this year:

“Congress originally established the Board (BBG) in the mid-1990’s to ensure our broadcasting operations were free from political pressures from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. After 15 years, however, it has become clear that the BBG, rather than functioning as a political “firewall,” has become a political “football” as Board membership nominations have become enmeshed and blocked due to partisan politics.”

The report specifically responded to one criticism made of certain U.S. international broadcast programs:

“Critics note that some BBG entities have allowed individuals opposed to U.S. policy to air their views without any rebuttal or balanced context. While allowing such vitriol to go uncontested is clearly poor journalism, such occurrences have been the rare exception, not the norm. Nonetheless, in order for the BBG to be credible to its audience and draw in not just those who already agree with U.S. policy, its networks must be permitted to present both sides of an argument.”

Fortunately, we have a new BBG Chairman, Walter Isaacson, who I believe, based on his early comments, is a staunch advocate of solid journalism and keeping VOA at arm’s length from politics.

(Next: the new BBG Chairman speaks out)

The Credibility Question

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 02 Nov 2010 11:46:00 +0000

(This is the second excerpt from my remarks to John Brown’s Georgetown University class.)

“Credibility trumps everything else when it comes our role as a government funded international broadcaster.” – Danforth Austin, VOA Director

But here is the follow-up question I put to the Director: “Is it possible to convince audiences of our credibility when many people believe it is automatically undermined by virtue of us being part of the U.S. government? How can we surmount that?”

Here’s what Director Austin replied:

“As a [foreign] newspaper editor…put it to me on a visit last year: ‘VOA, CIA, what's the difference?’ So yes, while in the dark days of WWII the name ‘Voice of America’ may have resonated with much of the rest of the world as the voice of freedom and hope, the moniker can carry a very different connotation in today's world.”

He went on:

“Of course, private-sector American media often get tarred with the same brush, especially in the foreign press which tends to see all of us as agents of Uncle Sam. More difficult to address is the perception among the chattering classes here that being funded by the USG means, ipso facto, that our reporting on the US will be less than objective, that we may even be obligated to shill for the government and its policies. Indeed, there are people on the Hill who believe that's exactly what we should be doing.”

Director Austin’s conclusion about how we contend with the doubts about our credibility:

“The only way I know to combat that perception is to continue to do our jobs as professionally as we know how, and to make sure that the public understands when and why we do this…”

(Next: Firewall or Political Football)

The Challenges to US International Broadcasting in the 21st Century

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 14:52:00 +0000

(Note: I was invited by John Brown to speak to students in his graduate class at Georgetown University recently on “The Challenges to U.S. International Broadcasting in the 21st Century.” Here is a first excerpt from my remarks. Unless otherwise specified, the views expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of VOA.)

Things are no longer as simple as when international broadcasters just did shortwave transmissions to the world. Now we have to adapt to a world where more people want TV than radio – and where the Internet is expanding its reach daily. We have to have a presence on the net and on the various social media sites. And we have to have a mobile phone presence. This has meant staffers need to develop new skills. And it has increased our overall costs, especially to do television.

So when I told senior managers at VOA and the BBG about this event, and solicited their views on the greatest challenges, invariably some of them first mentioned budget. Although our funding has generally been increasing, it’s never enough to do all that we’d like to do.

Another challenge is increased competition – and not just from traditional competitors like the BBC, Deutsche Welle and the like. China, Russia, Iran – they are all pouring tens of millions of dollars into global broadcasting efforts. And that’s not all. With the Internet, everyone is potentially an international broadcaster. That means we've got to be creative about how attract audiences. No longer can we just roll out "the news" and expect people to watch, listen or read.

Yet another possible challenge is posed by those who question why U.S. International Broadcasting needs several entities versus one comprehensive one. The stock answer is that VOA emphasizes international and regional news and in-depth coverage of the United States while entities like Radio Free Europe, Radio Free Asia and TV Marti emphasize domestic news of the countries they broadcast to. That distinction has been blurred over time and can be debated.

But the biggest challenge is one we've faced since we started broadcasting in 1942: maintaining credibility and trust with our audiences.

This is not only my view, it’s the view of VOA Director Danforth Austin. In a message to me, he said:

“The way people consume media, including news media, is changing rapidly around the globe, and keeping up with those changing habits is critical for a news organization like VOA. But if the content we deliver, whether via shortwave radio or mobile device, can't be believed or trusted, we've accomplished nothing. Credibility trumps everything else when it comes our role as a government funded international broadcaster.”

(In the next excerpt, I will raise the question of whether the credibility of a U.S. government financed news organization is automatically suspect by virtue of its funding source.)

A Response from VOA’s Director

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:37:00 +0000

VOA Director Danforth Austin has a response to this week’s post in which a reader in Sweden proposed that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in an effort to be more competitive in international TV markets, “try to finance an international channel produced by the (U.S.) Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and with PBS quality programming.”

Director Austin notes a decision was made long ago by U.S. government-funded international broadcasters “that Americans living abroad and English speakers in democracies that enjoy a free press are already well served by commercial television and don't require programming subsidized by American taxpayers.”

He goes on to say that at VOA, “we continually work to improve our television efforts--over 300 hours of original television are produced every week... These programs are in the vernacular language of the markets to which they're broadcast, and are often carried as part of a local affiliate's program mix.”

That said, VOA does offer English-language video, audio and text through our English-language web portal, which is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.

The Future of U.S. International Broadcasting?

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:29:00 +0000

Last week I asked for reader views on the challenges to U.S. international broadcasting. I received one very thoughtful response from Sten in Sweden that I would like to share with you all.

Sten notes there is no VOA presence in Northern Europe (save via the web) but he says the presence of other government financed broadcasts is, as he puts it, “quite impressive.”

“I have through my satellite dish a handful of free English language news channels… channels from Russia, France, Germany, Iran and UK and two mixed from Japan and Korea. Many of those channels can also be followed via Internet. The American alternative is CNN,” he writes.

“The TV broadcasts from Russia and Iran are good. It´s a shame to admit it, but they are often more interesting than CNN… And they are certainly not transmitting a positive picture of your country.”

Sten says in his satellite world there is only one authoritative broadcaster of American news and that is National Public Radio (NPR).

Sten’s proposal is that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees VOA, should “try to finance an international channel produced by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS, the TV counterpart of NPR) and with PBS quality programming.”

Sten says he is convinced that there is demand in many countries for more quality television. And he believes the American origin of a broadcast “would not be a hindrance as long as it is PBS. So the audience would be there – probably worldwide.”

Thanks for sharing your views with us, Sten. We will run your thoughts by VOA and BBG management and see what they think.

Internet Anti-Censorship: Circumvention Tools

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 17:48:00 +0000

The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University has issued a new study on the use of circumvention tools that let users bypass Internet filtering aimed at blocking access to various types of content.

The key findings:

1. The study estimates that “no more than three percent of Internet users in countries that engage in substantial filtering use circumvention tools. The actual number is likely considerably less.”

2. “Many more users use simple web proxies than use either blocking-resistant tools or VPN (virtual private network) services.”

As the Berkman study notes, “The OpenNet Initiative has documented network filtering of the Internet by national governments in over forty countries worldwide. Countries use this network filtering as one of many methods to control the flow of online content that is objectionable to the filtering governments for social, political, and security reasons. Filtering is particularly appealing to governments as it allows them to control content not published within their national borders.”

If filtering is so pervasive, why is there not more use of circumvention tools?

The Berkman study offers this opinion:

“…It may be that there is just not as much interest in circumventing Internet filtering as widely believed for any of a number of reasons. For example, users in many filtering countries may simply prefer to access local content, written in their own languages about topics of local interest, despite the fact that the local content is subject to traditional government regulation and therefore highly censored. We note that three of the nations that have tens of millions of Internet users and who aggressively filter the Internet –China, Iran and Vietnam – have made significant investments in creating locally hosted alternatives to popular social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Our findings may suggest the logic of this approach – a large percentage of users in nations that aggressively filter the Internet either do not know how to conveniently reach these popular sites, or they have decided to use censored, local alternatives.”

VOA uses web-based proxy servers to distribute the latest news and information via the web to reach target audiences in countries like China and Iran, where the main VOA web sites are blocked. Since governments like these block access to proxies once they discover them, the addresses are replaced frequently and new ones sent out in email newsletter to allow users continued uncensored access to the web.

VOA also provides links to audiences in countries like China and Iran that enable them to download a special software called Freegate that users can install on their computers to permit them to have direct, uncensored access to the web without the use of special web-based proxies.

Press Freedom Update

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:39:00 +0000

Reporters Without Borders has come out with its annual press freedom index. The 10 lowest ranked countries are: Rwanda, Yemen, China, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Iran, Turkmenistan, North Korea and, at the bottom, Eritrea.

At the top of the list are: Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia and Ireland.

The United States is ranked 20th.

Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said: “We must salute the engines of press freedom, with Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland at their head. We must also pay homage to the human rights activists, journalists and bloggers throughout the world who bravely defend the right to speak out. Their fate is our constant concern. We reiterate our call for the release of Liu Xiaobo, the symbol of the pressure for free speech building up in China, which censorship for the time being is still managing to contain. And we warn the Chinese authorities against taking a road from which there is no way out.”

Liu Xiaobo is the human-rights campaigner who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and is imprisoned in China.

In a statement, Julliard continued: “We are also worried by the harsher line being taken by governments at the other end of the index. Rwanda, Yemen and Syria have joined Burma and North Korea in the group of the world’s most repressive countries towards journalists. This does not bode well for 2011. Unfortunately, the trend in the most authoritarian countries is not one of improvement.”

The full report includes rankings for all countries as well as an explanation of how the index was compiled. VOA’s report on this year’s index is here.

Challenges to International Broadcasting?

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:25:00 +0000

Later this month, I’ve been asked to speak to university students on the topic: “The Challenges to US International Broadcasting in the 21st century.”

I’m soliciting opinions from key managers here at VOA and its parent agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

But I’m also interested in hearing the views of our audience – that is, your views. So if you have some thoughts, please send them to the VOA Media Watch by October 27th at our email address: VOANewsBlog@gmail.com

Cyber-threats

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:20:00 +0000

There was a good discussion at VOA last week on online freedom and national security. Much of the back-and-forth among the panelists dealt with such threats as cyber-crime, terrorist use of the Internet, surveillance needs, outdated laws and so forth.

But responding to an emailed question posed by “a guy from China”, Ambassador Philip Verveer, the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy at the Department of State, voiced this opinion about the greatest threat to Internet freedom:

“There are a whole range of threats. The greatest threat, I think, to online freedom turns out to be administrations that attempt to use censorship and other means of repression to prevent the free flow of information, to prevent this quite remarkable institution from being able to function fully and freely.”

Aside from Ambassador Verveer, the other panelists were Richard McNally, an FBI counter-terrorism official; Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology; Martin Libicki, Senior Management Scientist at RAND; and Nancy Scola, Associate Editor, techPresident.com.

You can still watch the entire panel discussion here.

Boboev Fined

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:18:00 +0000

A VOA Uzbek Service journalist, Abdulmalik Boboev, was fined more than $10,000 last Friday by an Uzbek court that convicted him of slander, insult and publishing information harmful to the public peace. A lawyer for Mr. Boboev, who pled not guilty and denied doing anything wrong, said his client is considering an appeal of the verdict.

According to a VOA statement, VOA Director Danforth W. Austin said, "We are reviewing the decision by the Uzbek court. We are pleased that Mr. Boboev wasn't sentenced to jail. However, we remain concerned that his work as a journalist has resulted in a substantial fine. We will continue to follow his case, and hope that he will be able to continue providing fair, comprehensive and accurate reports to our audience without fear of retaliation."

The 41 year-old Mr. Boboev was among several journalists summoned by the Prosecutor-General's Office last year for questioning about their journalistic activities.

After the judge’s decision Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent released a statement saying it was, “Concerned about the implications of this case for the state of media freedom in Uzbekistan.” U.S. officials had raised the case with the Uzbek government and sent American diplomats to observe the trial.

Over the last two years, Uzbekistan has jailed eight reporters.

Threats Against The News Media: Update

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:23:00 +0000

The Broadcasting Board of Governors has voiced concern over the fate of Abdumalik Boboev, a journalist for VOA's Uzbek Service who is on trial in Uzbekistan for allegedly threatening public safety, slander, insult, and visa violations.

The Board issued the following statement today:

“The Broadcasting Board of Governors wishes to express its grave concern with the Uzbek government’s attempt to silence Mr. Boboev and his objective reporting for the Voice of America and the state of media freedom in Uzbekistan. Using the criminal justice system to punish journalists for freely expressed views is contrary to Uzbekistan’s international obligations and has a chilling effect on journalists throughout the country. The Broadcasting Board of Governors calls upon Uzbekistan to drop the charges against Mr. Boboev and cease all interference with the right of journalists in Uzbekistan to gather and report information freely.”

Chilean Mine Rescue: The World Is Watching

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 18:13:00 +0000

The planned rescue of 33 miners trapped underground for more than two months in northern Chile will undoubtedly dominate the world’s news media in the coming hours. The New York Times reports more than 1,400 journalists are at the mine site. Time Magazine describes it as a “media circus.”

Why does such a story command media attention?

The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released a study in 2007 analyzing two decades of American news preferences. In a list of broad news categories including conflict, politics and money, disaster news ranked first:

“The index reveals that Disaster News -- reports about catastrophes, man-made or natural -- garners the greatest interest.”

The study found such stories simply engross audiences – in part because “the outcome remains suspended in doubt.”

The international mix of reporters in Chile covering the mine rescue suggests Americans are not alone in their interest in disaster stories. So too does the global mix of comments posted beneath the latest VOA news story. They’re worth reading.

Accuracy, Credibility, Citizen Journalism and the Internet

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:50:00 +0000

Leonard Pitts Jr., a Pulitzer prize winning columnist, stirred an on-line controversy this past week with a commentary in the Miami Herald in which he said: “I do not believe in citizen journalism.”

Pitts acknowledged the Internet has “opened the public square to more voices, and you can't complain about that.”

But he maintained that “journalism -- like any profession worthy of the name -- has standards and ethics, and if you don't sign on to those, I can no more trust you than I can a doctor who refused the Hippocratic oath or a lawyer who failed the bar exam.”

“You cannot be a journalist -- citizen or otherwise -- if credibility matters less to you than ideology,” he added.

Columnist Sharon Grigsby, writing for the Dallas Morning News, followed on Pitts’ comment in a supporting post of her own arguing that it simply isn’t true that anyone can do journalism.

Here is how she put it: “Without real journalists -- whether they be working digitally or in print, in new operations or traditional ones -- our country would marinate in an increasing brine of ignorance.”

I bring these opinions up in part because they dovetail with some personal concerns I have expressed here about the depressing growth in the number of on-line outlets in which individuals simply choose to ignore the facts and disseminate inaccurate information, and then use that erroneous information to make some kind of point.

But the main reason I bring the topic up is this: we here at VOA are deeply appreciative of some of the citizen journalists out there and want to keep working with them. Take for example VOA’s Persian News Network. During last year’s disputed elections in Iran and the ensuing protests, PNN relied on user-supplied content, not just information but video.

Importantly, none of it was simply slapped on the air or on-line. Instead, all of it was verified as best as possible by professional journalists and put into proper context. If there were doubts, the material simply wasn’t used.

Walter Isaacson, the new Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in a recent speech, described this type of collaboration as “a new form of journalism in which user-generated content and great journalistic insights and credibility are wedded together…”

In his remarks, Isaacson went on to say he believes there may be a future role for VOA and the other U.S. international broadcasters in building on-line communities focused on issues of mutual interest and then not just disseminating news but facilitating conversations and sharing information.

It won’t be an easy task. Like commentators Pitts and Grigsby, the new BBG Chairman is concerned about on-line accuracy and credibility. While those are watchwords here at VOA, they are, as Isaacson says, “not at the moment the strong suit of the Internet.”

Correcting An Error About VOA's First Broadcast

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:20:00 +0000

We’ve always believed, as our website states, that VOA’s first broadcast took place on February 24th, 1942.

But now we have to ask, where did that date come from? Because detective work by two men with past ties to VOA, Walter Roberts and Chris Kern, suggests the first broadcast was actually on February 1st, 1942.

Mr. Roberts lays out his evidence in a web article on “Origins and Recollections” of his time at VOA.

To sum it up briefly, he says the February 1st broadcast “was sent via radiotelephone to London early in the morning New York time from whence it was broadcast by the BBC over seven medium wave transmitters at 14:15 GMT.”

Chris Kern followed up on Mr. Robert’s research and recently posted his own report.

His search at the National Archives turned up a script from February 3, 1942, “but it is clear that wasn’t the first Voice of America program because at one point the script calls on one of the announcers to refer to something he said “yesterday.” The reference to the previous day’s program obviously means there had been a broadcast on Monday, February 2.”

The key evidence turned up by Roberts and Kern was a script like the one shown here with a Roman numeral typed under the title. As Mr. Kern writes, “at the top of the February 3 script, just under the title Stimmen Aus Amerika and the date, was a Roman numeral III.” Under the script for February 11 was the Roman number XI. Based on this, they concluded the script with the numeral III was the third, placing the first on February 1st.

VOA is preparing a statement on the anniversary issue. Stay tuned. But I wouldn’t be surprised if, in accordance with standard correction policy, VOA decides to say something like this:

The Voice of the America first went on the air on February 1, 1942, not February 24. We regret the error.

Threats Against the News Media: Update

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 14:51:00 +0000

State Department spokesman Michael Tran has issued a statement on the impending slander trial in Uzbekistan of VOA stringer Abdumalik Boboev:

"We are deeply concerned by the arrest and impending trial of Mr. Boboev, as well as its implications for media freedom in Uzbekistan. Mr. Boboev has been an independent journalist for Voice of America for more than five years, and his indictment cites articles that he wrote during this period.

"We have been in contact with the Broadcasting Board of Governors, we have raised the issue with the Government of Uzbekistan, and will monitor the case closely."

VOA issued a statement last month expressing deep concern over Boboev's fate. VOA Director Danforth Austin said, "Mr. Boboev, like all VOA journalists, is required to present accurate and balanced reports, and he should not be penalized for doing his job."

Ignoring The Facts: A Dangerous Habit

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 11:57:00 +0000

To continue a theme from last week, (but in a more serious vein than UFO’s and aliens,) I am increasingly distressed by the number of writers, reporters, analysts and/or commentators who simply choose to ignore the facts and disseminate inaccurate information, and then use that erroneous information to make a point.

The latest example to catch my attention involves VOA.

A blogger named Javad Rad, writing on the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy blog, claimed the reason President Obama recently chose to give an interview to BBC Persian TV and not to VOA’s Persian News Network was audience size.

Rad wrote: “Obviously VOA has not been able to reach a sizable audience inside Iran.”

Obviously? Hardly. This is simply untrue – and begs the question of whether Mr. Rad conducted any research whatsoever before writing.

Because it wasn’t particularly difficult to ascertain that:

According to a BBC news release earlier this year, “BBC Persian has an estimated 3.1 million viewers in Iran.”

And drawing on survey data compiled by InterMedia, VOA researchers estimate the VOA TV audience in Iran to be around 9 million. Even if this audience were only half as big as that estimate, it would still be higher than BBC 's own published estimate for their audience.

Any chance of a correction, Mr. Rad?

A Notable Quote on International Broadcasting

noreply@blogger.com (Alex Belida) — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 14:26:00 +0000

From Walter Isaacson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors:

"It’s sometimes said that our international broadcasting is in a difficult position because by law and by tradition it’s tasked with two separate missions that might conflict: first of all, covering the news with the highest journalistic standards and secondly, being a part of America’s public diplomacy by accurately conveying its policies and values to the world.

"Let me say to you, my fellow journalists, that I will stress and we will stress the primacy of the first of these missions, our mission of being credible journalists, because it is the best – in fact, it’s the only way to carry out the second mission. You can’t do it unless you’re credible and telling the truth, and in the end, the truth is on our side. Credibility is the key to all that we do."

Mr. Isaacson spoke last week in Washington at a ceremony marking the 60th anniversary of Radio Free Europe. The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees VOA, RFE, Radio Free Asia, Radio/TV Marti, Radio Sawa, and Alhurra TV.