|
 |
Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version
The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
RESTORING VISION TO U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING
OCT 31, 2006 - 2:18PM PDT
Posted by Alvin Snyder
All posts by this author
Worldcasting noted last week the need for that "vision" thing to be injected into America's international broadcasts. It should be the first order of business for those who oversee America's non-military TV and radio programs abroad. Instead, the attention these days is diverted to intramural turf battles that accomplish little to advance U.S. efforts to communicate with international publics.
Of course, one's vision could become dated. Aristotle's vision of a perfect city in ancient Greece was one where only men were in charge. But he also believed that leadership requires anticipation, and that notion still holds up.
So let's give the benefit of the doubt to those whose vision in the 1990s was to eliminate the grandly effective U.S. Information Agency, and to spread its entrails around Washington, D.C. to include the State Department, from which U.S. public diplomacy had been removed decades earlier because it was not working there. And the big bang also created the Broadcasting Board of Governors, an untested concept still trying to find its legs in its charge to keep an eye on America's International Broadcasts. The BBG was also set up as a private corporation to funnel funds from Congress to America's broadcasters, thus acting as a "firewall" to shield the broadcast services from government influence.
But not unheard of in Washington is the power grab, and that seems to be what's happening at the BBG, where vision-setting is not on the agenda.
As Worldcasting earlier reported, the BBG is now selecting the Voice of America's director, normally a president's choice, and did so a couple of weeks ago. Now we learn that the BBG advertised for a new Baghdad bureau chief without first consulting the VOA's newsroom head, when it apparently felt the newsroom was not acting fast enough to fill the slot.
Add the squeal from the Foreign Service union and others about the selection of a political appointee to head the State Department's Rapid Response news center in Europe, to counter enemy disinformation on the war in Iraq. And the State Department's Arabic talking head, Alberto Fernandez, used the "A" and "S" words ("arrogant" and "stupid") while referring to US dealings in Iraq, which got press coverage in the U.S. and abroad. His comments were made on Al Jazeera, rather than on America's own station, Alhurra, which would have gained credibility and buzz through the appearance, and perhaps additional audience, had he said the same thing.
So what we have here is standard work-a-day Washington, where it's easy to take your eye off the ball. "When politics absorbs the livelong day, I like to think about the star Canopus, so far, so far away," said poet Bert Leston Taylor, which aptly describes the approach to getting today's U.S. public diplomacy up and running again.
Now of course that's a sweeping statement, but let's look at evidence.
The State Department's "Little Lies" task force to track enemy disinformation by its very nature is reactive, not proactive, which underscores the problem that U.S. public diplomacy is not out leading the debate, but is rather playing catch-up and reacting to the enemy. The U.S. should be working the enemy into a reactive frenzy, and not sitting back where it gets itself lathered up.
Well meaning public diplomacy task forces have offered advice on how to fix problems, such as training more Arabic speakers how to counter enemy disinformation, and the need to expand contact with local opinion leaders. Then there are almost daily articles about Karen Hughes, the undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, who critics say can do absolutely nothing right, but a forward looking vision is often not placed on the table by detractors.
Broadcasting is, after all, a creative pursuit, with content that can generate enthusiasm and build an audience. But formats that have signature and lasting impact are not often created by committee. Don Hewitt at CBS News had the vision of something he thought could be called "60 Minutes," and Ted Turner created a CNN when cable programs were not generating much revenue, and CNN was thought to have a risky business plan, but Roger Ailes later had a vision to one-up CNN.
Maybe someone with vision will come along to jump-start America's PD. It won't happen with eyes wandering toward the star Canopus.
Read Comments (5) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
David Kieserman on November 2, 2006 @ 4:59 am:
Nicely written. with points well taken.
Lack of vision seems to be endemic to America as we know it. But vision and bold behavior usually come along just when they are most needed. Perhaps iy will be so again since the stakes are so high now.
Gadsden Fuller on November 2, 2006 @ 6:37 am:
PD officers up to the U/S level nowadays get no training and no experience in international broadcasting. If you talk to them, you'll learn that VOA now longer is considered part of the set of tools. Even Alberto Fernandez, who entered during the Wick era, served in areas (Latin America and the Middle East) where VOA -- even in its heyday -- took a back seat.
In seven years since abolition of USIA, I've heard no single serious idea that would link VOA and the other radios to formal PD work. Beers though she could sell a brand. Tutwiler realized she didn't think anything at all, and cut her losses. The current U/S for PD must think that all we need is an army of Tony Snows, apparently best chosen by the standard of loyalty to herself than by law or process or experience.
Al, if your thoughts can provoke some creative thinking, you will have accomplished a greater service to Uncle Sam than all the multi-titled persons who have passed through "PD" since 1999. You've started the process by identifying the problem. Maybe in the inertia of the final two year of this administration, something good might happen if you succeed in launching the forces.
l
Alan Simpson on November 2, 2006 @ 8:57 am:
Sadly Alvin is correct, but since his departure from DC the scenario has got worse. We are seeing Democrats arguing that it's now their turn to carve up the "Pork Pie" and instead of change merely want their turn to spread funds around their supporters, especially if they win in 2008.
The only way out of the quagmire is an innovative Private/Public partnership. The only way that will work is to adopt a decentralized media operation, which just won't happen under State, BBG, or with the same bureaucrats in charge. There needs to be a "Vision thing", but it won't come from DC or from existing or former media managers. It's far too late to "Round up the usual suspects".
Fred Cpffeu on November 2, 2006 @ 9:56 am:
Perceptive comments. One of your best columns.
Jonathan Marks on November 3, 2006 @ 6:42 am:
Committee's make last-lustre programs. I would argue governments are not know for making great shows we all remember. It is indeed independent individuals with passion that make the most impact. Could it be that's why the US government got Hollywood on board during the 2nd World War before it created VOA? The sad truth is that there are a lot of great people at VOA who have a deep understanding of how to get a message across. What seems to be missing is any form of passion in getting the job done. I am also guessing that the form of electronic PD is changing per region. First define the message, then work out the best format to get that message across. You also need to study the relevant platforms. Just putting TV on the Internet isn't going to work in many target areas. Great article Al.
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
