|
 |
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.
PRIVATE PUBLIC DIPLOMACY
JAN 30, 2006 - 12:23AM PDT
Posted by Alvin Snyder
All posts by this author
With the abrupt resignation of broadcast entrepreneur Norman Pattiz from his key public diplomacy position with the U.S. government's Broadcasting Board of Governors, America's effort to communicate its story to audiences in the Middle East has lost a decisive advocate.
This newest disappointment is in contrast to the vibrant American private sector that is forging ahead in the effort to improve the image of the United States abroad. Some corporations are on board with public diplomacy because they want to build relationships and foster communication between cultures; most understand it just makes good business sense.
A fresh new surge of creative support from private business foreshadows an important trend in U.S. efforts to help win the war of ideas abroad. Active self-generated participation by the private sector will lend consistency to America's public diplomacy effort abroad -- no matter which party occupies the White House. It functions when the attention of the White House, the Congress, and others in government, is diverted daily elsewhere.
Pattiz, the founder of America's largest radio network, Westwood One, is an example of what a private sector entrepreneur can bring to government. It is not that those in government are less skilled, less motivated, or less intelligent than a Norman Pattiz. Rather, the nature of the bureaucracy stifles creativity and prefers the status quo. Public employees are usually faceless to Washington's power brokers, and are not inclined to make large political campaign donations.
Pattiz was the founder of the U.S. government's Middle East Broadcasting Network, which includes Radio Sawa, now one of the most popular radio stations in the Middle East, and Alhurra TV, less successful to date in attracting audiences, but nevertheless a 24/7 beachhead for America in the cluttered and highly-competitive arena of Middle East satellite television channels.
Though the jury is still out on whether Sawa and Alhurra have "moved the needle" of public opinion in the Middle East, Pattiz nonetheless emerged as the can-do guy from the train wreck that is the BBG. The badly neglected independent federal agency which oversees non-military, government-sponsored international broadcasts does not seem to be on the short list of priorities for the White House, which nominates members to the board. Five of the BBG's seven present directors are serving under expired terms. In addition, one Republican slot is vacant on the board, which is split evently between the two parties, and a second vacancy, for a Democrat, will open in March when Pattiz departs to attend to his Westwood One radio network.
Fortunately, concerned private sector organizations take public diplomacy initiative on their own.
Business for Diplomatic Action, an organization composed of companies whose mission is to improve the United States' relationships and image in other countries, was formed because its members found it more profitable to do business abroad if America is understood and liked there. The BDA says this year it will show more activity in "bringing business solutions to the challenges of public diplomacy," according to its president, Keith Reinhard.
The BDA has produced a pocket-sized "World Citizens Guide for Business Travelers," which informs tourists how to go abroad with their "brains open," and the "World Citizens Guide for Students" who study abroad. The BDA has formed a program that identifies "qualified young Arabs for internship in the U.S. companies," and is involved in branding and communication programs for the U.S. travel and tourism industry. The group is also considering how to bring creative Hollywood into play to improve the American brand abroad.
In addition, some of the companies have specialized public diplomacy efforts of their own in the countries where they operate.
Another private group, the Foundation for International Understanding, is spearheaded by Ambassador David Abshire, president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency, and affiliated with the USC Center on Public Diplomacy. Its mission is to address the "rise in anti-American sentiment around the world." The FIU will fund media projects for overseas consumption, especially aimed at the Arab and Muslim Middle East. It will provide grants from corporate sponsors, private foundations and other sources for television, radio, and Internet media productions "that promote mutual understanding."
All this is not to suggest that the White House and Congress can now sit back and let the private sector do the heavy lifting in public diplomacy. Government must continue to attract the Norman Pattizes from America's private sector to come to Washington and interact within the U.S. government itself and lend the benefit of their perspectives and success.
The White House should have a candidate selected by the time Norman Pattiz officially vacates his BBG position in March, and it should nominate its candidate for the board vacancy that already exists. The White House should also get off the dime and either re-nominate Board members now serving under expired terms, or find accomplished replacements.
It's what the private sector would do.
Read Comments (6) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
Marie Ciliberti on January 30, 2006 @ 4:12 pm:
Incorrect is what I would call the glowing evaluation given to Norman Pattiz in the article Private Public Diplomacy. Where we differ is that, in my opinion, Mr. Pattiz almost singlehandedly destroyed U.S. international broadcasting.
There was no weeping or gnashing of teeth, no sad songs of regret in the corridors of the VOICE OF AMERICA when Mr. Pattiz resigned. Indeed, from available information, there was public and private jubilation.
First, the comment: "Though the jury is still out on whether Sawa and Alhurra have "moved the needle" of public opinion in the Middle East, Pattiz nonetheless emerged as the can-do guy from the train wreck that is the BBG" is quite a spin on the facts. Indeed, with all due respect, Mr. Snyder, Mr. Pattiz himself created that BBG train wreck.
In the not-too-distant past, when VOA was a vibrant and thriving network and USIA still existed, we had little difficulty, judging by our successes, with the WHAM (Winning Hearts and Minds) factor. Indeed, moving the needle of public opinion was a desired collateral function of international broadcasting and public diplomacy in its mission to inform the peoples of the world and give an accurate picture of our country. That is, until Mr. Pattiz changed the equation with his mindless and fruitless programming experiments with an incessant array of questionably talented and some rather grotesque pop artists to represent America in the Middle East. Informing the world about U.S. policies and institutions was squeezed into short spurts of 5-minute news breaks. Of course, this is not surprising as Mr. Pattiz frequently trumpets his questionable theory that it was MTV that brought down the Berlin Wall. Well, if that were true, then his 24/7 "groovy" programming should have at least made a dent in the jihadist Middle East wall of opposition but every poll taken in that corner of the world blasts his beloved theory to bits.
Unfortunately for U.S. international broadcasting and the taxpayers who foot the bills for foolish experiments, Mr. Pattiz's policies have extended beyond the misbegotten radio/TV broadcasting Middle East twins that he so frequently extols. Let's take a look: thanks to the diversion of funds into his Middle East pet projects, there has been a chipping away of VOA English-language programs down from 24/7 to barely 14 hours a day. This happens at a time when Al-Jazeera and Russia are beginning their own extensive English-language worldwide broadcasts because they correctly understand that English is now the preferred second language in the world something that seems to escape our BBG train-wreck conductor, Mr. Pattiz. Does that mean that funds were diverted from English to the VOA language services? Not a chance. Mr. Pattiz's policies eviscerated many still-important in the international sphere VOA language services. Another victim of Mr. Pattiz's voracious appetite for his project funding: VOA programs to Latin America which have virtually disappeared. While Radio Marti keeps up the drumbeat against Castro in Cuba, one country after another in Latin America falls to virulently anti-American leftist leaders who will soon present serious problems on America's doorstep.
In conclusion, your comment that Mr. Pattiz was returning to tend to Westwood One is a bit funny. The 2008 presidential elections will soon be upon us. If Mr. Pattiz puts his deep pockets on the right candidate's nose, it's entirely possible that he would return as Chairman, and not as a mere member, of the BBG.
It's a free country so anyone can shout all the kudos they want to Norman Pattiz of Westwood One fame and most important, fortune. However, there are countless professionals who disagree and are glad that he's gone.
Marie Ciliberti
Retired VOA broadcaster
michael gloukhov on January 31, 2006 @ 7:51 am:
Pattiz's departure has been overdue. He destroyed the radio broadcasts for Eastern Europe and the US lost all influence there. He also destroyed the English broadcasts and the US came second to Chine to broadcast in English around the world. The some $8.9 million he "saved" from terminating 10 language services broadcasting to Easten Europe and former Soviet republics did not help much in the sky-rocketing TV broadcasts for unefficient but flashy programs for the Middle East. The private sector may bring in money but private enterprise is not a substitute for stable, long term public service (and sound public diplomacy) which is government radio (and was the USIA). Private interests are not necessarily public interest and are short-lived, according to the profitability of the moment. There is no sadness for Parttiz's departure in VOA. In fact, he left too late - after the damage has been done. Yet, with his departure VOA can hope to engage in post-mortem damage control.
Michael Gloukhov, Ph.D.
anonymous on January 31, 2006 @ 12:22 pm:
In the matter of the BBG and Pattiz's resignation, I say, "One down, seven to go." Get rid of the lot. They have fatally damaged US international broadcasting.
Gary A. Marco on February 1, 2006 @ 1:48 pm:
On Saturday, January 28, 2006, an article appeared in The Washington Post, written by Post staff writer Glenn Kessler. The title of the piece was, "U.S. Policy Seen as Big Loser in Palestinian Vote." One
particular observation by Mr. Kessler is worth noting:
"More broadly, Hamas’s victory is seen as a setback in the administration’s campaign for greater democracy in the Middle East.
Elections in Iran, Iraq, Egypt and now the Palestinian territories have resulted in the defeat of secular and moderate parties and the rise of Islamic parties hostile to U.S. interests."
Part of this failure, and it is not a small part, has been the failure to accurately
gauge the sentiment of the Arab "street." This part of the larger failure rests squarely with the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and its broadcasts to the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim
world.
This makes Mr. Snyder’s paean to Mr. Norman Pattiz, a member of the BBG who recently announced his resignation, most bizarre.
Mr. Pattiz strongly advocated on a behalf of a significant departure in US Government international broadcasting to the Arab and Muslim world. The Voice of America (VOA) Arabic language radio service was abolished and replaced by Radio Sawa, a privatized enterprise that targets Arab and Muslim youth with pop music and sparse treatment of news and
information.
In doing so, the United States abdicated its ability to speak for itself and to provide news and information vital to an understanding of US policy and interests. This is important to note because, as has been long since learned, there is deep-seated and strident antipathy toward
the United States, its policies and actions in the Arab and Muslim world.
By not speaking for itself, the United States Government has left it to
others to use media in the Arab and Muslim world to speak about the US, its policies and actions. Sometimes those doing the speaking are not friendly to the United States, indulging in volatile and inflammatory rhetoric to exhort people
to take action against the United States, its interests and its citizens.
That is the legacy of the BBG during the time of Mr. Pattiz’s tenure…a series of decisions that have led to a public diplomacy disaster. Whether through ignorance or arrogance, the Board has
surrendered the initiative to our adversaries, who appear daily on Arab
or other media outlets, taunting the ineffectiveness of the United States and blasting our political leadership and policies.
The problem doesn’t end with the twin catastrophes of Radio Sawa and the
Arabic language al-Hurra television. In particular, the Sawa model has been cloned to now include broadcasts to Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia. In each case, developments in the target areas indicate a rejection of the Pattiz model of pop music as public diplomacy. The most strident of these would be in Iran, where the country has taken a turn in favor of the country’s political hard-liners who are now daily inviting armed conflict with Israel and the United States.
In Indonesia, the government recently passed a law banning direct or
rebroadcast of news from foreign media organizations such as VOA, the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others. For VOA, this is particularly damaging because it has spent considerable funds in an effort to establish local Indonesian radio and television stations as "affiliates" to take VOA programs and/or broadcasts. The television effort, already in trouble, would be the most severely affected, while the radio broadcasts would still be able to reach the country, including shortwave frequencies.
In Pakistan, the Sawa-like clone has also run into serious criticism. This clone, known as Radio "Aap Ki Duniya" appears to be looked upon as a folly, in a region that is still a hotbed of terrorist and anti-American activities.
Typically, the Washington way out of a problem of this magnitude is to refuse to acknowledge the existence of the problem, to make claims of "huge success," to continue to throw taxpayer money at the situation and to heap praise on those whose policy decisions created the disaster in the first place.
Since making these broadcast changes, the Board has yet to prove that there is a connection between people listening to pop music and changing their personal or political views toward the United States and its policies.
There is no doubt that articulating US policy to the Arab and Muslim world is a daunting task. However, to settle on pop music as the way to reach Arab and Muslim public opinion about the United States is ridiculous. We know that the young people in these regions have ready access to pop music. So, what’s the point of providing them with a commodity they already have?
What they don’t have and may desperately need is an understanding of American policy. They also need an understanding of American history, our country’s political ideals and our institutions. They are most
certainly not going to get that understanding via tunes on a CD player
or an iPod.
The Board's direction is one of blaring and not communicating.
As a result, Arab and Muslim populations have taken a hard turn in the direction of extremists and fundamentalists and their reactionary ideology.
And therein perhaps lies the greatest failure of all.
Gary A. Marco
President, AFSCME Local 1418
Voice of America
Washington, DC
Rick Barnes on February 7, 2006 @ 2:14 pm:
I agree with the comments of Ms. Ciliberti, Dr. Gloukhov, Mr. Marco and others above. Although Mr. Pattiz did much to affect change at the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and within the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), his actions are viewed by many of us who work at the Voice of America (VOA) with an eye of suspicion.
The first statement I question, Mr. Snyder, is the opening sentence of your article. Was Mr. Pattiz really a "decisive advocate" of "America's effort to communicate its story to audiences in the Middle East"? Or, was he a "decisive advocate" of merely creating a larger audience in the Middle East?
Listen to the programming content of VOA / Arabic vs. Radio Sawa. VOA / Arabic programming was rife with in-depth news analysis, English lessons and stories of "Americana" so that those in the Middle East could get a better understanding of life and culture in the United States (as opposed to the view presented by Hollywood or Al Jazeera). What programming does Radio Sawa present? American Top-40 music alternated with Arabic "Hip-hop" music with sparse newscasts intended to appeal to a younger demographic. The same is true, as Mr. Marco said above, for VOA / Urdu being replaced by Radio Aap ki Dunya.
While I will not argue there is not a need for Radio Sawa programming in the Middle East or Radio Aap ki Dunya to Afghanistan and Pakistan, should they have been put on the air at the expense of VOA / Arabic and VOA / Urdu? In terms of programming, replacing VOA / Arabic with Sawa and VOA / Urdu with Aap ki Dunya is tantamount to replacing PBS's "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer" on American TV with MTV music videos. Is there not a proper place for both?
As I recently wrote in response to an organizational study of the VOA by Booz, Allen and Hamilton:
"Author and former White House advisor Les T. Csorba has written that trust is the most important factor in the success of any organization (read 'Trust: The One Thing That Makes or Breaks a Leader'). It is trust in a commander by his or her men and women (and vice versa) that makes a military mission successful. It is trust in a candidate for political office by the voters (and vice versa) that makes a political campaign successful. Here at the Cohen Building, however, trust in the Broadcasting Board of Governors by many of us working on the "shop floor" of the VOA is sorely lacking. And trust in VOA employees by the BBG, from our perspective, also seems to be suspect. Here [is one of the] factors that [has led] to this lack of trust:
Radio Sawa and the 'unbranding' of VOA. Many employees at the VOA have a lack of trust regarding Norman Pattiz’s long-term strategy with Radio Sawa and other newly-developed surrogate services (Radio Farda in Persian to Iran and Radio Aap ki Dunya in Urdu to Afghanistan and Pakistan). As each one of these new services goes on the air, they 'unbrand' the VOA in that particular geographical area (see 'Mixed Signals: Why Splitting Up U.S. International Broadcasting Isn’t Smart' on the Radio Netherlands website at: LINK ). Is this being done with a specific intent? What is gained by diminishing VOA's reach in these areas? Many VOA employees have surmised that Mr. Pattiz's long-term intention is to take these new radio services, whether they succeed or fail, and buy the infrastructure from the U.S. federal government for pennies on the dollar and convert them into independent commercial [private] broadcasting networks. Mr. Pattiz became a highly successful businessman with the Westwood One radio broadcasting network here in the U.S. Is his long-term intention now to create the 'Eastwood One' radio broadcasting network in the Middle East and South Asia? Does he view this area solely as an untapped market? To many of us at the VOA, his actions reflect the fact that he may not have the best interests of the American people and the U.S. government at heart."
My next point of discussion, Mr. Snyder, deals precisely with the thesis of your article. "Private public diplomacy", I contend, is an entirely different aspect of public diplomacy from governmental public diplomacy. Dr. J. Michael Waller, professor of public diplomacy and political warfare at the Institute for World Politics in Washington, DC, recently wrote to me in a private email saying, "VOA is an overt 'white propaganda' organ of the United States government, as its name indicates. I’m sure many on the VOA staff would object to this characterization, but that’s what it was founded to be: the voice of the United States government. Some of the best propaganda is simple truth-telling, and that's what VOA tries to do. I think that VOA and the BBG have lost their bearings as instruments of the U.S., as they were never intended to be truly independent organizations."
I agree with Dr. Waller. Under Mr. Pattiz's guidance, the U.S. federal government has lost its voice in the Middle East and South Asia. The VOA is supposed to be one slice of the U.S. federal government’s public diplomacy pie. Now, it has been replaced in a highly critical area of the world with a semi-private voice. This is the same as replacing the U.S. Army and its mission in Iraq and Afghanistan with a privately owned and managed armed militia (which I guess to some extent was done too).
During the Cold War, there were semi-private surrogate broadcasting services -- Radio Free Europe to those behind the "Iron Curtain", Radio Liberty to the U.S.S.R. and Radio in the American Sector to Berlin. However, these broadcasting services always worked in tandem with VOA. They had missions and programming that were separate and distinct from the VOA. The VOA was still the voice of the U.S. government. These other broadcasting services did not replace VOA in the manner that it is currently being replaced by Radio Sawa, al Hurra TV and Radio Aap ki Dunya.
If the amount of money that was funneled into Sawa, al Hurra, Farda and Aap ki Dunya had been directly applied to VOA / Arabic / Persian / Urdu and to the IBB for upgrades in the transmission infrastructure, I suggest the U.S. federal government would have an even stronger voice in those particular regions of the world. With VOA's signal nonexistent in the Middle East and South Asia, is it still the "beacon of freedom and democracy in lands which [know] little of either" that John Beatty wrote about almost a decade ago? I suggest not.
Mr. Pattiz's abilities as a fundraiser from the U.S. Congressional budget for BBG / IBB missions and as a private contributor to political parties as a man of influence have been historic. His leadership has been, no doubt, visionary. However, his tenure as an overseer of the Voice of America during the dismantling of VOA / Arabic and VOA / Urdu with replacement by Sawa and Aap ki Dunya has been perceived by many at our agency as some of the darkest days in the history of VOA -- especially at a time when those particular language services are most in need of direct representation by the U.S. federal government.
Now that Mr. Pattiz is becoming more involved with the private sector, if wants to create the "Eastwood One" radio network in the Middle East and South Asia, I say, "GREAT!!!" I wish him all the luck in the world! I hope that it is commercially successful for him and I hope that it also serves as an avenue of "private public diplomacy" for the United States. But please don’t develop it at the expense of the VOA and the U.S. federal government’s effort at promoting public diplomacy. Keep it separate and distinct. Don’t take any more of the VOA’s frequencies and transmission infrastructure away. Work in tandem with the VOA.
To Mr. Pattiz I also say (as many soldiers have thought about saying to some retiring colonels and generals they viewed with suspect intentions that they had to serve under), "Thank you, sir, for your service to our country. Now don’t let the door hit you in the butt on your way out."
Sincerely,
Rick Barnes
Captain (Retired), U.S. Army
Supervisor, Broadcast Operations,
Voice of America, Washington, DC
Ph.D. Candidate (A.B.D.),
Capella University, Minneapolis, MN
(NOTE: The comments above are my own and do not reflect the official view of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the International Broadcasting Bureau, the Voice of America, the U.S. Army or Capella University’s School of Business and Technology.)
Zaheer on March 16, 2006 @ 1:49 am:
Salam
moje ye gana bahot pasand he "goree main ne tumhare" awaz alam geer ki he meherbanee karke ye gana nashar karrin thanks.
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
