Speaking at a Heritage Foundation Tuesday, at an event on public diplomacy, Mark Helmke said the BBG's grand strategy of "marrying the [message] to the market" is not working. But his solution would only make matters worse.
(Heritage will probably publish a transcript of this event later this year; in the meantime, you can watch a video. The audio link, which is currently broken, appears here.)
His comments, which are worth reading and do not appear to be available otherwise online, appear below.
The idea of VOA being enfolded into the State Department might have some appeal, given the desparate situation the Voice finds itself in: political meddling in news copy, continuing marginalization of English services, erosion of the correspondent corps and newsgathering capabilities both at home and abroad, management whose idea of innovation is outsourcing core newswriting functions to contract workers in the Peoples Republic of China, etc. But while placing VOA under State might have some short-term administrative and funding advantages (though that is not at all certain), it would effectively in the long term — and maybe sooner rather than later — end the Voice of America's role as a reliable source of news. It's impossible to imagine this administration especially (but, for that matter, most any other administration, too) from using its radio station for heavy handed propaganda, the Charter be damned.
VOA and, to a greater or lesser extent, U.S. international broadcasting's other brands, have a large and growing credibility problem. It's impossible to imagine a scenario in which direct State Department control would improve credibility. Credibility is gained, slowly and painfully, by honesty, integrity and reliability. It is not won by short-sighted efforts to manage the news, downplay the embarrassing and censor the inconvient. That happens often enough now, despite (OK, or maybe because of) the BBG and its "firewall."
Helmke says Congress would keep an eye on State's VOA. But we have been watching the death spiral of U.S. international broadcasting as Congress sits by and does nothing. Or, even worse, calls in Tomlinson and Pattiz and pats them on the back for the fine work they are doing. The failure of Congress to fulfill its oversight obligations in recent years is shameful, and Helmke give us no reason to suppose it would change if broadcasting gets shifted to another slot in the government's organizational chart.
Nice of him, by the way, to say that this mess ain't the fault of the dedicated professionals in the various broadcasting services. But then again, he says Tomlinson and "godfather" Pattiz (how apt!) aren't at fault either. Geez.
(It would probably be useful to review an earlier Heritage seminar on some of the same issues, "Regaining America's Voice Overseas: A Conference on U.S. Public Diplomacy," from July 2004.)
International Broadcasting: Building a Better House
by Mark Helmke
The Heritage Foundation Conference on
U.S. Public Diplomacy ─ Roadmap to Recovery
June 14, 2005
Washington, DC
International broadcasting financed by the U.S. government has lost its way.
The world has radically changed, but the institution supporting international broadcasting has not.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees the myriad of broadcasting entities under its control, has a grand strategy called “marrying the message to the mission.”
It’s not working. The various missions are uncoordinated. They often work at cross purposes, and the divergent messages are confusing and counterproductive.
Despite these problems, let me be clear: they are not the fault of the thousands of dedicated and professional people working for the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Marti, and the new Middle East Broadcasting Networks which runs Al Hurra and Radio Sawa. Nor are the problems caused by BBG Chairman Ken Tomlinson, Norm Pattiz ─ the godfather of Al Hurra and Radio Sawa ─ or others.
The fault lies with all of us for causing the creation and evolution of such a confusing federal agency of multiple public and quasi-private entities run by political appointees of both parties. The fault lies with the lack of long term bipartisan strategic thinking and agreement on American public diplomacy in the post-9/11 world.
Understanding the history of American international broadcasting provides direction for the reforms required today. Voice of America was started by the War Department soon after Pearl Harbor and America’s entry in World War II. America had seen the power of Nazi propaganda and determined to counter it with American government sponsored free press. That raises the first question we must now debate: Can the government sponsor free press? Interestingly, Ken Tomlinson, the chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governor, and also the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcast (CPB), which oversees the Public Broadcast Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), is asking serious, and controversial questions, about how open and free a government subsidized domestic media can be.
In addition to VOA, the United States also created during World War II Radio Free Europe and later Radio Liberty. These were creations of the OSS and then the CIA. These were transformational communications entities. The enduring images of RFE/RL are of the Free French fighter, and later Vaclav Havel behind the Iron Curtain, listening to their crystal sets, and then taking action against totalitarian dictatorships.
VOA and the so-called surrogates, RFE/RL, were powerful forces in the liberation of Europe and Asia during World War II and the Cold War.
Three confusing and confounding policies, however, have emerged from these efforts.
First, Congress did not want to create an American BBC. Once a country was “liberated,” American government financed broadcasting stopped, regardless of whether there was an indigenous free press that could survive and thrive. Consequently, we’ve never developed a comprehensive policy for how free press fits into democracy and nation building.
Second, and most importantly, there has not been an open and thoughtful discussion about how best to communicate to the rest of the world American values, diversity, and the inherent messiness of democratic decision making, especially when it comes to foreign policy.
The third point is the most volatile. It is the quaint and irrational fear that a President will use the broadcasting entities to propagandize the American public. The fear is based on propagandists George Creel and Joseph Goebbels more than 60 years ago.
Nazi propagandist Goebbels is better known historically than Creel, but Creel’s work still influences the laws and policies surrounding American public diplomacy. Creel was a Progressive era muckraking journalist who became Wilson’s information minister during World War I. The Creel Commission created hundreds of thousands of posters and other communications maneuvers promoting the patriotism of fighting the war, and also the role of Wilson as America’s savior.
I’m the proud owner of a wonderful Creel poster depicting Wilson under a Bald Eagle and American flags. A portrait of Washington on Wilson’s right shoulder announces “Washington Gave Us Freedom,” and a portrait of Lincoln, on his Wilson’s left, says “Lincoln Kept Us United.” Under Wilson are the words, “Wilson Fights for America and all Humanity.” Below Wilson’s portrait, are portraits of America’s fighting men with the slogan, “America We Love You: The Brave Boys of 1918 Will Fight and Die for You.”
This was powerful stuff. Whatever you call it: propaganda, strategic communications, public diplomacy, it’s all the same: communications techniques and technologies aimed at influencing public opinion and political decision making.
Fearful of another Goebbels and Creel after World War II, Congress passed the Smith-Mundt Act to organize VOA and other public diplomacy initiatives as long as they were not aimed at the American public.
Smith-Mundt has created an inherent conflict in American public diplomacy, and a political and bureaucratic contradiction. American public diplomacy is hobbled by these conflicts and contradictions today. If Congress sees American public diplomacy as propaganda not fit for Americans, how is the rest of the world expected to view and understand it?
The Smith-Mundt restrictions should be repealed. Let the public decide. Let the world see and hear America’s open and democratic discussion.
The United States has three different missions regarding international broadcasting.
The first is to use broadcasting and other communications techniques to help explain and promote American foreign policy; America’s commitment to democracy, human rights and economic opportunity; and ─ this is the hardest part ─ the diversity, complexity and inherent messiness of American political decision making.
The second mission is to support indigenous media reporting on democracy, human rights and transparency in countries that do not have a free press.
The third mission builds on the second, and that is support for the development of free, fair and self-sustaining free press in those same countries.
Presently, the BBG embraces all three missions. This is counterproductive. This first mission is public diplomacy. The second and third involve fostering international democratic institutions. These missions are complementary, but need to be separated.
The first mission of promoting and explaining American foreign policy is what the VOA has long been about. This the VOA should continue. And it should expand its work to involve Congress by serving, in part, as an international C-SPAN.
No independent bipartisan commission is needed to oversee the work of VOA. It belongs in the State Department, monitored in a bipartisan way through the Constitutional oversight powers of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and House International Relations Committee.
The second mission of supporting indigenous media reporting in countries without a free press has long been the work of RFE/RL, and recently RFA and Radio/TV Marti. They should become truly independent non-profits, run by independent boards, and financed by Congress. Their jobs are to put themselves out of business over the long-term. In doing so, they should coordinate their efforts with the National Endowment for Democracy, which Senator Lugar last year convinced Congress to designate as the strategic coordinator for the development of free, fair and viable free press.
If we review the BBG’s various entities in this light, questions arise about Al Hurra and Radio Sawa. If the goal is to develop free and independent media in the Arab-speaking world, then they too should have an independent board and receive Congressional funding based on a plan to eventually get off the government dime.
If the goal of Al Hurra and Radio Sawa is to serve as a platform for explaining and promoting American foreign policy, they should be merged back into VOA.
These are ideas I throw out to stimulate debate. Since 9/11 too much of the public diplomacy debate has been about tactics – buy advertisements, start a new TV station – and not about strategy. We need to reach a consensus on public diplomacy strategies before we get bogged down and waste more money on tactics that may or may not work.
Mark Helmke
Senior Professional Staff Member
U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Sen. Richard G. Lugar, Chairman
202-224-5918
No comments:
Post a Comment