Last spring, there was a spate of commentary about Congressional efforts to relax the domestic dissemination ban on content produced for foreign audiences by US government-sponsored broadcasters. Imposed by a series of amendments to the US Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, also known as the Smith-Mundt Act, they prevented the likes of Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia from being distributed in the United States. The ban was passed in 1972, in the wake of McCarthy-era fears of a communist infiltration leading to contamination of the message broadcast overseas.
When President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act into law in early January, he authorized implementation of the Smith Mundt Modernization Act, eliminating the domestic dissemination ban. In contrast to the alarmist punditry that surfaced last May—critics said that a repeal would allow the US to subject its own citizens to propaganda—the actual change has prompted little discussion outside of public diplomacy and international broadcast circles.
As of July 1, 2013, content produced by the five US government-sponsored broadcasters, all overseen by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, will no longer be subject to the ban. In practice, not much will change. As one longtime US international broadcasting expert observed, the legislation simply changes the legal status of an already hard-to-enforce ban, “allowing de jure to catch up with de facto.” A formal statement from Voice of America, the flagship US international broadcaster, praised the change, emphasizing both the resulting transparency and the opportunity it now offers for Americans to learn more about this US foreign policy tool. As one board member declared, “All Americans will now have access to the vital and informative reporting of our accomplished journalists around the world who are working under difficult circumstances in closed societies and developing countries.”
Spurred by a line in a New York Times article that called the US government “the largest broadcaster that few Americans know about,” I did a LexisNexis search for and analysis of major American print media outlets’ coverage of Voice of America over a recent two-year period. Both as a subject and as a source of news, it was only mentioned 188 times during the two-year period considered. (A similar search for “CNN” yielded more than 2,000 mentions—in The New York Times alone.)
Seventy-six percent of the VOA mentions referred to the organization itself, providing context about VOA, mentioning its relationship to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and alluding to the role of VOA in inspiring the audiences of less-than-free societies. There was frequent reference to VOA’s role in the Cold War, particularly in the presentation of profiles of dissidents and leaders from that period. There were also several mentions of Voice of America’s continued efforts to provide content to audiences in China and Iran in addition to those governments’ ongoing efforts to block delivery of such content.
Only 12 percent of the references to Voice of America directly quoted reporting done by the broadcaster and just another 3 percent of the references used indirect quotes from the news organization. Thus, although VOA is well regarded as a news source overseas, only 15 percent of the already-limited references to VOA in the American print media examined contained any content attributed to the broadcaster.
That such references appear at all, however, suggests that major American print media outlets do follow VOA’s reporting. It is in this context that the repeal of the domestic dissemination ban may have the greatest impact. With the ban’s removal, there is no longer any question about whether it is legal to refer to or to use VOA or other international broadcasting content in domestic news. The benefits of such usage are manifold. Not the least of these potential benefits is the fact that, as a media organization with a budget of more than $700 million and content produced in more than 50 languages, the Broadcasting Board of Governors’s five broadcasters may prove to be a rich source of internationally oriented content for mainstream American news organizations and for ethnic media outlets.
I like what I see. However, apart from the ban, there is nothing to stop me from quoting excerpts on my blog. I have done it many times and nobody knocked my door with an arrest warrant.
Moreover, in this day and age of social media, it is almost impossible for the said act or any other government directive from being enforced.
I get requests to publish content from the US embassies. They need more sharing and sharing is the new religion.
...and I am Sid Harth@elcidharth.com
#1 Posted by Sid Harth, CJR on Tue 22 Jan 2013 at 05:42 PM
Nice article but you have a key fact wrong. The last sentence in the first paragraph contains a glaring mistake: the McCarthy era was in the 50s, not in the 70s as you indicate.
Senior International Broadcaster
Voice of America
Washington
#2 Posted by Paul Westpheling, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 12:35 PM
The VOA and the entire BBG structure are thoroughly discredited at this point, regardless of this achievement on Smith Mundt.
Fault lies mostly with the arrogance and mismanagement of top managers. Few members of the BBG, which assumed control of government-funded overseas broadcasting (the old USIA disappeared years ago), have ever cared about their own employees.
BBG members showed up for occasional meetings, flew around the country (Miami where the Office of Cuba Broadcasting is based, Prague where RFE/RL is) holding meetings, which for many years were closed until demands grew to make them accessible on the web.
By the way, one of those who pushed for more transparency was none other than Victor Ashe, who the BBG, and other managers in what is called the International Broadcasting Bureau, character assassinated in the recent State Department Inspector General report.
This has all been building for decades, out of the view of Americans most of whom had no idea these broadcast activities continued following the end of the Cold War.
It's not at all certain whether the myriad problems in the place can be resolved by a single CEO, as has been proposed.
#3 Posted by 157wave4, CJR on Thu 24 Jan 2013 at 04:41 PM
Paul, language has been tweaked, thank you!
#4 Posted by Kira Goldenberg, CJR on Fri 25 Jan 2013 at 08:14 AM
Nice article but you have a key fact wrong. The last sentence in the first paragraph contains a glaring mistake: the McCarthy era was in the 50s, not in the 70s as you indicate.
http://chongwudiao.aichongbuluo.com/showinfo-4-44380-0.html
Senior International Broadcaster
Voice of America
Washington
#5 Posted by dfgsdfg, CJR on Tue 28 May 2013 at 11:19 PM
Good comments in this article. When you have stretched yourself thin, you sacrifice the ability to do vital tasks. Hiring a personal assistant frees you up to have the flexibility to attend to the most important areas of your life. If you are in the UK and need a virtual assistant then check out dailyPA.co.uk
#6 Posted by joanna jackson, CJR on Tue 2 Jul 2013 at 09:07 AM
BBG members showed up for occasional meetings, flew around the country (Miami where the Office of Cuba Broadcasting is based, Prague where RFE/RL is) http://songshu.aichongbuluo.com/songshusiyang/SSDZLE/showinfo-67-45714-0.html holding meetings, which for many years were closed until demands grew to make them accessible on the web.
#7 Posted by dsfg, CJR on Tue 23 Jul 2013 at 10:53 PM