It is time for the US to follow the example of other modern democracies and provide citizens with a government-supported, twenty-four-hour news channel devoted to global news.
After living in Cairo for two years, my wife and I recently returned to the US, and among the first things we did was address our information needs by getting US cell phones and cable TV. Given all the a la carte news and entertainment we can watch online these days, we chose the most basic cable package, which contains little more than C-SPAN, the major three-letter networks, and a deep queue of home shopping channels.
The setup is fine, but I constantly wish for a twenty-four-hour network devoted to serious global news, like BBC World or Al-Jazeera. Even people in the US with expanded cable packages are denied serious global news coverage, of course, as most cable providers do not offer Al-Jazeera English and too many don’t carry BBC, and domestic cable news channels routinely cover hours upon hours of nonsense. Someone I follow on Twitter pointed out that on much of August 20, as Libyan rebels surged into Qaddafi’s capital of Tripoli, CNN fixated on the wedding of reality TV bombshell Kim Kardashian.
In the July/August edition of CJR, Lee Bollinger offered a bold proposal to address these problems, suggesting creation of an “American World Service,” much like BBC World News. Bollinger imagines the outlet as a catalyst to enhance the global exchange of ideas: “[A] media institution with sufficient funding to bring the highest-quality American journalism to the global public forum.” It seems to me that one of the primary benefits to an American World Service would be to also bring more serious global journalism to Americans.
Even if more sophisticated global news does emerge in cable packages across the United States, recent figures show consistent declines in the number of traditional cable subscriptions in the US since 2001, numbers which are likely to recede further as syncing online content with living room screens becomes ever easier.
Allow me to build somewhat on Bollinger’s proposal and suggest a basic structure for an American World Service. Presumably, an American World Service (AWS) would offer a well-crafted website, apps, and radio service in addition to TV, but I’ll focus here on the latter.
AWS would be broadcast on TV and streamed for free online. Anyone with Internet or TV access would also have access to AWS. Additionally, AWS stories could be rebroadcast and republished, free of charge, by anyone, anywhere.
AWS would rebroadcast reporting from, and share resources with, Voice of America. The absurd post-World War II restrictions imposed by the Smith-Mundt Act, which forbids broadcasting in the US of Voice of America content and other government-produced news, would be abolished, and some English-language programming produced by VOA could be rolled into American World Service scheduling.
AWS wouldn’t cover nonsense. I understand that for-profit news outlets often need to cover topics of varying sophistication to attract maximum attention, but an American World Service will not cover Kardashian weddings or feature morning segments on the merits of Cocoa Krispies.
AWS would sell advertising. Like Al-Jazeera and BBC World, an American World Service would sell advertising time to reduce dependence on government subsidies. Call them sponsorships if you like, but either way AWS would seek revenue from private sectors.
AWS would have a wholly independent ombuds team to monitor quality, respond to consumers’ concerns, and publicize and correct errors in reporting.
AWS would withstand exaggerated fears of government-supported news. Government-funded journalism scares many people. Interestingly, some US critics who oppose government financial support for journalism are, like me, college or university professors. I would ask them, then, whether they feel they must not criticize the universities that that pay their salaries.
I think your idea is wonderful! As far as BBC World News television is concerned, it's more the BBC's fault that Americans can't watch this. They cite copyright problems, but people who subscribe to Cablevision in the Modena, New York area (and probably many other areas as well) can watch it as part of their pay-tv menu. I think it would be nice to have it as part of the basic package on all systems. The same goes for Al Jezeera, Al Jezeera has been trying to convince local cable and satellite systems to carry them for a long time, and I read Time-Warner in New York does now. I gave up TV and watch them plus France24 via the internet (Time-Warner 20MBs!).
Good luck to you!
#1 Posted by Christopher Hobe Morrison, CJR on Tue 6 Sep 2011 at 05:46 PM
PS--Don't give up on radio. You can get BBC World Service, all the BBC domestic networks, news programmes from around the world including the VOA, Kol Israel, pretty much anything you want in almost every language, via an internet connection (the faster the better), and I never have any problem finding out what is going on especially considering all my RSS feeds!
#2 Posted by Christopher Hobe Morrison, CJR on Tue 6 Sep 2011 at 05:50 PM
U.S.A. World Service
#3 Posted by Jake, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 10:36 AM
Couldn't agree more! In the current climate any such proposal seems unlikely to gain any momentum unlesst privately funded. And then it will probably be accused of being the handiwork of left-wing radicals.
It's long been an embarrassment to me that a country the size of the USA can't muster a decent national service when the Brits can provide the entire world, including virtually all of the USA now through Internet radio services and our own public broadcasting system, with not only quality global news but interesting informative talk, entertainment, and even radio drama-remember that?
Think of the kind of service we could have built and we begun public radio and television with the British license fee system.
At least we do have NPR.
#4 Posted by Irwin Starr, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 03:28 PM
A jobs program for journalists--I LOVE it!
#5 Posted by Suzanne Sell, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 03:42 PM
I applaud your idea, but think that American World Service should REPLACE not be an addition t Voice of America. I joined VOA after more than 20 years in private sector broadcasting. To say working here is a disappointment is an understatement. This is the worst managed organization I have ever personally experienced or heard about from others. VOA is stuck in a bureaucratic, hierarchical mindset that private-sector broadcasters moved away from at least 20 years ago. The top management has done their utmost to effect change, but when there is no motivation for change, no "carrot or stick" then little changes. The international environment at VOA offers such high promise that sadly, in reality, the organization never gets close to reaching. Myself and I must others that work here think that dramatic change is needed.
#6 Posted by CTripaldi, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 05:46 PM
The US already has such a service. It's called "voice of America.". Unfortunately, Congress and the White house have cut and cut and cut that service...partially on the theory that we can rent air time on a few local. FM stations...and that an international broadcasting service isn't as important as fundingNPR and Planned Parenthood.
#7 Posted by Joel whitaker, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 07:48 PM
Why does the government need to support this grand scheme?
If people want it, they'll pay for it. If they're not willing to pay for it, why have it?
The truth of the matter is that this is just another commie/liberal dream - the commie/liberals really do believe that the government can do things better than the free market can.
And in fairness, I think Prof. Martin ought to ask himself how many of Maine cohorts we'll see at Tea Party rallies or voting Republican in the next election. The comparison between government-funded journalism and government-funded higher education is as scary as it is valid - the result of government operation of news reporting will be a pervasive leftist bias in journalism that echoes the pervasive leftist bias in academia - a bias that does not reflect the political stance of the average American.
#8 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 7 Sep 2011 at 10:34 PM
Makework for journalists provided on the taxpayers dime …. I don’t think so.
#9 Posted by Mike H, CJR on Thu 8 Sep 2011 at 12:14 PM
While Mr. Bollinger's proposal was for a channel that would broadcast both domestically and internationally, Dr. Martin's implementation seems to be for domestic consumption. This would be a serious news channel that would be available on terrestrial television, thus not requiring a cable or satellite connection. But in almost markets, the terrestrial channels are already spoken for. Would the government use eminent domain to bump a private, for-profit, commercial channel and replacement it with the government-funded news channel?
Dr. Martin does not mention CNN International. CNN International might have more entertainment and sports news that Dr. Martin would prefer, but it has much more substantial world coverage than CNN domestic. Getting CNNI on more cable and satellite platforms would do much to overcome the world news deficit in the United States. If terrestrial distribution is desired, CNN International could be placed on a digital subchannel of a partner stations. No government funding would be required: CNN International pays for itself through advertising, much of it by countries promoting tourism, trade, and investment. It does not take much imagination to see a business plan emerging here -- both for CNN International and BBC World News.
Another feature of Mr. Martin's plan is that it would employ VOA journalism. One of the best arguments for the repeal of the Smith-Mundt prohibition of domestic dissemination is that US international and domestic broadcasting could barter content, strengthening the output of each side. The BBC world and domestic services greatly benefit from such an arrangement. So do CNN International and CNN domestic.
In America Calling: A 21st Century Model, I suggest that US government-funded international broadcasting be franchised to a consortium of ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox News, and NBC. The consortium would provide the senior executive board, firewall, expertise, and newsgathering resources. In turn, the consortium members would benefit from the regional and language expertise of US international broadcasting.
#10 Posted by Kim Andrew Elliott, CJR on Fri 9 Sep 2011 at 08:34 AM