However, if the mission of US broadcasting is to be “messaging” and policy advocacy, then stop hiding behind the label of journalism. Call it what it is—public diplomacy—and put it under the State Department. Anything less is a disservice to VOA listeners and to the profession of journalism, and an insult to the men and women who strive to uphold the journalistic integrity of Voice of America.
Woman’s work - The twisted reality of an Italian freelancer in Syria
Sourcing Trayvon Martin ‘photos’ from stormfront - Not a good idea, Business Insider
Elizabeth Warren, the antidote to CNBC - The senator schools the talking heads on bank regulation
Art Laffer + PR blitz = press failure - The media types up the retail lobby’s propaganda
Reuters’s global warming about-face - A survey shows the newswire ran 50 percent fewer stories on climate change after hiring a “skeptic”
Barack Obama: ‘those old times aren’t coming back’
“It used to be there were local newspapers everywhere. If you wanted to be a journalist, you could really make a good living working for your hometown paper”
The Guardian’s editor opens up on Reddit
Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian, answered questions in an Ask Me Anything
The (almost) lost speech of Justice Anthony Kennedy
How his insightful remarks about the Constitution inadvertently make the case for a Supreme Court “media pool”
Fox News sues TVEyes for copyright infringement
Says subscription service sells access to its content without permission nor compensation
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
ACEsTooHigh.com – Reporting on the science, education, and policy surrounding childhood trauma
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
"The proposed 2014 budget asks for $732 million. Without significantly more money, something Congress would likely be leery of approving, the Global News Network cannot hope to compete with other news entities."
Therein lies your answer. If you need govt subsidies to "compete," then you're probably not offering an adequately valuable service. Mission Impossible, indeed.
"However, if the mission of US broadcasting is to be “messaging” and policy advocacy, then stop hiding behind the label of journalism. Call it what it is—public diplomacy—and put it under the State Department."
Dance around the proper label (propaganda) all you want. But "public diplomacy" is too nebulous and too generous, even more so than "journalistic integrity." US govt policy-promotion is more like it. Or, briefly: fraud.
Also:
-- Govt-subsidized news is corporatist, fascist, govt-DEPENDENT news. Always.
-- Fox, CNN, et al., are not "private" the way you'd portray them. They are govt-protected, govt-regulated (fascist) outlets. Fact. Good luck getting licensed and "competing" with them if you're truly independent.
-- Why not ponder the abolition of all govt "information" agencies involved? Why not let VOA and the like actually compete on their own? Is the author biased toward govt-funded "news"?
#1 Posted by Dan A., CJR on Tue 2 Jul 2013 at 03:24 AM
It is disappointing CJR would publish this commentary, which contains multiple errors, and calls for changes that are either unrealistic or have already been proposed by the very organization Mr. Thomas maligns.
A simple look at the Voice of America’s website demonstrates we are a hard-hitting and effective international multimedia news organization.
Our audience numbers have never been higher. They are based on VOA’s credibility as an independent news organization. In Africa, we are big on radio and mobile. In Iran, one in five adults watch us every week on TV.
There is nothing “schizophrenic” about what we do.
Times have changed from the days when newsroom journalists rewrote wire copy for shortwave radio. Today, VOA produces dozens of television programs, has nearly 50 separate websites and a wide range of mobile platforms, in addition to radio, podcasts and social media.
Audiences look to VOA for accurate and balanced news they cannot get on state controlled media in many countries, and we provide that in more than 40 languages.
#2 Posted by Kyle King, Director, VOA Public Relations , CJR on Wed 3 Jul 2013 at 05:23 PM
The response by the VOA PR director is quite predictable. The author was a former reporter and editor in VOA's newsroom who complained quite a lot when he was there about mismanagement and the weakening of the government agency, but decided to extend his career by signing on with the propaganda machine of the International Broadcasting Bureau.
BBG has a similar separate PR operation happily spewing all sorts of positive news. Both employ the method of attacking the messenger, in other words, anyone attempting to convey an accurate picture of the situation in the Cohen Building or raising uncomfortable issues, as Thomas does in his article.
It's instructive that the first response, and this one, came not from VOA Director Ensor, who before he arrived at VOA had traded his past journalistic credentials to be in charge of "public diplomacy" at the U.S. Embassy in Kabul, but from his PR machine.
As Thomas and other critics have stated, the BBG structure has been disastrous for U.S. international broadcasting. BBG members were largely aloof from rank and file employees. The BBG had to be forced to open its meetings to the public. Current IBB management has been destructive, demonstrating anti-employee animus, and greatly weakened VOA's central news operation.
VOA's newsroom often looks like a desert, decimated by a series of personnel losses. Many young people simply decided that their best interests were not with a sinking ship. Veteran journalists departed, some completely frustrated by what they saw happening, others retiring well before they had to.
Schizophrenic is a description widely used by employees to describe the inability of the operation to do the job it used to because of a combination of bloated management and insensitive tactics, driven by pressure from the highest levels to "do more with less."
It's a deliberate tactic, part of a larger effort to eventually eliminate veterans who raise legitimate questions. For those interested in reading more about the downward slide in recent years, see the series of articles published last year on the web site of the AFGE 1812 union at BBG.
As for "higher" audience numbers, the IBB PR unit can talk from now until the cows come home, but in comparison with al-Jazeera, BBC, CNN and the other major networks, U.S. broadcast operations have been out-competed. VOA's English web site is frequently far behind other news organizations on breaking stories.
When it comes to reputation, here's another uncomfortable fact. The credibility of Voice of America in official Washington itself has never been lower, and for good reason. When a federal agency, whether or involved in a supposedly high profile national security activity like international broadcasting, or not comes in last or near last year after year as rated by its own employees, this does not go unnoticed.
King and others in the Goebbels propaganda office can talk all they want about social media, multiple web sites, and live shows. But too many inside the government broadcast structure, as well as outside, know the truth.
#3 Posted by Ed Johnson, CJR on Wed 3 Jul 2013 at 07:03 PM
I worked at VOA longer than Gary Thomas -- 35 years -- and I agree with him 100%. He made one small error. Sanford Ungar came BEFORE David Jackson not after him. from the time I started -- 1971 -- until Jackson became Director -- the News Division was protected from higher ups and allowed to write under the VOA Charter -- accurate, objective and comprehensive. we covered Watergate, Iran-Contra, the Clinton impeachment and other controversial issues fully and fairly because were not the Voice of the Executive Branch -- we were the Voice of the American people. I produced Opinion Roundups -- newspaper editorial comment -- and I want out of my way to find comments critical of American policy as well as comments in agreement. It never occurred to me to do anything else -- because I was a VOA professional. A friend of mine was News Division chief under Jackson and he finally resigned rather than accept Jackson's attempts to censor and manipulate the news product. Under USIA, VOA Correspondents abroad did not answer to the local U-S ambassador. their copy went straight to Washington for editing. The BBG was -- is -- will be the instrument for the destruction of a precious national resource. I know good people who risked their lives to cover the news for VOA. I knew good people who died on the job. their tradition of public service means nothing to the people now in charge. I wish some one with the power to change things at VOA gave a damn.
#4 Posted by Anthony C. Collins, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 06:07 PM
I am appalled that a U.S. taxpayer-funded media organization set up to champion press freedom, with a splendid history and an important role now and in the future, would choose to respond to Columbia Journalism Review and attack Mr. Thomas' professionalism in such an old Soviet-style fashion. Not even Mr. Putin uses such crude tactics anymore.
Similarities between Voice of America (VOA) management's response to a journalist seeking answers and how the Soviets dealt with press inquires they found annoying are striking. Soviet apparatchiks refused to answer questions from Western reporters about human rights and responded with attacks on the journalists themselves and their professional integrity, accusing them of bias, distortions and hostility. This is exactly what VOA leadership has done through its spokesman in response to Mr. Thomas' article.
VOA's management had been given a chance to clarify any issues but refused to answer questions. They dismissed the questions themselves as containing inaccuracies and showing bias, thus not being worthy of a response from a U.S.-taxpayer funded media freedom institution. (How can any journalist win against such Politburo logic?) Then they relaunched their attack on Mr. Thomas, again accusing him of errors, which -- if there were any -- they had refused to correct earlier but still do not identify.
It is the Internet and social media where VOA English news simply cannot compete because of bad managers and bad management decisions. For example, a Russia Today English video news report on media censorship in Turkey from early June received over 150,000 views on YouTube. Voice of America failed to send a VOA English staff reporter to Turkey at the height of the protests. Its video report on the Turkish protests filed at about the same time from Washington, got less than 300 views on YouTube.
This pattern is repeated news story after news story. A social media outreach index (Sum of Facebook "Likes," Tweets, and Readers Comments) for news reports on Edward Snowden on June 24 was as follows:
Voice of America English – 32
Al Jazeera English – 1,205
Russia Today English – 11,642
Al Jazeera beat VOA by 37 to 1, Russia Today beat VOA by 363 to 1. This happens day after day. VOA English news reports are posted late. They are often short versions of wire service reports. It takes many hours for some to show up on VOA's Facebook page, if they show up at all.
Since VOA English News did not have a staff reporter on the ground in Turkey and direct access to protesters in early June, its news coverage automatically tilted to reporting statements from Prime Minister Erdogan. VOA Director David Ensor denies it and defends coverage as balanced and responsible, but it is easy to check, and social media statistics speak for themselves.
As of a few days ago, Russia Today English had 920,983 YouTube subscribers and 1,012,986,279 views (that's over one billion); Voice of America English had only 23,763 subscribers and 26,948,148 views.
The Turkish Service saved VOA's reputation in Turkey to some degree, but most language services are also barely surviving under the oppressive management of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB). IBB has already largely destroyed VOA's radio and television capabilities but failed to even come close to Russia Today or Al Jazeera in social media engagement. What IBB "achieved" with its management practices is the lowest employee morale as measured by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey.
It comes as no surprise to me that VOA officials responded to Mr. Thomas' article in a way they did. The IBB management culture has been hostile to journalists for years and is the main obstacle to making U.S. international broadcasting more effective.
Ted Lipien retired from VOA in 2006. His last position was VOA acting Associate Director in ch
#5 Posted by Ted Lipien, CJR on Thu 4 Jul 2013 at 06:10 PM
I spent 32 years at the Voice of America as a news producer-anchor-correspondent. What I hear from many of my former colleagues is consistent with what Mr. Thomas writes. In their view, the decentralization of VOA's news output has been detrimental to coverage, downgrading a highly professional newsroom in favor of increasing reporting by language services of varying abilities. In my day, the rule was "get it right," not "get it first." Apparently this is no longer so, according to the litany of errors my former colleagues relate to me.
Mr. Thomas is also correct that the BBG is a bipartisan disaster. Instead of consisting of individuals familiar with cross cultural communication, as the old U.S. Information Agency was, it is often made up of political cronies of members of Congress who come with their own agenda. The emphasis on "pepping up" VOA has come from a long line of commercial TV executives familiar only with hyperactive U.S. news presentation.
There is a real need for U.S. international broadcasting because U.S. commercial networks will never beam their work in dozens of languages to areas of the world in greatest need of the truth. I just hope it can get its act together. Thanks, Gary, for spreading the word.
#6 Posted by David McAlary, CJR on Wed 10 Jul 2013 at 09:31 PM
"A simple look at the Voice of America’s website demonstrates we are a hard-hitting and effective international multimedia news organization."
This is an interesting sentence. It is an example of the "it must be true if we say it's true" logic of hucksters everywhere. A more persuasive argument, Mr King, for "...a hard-hitting and effective international multimedia news organization" might be to actually keep gentlemen such as Messrs. Thomas, Lipien, McAlary and Collins engaged. Or their successors.
#7 Posted by Chuck Schilling, CJR on Thu 11 Jul 2013 at 01:26 AM
I have 13 years' experience at the VOA. Mr. Thomas is absolutely right about VOA's management problems. His piece, however, misses a big part of the story - and he runs into trouble when he compares the journalistic abilities of VOA Central News and that of the language services.
I have experience working at VOA Central News and in language services. My personal observation is that journalistic ability in both divisions is about the same. There are, in each, a few leading journalists who can hold their own in any news environment; a large group, the majority, who can basically do the job, and a few people who probably have no business working in a newsroom.
While Mr. Thomas is not impressed by the work of language services, they are the ones most likely to get first-hand information from news makers, sometimes at the risk of their stringers' lives, and push the stories out to their audiences. By contrast and for years, a lot of the work in Central News consisted of sitting at a desk and rewriting wire copy, with no encouragement from management to confirm reports by getting directly in touch with news sources.
I agree with Mr. Thomas it would be unwise to break up VOA Central News, although I come to this conclusion for different reasons: Central News ought to complement the work of language services, not assume all news gathering responsibilities at their expense. In other words, report on general global events language services don't have the resources to cover.
Furthermore, Mr. Thomas seems to want to put the genie back into the bottle when he implies hard news ought to remain the focus of the organization. This said, is hard news the only way to bring the public information? Is hard news all worldwide audiences want to hear? The media revolutions of the early 21th century feature not just new media, but also new ways of telling stories: User-generated content, twitter and Skype chats, light discussion programs on public affairs that go beyond the news.VOA owes it to its audience to at least try its hand at such media and such practices. Its competitors are certainly doing so.
#8 Posted by VOA Employee, CJR on Wed 31 Jul 2013 at 12:52 PM