In a sense, it’s a little hard to know what, exactly, to think of the Radio/TV Marti and the Voice of America “scandal” that has been unfolding these past few weeks.
The story actually has two distinct, mostly unrelated parts, although you would be hard-pressed to separate the two by reading most of the coverage of them. It all began when the Miami Herald reported that ten South Florida journalists had been paid thousands of dollars by the federal government for broadcasts aimed at weakening Cuban President Fidel Castro. Included in this group were three El Nuevo Herald reporters, (the paper is the Miami Herald’s Spanish-language sister paper), who had been paid $175,000, $71,000, and $15,000, respectively, since 2001 by the U.S. Office of Cuba Broadcasting to host shows on Radio and TV Marti. All three have since been let go by the paper.
Obviously, different news organizations have different rules when it comes to their staff freelancing for other publications, but when a reporter working for a non-partisan publication decides to partake in some overtly political or ideological freelance work, it’s up to them to disclose it to their bosses. And the Marti radio and television programs, which are funded by the federal government to broadcast explicitly political propaganda for consumption by the Cuban populace still living under Castro’s iron fist, fit this criteria. Given that, the Herald had every right to cut those reporters loose.
But a secondary issue has cropped up in connection with this story. In the New York Sun last week, Josh Gerstein reported that several journalists who have appeared on other Voice of America programs are also coming under fire for similar ethical concerns.
But is this is really fair?
Specifically, guests on the VOA’s Issues in the News program, who have included Hugh Sidey of Time, Peter Lisagor of the Chicago Daily News and Tom DeFrank of the New York Daily News, have been paid between $100 and $150 a pop to appear on the program, and do so on their own time. Even with journalists’ salaries being what they are, $150 doesn’t seem like enough to buy anyone off — which makes me wonder what the stink is all about.
It’s admittedly sticky ground, since the VOA is an arm of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which is headed by Kenneth Tomlinson, who has a long and blatant record of trying to inject ideological programming into domestic public broadcasting.
As a regular panelist on Issues in the News, David Lightman of the Hartford Courant told the Sun’s Gerstein that his gig at VOA “is nothing like Radio Marti. Nobody at VOA has ever told us what to say or suggested what we should say.”
And on the face of it, it looks like Lightman did everything right. Although the Courant recently announced that he will no longer be appearing on the VOA program (even though his superiors had long known of his affiliation with the program, and had no problem with it until the taint of the Herald case brought everything into question), so far no evidence has emerged of anything even approaching wrongdoing.
Of course, the VOA hasn’t been immune to Tomlinson’s ideological agenda. Although it has received far less press than his moves at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as CJR Daily reported in December 2005, under Tomlinson the VOA “awarded a two-year contract … to continue developing international broadcast products designed to present U.S. policies, culture, and institutions in a better light,” and in the May/June 2005 issue of CJR Corey Pein chronicled the rumblings of discontent among the VOA’s reporters with the new regime.

Seems to me that the discussion between what they are being paid is just a matter of $10 vs $1000. Either way they are being paid so what is the difference.
Then there is the matter of one being paid to explain the US policies while the other is being paid to show how the US policies are better than the Cuban policies. Again it seems like just a matter of degree.
As to your comments on Tomlinson, just what do you expect the job of head of VOA to be? Do you think he should be telling the world that the US policies are no good and the rest of the world should hate us? That makes no sense at all. His job is to put as good a face on US policies as possible.
You can't really compare the VOA to what the BBC is supposed to be. The one was originally set up to be the nation's news media while the other has all along been a propaganda arm of the federal government. Very different tasks.
All in all I think this whole thing is just a big mess with people disagreeing with the government or agreeing with the government. The only reason the Miami Herald people were let loose was because what they were broadcasting did not agree with the position of the Miami Herald politically. Otherwise there would not have been any problems with it at all. What needs to be asked is whether the regular broadcasters for VOA are given a script or not. If so then there is no difference at all. Did anyone ask the Miami Herald people if they agreed with what they were broadcasting or if they were free to say what they thought while broadcasting? I have certainly not seen anything to tell me they were told exactly what to say.
Posted by dick on Thu 21 Sep 2006 at 06:20 PM
First, since many journalists participate in broadcasting funded in whole or in part by government via the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, National Public Radio, and by the Voice of America, the issue is not whether one receives government money.
The issue seems to be that Radio Marti is qualitatively different. It is not.
To summarily dismiss via publication without prior notice a free-lance journalist who reports on cultural activities -ballet, the arts, writers- with no political content that can be construed as propaganda, was at best ill-considered.
The feeding frenzy that has followed is incredible.
Not all programming on Radio Marti can be classified as propaganda. And Radio Free Europe and other VOA pragramming often included propaganda, even under the direction of such luminaries as Edward R. Murrow. Please reexamine the facts and not make hasty conclusions.
Posted by Condor on Fri 22 Sep 2006 at 10:29 AM