For the United States, Great Britain and other developed countries, international broadcasting is one of the most important components of "public diplomacy," a combination of information and cultural programs designed to tell the rest of the world about a given country, its culture and its policies.
Since the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. and its allies have been attempting to tell their stories and explain their policies in Iraq and throughout the volatile Middle East with limited success. And when it comes to broadcasting, both the venerable British Broadcasting Corp. and our own Voice of America have been struggling to win the battle for hearts and minds in the Muslim world.
In fact the BBC, long regarded as the dean of international broadcasters, has fallen on hard times because of its tendentious coverage of the Iraq War. The BBC's troubles began when the publicly funded radio network accused Prime Minister Tony Blair of "sexing up" intelligence reports about Saddam Hussein's alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in order to justify the war. Sound familiar?
After months of inquiry a respected British judge, Lord Hutton, condemned the BBC's biased reporting and cleared Blair of wrongdoing. According to Gerard Baker of London's Financial Times, "Lord Hutton has exposed an institution whose power and influence are now matched by its arrogance and self-righteousness."
Amid a rash of abject apologies, the BBC's chairman resigned followed by its director general and the reporter who aired the original story. As former VOA Director John Hughes wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, "It isn't the first time great journalistic institutions have been misled by sources or betrayed by staffers."
BBC commentator Janet Daley issued a harsher judgment in the London Daily Telegraph: "BBC staff often say proudly that it is their responsibility to oppose whatever government is in power," she wrote. "Well, actually, it isn't. Examination and analysis are the business of tax-funded journalism. Opposition is the business of mandated politicians."
She's right, of course, and that's something the U.S. Corporation for Public Broadcasting and National Public Radio should keep in mind as they continue to promote a left-wing, anti-government agenda at taxpayer expense.
The main difference between the BBC and the Voice of America is that the Voice's congressional charter precludes it from broadcasting within the U.S. Its role is to tell America's story abroad to a wide international audience numbering in the millions of listeners. Nevertheless, some VOA broadcasters suffer from a BBC-like syndrome in that they think their job is to oppose the government rather than to present the news fairly and objectively.
As Hughes observed, "Reporters ... shouldn't be denied the right to personal views about the issues they report on. But unless they're columnists, commentators or editorial writers, those personal views shouldn't ... influence their reporting."
Unfortunately, some VOA journalists don't understand their own charter, which requires the Voice to: 1) "serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news" based on "accurate, objective and comprehensive" reporting, 2) "present a balanced and comprehensive projection of American thought and institutions" and 3) "present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively" with "responsible discussions and opinion on those policies." Fair enough.
From my own experience at VOA in the late 1970s, however, I learned that many of its broadcasters have trouble coming to grips with the charter's foreign-policy objective. I used to ask the staffers I supervised why the American taxpayers should subsidize a radio station that didn't present and explain U.S. foreign policy. They had no rational answer and didn't understand that many influential foreigners listen to VOA precisely because it represents the views of the U.S. government in its commentaries and editorials.
Things became more confused at the VOA in late 1999 when the Clinton administration dismantled American public diplomacy by merging the specialized U.S. Information Agency (my alma mater) with the sprawling State Department, and putting VOA under an "independent" Broadcasting Board of Governors, which has taken a market-driven approach to international broadcasting. Instead of targeting foreign leaders and policy-makers, the BBG has decided to cater to mass audiences by replacing the VOA's traditional language services with "pop" stations.
For example, VOA replaced its Arabic Service two years ago with something called Radio Sawa, which broadcasts American pop music (think Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera) to young audiences in the Middle East, with very little news and commentary. Although the Voice may have increased its audience in that part of the world, is it more influential today than it was a few years ago? I don't think so. In my opinion, we're getting less bang for our international broadcasting bucks these days.
As former VOA Program Director Myrna Whitworth asserts, even though BBG regards Radio Sawa as an unqualified success, the station aired at least 14 hours of pop music per day as U.S. bombs fell on Baghdad last year, a policy that failed to contribute to greater understanding of our country and its policies. So despite the fact that our government now spends about $220 million a year on international broadcasting - including nearly $20 million on a station that no one watches (TV Marti, aimed at Cuba) - I doubt whether these are cost-effective investments of taxpayer dollars. It's an issue well worth exploring in an election year.
Guy W. Farmer, a former American diplomat who specialized in "public diplomacy," resides in Carson City.