Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20147)	2/27/2002 11:04:52 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

What we need is PR, not journalism. A New Voice for America Wednesday, October 3, 2001 12:01 a.m. EDT In times of trouble, America's international broadcasting services can be worth their weight in gold. The Voice of America, with a global reach in some 53 languages, is uniquely positioned to tell America's story to the world--which is why it needs to be revitalized after years of neglect. During its inaugural broadcast in 1942, VOA promised the people of Hitler's Germany that whether the coming news was good or bad, "we shall tell you the truth." Today VOA has the job of telling the whole world what America stands for in the war against international terrorism. So it comes as good news that the Bush Administration wants to fill the empty director's chair at VOA with a seasoned journalist and broadcaster who doesn't need on-the-job training. For a decade, Bob Reilly has been the host of VOA's premier foreign policy radio and TV talk show, "On the Line," and author of numerous editorials outlining U.S. policy for millions of listeners abroad. He also handled foreign policy and national defense issues in the Reagan White House Office of Public Liaison and has extensive contacts on Capitol Hill. Change can't come soon enough. It's worse than bad luck that VOA found itself at this critical juncture without a leader. The position of VOA director, like so many other Administration appointments, fell into the black hole of backlogs after last year's endless election. Rudderless except for a gaggle of bureaucrats, VOA has stumbled several times since September 11; for instance, by broadcasting interviews with the leader of an Egyptian terrorist organization and with members of a small radical group in Indonesia without informing listeners of their background or providing context for their bellicose remarks. The worst gaffe was VOA's decision last week to air parts of an interview with the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar. The State Department tried to block the broadcast, arguing that it wasn't America's job to give air time to the host of Osama bin Laden. But VOA went ahead--claiming that it was its journalistic duty to offer Afghans and other listeners balanced points of view. Well, nothing Omar said to Afghans was news; they hear his rants every day on the radio and TV he controls. And far from convincing Afghans of the wondrous nature of America's free press, VOA just sent them a confusing mixed message: Does the U.S. want us to rise up and oppose this guy, or not? There will always be room for argument about how and what any news service reports in wartime. But the VOA is not "60 Minutes"; it is a service paid for by American taxpayers. What VOA has needed since September 11 is a leader who can reconcile its charter obligation to observe the highest journalistic standards with its mandate to represent America to the world. No matter how hard the new director works, though, he comes to a VOA beaten down by years of mishandling. Starting in 1996, the Clinton Administration systematically dismantled the Radio's capacity to produce sustained, in-depth programming about American institutions. For example, over the past five years, VOA has lost its capacity to produce documentary series for translation, such as the ones that might be so useful now about the terror groups that solicit donations from unsuspecting Muslims around the world. The attitude during the Clinton years was that, as U.S. Information Agency chief Joseph Duffy once put it, America should stop talking so much to the world, and listen more. A rule banning broadcasts longer than five or so minutes has since been relaxed, but VOA today is little more than a jumble of "news" shows. It lacks centrally produced scripts to help understaffed language services put out programming on the American experience. With its many dedicated broadcasters, VOA has the talent to make this its finest hour. The new director must safeguard their freedom as journalists, while also assuring taxpayers that VOA will once again truly be America's voice to the world. opinionjournal.com

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (20147)	2/27/2002 6:38:07 PM
From: frankw1900	Respond to of 281500

Re VOA. The most listened to radio in Afghanistamn is BBC Farsi and Pashtun programming. But they really program. Not just news, but soaps, health, education, etc.. They do research on the ground using local folk to be sure their programs actually speak to local concerns. They try to tell the truth. It gives the Brits some kind of basic credibilty. I'm sure this all costs money but not very much. What it does require is long term commitment, a clear mandate, and no interference from politicians over short term matters. With respect to the middle east and the islamist propaganda cloud. The islamists have a large head start due to western, particularly US, inattention. I doubt if newspaper, radio and TV will in themselves cut it because the islamists are getting to the kids and young adults in the schools and mosques. Therefore, as I mentioned to TB, the non-islamist folk need to be supported and protected in competing ventures. (TB called this middle east muslim head start program. I say whatever it takes). As ME TV goes, Al Jazeera is the best of a bad lot. It needs competition. Awful of of folk in that part of the world take themselves far too seriously. It's not surprising because so do their leaders and it's not good to get too out of step with that view. The LA Iranian TV story posted here yesterday gets big viewership despite viewing risk because it doesn't take the mullahs seriously at all. More of that sort of thing needs be sent that way. What I'm saying is full court press on all fronts. For ten years it would probably cost a tenth of an advanced weapons system. What the islamists spent wasn't a lot and half of that was probably siphoned away by criminals. The US government (and mine) haven't shown much imagination in this direction.