|
 |
Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version
The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.
PUT THE NEWS HERE, AND THE PROPAGANDA THERE
NOV 13, 2006 - 3:36AM PST
Posted by Kim Andrew Elliott
All posts by this author
The complementary roles of U.S. international broadcasting and U.S. public diplomacy American journalists, writers, scholars, decision makers, and other experts tend to be confused about the relationship between international broadcasting and public diplomacy. For example, in article about President Bush's nomination of Karen Hughes to be under secretary of state for public diplomacy, Fred Kaplan wrote:In the Soviet Union of the 1950s and '60s, there was Pravda on the one hand, Voice of America on the other. The former dished out the dreary boilerplate of the ruling Communist Party. The latter offered exciting rhythms from the forbidden outside world.... Today, an official American image, even a well-crafted one, would have to compete with a vast array of newspapers, magazines, radio broadcasts and, most crucially, satellite TV networks -- some state-sponsored, some independentthat have a much better idea of what appeals to their viewers than we do. (Slate, March 15, 2005.) This is an uncommonly astute observation about international broadcasting, but it has little to do with Karen Hughes. True, Ms. Hughes attends meetings of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, sitting on behalf of the Secretary of State, who is an ex officio member of the Board. But the real authority is in the eight appointed members of the Board, a bipartisan panel whose members serve fixed and staggered terms. The State Department representatives can voice concerns, but I assume and hope -- though don't know, as Board meetings are rarely open -- that the Board members do not take these as directives. International Broadcasting versus Public Diplomacy The BBG itself has offered different explanations about .the relationship between international broadcasting and public diplomacy. Its 2002 annual report begins with a statement that its chairman Kenneth Tomlinson made at a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which he places public diplomacy and international broadcasting in "two different spheres": We need to understand the importance of maintaining the strength of public diplomacy and the traditions of international broadcasting. I am convinced that we will not be successful in our overall mission of delivering our message to the world if we fail to grasp that these are two different spheres and that they operate according to two different sets of rules. It is very important that government spokesmen take Americaגs message to the world -- passionately and relentlessly. We should not be ashamed of public advocacy on behalf of freedom and democracy and the United States of America. International broadcasting on the other hand is called upon to reflect the highest standards of independent journalism as the best means of convincing international audiences that truth is on the side of democratic values. But the statement concluded by describing international broadcasting as one of the "arms of public diplomacy":These arms of public diplomacy should be parallel pursuits because the effectiveness of either is adversely affected when one attempts to impose its approach on the other. And the 2003 BBG annual report has international broadcasting in the "realm" of public diplomacy: "Within the…... FULL TEXT
Read Comments (2) | Add Your Own
 Read Comments:
John Figliozzi on November 14, 2006 @ 7:15 am:
It's interesting to note the dilemma created when one attempts to send a "unified, coherent" message from a nation that professes to value diversity of thought and freedom of expression. In that vein, it would seem the most valuable mission that u.s. international broadcasting can perform is to present a "unified, coherent" message only in the broadest sense--that is, that it is ok if a diversity of views fosters robust debates, even if those views differ from the official policies of the U.S. government. In other words, the unified coherent message is that its ok if the message isn't coherent and unified. That's a revolutionary thought in most of the world even today and would carry great power all on its own as long as the actions of those who profess to adhere to it would cease undermining it with their own actions.
Alan Simpson on November 14, 2006 @ 10:51 am:
A timely fresh look at the problem, though I must correct some inaccuracies in The British Model. The BBC and Prime Minister Thatcher had me give a number of briefings on how the UK and EU could create their own WORLDNET, when the first batch of contracts were issued to us to develop the idea. Europe saw WorldNet as a potential threat and a tool that could significantly tilt the balance of power. When it was seen that the original concept was being driven off the rails, they decided that it was a waste of an incredible opportunity, and therefore would not cause problems to their own "messages". The CIO didn't have support to develop their own network, and we helped the BBC whenever we could. CNN, Reuters and Visnews were working with us in the early days to make the project a success, but sadly USIA Film & TV were so out of touch with reality that their content killed the global popularity of the project. The administrations that followed had it hung, drawn and quartered, and finally buried in the wilderness of State.
If we look at the issues from a pure audience demand, then we should send Rumsfeld and Cheney for War Crimes Indictment, and Bush back to Crawford to ride his bike around and around. That would have the global audience dancing in the streets, but it wouldn't solve the crippling image issues dumped on to future US generations.
Dr. Elliott is wrong that a US government funded entity could not attract viewers. He is right that it must not be based in Washington, DC. or run by the current crowd. The global shortage of content is a blessing to create a new free flow of programming, but please, oh please do not attempt to feed the world with the same rubbish that launched WorldNet. And do not lie about the numbers! The world really can count viewers.
Today we have the technology only dreamed about in 1984, and we can simultaneously create digital feeds to satisfy the demands of every audience grouping. The early successes of WorldNet came from relay broadcasting of content by hundreds of TV stations, and thousands of cable and news syndicators, many from the countless meetings during the original site surveys by us of 125 US Embassies and Consulates, and the hard work by dedicated USIS Officers. Our ops room in Suffolk, England answered hundreds of technical inquiries every week from broadcasters eager to use the satellite feeds for free. That is how to create the next generation of TV to “Influence” public opinion, and “Get the Message Across”. Give them resources they need to fill their broadcast minutes. It could be done for a fraction of the money currently being wasted by the Pentagon in planting fake stories.
Add a Comment:
 |
|
|
SEND TO FRIENDS
