- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
Why Should Our Tax Dollars Pay for ‘Journalism with an Edge’?
The June 26, 2013 U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on the foreign language broadcast services funded by the United States government offered an imperfect example of Washington political elites successfully sidestepping the obvious. What most of the participants wanted to talk about was reorganizing entities like Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, possibly by turning them over the State Department; adding language broadcasts like Ibo and Sindhi; eliminating existing language broadcasts in Greek; eliminating the 23 duplications of language services such as Russian, Spanish and Burmese; and the failure of the Persian News Network to cover the most recent presidential election in Iran. Inevitably, anti-Castro, Cuban-American Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen offered comments in defense of Radio Marti.
Only one of the participants dared to probe the problem that producing propaganda undermines the journalistic credibility of a news source. Democratic New York Rep. Elliott Engel asked two important questions: “Is there any common ground on the overarching mission of U.S. international broadcasting? Is it possible for broadcasters to provide authoritative, accurate and objective news while at the same time advancing U.S. interests?”
None of the three testifying witnesses or committee members offered a convincing formula for transcending that contradiction. Former Broadcasting Board of Governors member Enders Wimbush responded gamely that the broadcasting by the various entities should be “journalism with an edge.” Right. Well, perhaps euphemisms become indistinguishable from resolutions when you have been lost in the gray zone between journalism and propaganda long enough.
What went completely unchallenged during the hearing was the assumption that the U.S. government must continue to fund foreign language broadcasts about its foreign policy views with its own propaganda organization. Much of what was said in defense of the curiously un-challenged proposition that such an organization was needed involved praise for the role that Radio Free Europe had performed in weakening Soviet communism. Such views will be of great importance should the Soviet Union return from the grave.
Had they wanted to challenge that assumption they might have asked a question something like this: Given the uncritical reporting of announcements made by the White House and State Department by American news sources, why not simply subsidize broadcasts of relevant portions of their news covered translated into the desired foreign languages? Compare the news reports about the Syrian Civil War from Voice of America with those from National Public Radio or Fox News, and you won’t see any significant differences. Does it really matter whether the entity beating the war drum for U.S. covert and military intervention in that tragedy is a government owned entity, a non-profit entity with commercial endorsements, or a commercial entity? There is absolutely no shortage of journalism with an edge when it comes to reporting the Middle East.
Naturally, there would be competition between the various American news sources for the contracts to broadcast their news in translation. Political fights to favor some over others would be inevitable. Imagine the sort of compromise wherein specific target language populations are distributed among the different American news sources in the same way that British colonial authorities in Sub-Saharan Africa distributed exclusive rights to missionize specific ethnic groups among the Christian denominations. CNN would get Chinese, Fox Farsi, Bloomberg Burmese, etc.
Absurd you say? Well yes… alliteration in sequence is silly and subjecting 110 million Farsi speakers to Fox News would be cruel. However the current arrangement is also absurd. Continuing to operate government owned news/propaganda entities makes no sense in a world where news sources are proliferating across old and new media. Captive foreign audiences hungry for accurate and objective reporting in news broadcasts provided by the U.S. government may be appealing but it is unrealistic.
Organizations sometimes outlive their usefulness. When that happens the proper thing to do is not to find a more efficient way to do what is useless, but to dismantle them.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
What would winning the War in Afghanistan look like? America has been at war there for 13 years and you would expect that after thousands of casualties and spending immense sums of our tax dollars something that could be deemed victory would have been achieved by now. Instead of that we are presented with soon to be retiring Rep. Howard P. ‘Buck’ McKeon, Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, chiding the America people and President Obama for not wanting to keep fighting the longest war in our history. In a February 24th speech to National Press Club the California Rep Read on →
Chip Wells, 43, an 11-year veteran at the 5,200-worker Nissan plant in Canton, Mississippi, says the recent bad news coming out of the Volkswagen plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, did nothing to deter him and fellow pro-union Nissan workers from their campaign to join the United Auto Workers. “People think that derailed us,” says Wells, who works in Nissan’s paint department, “but we think it made us stronger. That plant (in Chattanooga) was only opened for two years. They’re still in the honeymoon phase.” The UAW “made some mistakes and they realize it,” he says. “The demographics were different. Here labor rights are civil rights, act Read on →
Instead of naming their new subdivisions the Dune Cottages, the Ocean Forest Cottages and the Riverside Cottages and then running their Dune Avenue down the Sea Island Spit, where the Loggerhead Turtles nest and 144 species of birds come to rest, making reference to the sea of effluent on which their cottages sit would be more honest, but it wouldn't attract many new buyers for Sea Island Coastal Properties' million dollar lots, would it? And it probably wouldn't please the realtors trying to move the 29 extant mansions in the million dollar plus range (For anyone looking to pay less for Read on →
In business school there is little ambiguity as to the mission, money ... profits. In art school it's a little different. The one I went to required focus, after a year of fundamentals, on one of several options: Advertising, Illustration, Industrial Design (all, you'll note, with the same point as business school) or Fine Art. Within the Fine Arts, by year three, one selected a major: painting, sculpture or printmaking. Of course everyone knew that “fine art” was a commodity, but it was considered crass to dwell too much on that area. So what, if not money, was the point? Wel Read on →