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
Despicable. That's the only word for it. I refer to the recent official email "Responding to the Ebola Crisis" of October 17 from my congressional representative, Bob Goodlatte, of Virginia's 6th District. It begins by stating that "Ebola now spreading in the United States is of extreme concern [emphasis added]." The update then goes on to imply that millions of Americans have lost or will lose their health care under the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"). To connect the dots, which Rep. Goodlatte leaves to the reader, ostensibly to retain a fig leaf of decency: You may get Ebola, and if you do, Read on →
People like Bill O'Reilly call upon people to raise themselves up while helping keep a foot on their necks. Conservatives like O'Reilly do have some kernels of truth on their side. They rightly think people should develop good character, including virtues such as discipline and responsibility for oneself. And they are rightly concerned to assure that social policies don't discourage people from developing such virtues. But after those kernels of truth, their map of the world is dominated by a river of denial. First, as Jon Stewart pointed out in his confrontation with O'Reilly, they deny how much their own ascent was boosted Read on →
One wryly fascinating aspect of achieving "seniority" is that my senses have become more adept at finding free entertainment. Locating alternative sources of amusement has become almost a necessity these days. Daytime television remains abominable, cable TV is objectionally priced (probably by those same pirates who sell inkjet print cartridges) and the ransom one has to give up for seats to professional sporting events is unconscionable. Also, our local news daily, though not unreasonably priced is but a shell of its former self. It is no longer a joy to read. One amusing activity, I find, involves no equipment, no cover cha Read on →
In a class on Dante I'm currently enrolled in, Professor Frank Ambrosio of Georgetown University quoted the nineteenth century philosopher Friedric Nietzsche that human beings, as far as we know, are the only animals who make promises. I only add that humans are also the sole ones who break them. According to Ambrosio, Nietzsche puts the significance of human promising and its place with regard to freedom this way: "In man, nature set itself the task to breed an animal worthy of making promises." It's an extraordinary idea. What is it that allows an animal that lives in the here and now to Read on →