VOA To Do Propaganda?

[TheBigA]

Some would say they've been doing propaganda for years. But now the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee thinks the Voice of America should become more like Pravda, in an effort to counter the Russians:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/can-congress-make-journalists-do-propaganda-20140501

 

[FredLeonard]

They say they don't do propaganda. Fox says they are fair and balanced.
The typical right wing spiel: What you say is "propaganda" or "media bias." What we say is "news" or "truth."
This is the same thinking that has terrestrial radio wall to wall right-wing talk.

 

[TheBigA]

It's interesting because the folks at Al Jazeera have spent a lot of money hiring serious and objective American reporters in an attempt to counter the opinion that they're a propaganda service. In the meantime, someone in Congress believes the way to beat the Russians is to become more like them.

 

[Avid Listener]

And, in other breaking news, water is wet.

 

[FredLeonard]

It's interesting because the folks at Al Jazeera have spent a lot of money hiring serious and objective American reporters in an attempt to counter the opinion that they're a propaganda service. In the meantime, someone in Congress believes the way to beat the Russians is to become more like them.

What makes you think VOA was ever different from them? Other than VOA kept saying it was.

Pravda was the Communist Party newspaper, not the Soviet international broadcaster, which was Radio Moscow.

No government operated media outlet is immune from being used for propaganda, spin or the official line. VOA. AFRTS. The Municipal Broadcasting Service of New York (home of the John Report). Or any outlet that takes CPB money. Politicians can't help themselves and bureaucrats do what they are told.

 

[TheBigA]

What makes you think VOA was ever different from them? Other than VOA kept saying it was.

I know people who work there. They tell me there's no gov't interference in news reporting. Probably because most of the gov't doesn't know they exist.

There's a difference between bureaucrats and journalists. That's what this story is about. It would be one thing to have the VOA broadcast the State Department line. I'm sure they already have done that. It would be quite another to tell journalists what to report. Any self-respecting journalist would quit over that.

 

[davideduardo]

No government operated media outlet is immune from being used for propaganda, spin or the official line. VOA. AFRTS. The Municipal Broadcasting Service of New York

There is a difference between perspective and propaganda. The news reporting on a particular subject will always have different perspectives depending on the nationality and style of a particular news gathering organization. Each sees events through the eyes of the culture they are part of, including the biases of language.

Propaganda is when Prensa Latina reports that the "Imperialists of Washington announced today..." as opposed to "official spokespersons of the United States Government announced today..." Propaganda is achieved by inserting editorial commentary into factual reporting.

During the many years I lived abroad, I'd often gather with media related friends to look at the world press view on our major local events. Once, following the fall of an elected president to a military coup, we examined press reports from major European and Western Hemisphere reports, ranging from Time Magazine to French and German and Italian newspapers some in our circle had access to. All of these were "western" nations, yet the reports, all totally factual, often seemed to describe totally different events depending on the "snapshot" that each reporter had taken. Other than the Cuban report that was full of propaganda, none was given to promoting an agenda but there was a wide range of pictures of the events that came from perspective.

 

[TheBigA]

The Municipal Broadcasting Service of New York (home of the John Report).

From the Wikipedia article on WNYC:

The station's ownership by the City meant that it was occasionally subject to the whims of various mayors. As part of a crackdown on prostitution in 1979, then-Mayor Ed Koch tried to use WNYC to broadcast the names of "johns" arrested for soliciting. Announcers threatened a walkout and station management refused to comply with the idea; after one broadcast the idea was abandoned.

By the way, WNYC is no longer owned by the city.

 

[Avid Listener]

I know people who work there. They tell me there's no gov't interference in news reporting. Probably because most of the gov't doesn't know they exist.

Wow! I know a guy who works for the CIA, but he says he doesn't.

There's a difference between bureaucrats and journalists. That's what this story is about. It would be one thing to have the VOA broadcast the State Department line. I'm sure they already have done that. It would be quite another to tell journalists what to report. Any self-respecting journalist would quit over that.

"Self-respecting journalist" is a lot like "dedicated public servant". People talk about them in the abstract, but no one has actually seen one in reality.

 

[TheBigA]

"Self-respecting journalist" is a lot like "dedicated public servant". People talk about them in the abstract, but no one has actually seen one in reality.

You need to get out more. I know lots of them. Fiercely independent. The first amendment is still very much alive.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

"Self-respecting journalist" is a lot like "dedicated public servant". People talk about them in the abstract, but no one has actually seen one in reality.

I'm sorry you live in the wrong community. I've known some of both during the years.

The citizens at large may be a much bigger problem than the dedicated public servants and the journalists. You see, if I list for you a handful of dedicated public servants and you are familiar with them, because we have become so irritable and sensitive about politics that you are likely to tell me "Those folks you just listed are scumbags.... political operatives... not dedicated public servants." I was going to say: "and if you give me YOUR list, I will likely scoff at them as well." And then I remembered... you haven't identified any.

And the world is infested by an army of hard working journalists, most of whom are invisible to us. Do you read the bylines in your local paper. I can name for you several "journalists" who quietly go about their daily toil for the Atlanta Journal Constitution. Today the AJC not only lists a byline, but typically an e-mail address as well. Yes, that's great when you feel like 'they blew it!' and you want to put them in their place. I tend to send a lot more ATTA BOY emails for stories where I feel like they did their job well and only now an then a "Here is what you overlooked, turkey" e-mails.

Since our venue here is primarily the discussion of RADIO and broadcasting, the format of radio today makes it very hard to identify good radio journalists. On TV, both locally and nationally, there some who stand out as applaudable journalist, and some you wonder how they keep their job.

Have you considered re-locating to another part of the country. Apparently you live in a real loser of a geography if you have NO public servants and NO respectable journalists.

 

[TheBigA]

A lot of Americans simply don't know about the Voice of America. Reading this might help:

http://www.insidevoa.com/info/voa-charter/2322.html

Unfortunately, what the Congressman in the article I cited in my OP wants to do is change the Charter.

However, he will have to get it past the rest of the Congress, and that won't be easy.

 

[davideduardo]

A lot of Americans simply don't know about the Voice of America.

Part of the lack of knowledge of the VoA comes from the fact that U.S. shortwave stations are not intended to serve domestic audiences. This is reiterated in the original VoA charter, as well.

 

[Avid Listener]

And the world is infested by an army of hard working journalists, most of whom are invisible to us.

"Hard working" is a virtue, but it is not the same as "self-respecting". "Respectable" is also not the same as "self-respecting".

 

[FredLeonard]

Sure but no "self respecting journalist" would work in radio, nor use the word "journalist" to refer to himself. Since technology has made the term "rip and read" obsolete, there really is not term for those who read news, and add sound bites to press release copy. Calling anyone in radio a "journalist" is like calling a DJ a musician.

And given the number of "self respecting journalists" who sell out and become PR flacks or something similar, there is not much integrity among real journalists. Add to that all the puff pieces, all the "house must" pieces, tip-toeing around advertisers and friends of the boss, and deference to authority I don't see much of this "fierce independence" among the lot of them.

 

[davideduardo]

Sure but no "self respecting journalist" would work in radio, nor use the word "journalist" to refer to himself. Since technology has made the term "rip and read" obsolete, there really is not term for those who read news, and add sound bites to press release copy. Calling anyone in radio a "journalist" is like calling a DJ a musician.

Again, you are painting everyone with the same overly broad brush.

The good folks at the CBS news stations, WTOP and many smaller local full service stations are indeed journalists and are deserving of respect.

While I am guessing you are specifically talking about United States radio stations, your mile-wide brush tars the radio journalists elsewhere in the world, even in places where practicing journalism comes with considerable personal risk.

 

[davideduardo]

"Hard working" is a virtue, but it is not the same as "self-respecting". "Respectable" is also not the same as "self-respecting".

And "mistaken" is not the same as "misanthropic".

Although in your case, they are uniquely synonymous.

 

[TheBigA]

Calling anyone in radio a "journalist" is like calling a DJ a musician.

That's a pretty unfair statement. There ARE actual journalists who do their own reporting in radio. Most work in major markets or radio networks. However, there is a group of what are called "independent journalists" who cover world events. I've had a chance to meet and work with some of them. It's not an easy life. They would be willing to die to report the news. That's what I mean by fiercely independent.

The great thing about the VOA is they don't have to appease advertisers, and the government has been mostly hands-off. That's what's helped make VOA News a respected source of information around the world, especially in places where news can be hard to get. And the people who oversee the Voice, the Broadcasting Board Of Governors, are also fiercely independent.

 

[davideduardo]

The great thing about the VOA is they don't have to appease advertisers, and the government has been mostly hands-off.

That is indeed a truth.

I have been called on three occasions to perform the Congressionally mandated annual review of the Radio Martí program which forms part of the overall VOA / USIS structure. While some quarters question this country-specific service, the fact is that the hours and hours of daily news broadcasting on Martí are crafted by skilled, experienced journalists who attempt to deliver to tightly-controlled Cuba factual, impartial news as it happenes from both inside Cuba and from the rest of the world. Fine journalism, American made.

 

[Avid Listener]

When those who feel the need to mock hyperbole, which is as valid a rhetorical technique as any other, themselves also eschew the use of exaggeration to make a point, or who seem to think that a positive exaggerations is somehow less inaccurate than a negative exaggeration to make a point, then I'll respect those people. Until then ...