VOA To Do Propaganda?

[FredLeonard]

The short-wave relay was used to send programming to AFRTS networks and stations. The networks (i.e., AFN in Europe, Far East Network, Alaskan Forces Radio Network...) and individual stations operating on the AM band are what the troops heard, not the show-wave relays (unless some guy was a radio geek listening on short-wave). The networks and stations had considerable latitude in what they took off short-wave and what they scheduled otherwise. Local programming was also censored to suit the regimes of the host countries.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Jesus, Fred. Do some research. Google "amendment tree".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filling_the_tree

The Senate Majority leader gets first crack at proposing amendments. The Senate can only consider so many amendments at one time. This is called the amendment tree. Harry Reid has been filling the amendment tree with his own hand picked amendments to stifle debate on anything he doesn't see fit to debate. This isn't new. It's been going on for a LONG time. It just happens Harry is the one doing it right now.

Maybe if you actually listened to my show you'd know this.

 

[RadioFan2J3]

The short-wave relay was used to send programming to AFRTS networks and stations. The networks (i.e., AFN in Europe, Far East Network, Alaskan Forces Radio Network...) and individual stations operating on the AM band are what the troops heard, not the show-wave relays (unless some guy was a radio geek listening on short-wave). The networks and stations had considerable latitude in what they took off short-wave and what they scheduled otherwise. Local programming was also censored to suit the regimes of the host countries.

Fred, correct on all counts, although I'd suggest the short wave audience of AFRTS was a bit larger than how you give credit. I am aware of anecdotal stories of radiomen on Navy ships, especially the smaller ones, who would set up a spare HF receiver on an AFRTS feed and have that available within the ship.

I'd also suggest, and this is going from memory, that the AFRTS short wave programming was not AFRTS originated - it was all relays of news and related programming from the commercial networks and nothing originated at AFRTS, perhaps not unlike the current AFRTS News Channel, which carries programs from the various news outlets in the US, with one exception, the commercials are replaced with AFRTS and Defense Media segments.


As you should know AFRTS wasn't confined to the AM band, as even in the 1969-1971 period, AFRTS in Saigon had both AM and FM frequencies. I seem to recall the FM outlet was a Gates supplied automation system running more of a beautiful music format while the AM side was more rock 'n roll and block format. Been a long time ago. FEN-Philippines, at Clark, also had both AM and FM channels and again, the FM was an automation system. Depends on what the host government agreement allowed - AM vs FM.

Yes, there were some host country sensitivities involved, but with the multiple channel satellite feeds available to the troops, pretty much the only country sensitivities involved are with the over the air channels.

At one US facility nearest me, the two AFRTS channels are both FM, one running one of the music channels - years back, it was the live feed from an AFRTS operation in Iraq; the other is running the AFRTS News Channel live from the satellite feed.

 

[RadioFan2J3]

I believe all reporters and newscasters at VOA are members of AFTRA. I know all other broadcasters in DC are. If they were told to do something not covered in their contract and charter, it would be a grievance, and the union would have grounds to strike.

I believe you might not be correct on the claim of all reporters and newscasters at VOA being members of AFTRA.

In my quick and dirty poll of a small population sample of VOA air people (OK, two, one news, one not news), only one was AFTRA and that was because he had worked on the commercial side in the DC area and I gathered he simply kept his membership active, but it has nothing to do with VOA.

The other contact replied: "I have never heard VOA and AFTRA mentioned in the same breath. Those who are members of the union simply want to be."

To the best of my knowledge, there is no agreement of any kind between AFTRA and VOA/BBG in regards to representation of any BBG employees.

The VOA news correspondents outside the Washington area (and a few even in the Beltway), the direct hire folks- not stringers, are generally Foreign Service pay system employees and some/many are indeed members of AFSA, the union which represents members of the Foreign Service, employees of the several Foreign affairs agencies - State, BBG, USAID, Foreign Commercial Service and a few folks at a handful of other Federal agencies.

As for striking, remember that Federal employees have no legal right to strike and there simply isn't any way that AFTRA could call for a strike of VOA announcers, reporters and newscasters over an issue of this nature.

 

[RadioFan2J3]

Being turned into a flack for the government against your will is a working conditions issue. It's covered by the contract, and it's stated clearly in the VOA charter.

So for a newscaster to do propaganda is a reason to strike.

Federal employees have no right to strike, so I suggest we can take that option off the table.

While I might have gotten into this part of the discussion a bit late, I do believe that DavidEduardo has presented an extremely rational discussion on VOA and its propaganda mission - to tell the world about the United States and present the United States' position.

In a nutshell, the mission of VOA is to "Sell America" but making it an honest sell, not like the rabid misinformation of Radio Moscow of years past.

We have to separate the news side and the non-news programming, as they have two different but somewhat parallel missions, in my not so humble opinion. As an example, VOA runs editorial segments presenting the official position of the US government, and none of the VOA newscasters voice these segments. These editorial segments are clearly identified as such. I also believe the news programming is pretty balanced, presenting more than just the US side.

VOA also has a handful of discussion programs, at least on the English service, some led by VOA employees, some moderated by non-VOA employees.

Yes, I accept that some of VOA's mission is that of a propaganda agency - it's job is to present a favorable view of the United States, by being be fair handed in its programming and one way to do that is to show the strengths of the United States along with its warts.

Propaganda (2) -the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause or a person. (3) ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause;

I'd like to think the propaganda mission of the VOA is the positive, the spreading of ideas and information (and not misinformation) for the purpose of helping an institution (the US) and a cause (democracy and human rights) and working with ideas and facts to further the thoughts and ideals of the United States.

One final point, I'd also suggest that there is no one at VOA who feels they've been turned into a flack for the government against their will. Unless things have changed in the Cohen Building, there are at least two doors on ground floor which allow employees and staff to exit the building without issue and leave the work place. No one is doing anything against their will.

 

[TheBigA]

One final point, I'd also suggest that there is no one at VOA who feels they've been turned into a flack for the government against their will.

What this thread is about is a new law that would change the mission of the VOA. If the law is ever passed and implemented, then we'd have a clearer view of how the current employees of VOA feel. However, the article I linked says this:

Former VOA deputy director Alan Heil says those changes would be devastating.

“If that bill becomes law, VOA’s worldwide following on radio, TV and online channels would plummet precipitously," he said. "The Voice’s greatest asset, its credibility, would be in shreds."

 

[TheBigA]

A Senator can put a hold on any bill stopping its progress. Any Senator.

TTBOMK, there is no Senate equivalent of this bill. So no one is holding it or stopping debate, because the bill hasn't been proposed or written.

 

[RadioFan2J3]

What this thread is about is a new law that would change the mission of the VOA. If the law is ever passed and implemented, then we'd have a clearer view of how the current employees of VOA feel. However, the article I linked says this:

Former VOA deputy director Alan Heil says those changes would be devastating.

“If that bill becomes law, VOA’s worldwide following on radio, TV and online channels would plummet precipitously," he said. "The Voice’s greatest asset, its credibility, would be in shreds."

Yes, I understand and yes, I am aware of what Alan believes, and I agree with him. I know Alan, ironically not from his last position at VOA, but from the ham club meetings. I have tremendous respect for his opinions on how the Voice is changing and I agree with him, it isn't going to be for the better.