VOA To Do Propaganda?

[Avid Listener]

VOA music shows don't insert "Dear GI Joe" messages in between songs. Most are indistinguishable from radio station in any market in the US, save for the absence of commercials and the target-specific "PSA" material that relates to service personnel. It sounds like you have never listened to an AFRTS station, as you are attributing to them a great deal of content that simply is not part of their formats.

I guess you didn't understand this sentence, "The fact that nowadays we've learned to be more subtle doesn't really make things any different." I highlighted the part you must have missed, or misunderstood.

Also, I specifically did NOT mention AFRTS. Per the topic title of this thread, "VOA To Do Propaganda?", I'm posting about Voice of America. Neither the launch post, nor the article in the launch post link refers to AFRTS.

 

[Avid Listener]

And this is how I know you've never worked in a radio station. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of radio reporters that do an excellent job. They sit through mind numbingly boring city council meetings, they interview the kid who won the spelling bee. They ask the mayor why he's resigning.

And all the while, they're hoping for the big, juicy story that'll get them a big sound bite, or the lead, or a reputation boost that'll enable them to move up and out of local radio news and into the big leagues (and the big bucks).

 

[TheBigA]

Yep I posted that at some point. What does it have to do with Congressional funding of VOA?

You want me to admit that a parenthetical I posted had nothing to do with a thread I began? How does that justify your hijacking of my thread?

 

[davideduardo]

I guess you didn't understand this sentence, "The fact that nowadays we've learned to be more subtle doesn't really make things any different." I highlighted the part you must have missed, or misunderstood.

However, the VOA material is not politicized the way you may think. The content is intentionally focused on "Just the facts, ma'm" so that listeners can come to their own conclusions.

I have had more personal involvement with the Radio Martí program than other VOA / USIS broadcasts, and the entire focus there is to provide full news coverage, while Cuban media coverss up or does not even cover some stories and severely biases via terminology ("Imperialista" being used with monotonous regularity) those items it covers. When opinion is covered, it is via sound bites from the voices of others, and there is a real effort to showcase opposing points of view. The belief, just as in the Scripps Howard motto, is "give light and the people will find their own way".

I simply believe you have heard very little VOA programming and likely none in languages other than English.

Also, I specifically did NOT mention AFRTS. Per the topic title of this thread, "VOA To Do Propaganda?", I'm posting about Voice of America. Neither the launch post, nor the article in the launch post link refers to AFRTS.

The most recent context included ample dialog about AFRTS.

 

[davideduardo]

And all the while, they're hoping for the big, juicy story that'll get them a big sound bite, or the lead, or a reputation boost that'll enable them to move up and out of local radio news and into the big leagues (and the big bucks).

You are dreaming.

 

[FredLeonard]

Radio Marti: The Latin counterpart of Radio Free Europe.
Does anybody out in the world actually buy the US line: What we say is truth. Everything else is propaganda.
And, of course, US propaganda never includes bias via terminology with words like "communist," "terrorist," rebel and "insurgent" for anybody it doesn't like, or who threatens US business interests overseas.

 

[davideduardo]

Radio Marti: The Latin counterpart of Radio Free Europe.

Radio Martí is not "Latin". It is exclusively Cuban.

Does anybody out in the world actually buy the US line: What we say is truth. Everything else is propaganda.
And, of course, US propaganda never includes bias via terminology with words like "communist," "terrorist," rebel and "insurgent" for anybody it doesn't like, or who threatens US business interests overseas.

Yes, the VOA is highly respected in much of the world.

In Cuba, many people listened despite the past harsh punishment for doing so. The reason was simple: nobody trusted the government, and the regime ruled by fear.

The Radio Martí broadcasts may use the word "commmunist" to describe self-proclaimed communists. Wouldn't you call Karl Marx a communist? He wasn 't a libertarian or a social democrat or a liberal. He was what he was. Likewise, people who secretly blow up things and kill others who think differently may be called "terrorists" when they conduct such acts; or are you saying that Sendero Luminoso was NOT a terrorist organization? Similarly, the actions in the same part of the world by the Catholic Church can be defined as pacifistic with no editorialization. Likewise, a "rebel" or "insurgent" is one who attempts to overthrow and established government, and they can be of the left or the right; the "Main Drag" in Mexico City is called "Insurgents" and nobody thinks that the name is propagandistic or biased.

So it must be you who are reading bias into impartiality because you prefer a certain color of bias to suit your beliefs.

 

[Small Market Guy]

And all the while, they're hoping for the big, juicy story that'll get them a big sound bite, or the lead, or a reputation boost that'll enable them to move up and out of local radio news and into the big leagues (and the big bucks).

Actually no. The ones I've met enjoy what they do. Local radio news people tend to be a little strange. They're absolutely not glory hounds.

 

[davideduardo]

Actually no. The ones I've met enjoy what they do. Local radio news people tend to be a little strange. They're absolutely not glory hounds.

Further proof that Rabid Listener is assuming many things based on not having any... or having way too little... experience in radio and broadcasting.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

And all the while, they're hoping for the big, juicy story that'll get them a big sound bite, or the lead, or a reputation boost that'll enable them to move up and out of local radio news and into the big leagues (and the big bucks).

Many of them are female and they first need A JOB so the family can have a bit more of the finer things in life and are paired up with a husband with a thriving career. NO. They no dreams of hitting the big leagues. They want their children to be able to stay in the same school system. They want a less demanding job that "the big leagues" so they can continue their home-maker duties.

In addition to that, there are men doing journalism who do not see themselves as major-league players and they like the females I mentioned above, want to stay put in a comfortable community where their children can enjoy "community stability".

That is what took me out of broadcasting. As my oldest child approached Junior Hi/Middle School, I said: "Self... your children deserve to stay in the same school multiple years." Broadcasting in that era tended to demand a lot of moving/job hopping and I simply said: "Pass."

That is not a 'broadcasting only' phenomena. I have had conversations with people from many lines of work and there are a significant number of people (men AND women) who tell their employers: "No I don't want that promotion if it requires moving."

 

[Small Market Guy]

Further proof that Rabid Listener is assuming many things based on not having any... or having way too little... experience in radio and broadcasting.

I think he's said before that he's just a listener. I can see why he'd have the misconceptions he does, so I wouldn't be too hard on him. He's certainly not purposely being obtuse or dishonest like some others around here.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Broadcasting in that era tended to demand a lot of moving/job hopping

Still does. That's why I waited until my kid was grown before taking the first gig that forced me to move away. Lots of putting up with a crappy station that didn't appreciate what I did until that day.

 

[davideduardo]

I think he's said before that he's just a listener. I can see why he'd have the misconceptions he does, so I wouldn't be too hard on him. He's certainly not purposely being obtuse or dishonest like some others around here.

I'd disagree. Instead of learning, asking questions and then debating or refuting points, he refutes based on data he is not in possession of.

One of his earliest rant-streams consisted of posts demanding that we accept his demeaning position on ratings as neither TV nor radio measured the listener as he insisted that only the receiver was electronically monitored. Of course, that is absolutely false yet he responded numerous time to this data, totally verifiable on-line from both the ratings company and third party sites, by refuting the information.

And thus, he exhibits very close to troll-like behaviour as he tries to goad the more knowledgeable users of this board.

 

[davideduardo]

That is not a 'broadcasting only' phenomena. I have had conversations with people from many lines of work and there are a significant number of people (men AND women) who tell their employers: "No I don't want that promotion if it requires moving."

True in the past in many career areas. Folks jokingly said "IBM" meant "I've been moved".

Of course, this lends itself to a separate thread about why "local hits" are not played on classic hits and oldies stations because much of the present population was not "local" 20 or 30 years ago.

 

[Avid Listener]

You are dreaming.

Actually, I learned that first hand from a news reporter I talked to yesterday at a location where a dead body had been found. She was hoping it turned out to be something "juicy". Now, that's only one anecdotal example out of many I've encountered, but it was recent.

 

[Avid Listener]

while Cuban media coverss up or does not even cover some stories and severely biases via terminology ("Imperialista" being used with monotonous regularity) those items it covers.

That sounds exactly like my descriptions of Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

 

[Avid Listener]

I think he's said before that he's just a listener. I can see why he'd have the misconceptions he does, so I wouldn't be too hard on him. He's certainly not purposely being obtuse or dishonest like some others around here.

I've made no secret of that fact. I did, in fact, work at an entry level position in television, in the early 70's, and a job at a radio station. I soon moved up to better jobs, and left radio and TV behind, except for watching and listening. When I make a conjecture, more often than not I'll use a disclaimer along the lines of "it sounds like ...". For example, if I tune into the same classic rock radio station at lunchtime five days in a row, and hear the same songs played every single day, then to me, that "sounds like they're playing the same few songs over and over and over". How much actual experience at working in radio is needed to notice what's right there for anyone with ears to hear?

I am a gourmet cook. It's a hobby and avocation, but I am really, really good. Now if someone gives me a dish to taste, and it is way too salty, then it's way too salty. I don't care who prepared the dish, or what his training and credentials are. I don't care if he's the ultimate expert chef with the greatest reputation on the entire planet. If someone hands me a dish that's too salty and expects me to believe that it isn't too salty, just because he says so, it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Avid Listener]

And thus, he exhibits very close to troll-like behaviour as he tries to goad the more knowledgeable users of this board.

Mr. Gleason, you are the only participant on this board I have encountered with verifiable credentials in broadcasting. I acknowledge that you are a staunch "industry man" and defend your industry with dogged tenacity. There is nothing wrong with that. I have met more than a few "industry men" or "company men" who were rock solid and steadfast in their defense of their chosen industry or company. I respect their knowledge, but that respect is tempered by a "consider the source" filter. When it is becomes obvious that one will ALWAYS get the same knee-jerk response that consistently defends the status quo, then any wisdom or insight that might be present is obscured.

As for others in here who claim to be "more knowledgeable", all I have seen are unsubstantiated claims. Who is TheBigA that anyone should regard him as a knowledgeable expert? What credentials does he have that make what he types any more believable than what anyone else types?

It's appropriate that this digression is in the thread about the propaganda broadcasts of VOA. As a political conservative, I'm in favor of using all tools at our disposal to gain any advantage for the United States. That includes the use of propaganda.

Propaganda is defined as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." There is no requirement that the information propagated must be false in order to be propaganda. I would think that someone who claims to know all things related to broadcasting would not make such an erroneous assumption. Spreading the truth can be just as much propaganda as spreading lies. And, as anyone who has paid attention to the media, whether from the inside or the outside, must surely be aware, even the truth can be spread with a certain amount of "spin" without turning it into a lie. Go back and read your own posts in this thread. Your statements attempting to prove that VOA was not propaganda all illustrate the truth that it always was propaganda. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're really so infallible in your knowledge of broadcasting that we should accept every word you type as if you were the Pope of radio.

 

[Goat Rodeo Cowboy]

I just went to the on-line dictionary and found the primary, number one definition of propaganda is:

ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

My guess is that the average American is focused on 'false or exaggerated' when they make use of the word propaganda in conversation. The 'average American' is likely to say "the broadcast contains both truth and propaganda" if they were to participate in a conversation like this one.

As a "second alternate" definition they list your concept of propaganda.... THIRD in preference.

A word to the gourmet cook: What you serve from your kitchen may be spot on, but the verbiage you serve here tends to be way too acidic. Most of us don't come here to insult, we don't come here to be insulted. Intelligent conversation can be such a delightful thing. Why don't you come in a join us rather than standing on the outside throwing rocks through the window at us.

 

[davideduardo]

Propaganda is defined as "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." There is no requirement that the information propagated must be false in order to be propaganda. I would think that someone who claims to know all things related to broadcasting would not make such an erroneous assumption. Spreading the truth can be just as much propaganda as spreading lies. And, as anyone who has paid attention to the media, whether from the inside or the outside, must surely be aware, even the truth can be spread with a certain amount of "spin" without turning it into a lie. Go back and read your own posts in this thread. Your statements attempting to prove that VOA was not propaganda all illustrate the truth that it always was propaganda. Then look in the mirror and ask yourself if you're really so infallible in your knowledge of broadcasting that we should accept every word you type as if you were the Pope of radio.

Following Mr Goat's analysis, I'd have to agree that most of us consider propaganda to be some form of slanting of the news to favor a particular reaction.

It's no coincidence that in this hemisphere's most widely spoken language, "propaganda" is the more formal term for "advertising". In other words, the swaying of consumers via carefully crafted messages that may sway the potential buyer of something towards a decision favorable to the advertiser.

In the context of news, I think we can all safely say that propaganda is content that is in some manner intentionally biased towards a particular point of view. I use the word "intentionally" to separate willful slanting of content from the inherent cultural bias that is found in reporting based on the background of who witnesses a news event and who writes the story.

That said, my experience with Radio Martí specifically and the VOA more generally leads me to give them at least a B+ if not an A- grade in making a rather strong effort to avoid bias in the selection and writing of news items. While the writing may not meet Fred's standard of bias (he seems to think calling a rebel a "rebel" and a terrorist a "terrorist" is somehow biased), it comes pretty close to a more rational and centrist position of being neither radical nor extremist and neither liberal nor conservative based on world standards. Of course, it helps to understand that the VOA is not chartered to be neutral or anything else to a domestic audience in the US as they are not allowed to serve this group, so a world standard has to be applied when evaluating VOA and its related activities.

So when I "measure" the neutrality of Radio Martí, my tape measure first has to size up Prensa Latina, Radio Rebelde, Radio Progreso, Radio Reloj and even the camp followers like Canal Sur (Chavez' international cable channel) and similar sources within Cuba. And under that comparison, which invites grading on the curve, Radio Martí gets an A+.

An example: The Canímar River incident in 1980. A boat loaded with people trying to escape was sunk by Cuban military authorities when approaching international waters. Cuban media did not report the incident at all; Martí did and the reporting indicated that the capture of the boat by those attempting to escape was illegal under Cuban law and the main issue was the possibility the actual sinking had occurred in international waters.