• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

What’s behind Trump’s fresh push to wrest control of Voice of America

Y2kTheNewOldies

Y2kTheNewOldies

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/22/donald-trump-propaganda-war-199799


Now a major broadcasting outlet the VOA is now a target of the presidents rants. Damn its impossible to separate politics from the news operations of the VOA though. VOA is supposed to be like BBC is in the UK. Does anybody outside of broadcasting understand that the VOA is not supposed to be like the US version of North Korea propaganda?


Voice of America director Amanda Bennett seems, at first glance, to be the perfect target for a Donald Trump attack on the mainstream media: A former Philadelphia Inquirer editor, wife of ex-Washington Post owner Donald Graham and Barack Obama appointee, Bennett has strived to maintain VOA’s independence from the White House during the Trump era.

So when Trump and his aides began attacking VOA earlier this month, stirring up anger on the right, the broadcaster and its leader seemed like another shrewdly chosen foil for rallying his populist base against Washington elites. But since then, a deeper motive has emerged: Trump is using the dispute to demand the confirmation of conservative activist and filmmaker Michael Pack, a close associate of Steve Bannon, to head the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA.

Amid rising tensions with China, VOA’s coverage of coronavirus has reignited conservative discontent with the outlet’s editorial line under Bennett. The White House and conservative media have seized on coverage like a video of a light show celebrating the reopening of Wuhan, the city where the virus originated, and a graphic citing official Chinese Communist Party statistics that show a lower death toll in China than in the U.S.

"VOA should be leading the charge in exposing the exact timeline of the lies of the CCP concerning human-to-human transmission and community spread. Instead, we get Amanda Bennett,” Bannon told POLITICO. “She is a classic 'useful idiot' who kowtows to Beijing's Party Line.”
Click to expand...
 
RadioPatrol said:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/22/donald-trump-propaganda-war-199799


Now a major broadcasting outlet the VOA is now a target of the presidents rants. Damn its impossible to separate politics from the news operations of the VOA though. VOA is supposed to be like BBC is in the UK. Does anybody outside of broadcasting understand that the VOA is not supposed to be like the US version of North Korea propaganda?
Click to expand...

The problem here is that the VOA represents the American people, not the president, not his party, not his ideology. We the people should be upset about this.
 
TheBigA said:
The problem here is that the VOA represents the American people, not the president, not his party, not his ideology. We the people should be upset about this.
Click to expand...

Well the only way to do that is to convince people outside of radiodiscussions that VOA is funded by Congress and operates independently from any presidential administration.

Then again we have to wait and see how the general public will react though.
 
RadioPatrol said:
Well the only way to do that is to convince people outside of radiodiscussions that VOA is funded by Congress and operates independently from any presidential administration.
Click to expand...

The fact that the criticism is coming from Bannon and the campaign says a lot.
 
A better question is probably if anyone listens to VOA anymore. I would guess its listenership has dropped since the Cold War ended, and even moreso since the internet and cell service became widespread, even in third and fourth world countries.

I miss hearing VOA on HF, same as I miss hearing the AFRTS, which I think even presented a clearer picture of US culture and news to the rest of the world.
 
boombox4 said:
A better question is probably if anyone listens to VOA anymore.
Click to expand...

That comment was made earlier. They're not in the audience business. No advertising. Completely government funded. The law prevents them from broadcasting in the US, but they do stream. This particular story was on their TV channel.
 
TheBigA said:
The problem here is that the VOA represents the American people, not the president, not his party, not his ideology. We the people should be upset about this.
Click to expand...

Why? President Trump's predecessor nominated someone who shared his worldview. Further, while the VOA is independent, it's mission is really to present a good face of the United States to the world. There have been many instances under the current director where VOA has taken lines apart from this. The agency was established as a Cold War counter media source for Communist nations. It likely should've been eliminated with the US Cold War Victory. It wasn't, but perhaps that should be re-explored. In any case, the President will ultimately get a new director for the VOA parent agency installed and this campaign to try to allow the VOA director to keep her job, which is all this really is, will be over with her dismissal.

Did this topic really need discussion in two threads?
 
TheBigA said:
Now the District of Columbia is investigating Michael Pack, the nominee to head the US Agency For Global Media:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/us/politics/michael-pack-trump-nominee.html
Click to expand...

But the bottom line is that any excuse is being used to avoid the President exercising his right to fill a nominative position.

The VOA has not been "impartial" ever since it began. It has always reflected a combination of the Monroe Doctrine and the current party in power... mostly the latter.

As a listener, I go back to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, where the USA tried to give bouquets in the hands of the Peace Corps instead of grenades. Then, when I owned stations in South America, I saw the Nixon influence of a harder line in the content and, of course, refused to run any of the VOA shows that they pushed on local stations.

Over the ensuing decade or so, I saw variations in content, again based on who was in the Presidency. I got to work for the agency in the 80's on several occasions, and witnessed from inside the extreme politicization of certain aspects of the agency.

But I never thought the VOA was remotely any closer to impartial than was Radio Moscow. Its tone just varied according to partisan politics during each administration.
 
DavidEduardo said:
But the bottom line is that any excuse is being used to avoid the President exercising his right to fill a nominative position.
Click to expand...

There are always checks and balances. He has a right to fill, others have a right to oppose.

The previous president had a right to appoint a supreme court judge. The opposition refused to consider his nominee.
 
TheBigA said:
The Senate has confirmed the Trump appointee to oversee the Voice of America. Embattled director Amanda Bennett has resigned:
Click to expand...

How much you want to bet that behind the scenes, Steve Bannon is brought on as a consultant to USAGM, and in particular, VOA?
Trump has always wanted his own network. At least for the time being; he get's one that's Taxpayer funded!
 
"This is the Voice of America. In the news, our Dear Leader, Donald Trump, personally appointed by God, has singlehandedly defeated the Wuhan Virus. Take that, losers!"
 
Putting all gallows humor aside; this is a pretty big deal. Authoritarian governments get their start by seizing the media, eventually making it state-run and controlling the narrative. Since it's pretty clear that POTUS admires and prefers the model other dictators rule by, taking control of the government broadcasting agencies could be another sign we're potentially in trouble. The only safety valve is USAGM/VOA is funded by Congress. Should a division like VOA were to become a propaganda mouthpiece for the White House, Congress could potentially pull the plug.
 
TheBigA said:
"We" are not the audience for VOA. It is prohibited from broadcasting to the US, for exactly this reason.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to the Smith Mundt Act, that was loosened in 2012:

"Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 - Amends the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948 to authorize the Secretary of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors to provide for the preparation and dissemination of information intended for foreign audiences abroad about the United States, including about its people, its history, and the federal government's policies, through press, publications, radio, motion pictures, the Internet, and other information media, including social media, and through information centers and instructors. (Under current law such authority is restricted to information disseminated abroad, with a limited domestic exception.)

Authorizes the Secretary and the Board to make available in the United States motion pictures, films, video, audio, and other materials prepared for dissemination abroad or disseminated abroad pursuant to such Act, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, or the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

Amends the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1986 and 1987 to prohibit funds for the Department of State or the Board from being used to influence public opinion or propagandizing in the United States. (Under current law such provision applies to the United States Information Agency [USIA].)

Applies such prohibition only to programs carried out pursuant to the United States Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948, the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994, the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, and the Television Broadcasting to Cuba Act.

States that such provision shall: (1) not prohibit the Department or the Board from providing information about its operations, policies, programs, or program material, or making such information available to members of the media, public, or Congress; (2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material; and (3) apply only to the Department and the Board and to no other federal department or agency."

As part of the BBG to USAGM changes; the new CEO no longer has to get Board approval to change any operations or scope within the USAGM, mainly because as part of the new structure, the Board of Directors is being disbanded.
 
Kelly A said:
(2) not be construed to prohibit the Department from engaging in any medium of information on a presumption that a U.S. domestic audience may be exposed to program material;
Click to expand...

That amendment was for online content. They do not broadcast to the US, and they are prohibited from owning broadcast stations (radio or TV).

There are, btw, other agencies that prepare and distribute content to broadcast stations, such as IRS tax tips.
 
TheBigA said:
That amendment was for online content. They do not broadcast to the US, and they are prohibited from owning broadcast stations (radio or TV).
Click to expand...

I worked for one of the Grantee's of the (now former) BBG for ten years, and was involved in the discussions when the Smith Mundt Act was updated. You're correct, that the law was changed to account for live streaming and other Internet, satellite, and cable-delivered programming now available to anyone with an Internet connection or satellite dish. Technically, the VOA and Marti stations broadcasting to Cuba and other locations in Greenville, NC are licensed in the U.S.

My point was; that the door is being opened to The Administration having control over a structured, Taxpayer-funded news environment. Whether it primarily transmits to overseas countries or not, should be of concern. Where I was, the State Department frequently lobbied for editorial control over the US-IBB, so they could control the narrative. Now that the White House and Secretary of State are in lockstep, I see that happening sooner than later.
 
Kelly A said:
Now that the White House and Secretary of State are in lockstep, I see that happening sooner than later.
Click to expand...

After Watergate in 1974, a lot of laws were changed to attempt to prevent what happened then from happening again. We're seeing a lot of those laws being flaunted or challenged now. My expectation is that there will be a similar re-assessment of various laws once the next administration comes in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drt
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom