• 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

There's a big difference between not reporting on desperate social conditions and supporting the Maduro regime. Those are not the same thing. News organizations try to stay away from advocacy journalism. There are lots of countries around the world that are in similar dire straits and get no coverage from major media outlets. It's not unlike corporate radio only focusing on four main genres of music. Don't mistake that as being dislike for lesser known genres. My old boss always said just because his radio stations play U2 doesn't mean he can't listen to Errol Garner on his own time. Same thing with news coverage of Venezuela.

It's beyond that. Other than a couple of African nations that have descended into anarchy or tribal rivalries, I can't think of a more desperate nation than Venezuela.

In the current situation, they have nearly no testing, hospitals that don't have masks or even disinfectants, prisons with almost total infection and an apparent casualty rate that may indeed be the highest in the world. But since they don't have any way to test over 90% of the ill, they can't attribute deaths to the disease; the government is not reporting the "undocumented" deaths.

The problem with totalitarian regimes, whether dictatorships or single party systems, is that they are free to make their own rules. We hear what they make up.

Yesterday, a party partisan in the US compared the US infection rate to a Latin American nation that had a lower rate. What they did not take into account was that the nation had tested less than 10% of the test level of the US.

This is the sort of thing I first noted 55 years ago in Ecuador when a local event was reported in the world press. Only the things the reporter or news organization felt were interesting were reported to the extent that the report had only minimal similarity to actual events.
 
There's a big difference between not reporting on desperate social conditions and supporting the Maduro regime. Those are not the same thing. News organizations try to stay away from advocacy journalism.

That depends on the definition one uses of 'advocacy journalism'. Our major cable news networks -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC especially -- are news organizations, and I think that on these pages we all have discussed previously how these news organizations freely show their biases.

As far as our 'xenophobia', I think it's more of a myopia, and it seems to be a long term problem when it comes to US news coverage of anything beyond our borders. Our news organizations don't even really cover European news very well.
 
The president prefers to use the term: America First.

And that appeals to a broad group in the total electorate. Some who like that are xenophobic, others simply don't like finding that the US does not manufacture so many critical products and drugs.

But that is not the issue. As the horror of WW II faded as the Baby Boomers reached maturity in the later 60's and into the 70's, media seemed to slowly reduce the coverage of world affairs. Fewer international stories outside of the Cold War made the front pages or were included on TV and radio news. And the stories we got had US connections for the most part. It took a pretty large international story to get domestic media coverage.
 
As far as our 'xenophobia', I think it's more of a myopia, and it seems to be a long term problem when it comes to US news coverage of anything beyond our borders. Our news organizations don't even really cover European news very well.

That is a very good point. I will use "myopia" when appropriate.

But "xenophobia" does reflect the Boomer feeling of superiority, garnered from post-WW II economic boom and the attitude that the US had to help the rest of the world, such as rebuilding Japan and Europe because we were cool and they were not.
 
I think that on these pages we all have discussed previously how these news organizations freely show their biases.

It depends. Newspapers have their opinion columnists, and so do TV networks. There are other reporters who simply report what they see. Reporting what you see isn't a bias if you present the full picture. Reporting the negative aspects of a story isn't biased if all aspects are presented. When people complain about bias, they feel certain parts of a story shouldn't be presented. THAT is bias. The president doesn't like it when his foibles are reported, but excluding them would be biased. Ashley Parker of the Washington Post is always very careful to put her reporting in context.
 
The problem here is that the VOA represents the American people... We the people should be upset about this.

Which "we the people"? I the people? You the people? They the people? Or do we all show up and shout until a decision is made by an "impartial" judge? The President was elected by "we the people", so I'd say he's as good a choice as any to direct what "we the people" want. Next "we the people" executive can have his "we the people" moment.
 
Not really. Clinton won the popular vote.

Everyone -- including Hillary Clinton -- knows that the Electoral College system elects the President of the United States.

But, to your greater point.... I think that 'we the people' for the most part don't even know that the Voice of America exists, and even if they did, they wouldn't assign much, if any, importance to its existence
 
Here's an interesting story about what happens when VOA uses a story reported by outside contractors that is seen as favorable to the Biden campaign:

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...-sets-off-a-crisis-at-voice-of-america-388571

One interesting part was the sourcing for some of the video in the story.

It should be noted that the story was not provided by outside contractors, but that the persons involved in the creation and airing of the story are contractors to Voice of America and I'd guess actually work in the Cohen Building.

VOA has used, and does use, voicers who have native language skills - they are on a contract labor agreement and are not Federal employees. One of the advantages of such hiring mechanisms is that if a language service is deleted at VOA, the agency does not have to go though the formal process of employee termination, if the employee were a Federal employee. Willis Conover, who voiced the VOA jazz programming, was never a VOA employee - he was always a contractor.

To the specifics of the story, while it may appear the Biden quote could be considered pushing the limit, there is a level of real news in reporting his statement, especially as it applies to programming to countries with higher levels of Muslim populations.

What appears to me to be the real crossing was with the voice over:

One of those clips included audio from a voice-over narrator. “Make no mistake people, 2020 is our year. Let’s dive into it with 20/20 vision,” the narrator says in the video. “We can see clearly that America is fighting for its very soul.”

That is where the story goes wrong.
 
So here we are, about a month later, and the remaining staff of the Voice of America are staging a revolt against CEO Michael Pack. He claims their foreign correspondents are a security risk:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...7fa0a8-eba2-11ea-ab4e-581edb849379_story.html

An interesting comment in the WAPO article:

In a memo to staff last month, Pack suggested that his purges are part of an effort to shore up lax personnel standards that have left VOA vulnerable to foreign espionage. His predecessors “ignored common national security protocols and essential government human resources practices,” he wrote. He put it more bluntly last week in an interview with the Federalist, a conservative commentary site: “It’s a great place to put a foreign spy.”

With rare exceptions, there is little to no classified material kept in VOA facilities, and short of any of these foreign correspondents being US citizens and granted security clearances, they should never have any access to any classified materials. The Chohen building some classified information areas, but that isn't accessible by the rank and file staffing, especially those staffers who are not involved in handling of any of those materials.
 
In a memo to staff last month, Pack suggested that his purges are part of an effort to shore up lax personnel standards that have left VOA vulnerable to foreign espionage.

It's really very simple: If Pack has any evidence of spies in VOA, he needs to turn that information over to the FBI. Otherwise it's all fake.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom