The Voice of America should be just that

[december]

Safire's NY Times column suggests that the VOA should promulgate America's message, rather than seek to be an unbiased news source. I agree with him, because:

1. The VOA is a publicly supported entity, It should serve the purpose of the USA.
2. The US is generally the "good guys". Our POV deserves preference over, say, the Taliban POV.

What do you think?

When Pushto Comes to Shove
By WILLIAM SAFIRE
WASHINGTON -- Most people in Afghanistan — including Taliban soldiers, suffering civilians and wavering warlords — have one link to the outside world: shortwave and AM transistor radio...

Our bombing knocked out the Taliban broadcast studios. Though some transmissions from fanatics in Pakistan can still be heard, we have a relatively clear broadcast band on which to get our message across.

That message, in the voice of every Muslim cleric we can find who speaks Pushto, should be: The Taliban are corrupting the Koran. Suicide bombers are not blessed with black-eyed beauties in paradise but spend eternity in hell. The Taliban and their terrorist "guest" are the cause of Afghan casualties. As soon as the fanatic Arab outsiders surrender, peace, food and jobs will bless the land.
Who can deliver that simple, hard-sell message designed to cause desertions, produce tipoffs to hideouts, make deals and give pause to brainwashed would-be suicides?

Not the Voice of America. That taxpayer-supported broadcaster puts its "credibility" first, evenhandedly presenting the news, never getting its hands dirty by stressing messages that would advance our military's cause. According to Peter Tomson, a veteran U.S. diplomat who served in that area and speaks the language, the V.O.A. Pushto service was long penetrated by Taliban sympathizers.
After an "equal time for Hitler?" outcry, the V.O.A., under Robert Reilly, its new director, terminated that tilt toward terrorists. But the V.O.A.'s mission is to present a picture of America, and not to act as a surrogate free press for the struggle raging inside Afghanistan. As battles loom, such a surrogate medium is urgently needed to persuade Afghans to desert the Taliban and inform on Al Qaeda.

Today the House International Relations Committee marks up and sends to the floor a bill to establish and finance "Radio Free Afghanistan" with $15 million. It requires the Radio Free Europe organization to submit a plan within two weeks to the Broadcasting Board of Governors that would broadcast our potent message in Pushto and other languages to Afghans. R.F.E., with its front line in Prague, is ready to snap into action.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/opinion/01SAFI.html

[pldennison]

http://www.ibb.gov/pubaff/voacharter.html

To protect the integrity of VOA programming and define the organization's mission, the VOA Charter was drafted in 1960 and later signed into law (Public Law 94-350) on July 12, 1976, by President Gerald Ford. It reads:

The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts.

1. VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.

2. VOA will represent America, not any single segment of
American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions.

3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

So what's Safire's point again? Oh, right--as usual, he doesn't have one. Except perhaps that laws (like, say, Public Law 94-350, see above) are simply an inconvenience when there's by-God propaganda to be spread!

[IzzyR]

Pld, I don't see any contradiction between your cite and Safire's column.

[tomndebb]

I don't have a serious problem with Safire's point that we should find "neutral" clerics who will provide a different view of Islam than that presented by the Taleban. I also have no problem with the idea that we should not allow our broadcasts to be hijacked or "infiltrated" by Taleban supporters (if that, in fact, happened).

I have a real problem with the shortsighted view that

the VOA should promulgate America's message, rather than seek to be an unbiased news source

that would turn the VOA into "New York Fatima" (in adulation of "Tokyo Rose"). The message that we got back from behind the Iron Curtain was very clear regarding the original VOA: they were attracted by the "warts and all" honesty of the broadcasts. Had we turned the VOA into simply a propaganda tool, our broadcasts would have been derided as simply advertising without content or truth.

The only period when the VOA actually lost the confidence of its audience was a short period when a Reagan appointee leaned on the staff to quash some less than complimentary reports about the U.S. When that incident was called to the attention of the congressional oversight committee, it was corrected (over the blustering protests of a few rabid reactionary proponents of pure propaganda), and the VOA was somewhat able to rebuild the trust of its audience.

It is amazing how much trust is built by honesty as opposed to propaganda.

[IzzyR]

Tom, you seem to be calling for an objective reporting of the facts, which I don't think anyone is disputing. At issue here is whether the VOA should represent American values and viewpoints, or should present all equally. My understanding is that the entire point of the VOA is to present American values and viewpoints, rather than to simply provide some public service broadcasting to foreign people. (This is also indicated by the VOA charter, as provided by pld).

[tomndebb]

Well, I do tend to see

promulgate America's message, rather than seek to be an unbiased news source

to be in conflict with

VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive

and, to a lesser extent, with

and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

When I read "rather than be an unbiased news source" I tend to see "accurate, objective, and comprehensive" floating away on the sea of propaganda.

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by tomndebb
When I read "rather than be an unbiased news source" I tend to see "accurate, objective, and comprehensive" floating away on the sea of propaganda.

As I understand it, he would want the VOA to be biased in favor of the idea that democracy is a better idea that Taliban rule, that shelting WTC bombers is a bad idea etc. This does not imply that the reporting cannot also be "accurate, objective, and comprehensive".