The Washington Post’s website article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18822-2002Jul29.html
Bayarea.com’s article:
http://www.bayarea.com/mld/bayarea/3762089.htm
From CNN’s website:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/30/wh.image.office/index.html
There is more at each site: the Washington Post’s article is the most comprehensive. I first heard about it reading the South China Morning Post. Some people might recall a brief discussion about the US government approaching Hollywood to get tips on improving its image, early last year. IIRC Collounsbury offered his insights as to how poorly this would go down in Middle Eastern states.
One of the concerns which the new Office is seeking to redress is:
I view this new Office with some concern. The Economist recently quoted Winston Churchill’s quip, “One can always count on the United States to do the right thing - once it has exhausted all of the alternatives.” This statement pretty much sums up my personal feelings on the US’s foreign policy: I regard the United states as essentially benign, but look at its conduct abroad with healthy skepticism, especially in the Middle East.
With this in mind, I am already faced with overly sympathetic views to US policy and positions through American news providers, and have to go to the BBC website or cable TV station to find something more even-handed. This new Office of Global Communication seeks to advance American strategic concerns through persuasion of public opinion abroad, and is backed by American diplomatic and economic muscle.
I have no difficulties with buying American goods, being immersed in American pop culture, and having American warships in victoria harbour. As an English speaker in a part of China, I even find all of that a little reassuring. But to have a specific office to advocate American propaganda on a global level bothers me.
This is from the Washington Post’s story:
I fully understand and appreciate the Bush Administration’s desire not to be perceived as the bad guy in Middle Eastern affairs. Perhaps I’m influenced by the fact that I don’t think the US is even-handed in Middle Eastern affairs that makes this concept so unpalatable.
I suppose I should be grateful that the US government has decided to care about the opinion of non-voters - specifically, non-Americans (surely a realisation resulting from 11 Sept.).