The Foreign Service Journal, October 2010

34 F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L / O C T O B E R 2 0 1 0 Radio/TV Martí, among many other functions. The Foreign Af- fairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 eliminated the last admin- istrative ties between USIA and VOA by eliminating USIA and fold- ing its public diplomacy functions into the State Department. The BBG was now a separate agency. Vestiges of political influence over USIB remain. The International Broadcasting Act of 1994 places the BBG above the International Broadcasting Bureau. The IBB, in turn, is above its components: VOA and Radio/TV Martí. The appointment process, however, stipulates two instances of leapfrogging: the president (with Sen- ate consent) appoints the IBB director, and the BBG ap- points the VOA director. The IBB director can keep sufficiently busy with the IBB’s engineering and admin- istrative tasks — or, more problematically, this presiden- tially appointed official might intercede in content matters at VOA. VOA itself is still a government agency, rather than a corporation like RFE/RL and RFA. One consequence of this is that, in July, VOA and IBB employees were in- formed that they should not use agency computers to “download, browse or e-mail” any of the documents about Afghanistan and Pakistan recently made available by WikiLeaks, because they contained classified materi- als. VOA reporters covering this story worked around the directive by accessing the documents at home. Other international broadcasters covered the story from their newsrooms. VOA is still required to broadcast daily editorials “re- flecting the views of the United States government.” In contrast, the BBC is not allowed to broadcast editorials. The Importance of Maintaining Balance Some members of Congress and think-tanks want to abolish the Broadcasting Board of Governors and replace it with a “strategic communication” body to coordinate the output of State, Defense and USIB. News that is “co- ordinated” is not really news, however. The audiences for international broadcasting, seeking the antidote for the type of news they get domestically, would almost im- mediately recognize coordinated news for what it is, and tune out. Other members of Congress scoff at the notion of bal- ance in USIB news coverage. They believe that USIB should it- self be the balance, providing a pro-U.S., anti-terrorist counterpart to the anti-U.S., pro-terrorist media of adversarial regimes. Modern international broad- casting operates on the assumption that audiences deserve all of the news, including reporting that reflects negatively on the governments of the target countries — which is usually omitted by the domestic media of those countries. For that negative news to be believed, the international broadcaster should also report the good (while avoiding the syrupy phraseology the target-country media would use) and neutral news about the audience’s own nation. Reporting good, neutral and bad news about the United States and the rest of the world would further bolster its credibility, smoothing out the content so that the U.S. broadcaster is not perceived as the bad-news-about-the- target-country station. But the present structure of USIB does not, at least in theory, allow for such a full-service broadcasting effort. In June, Senator Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and his staff issued a detailed paper about USIB, “Is Anybody Lis- tening?” Unlike some of his colleagues, Sen. Lugar ac- knowledges the need for balance: “[I]n order for the BBG to be credible to its audience and draw in not just those who already agree with U.S. policy, its networks must be permitted to present both sides of an argument.” The Lugar paper also addresses the difficulties due to delays in presidential nominations and Senate confirma- tions, in keeping BBG membership up to its full com- plement: “In the medium term, Congress must decide whether it is time to consider another management struc- ture if board staffing difficulties persist.” That sentence has chilling implications. International broadcasting succeeds largely because of its credibility — which is not possible without inde- pendence. And independence is not possible without some sort of bipartisan or nonpartisan board to separate the government from the news function. This is how the highly regarded public broadcasting corporations in most Western democracies maintain their autonomy. Alternatives to the BBG There may be other structures that would not require F O C U S The present structure of USIB does not, at least in theory, allow for a full- service broadcasting effort.