4771
General Radio Discussion / Re: China Has a New Propaganda Machine -- and This One Can Fly
« on: July 19, 2013, 0254 UTC »
But what about the Firedrake?
Shortwave Pirate Radio In North America And Around The World, And Other Signals That Go Bump In The Night
We seek to understand and document all radio transmissions, legal and otherwise, as part of the radio listening hobby. We do not encourage any radio operations contrary to regulations.
Always consult with the appropriate authorities if you have questions concerning what is permissible in your locale.
ROTFL
That one tops my previous favorite "...the Pride of China power supply..."
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
4772
General Radio Discussion / Re: China Has a New Propaganda Machine -- and This One Can Fly
« on: July 19, 2013, 0253 UTC »
In a move straight from the U.S. Air Force's playbook, China is now fielding its very own flying propaganda broadcast plane.
Chinese state-run media is reporting that the People's Liberation Army Air Force has modified one of its planes -- what appears to be a Y-8 airlifter (basically, Beijing's version of the U.S.-made C-130 Hercules) -- to carry the kind of broadcast equipment capable of taking over a country's radio and TV channels. It's another sign that the Chinese military is slowly starting to close the enormous advantage that the U.S. Air Force has over it in the skies.
The new plane, dubbed the Gaoxin 7, will "give the enemy nervous breakdowns" as it flies through the skies, according to a hype-ridden article by the Chinese state-run Global Times.
Not impressed yet? What if we told you that the Gaoxin 7 will also (according to a translation of the Global Times article in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post), "limit the spread of enemy propaganda, affect the morale of the enemy's army, sow seeds of rumor and confusion, and send all enemy troops from soldiers to officials into a state of nervous breakdown, achieving victory without soldiers even having to fight?"
"After that," the paper says, "[dealing with] dropped enemy pamphlets and other propaganda items will be a piece of cake."
The Global Times article on this new "weapon of mass persuasion" has received its fair share of mockery from Chinese Internet users for its breathless tone (see this overview in the South China Morning Post). But as the article notes, the United States has a long history with these kinds of PsyOps tactics -- and they're a little more sophisticated than they might at first appear.
The Chinese plane appears to be modeled after U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command's EC-130J Commando Solo.
The Harrisburg, Pa.-based Commando Solos carry massive amounts of VHF, UHF, AM, FM, and military communications-band broadcast equipment capable of overriding the broadcasts being watched or listened to by the target audience and replacing them with a message of the U.S. government's choosing. Uncle Sam literally takes over your television.
We've been using Commando Solos and their predecessors -- the EC-121 Coronet Solo -- for decades to broadcast messages of doom for our enemies and love for our allies. They flew over Southeast Asia in the early 1970s, and traveled to the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, during which they flew around playing messages designed to convince Iraqi soldiers to surrender. They made news again in 2011 for their role in the Operation Odyssey Dawn mission in Libya.
You can listen to one of the messages (broadcast in both English and Arabic here) directed at sailors in the Libyan navy here ("If you target NATO vessels, you will be destroyed," it says). But it's not all threats and bluster: in post-9/11 Afghanistan, the planes were dispatched to play Afghan pop music for a population that had been music-less for years under Taliban rule.
Useful? Maybe. The source of mass nervous breakdowns and surrender? Not quite. To be honest, we don't really know how much these PsyOps are aiding the U.S. cause; as Wired has noted, one of the issues with this kind of operation is measuring its effectiveness. We also don't yet know what China has in mind for its new plane. But if America's history here is any indication, we've got a long way to go before a flying propaganda machine manages to achieve victory without any fighting.
Chinese state-run media is reporting that the People's Liberation Army Air Force has modified one of its planes -- what appears to be a Y-8 airlifter (basically, Beijing's version of the U.S.-made C-130 Hercules) -- to carry the kind of broadcast equipment capable of taking over a country's radio and TV channels. It's another sign that the Chinese military is slowly starting to close the enormous advantage that the U.S. Air Force has over it in the skies.
The new plane, dubbed the Gaoxin 7, will "give the enemy nervous breakdowns" as it flies through the skies, according to a hype-ridden article by the Chinese state-run Global Times.
Not impressed yet? What if we told you that the Gaoxin 7 will also (according to a translation of the Global Times article in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post), "limit the spread of enemy propaganda, affect the morale of the enemy's army, sow seeds of rumor and confusion, and send all enemy troops from soldiers to officials into a state of nervous breakdown, achieving victory without soldiers even having to fight?"
"After that," the paper says, "[dealing with] dropped enemy pamphlets and other propaganda items will be a piece of cake."
The Global Times article on this new "weapon of mass persuasion" has received its fair share of mockery from Chinese Internet users for its breathless tone (see this overview in the South China Morning Post). But as the article notes, the United States has a long history with these kinds of PsyOps tactics -- and they're a little more sophisticated than they might at first appear.
The Chinese plane appears to be modeled after U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command's EC-130J Commando Solo.
The Harrisburg, Pa.-based Commando Solos carry massive amounts of VHF, UHF, AM, FM, and military communications-band broadcast equipment capable of overriding the broadcasts being watched or listened to by the target audience and replacing them with a message of the U.S. government's choosing. Uncle Sam literally takes over your television.
We've been using Commando Solos and their predecessors -- the EC-121 Coronet Solo -- for decades to broadcast messages of doom for our enemies and love for our allies. They flew over Southeast Asia in the early 1970s, and traveled to the Persian Gulf in the early 1990s for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, during which they flew around playing messages designed to convince Iraqi soldiers to surrender. They made news again in 2011 for their role in the Operation Odyssey Dawn mission in Libya.
You can listen to one of the messages (broadcast in both English and Arabic here) directed at sailors in the Libyan navy here ("If you target NATO vessels, you will be destroyed," it says). But it's not all threats and bluster: in post-9/11 Afghanistan, the planes were dispatched to play Afghan pop music for a population that had been music-less for years under Taliban rule.
Useful? Maybe. The source of mass nervous breakdowns and surrender? Not quite. To be honest, we don't really know how much these PsyOps are aiding the U.S. cause; as Wired has noted, one of the issues with this kind of operation is measuring its effectiveness. We also don't yet know what China has in mind for its new plane. But if America's history here is any indication, we've got a long way to go before a flying propaganda machine manages to achieve victory without any fighting.
4773
Spy Numbers / E07a 7437 USB July 18, 2013 0430Z-0432Z
« on: July 18, 2013, 0433 UTC »
On the Univ of Twente SDR
OM Repeated:
411 411 411 000
OM Repeated:
411 411 411 000
4774
Shortwave Broadcast / Re: Radio Australia 19000 Khz 2:30 UTC July 16 2013 Dog walk log
« on: July 18, 2013, 0102 UTC »
Your dog walks sure are productive for DXing.
4775
MW Loggings / Re: UNID 1690 kHz July 7, 2013 1807Z
« on: July 17, 2013, 0256 UTC »
I've got one bearing from my house (have a Collins ADF-650A), but haven't been out & about with a portable radio when its on. When its on, I'm usually comfy at home and not really motivated to go hunt it (esp if I've been partaking in some adult beverages). However, the curiosity is becoming stronger. But strong enough to actually leave the house? Beats me. 
Also, unsure how accurate the ADF is. Its great with some known broadcast stations, but what it says for this station and when I try with my portable (near the ADF and out in the backyard), they disagree and thus confuses me. Have a 70's Ray-Jeff marine RDF, but it doesn't go up to 1690.
Pigmeat- That's what I thought too when I heard it way back in Feb/Mar, but this is a long time testing, and one would think there should(?) be an FCC record now. Or, perhaps not. Maybe its been filed and is very slowly making its way through the red tape. I'm not going to worry about the bureaucracy, just going to enjoy the curious sporadic station. Part of me hopes it just does this all the time. No ID and comes & goes. (And throw in some spy numbers for that extra special craziness).
Also, unsure how accurate the ADF is. Its great with some known broadcast stations, but what it says for this station and when I try with my portable (near the ADF and out in the backyard), they disagree and thus confuses me. Have a 70's Ray-Jeff marine RDF, but it doesn't go up to 1690.
Pigmeat- That's what I thought too when I heard it way back in Feb/Mar, but this is a long time testing, and one would think there should(?) be an FCC record now. Or, perhaps not. Maybe its been filed and is very slowly making its way through the red tape. I'm not going to worry about the bureaucracy, just going to enjoy the curious sporadic station. Part of me hopes it just does this all the time. No ID and comes & goes. (And throw in some spy numbers for that extra special craziness).
4776
General Radio Discussion / Re: HAARP Facility Shuts Down
« on: July 16, 2013, 0156 UTC »
3.6 MW: Redhat- get your C-QUAM hooked into that thing.
4777
Equipment / Re: Kite antennas
« on: July 15, 2013, 0126 UTC »
Kite in Antarctica:
http://www.auroralchorus.com/hooperdv.htm
http://www.auroralchorus.com/hooperdv.htm
4778
Spy Numbers / Re: HM01 weirdness 11635 Khz 18:00 UTC July 12,2013
« on: July 15, 2013, 0123 UTC »Pedro is not sufficiently dedicated to the revolution.
ROTFL
That one tops my previous favorite "...the Pride of China power supply..."
4779
General Radio Discussion / Re: Bicycle-powered helicopter makes flight 'previously thought impossible'
« on: July 15, 2013, 0121 UTC »
Not practical, but lucrative, at least for this one time deal.
4780
General Radio Discussion / U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News To Americans
« on: July 15, 2013, 0115 UTC »
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/07/12/us_backs_off_propaganda_ban_spreads_government_made_news_to_americans
Posted By John Hudson Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 7:06 PM
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran; self-immolation in Tibet; human trafficking across Asia; and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 70s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn't be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public's last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."
"They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate."
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, Al-Shabaab or VOA Somalia."
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get Al-Shabaab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."
Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars - greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon's top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported The Post.
But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.
One example included a report by the late Buzzfeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)
But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it's a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico's Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."
That of course doesn't leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won't be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we'll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."
Posted By John Hudson Sunday, July 14, 2013 - 7:06 PM
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran; self-immolation in Tibet; human trafficking across Asia; and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 70s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn't be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public's last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA "present fair and accurate news."
"They don't shy away from stories that don't shed the best light on the United States," she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: "Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible, discussion, and open debate."
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, Al-Shabaab or VOA Somalia."
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get Al-Shabaab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."
Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. "Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars - greater transparency is a win-win for all involved," she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon's top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, The Washington Post exposed a counter propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing Al-Shabaab. "Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership," reported The Post.
But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.
One example included a report by the late Buzzfeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the "R" bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)
But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. "To me, it's a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico's Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another," Thornberry told The Cable last May. "And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire."
That of course doesn't leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won't be a complete mystery to Americans. "Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff," the former U.S. official told The Cable. "Now we'll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we'll know now."
4781
General Radio Discussion / How South Korea communicates with spies in North Korea
« on: July 13, 2013, 0457 UTC »4782
Shortwave Broadcast / Re: The Mighty KBC, 9925 khz., 0003 UTC 7/6/2013
« on: July 12, 2013, 0132 UTC »
Heard 'em on my Sony car SW receiver fairly well from 0010-0035Z, then not too bad once I got home.
Say "hi" to Uncle Eric & Mr. Spencer.
Say "hi" to Uncle Eric & Mr. Spencer.
4783
MW Loggings / Re: UNID 1690 kHz July 7, 2013 1807Z
« on: July 07, 2013, 2312 UTC »
Its definitely not WVON from Chicago. Signal is strong & clear up here. It pops on, plays for a couple hours then suddenly disappears. No trace of the blowtorches from Chicago on 670/720/780. Plus, WVON is a talk station and only 10kW with a non-directional pattern.
In previous broadcasts, the playlist coincided with 680 WINR's playlist, incl a couple of the DJs.
Today it didn't match up with anything I found. In a previous logging, the DJ on the air was "Dangerous Dan," who at the time was on WINR's page. Checking their site now, no Dan. But, Dangerous Dan Allen now shows up at 1480 WDJO.
Internet search came up with him on the old WINR:
http://www.oldies969fm.com/pages/danallen.html
At 1815Z today, the DJ said his name was Craig Stevens. At WDJO, no Craig Stevens, but there is a Craig Roberts, Harry Stephens and Gary Stevens.
There is a bio of Craig Stevens buried at WINR (Internet search turned it up):
http://www.oldies969fm.com/pages/craigstevens.html?article=11054965
Recorded our 1690 broadcast today and listened to 1815Z repeatedly and it sounds like "Craig Stevens," not Harry nor Gary.
One interesting post from Jan 2012 where Dangerous Dan gave some insight:
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=205333.0
Which brings up another question- Dan said in 2012 he's gone on Sundays from WDJO, but he shows up on their site today. Perhaps gone then returned? Certainly not uncommon.
The 1690 source is probably an Internet stream of The Real Oldies Channel (although I can hear no digitization from a low-quality stream). If it is a broadcaster testing, then maybe getting the high quality feed off a satellite. Today's broadcast didn't match any live playlists, so could've been a recording. Didn't see The Real Oldies Channel on Sirius nor XM.
This has been going on for at least 4 months since I first found 'em. In that time, no ID and no FCC records of any lic station nor CP in MN on 1690.
Pirate? If so, it has really good range. within about a 5-7 area around my house, the signal was strong and consistent. That was from observations when & I was out for doing other things or asking friends to tune in when I was on the phone with them. Luckily they obliged and although took a bit of explaining when the station suddenly went away.
As of now, I'm still betting on a legit broadcaster that's testing & whatnot. Why four months for only a few random hours? Who knows.
In previous broadcasts, the playlist coincided with 680 WINR's playlist, incl a couple of the DJs.
Today it didn't match up with anything I found. In a previous logging, the DJ on the air was "Dangerous Dan," who at the time was on WINR's page. Checking their site now, no Dan. But, Dangerous Dan Allen now shows up at 1480 WDJO.
Internet search came up with him on the old WINR:
http://www.oldies969fm.com/pages/danallen.html
At 1815Z today, the DJ said his name was Craig Stevens. At WDJO, no Craig Stevens, but there is a Craig Roberts, Harry Stephens and Gary Stevens.
There is a bio of Craig Stevens buried at WINR (Internet search turned it up):
http://www.oldies969fm.com/pages/craigstevens.html?article=11054965
Recorded our 1690 broadcast today and listened to 1815Z repeatedly and it sounds like "Craig Stevens," not Harry nor Gary.
One interesting post from Jan 2012 where Dangerous Dan gave some insight:
http://boards.radio-info.com/smf/index.php?topic=205333.0
Quote
No big mystery or drama. WDJO was my Sunday diversion but my full time job at Clear Channel is pretty demanding. After WSAI changed format I moved the Real Oldies format online to IHeartradio.com and as of today, I am going to be on there daily from 10am to 3pm. The format also debuted today in Binghamton, New York on 680 WINR and I can be heard there as well. I'm joined by my old friends Bobby Leach and Marty Thompson so it should be fun.
I've enjoyed my time at WDJO but, alas, it's time for me to move along. As you noted, I will be available for fill-in and that includes Dial-A-Hit where I will, of course, play requests mixed in with my personal all-time favorites. I'm hard to control.
Quote
My full-time employer is Clear Channel. They allowed me to be on WDJO in addition to my work for CC. I've been programming Real Oldies for Clear Channel non-stop since 2003. That was long before I was part of the WDJO team. There is no conflict.
Which brings up another question- Dan said in 2012 he's gone on Sundays from WDJO, but he shows up on their site today. Perhaps gone then returned? Certainly not uncommon.
The 1690 source is probably an Internet stream of The Real Oldies Channel (although I can hear no digitization from a low-quality stream). If it is a broadcaster testing, then maybe getting the high quality feed off a satellite. Today's broadcast didn't match any live playlists, so could've been a recording. Didn't see The Real Oldies Channel on Sirius nor XM.
This has been going on for at least 4 months since I first found 'em. In that time, no ID and no FCC records of any lic station nor CP in MN on 1690.
Pirate? If so, it has really good range. within about a 5-7 area around my house, the signal was strong and consistent. That was from observations when & I was out for doing other things or asking friends to tune in when I was on the phone with them. Luckily they obliged and although took a bit of explaining when the station suddenly went away.
As of now, I'm still betting on a legit broadcaster that's testing & whatnot. Why four months for only a few random hours? Who knows.
4784
MW Loggings / UNID 1690 kHz July 7, 2013 1807Z
« on: July 07, 2013, 1807 UTC »
UNID station back on 1690 playing oldies.
1808Z 55454 S9+ The Lovin' Spoonful "Do You Believe In Magic"
1810Z 55454 S9+ "The real oldies live here on The Real Oldies Channel."
1810Z 55454 S9+ Richie Valens "Donna"
1812Z 55454 S9+ The Outsiders "Girl In Love"
1815Z 55454 S9+ DJ - Craig Stevens
1816Z 55454 S9+ Gene Pitney "It Hurts To Be In Love"
1818Z 55454 S9+ Martha Reeves and the Vandellas "Heat Wave"
1821Z 55454 S9+ DJ
1821Z 55454 S9+ Tony Orlando & Dawn "Knock Three Times"
1824Z 55454 S9+ The Drifters "There Goes My Baby"
1826Z 55454 S9+ "The roots of rock and roll live here on The Real Oldies Channel"
1826Z 55454 S9+ Chubby Checker "Slow Twistin'"
1829Z 55454 S9+ Sam & Dave "Soul Man"
1831Z 55454 S9+ The Rolling Stones "Ruby Tuesday"
1834Z 55454 S9+ "Come for the real oldies and stay for the fun."
1834Z 55454 S9+ Bobby Vinton "Mr. Lonely"
1837Z 55454 S9+ Three Dog Night "Easy To Be Hard"
1839Z Off air mid song
Yaesu FT-847 with 100' wire
1808Z 55454 S9+ The Lovin' Spoonful "Do You Believe In Magic"
1810Z 55454 S9+ "The real oldies live here on The Real Oldies Channel."
1810Z 55454 S9+ Richie Valens "Donna"
1812Z 55454 S9+ The Outsiders "Girl In Love"
1815Z 55454 S9+ DJ - Craig Stevens
1816Z 55454 S9+ Gene Pitney "It Hurts To Be In Love"
1818Z 55454 S9+ Martha Reeves and the Vandellas "Heat Wave"
1821Z 55454 S9+ DJ
1821Z 55454 S9+ Tony Orlando & Dawn "Knock Three Times"
1824Z 55454 S9+ The Drifters "There Goes My Baby"
1826Z 55454 S9+ "The roots of rock and roll live here on The Real Oldies Channel"
1826Z 55454 S9+ Chubby Checker "Slow Twistin'"
1829Z 55454 S9+ Sam & Dave "Soul Man"
1831Z 55454 S9+ The Rolling Stones "Ruby Tuesday"
1834Z 55454 S9+ "Come for the real oldies and stay for the fun."
1834Z 55454 S9+ Bobby Vinton "Mr. Lonely"
1837Z 55454 S9+ Three Dog Night "Easy To Be Hard"
1839Z Off air mid song
Yaesu FT-847 with 100' wire
4785
General Radio Discussion / Mission impossible: Is government broadcasting irrelevant?
« on: July 07, 2013, 0002 UTC »
http://www.cjr.org/feature/mission_impossible.php?page=all
By Gary Thomas
What US government agency was recently labeled “dysfunctional” by the State Department’s Inspector General, and year after year is rated in employee surveys as the worst—or near worst—place to work in government? If you guessed the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Marti, Radio Free Europe, and the rest of the federal government’s media outlets, you are correct. In 2009, Washington Post columnist Joe Davidson wrote that the bbg has come to mean “bottom of the barrel in government.”
The core problem afflicting the BBG and its various entities is institutional schizophrenia. It is simultaneously a news organization trying to be a government agency, and a government agency trying to be a news outlet. Since 1942, the US government has been broadcasting—and now texting, tweeting, and Facebooking—to the world. VOA was the first, and remains the best known of the government broadcasters. In VOA’s first broadcast (in German), the announcer said, “The news may be good or bad. We shall tell you the truth.”
VOA’s journalists have had a clear mandate under the charter, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, to present unbiased news to the world, especially to countries denied uncensored news. But the charter also says VOA will “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.” The schizophrenia, then, was built into the equation from the start.
Today, though, the problem of conflicting missions is exacerbated by the fact that the Board of Governors—and in particular the VOA, where I worked as a correspondent and news analyst for 27 years—has become mired in bloated bureaucracy, duplication of effort, internecine warfare between broadcast entities, and subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) efforts to politicize the news. The workforce is demoralized, and the credibility of the news has been undercut. It raises the question of whether, given that people around the world now have unprecedented access to news and information, we still need the VOA and its sister outlets to attempt this awkward dance between journalism and public diplomacy.
* * *
Policymakers have long viewed US international broadcasting as part of the public-diplomacy effort. The USC Center on Public Diplomacy’s website notes that the term was coined to get away from the pejorative word “propaganda.” The center says that “in the past few decades, public diplomacy has been widely seen as the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals [italics added].”
In other words, “public diplomacy” is simply public affairs—that is, spin, propaganda, messaging, whatever you wish to call it—relabeled and repackaged for foreign consumption. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as much before departing from the Obama cabinet. “We have abdicated the broadcasting arena,” she said at a congressional hearing. “[W]e have private stations, CNN, Fox, NBC, all of that. They’re out there, they convey information. But we’re not doing what we did during the Cold War. Our Broadcasting Board of Governors is practically defunct in terms of its capacity to be able to tell a message around the world.”
VOA has often been called a propaganda agency, but it’s not. It has fulfilled its public-diplomacy role by broadcasting editorials, which are labeled as official government viewpoints. In this way, the separation between news and propaganda is maintained, at least in theory. VOA correspondents travel on normal passports (although non-journalist employees use “official” or “diplomatic” ones) and get journalist visas to travel to countries with visa requirements. However, when VOA/BBG executives and administrators travel overseas, they use official or diplomatic passports and get logistic and other assistance from the local US embassy. It’s no wonder that governments are confused about the role of American international broadcasting.
VOA earned credibility around the world on the basis of its honest journalism, even when its stories conflicted with US policy. “Some might argue that as a government-funded network, the voa should always be expected to portray US policies as righteous and successful,” wrote former VOA Director Sanford Ungar in Foreign Affairs in 2005. “But experience demonstrates that the VOA is most appreciated and effective when it functions as a model US-style news organization that presents a balanced view of domestic and international events, setting an example for how independent journalism can strengthen democracy.”
VOA was part of the US Information Agency (USIA), which was an arm of the State Department. But VOA, in particular its Central News Division, which provides content to 45 language services, has fought to protect the agency’s journalistic independence in the face of attempts by government officials to influence news coverage. I once had a deputy chief of mission in Pakistan threaten to have me thrown out of the country if I went into then-communist Afghanistan without embassy permission. In his Foreign Affairs article, Ungar cited instances of attempts by one of his predecessors, David Jackson, to skew news coverage to be favorable to the Bush administration, especially during the Iraq War. (In a rebuttal, Jackson—now executive editor of The Washington Times—denied Ungar’s assertions, saying his piece was “filled with errors and unsupportable accusations.”)
In 1994, Congress reorganized the government’s international broadcasting function by creating the Broadcasting Board of Governors within USIA to oversee all broadcast entities. The USIA as a whole was abolished five years later, with all non-broadcasting functions (embassy public affairs, libraries, etc.) transferred to State Department control, but the BBG was kept as a separate organization. The board was to act as a “firewall” against political or bureaucratic influence over the integrity of the news. But instead of being a solution, the BBG became the problem. The part-time, nine-member, politically appointed board—half Democrats, half Republicans, with the secretary of state as an ex-officio member—started micromanaging operations through the creation of an administrative bureaucracy dubbed the International Broadcasting Bureau. The bureau runs the day-to-day business of the broadcasters, but over time has expanded into peripheral projects like audience research and strategic planning—in essence whatever the Board of Governors wants it to do. Senator Richard Lugar wrote in a 2010 piece in the Foreign Service Journal that “after 15 years . . . it has become clear that, rather than serving as a political ‘firewall,’ the bbg has often become a political ‘football’ as board nominations have become enmeshed in partisan politics.”
One result of this micromanaging is that a commercial mode has taken root at Voice of America, where the equivalent of chasing ratings has become paramount and the news has been trivialized in much the same way it has at networks and stations across the country. As a 2007 report by McCormick-Tribune Foundation put it, “Once the centerpiece in America’s arsenal for fighting the war of ideas through their trenchant and focused programming, American international broadcasting in recent years has lurched in the direction of becoming just another competitor in the crowded field of commercial broadcasters purveying a menu of entertainment, popular culture and news.”
The BBG brought in outside people, many of them former CNN managers, to sharpen this commercial-style focus. Hard news, the meat and potatoes of VOA since its inception, has been greatly de-emphasized. Pressure has increased for softer stories, usually of two minutes or less, which are then translated for use by the language services. (There is virtually no English-language television, and English-language radio programming has been drastically cut back, even though it’s the strongest medium to reach remote audiences that lack computers or TVs.)
The VOA’s journalistic standards have suffered in this push into a more commercial-TV mode. For instance, there was always a strict two-source rule: The essential elements of all stories had to be verified by two sources (typically two wire services) before a story would be issued. The exception was if a voa correspondent witnessed an event. But some language services complained that they were not getting stories from Central News fast enough. VOA Director David Ensor, and a subsequent internal review of the news operation, recommended doing away with that requirement and allowing stories to be pinned on one attributed source, usually a wire service.
The Central News Division has resisted efforts to dumb down the news operation, and that has led to clashes with upper management. VOA management has tried to break up the division, which is staffed by professional journalists, and scatter its members to the language services. Traditionally, most of the news broadcast by the VOA has been produced by the journalists in Central News and sent to the various language services, where it is translated for their respective audiences. For some time now, the language services have been eager to broaden their mandate, and the agency’s leadership has come to believe that much of the work done by Central News can be done by language services. “We have to struggle every day just to cover the important news now,” said one VOA senior news editor, who asked not to be identified.
The politically incorrect secret at VOA is the wildly inconsistent journalistic acumen of the language services. Some possess a wealth of journalistic expertise; others are woefully bereft. The disparity is explained by the simple fact that it is difficult to find people who are fluent in a given language, and also have experience in the kind of rigorous journalism VOA has traditionally required. Many are academics, here or in their country of origin, but have no journalistic background. The services often turn to émigré communities for recruitment, and a lot of the staffers come from countries where news organizations are expected to be politically partisan or pro-government. Some language services—in particular the Farsi-language service broadcasting to Iran—have been criticized on Capitol Hill and elsewhere for alleged bias in their broadcasts, arising in large part from deep partisan divides over developments or movements in the countries to which they broadcast.
But VOA officials continue to deny there is any disparity in journalistic expertise. At a recent program review of the Central News Division, one of the reviewing officers said: “There are still two classes of reporters in this place, the English-language reporters and then everybody else who is a reporter or stringer. And some of those reporters and stringers in the field, in vernacular language, are as good or better than the English-language people, and we think Central News cheats itself by not allowing, not taking advantage, frankly, of all of the voa news sources that are covering stories.”
Thus, the journalistic coherence that Central News brings to VOA has been rendered impotent. In effect, VOA now has 45 different news operations, each with the potential to put a different spin on the same story. If there is a clash on the India-Pakistan border, let’s say, the Pakistani-oriented Urdu Service may issue a very different view of events than the Hindi-language service aimed at India.
The Board of Governors is trying to sell the Obama administration and Congress on a scheme to merge all the broadcast entities into something called the Global News Network, under the authority of an international broadcasting czar. The BBG’s Strategic Plan outlines a grandiose vision to “become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016.” There are indications this plan may be shelved for now, or ramped down, because of the fragile budgetary climate. The FY 2013 budget for BBG is $756 million—chump change in the governmental scheme of things—and the kind of effort envisioned by the BBG would require huge increases if it is to be done right. The proposed 2014 budget asks for $732 million. Without significantly more money, something Congress would likely be leery of approving, the Global News Network cannot hope to compete with other news entities.
And there is the unresolved question of whether what would emerge under consolidation would really be a news organization. The board and VOA management say the VOA charter is still valid, but a new mission statement in the strategic plan says the goal is “to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy [italics added].”
That last phrase is advocacy, not journalism. Regimes around the world—especially hostile ones like Iran—will read that and see VOA as a regime-change instrument of the US government. This formulation not only undercuts VOA’s journalistic credibility, it puts VOA correspondents at even greater risk than necessary. I made several trips to Iran to cover events, including the 2005 presidential election. Iranian officials told me they gave visas to VOA Central News correspondents, but not to the Farsi-language service, now called the Persian Service, because the language service is perceived as partisan.
VOA was offered an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in this article, and questions were submitted to the agency for response. It declined to answer any of the questions. The VOA Public Affairs Office’s response was: “Frankly speaking, the questions submitted by Mr. Thomas, a former VOA employee, contain multiple errors and suggest a bias that concerns us greatly. We invite those who want to evaluate the quality of VOA journalism to look at our websites or our programs that reach over 135 million people each week in 45 separate languages.”
* * *
US international broadcasting is at a crossroads. If it is to be a truly dynamic, respected news organization in the 21st-century media market, then several steps must be taken:
• Get rid of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. It has been a disastrous experiment. A January 2013 report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General concluded that, since its inception, the board “has been fully staffed for only seven of its 17 years of existence, and current governors are serving under expired terms.” Members have as a rule lacked journalistic credentials, coming from corporate media executive jobs or diplomatic posts. On May 11, President Obama nominated Ryan Crocker to the board, a diplomat who over a 37-year career has served as ambassador to Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, and, most recently, Afghanistan. A distinguished record, certainly, but one lacking any journalistic background.
• If a “broadcasting czar” is to oversee the proposed combined operation, then he or she should be someone with an unimpeachable journalistic reputation, not someone who goes through the revolving door between government spokesman and working journalist. The appointee should be named by the president and subject to Senate confirmation (as VOA directors were before the creation of the BBG), and be appointed for a fixed term (like the FBI director) as additional safeguards against politicization of the news.
• Re-establish the Central News Division as the operational hub of VOA (and, if there is consolidation, of the combined operation) to ensure journalistic cohesion, continuity, and credibility. Having what amounts to dozens of separate news shops competing with one another for resources, stories, and interviews breeds duplication and uncertainty.
• Don’t dumb down the news. Without a complete fiscal change of heart in Congress, international broadcasting will never have the money and staff to compete with commercial outlets. So stop focusing undue effort on lightweight fluff that is eroding credibility, and encourage and support intelligent and thoughtful journalism that is unfettered by bureaucracy and politics.
• Stop dismissing radio as a dead medium. Radio remains a highly effective way to reach the many people in remote areas who don’t have Internet or TV, and television broadcasting, such as to Iran, is much more easily jammed than radio. The proposed 2014 budget would gut Urdu and Afghan radio services that broadcast to Pakistan and Afghanistan and shut down all Farsi-language radio to Iran.
However, if the mission of US broadcasting is to be “messaging” and policy advocacy, then stop hiding behind the label of journalism. Call it what it is—public diplomacy—and put it under the State Department. Anything less is a disservice to VOA listeners and to the profession of journalism, and an insult to the men and women who strive to uphold the journalistic integrity of Voice of America.
By Gary Thomas
What US government agency was recently labeled “dysfunctional” by the State Department’s Inspector General, and year after year is rated in employee surveys as the worst—or near worst—place to work in government? If you guessed the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which oversees the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Marti, Radio Free Europe, and the rest of the federal government’s media outlets, you are correct. In 2009, Washington Post columnist Joe Davidson wrote that the bbg has come to mean “bottom of the barrel in government.”
The core problem afflicting the BBG and its various entities is institutional schizophrenia. It is simultaneously a news organization trying to be a government agency, and a government agency trying to be a news outlet. Since 1942, the US government has been broadcasting—and now texting, tweeting, and Facebooking—to the world. VOA was the first, and remains the best known of the government broadcasters. In VOA’s first broadcast (in German), the announcer said, “The news may be good or bad. We shall tell you the truth.”
VOA’s journalists have had a clear mandate under the charter, signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976, to present unbiased news to the world, especially to countries denied uncensored news. But the charter also says VOA will “present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.” The schizophrenia, then, was built into the equation from the start.
Today, though, the problem of conflicting missions is exacerbated by the fact that the Board of Governors—and in particular the VOA, where I worked as a correspondent and news analyst for 27 years—has become mired in bloated bureaucracy, duplication of effort, internecine warfare between broadcast entities, and subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) efforts to politicize the news. The workforce is demoralized, and the credibility of the news has been undercut. It raises the question of whether, given that people around the world now have unprecedented access to news and information, we still need the VOA and its sister outlets to attempt this awkward dance between journalism and public diplomacy.
* * *
Policymakers have long viewed US international broadcasting as part of the public-diplomacy effort. The USC Center on Public Diplomacy’s website notes that the term was coined to get away from the pejorative word “propaganda.” The center says that “in the past few decades, public diplomacy has been widely seen as the transparent means by which a sovereign country communicates with publics in other countries aimed at informing and influencing audiences overseas for the purpose of promoting the national interest and advancing its foreign policy goals [italics added].”
In other words, “public diplomacy” is simply public affairs—that is, spin, propaganda, messaging, whatever you wish to call it—relabeled and repackaged for foreign consumption. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said as much before departing from the Obama cabinet. “We have abdicated the broadcasting arena,” she said at a congressional hearing. “[W]e have private stations, CNN, Fox, NBC, all of that. They’re out there, they convey information. But we’re not doing what we did during the Cold War. Our Broadcasting Board of Governors is practically defunct in terms of its capacity to be able to tell a message around the world.”
VOA has often been called a propaganda agency, but it’s not. It has fulfilled its public-diplomacy role by broadcasting editorials, which are labeled as official government viewpoints. In this way, the separation between news and propaganda is maintained, at least in theory. VOA correspondents travel on normal passports (although non-journalist employees use “official” or “diplomatic” ones) and get journalist visas to travel to countries with visa requirements. However, when VOA/BBG executives and administrators travel overseas, they use official or diplomatic passports and get logistic and other assistance from the local US embassy. It’s no wonder that governments are confused about the role of American international broadcasting.
VOA earned credibility around the world on the basis of its honest journalism, even when its stories conflicted with US policy. “Some might argue that as a government-funded network, the voa should always be expected to portray US policies as righteous and successful,” wrote former VOA Director Sanford Ungar in Foreign Affairs in 2005. “But experience demonstrates that the VOA is most appreciated and effective when it functions as a model US-style news organization that presents a balanced view of domestic and international events, setting an example for how independent journalism can strengthen democracy.”
VOA was part of the US Information Agency (USIA), which was an arm of the State Department. But VOA, in particular its Central News Division, which provides content to 45 language services, has fought to protect the agency’s journalistic independence in the face of attempts by government officials to influence news coverage. I once had a deputy chief of mission in Pakistan threaten to have me thrown out of the country if I went into then-communist Afghanistan without embassy permission. In his Foreign Affairs article, Ungar cited instances of attempts by one of his predecessors, David Jackson, to skew news coverage to be favorable to the Bush administration, especially during the Iraq War. (In a rebuttal, Jackson—now executive editor of The Washington Times—denied Ungar’s assertions, saying his piece was “filled with errors and unsupportable accusations.”)
In 1994, Congress reorganized the government’s international broadcasting function by creating the Broadcasting Board of Governors within USIA to oversee all broadcast entities. The USIA as a whole was abolished five years later, with all non-broadcasting functions (embassy public affairs, libraries, etc.) transferred to State Department control, but the BBG was kept as a separate organization. The board was to act as a “firewall” against political or bureaucratic influence over the integrity of the news. But instead of being a solution, the BBG became the problem. The part-time, nine-member, politically appointed board—half Democrats, half Republicans, with the secretary of state as an ex-officio member—started micromanaging operations through the creation of an administrative bureaucracy dubbed the International Broadcasting Bureau. The bureau runs the day-to-day business of the broadcasters, but over time has expanded into peripheral projects like audience research and strategic planning—in essence whatever the Board of Governors wants it to do. Senator Richard Lugar wrote in a 2010 piece in the Foreign Service Journal that “after 15 years . . . it has become clear that, rather than serving as a political ‘firewall,’ the bbg has often become a political ‘football’ as board nominations have become enmeshed in partisan politics.”
One result of this micromanaging is that a commercial mode has taken root at Voice of America, where the equivalent of chasing ratings has become paramount and the news has been trivialized in much the same way it has at networks and stations across the country. As a 2007 report by McCormick-Tribune Foundation put it, “Once the centerpiece in America’s arsenal for fighting the war of ideas through their trenchant and focused programming, American international broadcasting in recent years has lurched in the direction of becoming just another competitor in the crowded field of commercial broadcasters purveying a menu of entertainment, popular culture and news.”
The BBG brought in outside people, many of them former CNN managers, to sharpen this commercial-style focus. Hard news, the meat and potatoes of VOA since its inception, has been greatly de-emphasized. Pressure has increased for softer stories, usually of two minutes or less, which are then translated for use by the language services. (There is virtually no English-language television, and English-language radio programming has been drastically cut back, even though it’s the strongest medium to reach remote audiences that lack computers or TVs.)
The VOA’s journalistic standards have suffered in this push into a more commercial-TV mode. For instance, there was always a strict two-source rule: The essential elements of all stories had to be verified by two sources (typically two wire services) before a story would be issued. The exception was if a voa correspondent witnessed an event. But some language services complained that they were not getting stories from Central News fast enough. VOA Director David Ensor, and a subsequent internal review of the news operation, recommended doing away with that requirement and allowing stories to be pinned on one attributed source, usually a wire service.
The Central News Division has resisted efforts to dumb down the news operation, and that has led to clashes with upper management. VOA management has tried to break up the division, which is staffed by professional journalists, and scatter its members to the language services. Traditionally, most of the news broadcast by the VOA has been produced by the journalists in Central News and sent to the various language services, where it is translated for their respective audiences. For some time now, the language services have been eager to broaden their mandate, and the agency’s leadership has come to believe that much of the work done by Central News can be done by language services. “We have to struggle every day just to cover the important news now,” said one VOA senior news editor, who asked not to be identified.
The politically incorrect secret at VOA is the wildly inconsistent journalistic acumen of the language services. Some possess a wealth of journalistic expertise; others are woefully bereft. The disparity is explained by the simple fact that it is difficult to find people who are fluent in a given language, and also have experience in the kind of rigorous journalism VOA has traditionally required. Many are academics, here or in their country of origin, but have no journalistic background. The services often turn to émigré communities for recruitment, and a lot of the staffers come from countries where news organizations are expected to be politically partisan or pro-government. Some language services—in particular the Farsi-language service broadcasting to Iran—have been criticized on Capitol Hill and elsewhere for alleged bias in their broadcasts, arising in large part from deep partisan divides over developments or movements in the countries to which they broadcast.
But VOA officials continue to deny there is any disparity in journalistic expertise. At a recent program review of the Central News Division, one of the reviewing officers said: “There are still two classes of reporters in this place, the English-language reporters and then everybody else who is a reporter or stringer. And some of those reporters and stringers in the field, in vernacular language, are as good or better than the English-language people, and we think Central News cheats itself by not allowing, not taking advantage, frankly, of all of the voa news sources that are covering stories.”
Thus, the journalistic coherence that Central News brings to VOA has been rendered impotent. In effect, VOA now has 45 different news operations, each with the potential to put a different spin on the same story. If there is a clash on the India-Pakistan border, let’s say, the Pakistani-oriented Urdu Service may issue a very different view of events than the Hindi-language service aimed at India.
The Board of Governors is trying to sell the Obama administration and Congress on a scheme to merge all the broadcast entities into something called the Global News Network, under the authority of an international broadcasting czar. The BBG’s Strategic Plan outlines a grandiose vision to “become the world’s leading international news agency by 2016.” There are indications this plan may be shelved for now, or ramped down, because of the fragile budgetary climate. The FY 2013 budget for BBG is $756 million—chump change in the governmental scheme of things—and the kind of effort envisioned by the BBG would require huge increases if it is to be done right. The proposed 2014 budget asks for $732 million. Without significantly more money, something Congress would likely be leery of approving, the Global News Network cannot hope to compete with other news entities.
And there is the unresolved question of whether what would emerge under consolidation would really be a news organization. The board and VOA management say the VOA charter is still valid, but a new mission statement in the strategic plan says the goal is “to inform, engage, and connect people around the world in support of freedom and democracy [italics added].”
That last phrase is advocacy, not journalism. Regimes around the world—especially hostile ones like Iran—will read that and see VOA as a regime-change instrument of the US government. This formulation not only undercuts VOA’s journalistic credibility, it puts VOA correspondents at even greater risk than necessary. I made several trips to Iran to cover events, including the 2005 presidential election. Iranian officials told me they gave visas to VOA Central News correspondents, but not to the Farsi-language service, now called the Persian Service, because the language service is perceived as partisan.
VOA was offered an opportunity to comment on the issues raised in this article, and questions were submitted to the agency for response. It declined to answer any of the questions. The VOA Public Affairs Office’s response was: “Frankly speaking, the questions submitted by Mr. Thomas, a former VOA employee, contain multiple errors and suggest a bias that concerns us greatly. We invite those who want to evaluate the quality of VOA journalism to look at our websites or our programs that reach over 135 million people each week in 45 separate languages.”
* * *
US international broadcasting is at a crossroads. If it is to be a truly dynamic, respected news organization in the 21st-century media market, then several steps must be taken:
• Get rid of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. It has been a disastrous experiment. A January 2013 report by the State Department’s Office of Inspector General concluded that, since its inception, the board “has been fully staffed for only seven of its 17 years of existence, and current governors are serving under expired terms.” Members have as a rule lacked journalistic credentials, coming from corporate media executive jobs or diplomatic posts. On May 11, President Obama nominated Ryan Crocker to the board, a diplomat who over a 37-year career has served as ambassador to Iraq, Pakistan, Syria, Kuwait, Lebanon, and, most recently, Afghanistan. A distinguished record, certainly, but one lacking any journalistic background.
• If a “broadcasting czar” is to oversee the proposed combined operation, then he or she should be someone with an unimpeachable journalistic reputation, not someone who goes through the revolving door between government spokesman and working journalist. The appointee should be named by the president and subject to Senate confirmation (as VOA directors were before the creation of the BBG), and be appointed for a fixed term (like the FBI director) as additional safeguards against politicization of the news.
• Re-establish the Central News Division as the operational hub of VOA (and, if there is consolidation, of the combined operation) to ensure journalistic cohesion, continuity, and credibility. Having what amounts to dozens of separate news shops competing with one another for resources, stories, and interviews breeds duplication and uncertainty.
• Don’t dumb down the news. Without a complete fiscal change of heart in Congress, international broadcasting will never have the money and staff to compete with commercial outlets. So stop focusing undue effort on lightweight fluff that is eroding credibility, and encourage and support intelligent and thoughtful journalism that is unfettered by bureaucracy and politics.
• Stop dismissing radio as a dead medium. Radio remains a highly effective way to reach the many people in remote areas who don’t have Internet or TV, and television broadcasting, such as to Iran, is much more easily jammed than radio. The proposed 2014 budget would gut Urdu and Afghan radio services that broadcast to Pakistan and Afghanistan and shut down all Farsi-language radio to Iran.
However, if the mission of US broadcasting is to be “messaging” and policy advocacy, then stop hiding behind the label of journalism. Call it what it is—public diplomacy—and put it under the State Department. Anything less is a disservice to VOA listeners and to the profession of journalism, and an insult to the men and women who strive to uphold the journalistic integrity of Voice of America.