They do, that all they do!

But even VOA might not be suitable as a unified USIB brand, because the Radio Free and other USIB broadcasters would not want to concede defeat in the war of the entities. A new and neutral name may be needed. The BBG could resurrect the old pre-VOA-TV brand Worldnet. It’s suitable for a multimedia operation. Worldnet might, however, not be as easy for non-English speakers to pronounce and remember as BBC or CNN.

A 24/7 VOA English service made more sense when VOA had shortwave as a unique means to reach the world. World audiences have, for the most part, turned from shortwave to international television and the internet. In English, CNN International has successfully become America’s global English TV news channel. On the internet, hundreds of English-language American news sites are available. Except for Africa, the niche for USIB is now mainly in languages other than English.

As for the commentary by Elliott, who has historically made excellent points about duplication that the BBG itself encouraged over the decades, and the importance of VOA continuing to report the news rather than be turned into the propaganda agency some have always advocated it be, one wonders why he alone among currently-employed individuals in the agency in able to make on-the-record comments without fear of reprisal.

What all of this discussion points to every so clearly is the need for overseeing congressional committees to hold comprehensive hearings on the future of U.S. international broadcasting, and do it BEFORE any legislation is able to move through Congress that would simply rubber stamp the BBG’s flim flam strategic plan.

Many would agree that three of the biggest issues/problems facing the U.S. today are the dependence on foreign energy sources; the impact of illegal immigration; and the flow illicit drugs and resulting transnational crime. All three arise in our backyard. Add to this two governments actively hostile to the U.S. (Cuba and Venezuela) and four others (Nicaragua, Bolivia, Ecuador and Brazil) more sympathetic to those governments than to ours. Then throw in a nacro-terrorist group (the FARC) that has been destabilizing the region in a 20-year war conducted with every bit the persistance and ferocity of al Qaeda.

If ever there was an area of the world that the U.S. needs to communicate better with and whose issues need to be better understood by us, it is Latin America. Yet in the new world order proposed by the BBG, VOA service to Latin America would be cut-back, softened and consolidated with Miami-based Radio and TV Marti, an organization better known for lack of audience, nepotism and self-dealing than for journalism.

This from the BBG’s 2013 budget request:

“Redefine the Spanish Service [–$1.257 M]
VOA’s Spanish Service will redefine its strategic focus and operational requirements. Under this proposal it will provide Washington Bureau and other U.S. coverage as well as the VOA Direct news and information service for affiliate radio and television stations in Latin America and the Caribbean. Six journalists will work at VOA headquarters in Washington, four journalist positions will be relocated to Miami and New York, and 14 positions will be eliminated. Miami-based VOA staff will be based at the Office of Cuba Broadcasting to provide original content, provide editorial control and contacts with VOA stringers in the U.S. and the region, and identify OCB stringer reports from Latin America for use in VOA output. New York reporters will cover U.S. economic, financial, political, and social stories.”

A key phrase here is: “provide Washington Bureau and other U.S. coverage as well as the VOA Direct news and information service for affiliate radio and television stations in Latin America and the Caribbean.” If this means the service will abandon its own boadcasting capacity and simply offer programs to affiliates that can pick and choose what elements to run, VOA will be offering nothing that isn’t available from other commercial services, all of them better equipped and better staffed.

As it is, one service and one service alone in VOA’s Latin America Division has an appreciable impact on its target audience: VOA Creole broadcasting to Haiti. It’s the leading source of news and information there, in no small part because of its crack staff (all of them Haitian ex-pats with strong links to the island), but also because of its work with the State Department to explain vital U.S. programs and policies there. The two working together after the January 2010 earthquake literally saved lives.

It’s unclear what the “re-defined” Latin America Division means for VOA Creole, but it can only marginalize U.S. broadcasting to the rest of Latin America. In the current federal budget crunch, better no VOA Spanish than VOA Spanish Lite.

For an agency that aspires to become a leading global news organization, this is nothing short of total madness.

I am not opposed to radical change but this type of decision is why the BBG and its staff have lost almost all credibility with both the workforce and the public following U.S. International Broadcasting.

Many suspect that the senior staff at BBG has never liked VOA and especially its Central News Division because both had journalistic integrity — something the BBG staff found bothersome when trying to please their audience on Capitol Hill vs. the actual audiences worldwide.

Here’s what the budget request says:

“Consolidate and Reorganize Central News and English Divisions [–$5.660 M]

“As part of this budget request, VOA’s Central News will accelerate its transition from a large scale producer of English-language content, much of it based on wire services, to a much leaner newsroom, producing original content, and a short menu of top stories. Central News would also act as a clearinghouse for original content produced by VOA language service journalists. VOA Central News will be at the heart of a global newsroom for all U.S. international broadcasting entities. Under this budget, VOA will continue successful efforts to produce content for web and other digital platforms (including audio and video) for targeted English-speaking audiences. Radio functions and corresponding staff would be consolidated… Seventy-one positions will no longer be required under this proposal.”

Fortunately this is only a proposal and approval is far off, if ever. One can only hope sufficient concern can be voiced on the Hill to ensure this and other ill-conceived proposals of the Board are doomed.

Matt