Recently in Media Category

We have long recognized the importance of information to shape attitudes and create action. The online environment is no different, but do you think you know what non-English speaking users of Google.com or YouTube.com see? You probably don’t. My friends at the White Canvas Group do and they provide fascinating insight into the online world of adversarial exploitation of online products. Our adversaries understand the utility of the online world as a medium that seamlessly blends with “old media” to influence global audiences.

A lot of funding that the brothers are getting is coming because of the videos. imagine how many have gone after seeing the videos. Imagine how many have become martyrs.

Check out this promo video from White Canvas Group and remember that Al Qaeda no longer needs to send its audio or video products to Al Jazeera for distribution. 

If you’re interested in more, WCG is putting on a one-day workshop that delves into this world of adversarial media. This will be a superset of the presentation WCG has provided to students of my training seminars and the public diplomacy class I teach at USC.

Recommended: US International Broadcasting: an untapped resource for ethnic and domestic news organization (PDF, 139kb) by Shawn Powers.

The American approach to public service broadcasting, which is severely underfunded when compared to the rest of the world, is also legally separated from U.S. international broadcasting, a firewall that inhibits effective collaboration between either. Indeed, the problem is worse, as U.S.-funded international broadcasting is prohibited from disseminating its journalistic features within the U.S., a ban that prevents effective use of its significant journalistic resources by both public and private news networks in the United States. including a large sector of ethnic media that could surely benefit from the 60 languages that American international broadcasting reports in. For comparison, the BBC, the world's most respected news institution, houses all of its international and domestic news services in the same newsroom, therefore maximizing the benefits of a diverse and large staff while limiting costly redundancies. This paper argues for further collaboration between government funded international broadcasting and its domestic counterparts -- both public and private -- and thus for policies that match the reality of today's information ecology.

Shawn's paper is a welcome contribution to the need to break down the firewall of the revised Smith-Mundt Act. The original purpose of the institutionalization of US international broadcasting in 1945 (the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 was first introduced in October 1945) was to fill a gap in reaching non-US audiences that US media could not. Testifying before a House Appropriations Committee in 1946, the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs stated the purpose of US government broadcasting:

Our number one policy is to encourage private agencies to do the job. We propose only to fill in the gaps where, and when private agencies cannot do the job.

Today, in a twist on the question about a tree in the forest, if America's media does not cover an event, does it really happen? The retreat of US domestic media from overseas is troublesome for America's global affairs. America's media focus on speed over accuracy and a short-attention span prevents not only informing the American public, but of legislators, policy makers, and even the media itself. 

Shawn's paper should be required reading by Congress and the State Department.

One minor comment on the paper: Shawn implies the language "for examination only" in Section 501 of the Act / Section 1461 of US Code was in the original legislation. It was, in fact, inserted by Senator Fulbright. 

See also:

• Smith-Mundt Act: Facts, Myths & Recommendations
• Report on the 2009 Smith-Mundt Symposium
• Comment on "Raising the iron curtain on twitter: Why the US Must Revise the Smith-Mundt Act to Improve Public Diplomacy"
• Censoring the Voice of America

American Diplomacy has several interesting articles this month, including a historical review by Walter Roberts, The Voice of America: Origins and Recollections:

Beginning in 1937, the failure of the Executive Branch to reach a decision regarding the establishment of a governmental radio station led to a shift in initiative from the Department of State to Congress. Gregory calls it "a change that was marked by the introduction in both the House and the Senate of several bills." Their sponsors, in particular Congressman Emmanuel Celler (D- NY), argued that every other nation was prepared to see that the world understands its point of view - yet the U. S.  was at the mercy of the propaganda of other countries without the ability to present its own position. The year was 1937 and German-Nazi and Italian-Fascist propaganda were in full swing.

The Congressional sponsors of a government short wave station found themselves fiercely opposed by the private broadcasters of this country. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) passed a resolution in June 1937 opposing any governmental international radio station. Within the Executive Branch there was no unanimity and the President was not willing to support the establishment of a government radio station.  The plan died in early 1940.

A terrific graphic and an interesting one to be used by a government broadcaster. Tell me again why I can watch RussiaToday (RT.com) on cable (occasionally I do), CCTV (Chinese government broadcasting), and possibly PressTV (Iranian) but it is illegal for VOA to be available within the United States?

See also:

• Censoring the Voice of America
• Smith-Mundt Act: Facts, Myths & Recommendations

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, The Soft Power Solution in Iran, former Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Jim Glassman and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Support to Public Diplomacy Mike Doran promotes the active use of public diplomacy for the purpose public diplomacy was intended. Beginning with this unattributed quote from presidential candidate Eisenhower (likely inserted by Mike, who's working on a book on the period), they wrote,

Everything that we do, everything that we say--and everything that we don't do and don't say--should be coordinated to meet this goal. Such a policy would have four separate tasks:

• Provide moral and educational support for the Green Revolution. ...

• Tighten sanctions on the Iranian economy and publicize the connection between regime belligerence and economic malaise. ...

• Do all we can to increase communications within Iran, as well as between Iran and the outside world. ...

• Finally, we should refute, in campaign style, the four key propositions of Iranian propaganda. ...

A serious strategic communications program for Iran could have dozens, even hundreds, of programs like these. It should extend across government agencies with clear leadership and include private-sector participation.

Too often in foreign policy our interests demand that we compromise our core values. With Iran, however, we have been blessed with remarkable luck: Our strategic and moral imperatives stand in perfect alignment. And Iranians like Americans.

The Iranian challenge appears more amenable than any other serious national threat to a soft-power solution. Let's get going.

Indeed. We know Congress is eager for action - for example the $55 million authorized, but not appropriated, by the Armed Services Committees under the VOICE Act. This does include $30 million for BBG, but Increasing resources at VOA - along with increasingly creative access for Iranians within Iran - is not enough.

(Iran's PressTV cites a New Yorks Times article about Senators asking State to spend $45 million that was "earmarked" for countering Iranian censorship, but I have not confirmed whether this is the same VOICE authorization or an earlier authorization or appropriation.)

Today, January 21, 2009, at 4:40p ET (time change) I’ll be on Stand Up! with Pete Dominick to talk about State of State, reforming the Department of State into the Department of Non-State.

Stand Up! with Pete Dominick is a political talk show broadcast on the POTUS satellite radio channel – Sirius 110 / XM 130. It airs weekdays from 3pm to 6pm Eastern, with replays at 9pm and 3am Eastern. Both networks simultaneously stream the show online, as well.

Due to the Supreme Court decision that came out today, my interview time has slid slightly to 4:40p ET. If you don’t get XM (and I don’t), you can sign up for a free 3-day trial here.

A recently released and unreported report from West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has some fuel for the struggle of minds and wills. Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al-Qa'ida's Violence Against Muslims (PDF, 875kb) is a survey of attacks carried out by Al Qaeda that should be part of a counter-narrative to Al Qaeda’s broadly accepted proposal that they are the champions of Muslims. For too long we have accepted the propaganda of the enemy, allowing him to set the time, place, and vocabulary, all to his advantage. He declared the war was between us and them and we agreed. It wasn’t and it isn’t.

From the report:

The results show that non‐Westerners are much more likely to be killed in an al‐Qa’ida attack. From 2004 to 2008, only 15% percent of the 3,010 victims were Western. During the most recent period studied the numbers skew even further. From 2006 to 2008, only 2% (12 of 661 victims) are from the West, and the remaining 98% are inhabitants of countries with Muslim majorities. During this period, a person of non‐Western origin was 54 times more likely to die in an al‐Qa’ida attack than an individual from the West. The overwhelming majority of al‐Qa’ida victims are Muslims living in Muslim countries, and many are citizens of Iraq, which suffered more al‐Qa’ida attacks than any other country courtesy of the al‐Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) affiliate.

It is interesting to note that the percentage of non‐Western victims increased in the more recent period at the same time that extremist scholars, pundits, and supporters are questioning the indiscriminate use of violence and the targeting of Muslims. Al‐Qa’ida leaders stress that these individuals are not formal members of the organization, but recognizes their legitimacy as scholars and intellectual contributions to the movement nonetheless.

It is a short and required read. Supporting data fills most of the report’s 56 pages. See Deadly Vanguards: A Study of al-Qa'ida's Violence Against Muslims.

A funny thing happened to some facts on their way to the newspaper this week. Last week, on November 23, I blogged on the slate of nominees for the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The night of the 24th I updated post with additional information for Michael Meehan to highlight that he was previously nominated by President Bush to the Board so that it read “…(previously nominated to the Board by President George W. Bush and a business partner of the husband of Judith McHale’s Chief of Staff ).”

A week later on November 30, Al Kamen of The Washington Post’s “In the Loop” graciously mentioned me as pointing out Meehan has a connection to the office of the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, but did not mention the previous nomination.

Then today, the December 2 edition of “In the Loop” noted what my blog said for the prior week, that Meehan was first nominated by Bush. Where was the clarification that my post had that important data point Kamen’s researcher ignored?

For all the congratulatory email I received for the “In the Loop” mention, there was no noticeable change in the number of visitors to the blog - although digging deeper I found there were an unusual number of visitors from The Washington Post domain – so if I hadn’t known I was mentioned, I wouldn’t have known I was in one of the – if not the - most read gossip columns. Either not many cared about the Meehan-DiMartino connection or not many of Kamen’s readers follow the links he provides to read the source. There’s also the possibility that Kamen’s readers who care about public diplomacy already read this blog and knew the week before about the connection and the previously nomination.

The initial spin on the story was not surprising, the spin in today’s correction was. I’m implicitly portrayed as the one who did not write on Meehan’s previous nomination. Ah, the media.

Do you think Russia Today, PressTV, or CCTV would broadcast a story like this one from VOA: Studies Contend Bhopal Still Contaminated, 25 Years After World's Worst Industrial Disaster? I don’t think so.

The Standard Industrial Classification, or SIC, is a 72-year old system of classifying industries in the US. It was replaced twelve years ago by the NAICS, or North American Industry Classification System. Under the SIC system, newspapers are listed as under Manufacturing, SIC 2711. On its face this seems an anachronism but the explanation makes sense:

Several resources that comb news sites and blogs for what they believe is relevant information for those in public diplomacy, strategic communication, or related issues. With one exception, I did not include aggregators that broadcast individual articles via Twitter or blog posts.

• RFE/RL’s The Rundown – An essential read broadly on communication and today and tomorrow’s hotspots. I get it emailed but I didn’t see a way to subscribe through email.
• NightWatch – is an “executive intelligence recap” edited and annotated by John McCreary.
• John Brown’s Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review – a broad (sometimes too broad) coverage of media, academic, and “plain” blog posts on public diplomacy and related matters. Too often the cited headline is the only part of an article that refers to public diplomacy. John is, however, the major aggregator of public diplomacy-related content.
• Public Diplomacy in the News – result set is focused and includes more non-US examples.
• Kim Andrew Elliott – required if you’re monitoring global communication.
• COMOPS Monitor – is an automated aggregator for the “latest links from the blogosphere on Strategic Communication, Terrorism, & Public Diplomacy.”
• Layalina Review – a bi-weekly update of public diplomacy news as it primarily relates to the Middle East.

Feel free to add to this list.

If you’re new to www.MountainRunner.us via Al Kamen’s In the Loop, welcome and browse a while. By the way, Kamen was referring to this post Fresh Start for the Broadcasting Board of Governors when he cited me and this blog. As noted in the post, Michael Meehan, like some other BBG nominees, was previously nominated to the Board by President George W. Bush. The potential (and informal) link between the BBG and State Department’s public diplomacy office may ultimately benefit State’s public diplomacy bureaucracy and mission.

See also:

• Hitting Bottom at Foggy Bottom, an article of mine at ForeignPolicy.com
• Smith-Mundt Act: Facts, Myths and Recommendations a short 3-pager dispelling the misinformation around the foundational legislation for America’s global engagement
• Preparing to Lose the Information War? on the recent DOD “IO” budget issues & the need to fund, resource, and prioritize State’s public diplomacy capabilities
• Risk Communication in a Constrained Information Environment, my presentation at Heritage on communicating in the modern global information environment for global and local events

The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the United States Government's non-military broadcasting. Its function is to provide managerial guidance from talented private sector leaders. The combined audience of the broadcasting it oversees is over 171 million, an increase of 71% over 2003, according to the BBG. Programming is in 60 languages and is provided though online media, satellite, terrestrial and cable television, as well as shortwave, AM, and FM radio. Like most advisory boards, the Governors, including the Chairman, are part-timers.

The Board is to have eight members, including the Chairman, plus the Secretary of State as an ex officio member. For over a year, however, the Board barely had quorum, and only if the Secretary of State was included. Four seats on the Board have been vacant for between one year to nearly 4 years while the terms of the seated Governors expired between 3.5 and 5.5 years ago. For all the lip service to the urgency to communicate with the world, the Board has been long neglected.

Yesterday, the White House announced a whole new slate for the Broadcasting Board of Governors: Walter Isaacson, as Chairman, Michael Lynton, Susan McCue, Michael Meehan, Victor H. Ashe, Dennis Mulhaupt, Dana Perino, and S. Enders Wimbush. The announcements and bios are here and here. Isaacson has been a candidate for over six months but has rumored to have held out until all the vacancies were filled.

Change is good, but more change is needed: the Chairman must become a full-time position in order to fully support and champion the needs of US Government broadcasting.

Let's hope the nominees are confirmed quickly.

Will the US Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy be getting some attention soon?

See also:

• Absent Leadership in Public Diplomacy

• USAID challenges reflect greater problems at the State Department

• Hitting Bottom at Foggy Bottom

“Homeland Security's Wicked Problems: Developing a Research Agenda for Homeland Security” is a two-day event co-hosted by The Heritage Foundation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, The U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, and The George Washington University's Homeland Security Policy Institute.

The location is The Heritage Foundation's Allison Auditorium and the dates are November 12, Thursday, 9a-4p and November 13, Friday, 9a-12:30p. RSVP to attend.

I will be on the first panel Friday morning at 9:30a: Communications During Crisis: Roles, Responsibilities, and Capabilities. On the panel will be Jonathan Thompson, Executive Vice President, Systems Media Group, and former Director for External Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency; Kimberly Dozier, CBS News Correspondent; and Matt Armstrong, Armstrong Strategic Insights Group, LLC. Moderating is Professor Dennis Murphy, Professor of Information in Warfare, United States Army War College, Center for Strategic Leadership.

From PressTV:

The United States has incorporated a bill into its annual military budget, which will allocate millions of dollars for Persian-language broadcasts. … US President Barack Obama signed the Victims of Iranian Censorship Act (VOICE) into law earlier this week. … Analysts in Iran say the move comes in response to the arrest of members of a US-based terrorist group — the Kingdom Assembly of Iran.

This take on VOICE by an Iranian government news agency is not surprising. What is surprising is the image in the Google News search (see above) that is a bit confusing. The image links to the same story as the headline, indicating they are the same and not a mash-up. It’s 2a, do you know where your brand is?

On VOICE itself, I wrote on the authorization for up to $55 million for State and BBG activities within the National Defense Authorization Act of 2010. As I noted before, the Senate and House defense appropriations committees – the people who put money into the checking accounts the authorizers open – did not go into their conference with VOICE on either agenda. They are unlikely to come out of conference with it, although if they did it would be significant that they are funding activities – activities they vociferously said should be funded - outside of their sandbox. Word is the defense appropriators won’t fund this but that the State Department appropriators - “foreign operations” – will, at least partially.