The Al-Hurra hubbub is symbolic of a larger problem of how we perceive and practice our information activities (or propaganda if you wish, which is a pejorative only to Americans). While I have not yet watched the 60 Minutes piece, I did read Craig Whitlock’s Washington Post article and have some observations on the larger debate.
The Al-Hurra shines a light on the transformation of American information activities from active and aggressive participants in the struggle for minds and wills to something much more passive, a beauty contest perhaps. This change, I argue, began happening even before “public diplomacy” was coined in 1965 as borders were established and, more importantly, we realized people actually listened to what we had to say.
Gone are the days when Edward R. Murrow could confidently state his staff could go up against any major media agency. Too often the emphasis is not on building trust and legitimacy with listeners but quick ratings and a resulting lack of editorial control and confused programming.
We must empower intelligently select editors and staff and empower them. Audiences come if the product is useful and interesting. Al-Jazeera English, for example, is useful and interesting. It is noteworthy that AJE is, I’m told, increasingly the news station of choice, displacing CNN, in one prominent government news agency. If you build it, they will come.
A while back I met and talked with Norm Pattiz and he was convinced that music attracted listeners. In other words, if they came for the music, they’ll stay for the news. But I believe there’s a reason Westwood One radio stations aren’t the template for international news agencies.
While we argue over the quality of programming, we cite a law that prevents us from monitoring, which in fact was intended to address the quality issue in the first place.
Dear Reader: my apologies if you had the misfortune of reading an earlier copy of this post.