Civilian News Broadcast by Civilians
When an expatriate like Avuncular American "tunes in" to the news these days, it's going to be a mix of internet, radio, and TV. Though we're in rural France these days, at home in Brussels the usual mix is BBC World Service on the AM radio dial, BBC World on our Belgian cable TV, and of course, everything that the internet can provide. Which includes that wonderful invention, podcasts.
So, thanks to a free iTunes link to "Democracy Now!," I can listen to Amy Goodman's daily hour of news from a decidedly "alternate" viewpoint. But DN! is only alternate in the sense that it's likely to cover news that the mainstream is not even aware of, or devotes zero resources to cover. But wait a minute: what "resources" does it take to produce the kind of hard hitting journalism that is the stock-in-trade of Democracy Now? In most cases, a long distance phone call.
My podcasting brings me Goodman's program with a one-day time lag, so I can comment on yesterday's (Thursday, January 24, 2008) broadcast, where Goodman makes a phone call to Gideon Levy of Israel's "Ha'aretz" newspaper. Though Democracy Now has a left-of-center, pro-Palestinian sensibility, only those Americans (and others listening to the podcast) who heard the program could imagine an Israeli journalist commenting thusly on the Gaza "breakout" into the Egyptian Sinai: when you conduct an "experiment," said Levy, of keeping Gaza Palestinians locked up in a "human cage," what reaction can you expect? He went on to say that the "Israeli public is indifferent" to the plight of the 1.5 million people in Gaza, a sentiment that, again thanks to Democracy Now's January 22 show, was confirmed by none other than Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, who said: "we will not let them live comfortable lives; let them walk." Perhaps only Olmert - and maybe George W. Bush, who joked about Israeli checkpoints to an incredulous Palestinian audience during his recent trip - could juxtapose "comfortable" and "Palestinian refugee" in the same sentence.
Democracy Now's serious journalistic credentials and shoestring budget are the subject of a comprehensive two page article by Danielle Follett and Thomas Boothe in the January issue of "Le Monde Diplomatique." Le Monde Diplomatique provides a condensed English version of its article in "Spreading the Word: ’Democracy Now’ Is Cheap, True, Non-Corporate News" on its English website. Le Monde says that even members of the US Congress listen to Democracy Now, and get leads for investigations.
National Public Radio (NPR) and TV's Public Broadcasting System (PBS) also provide much internet programming - thank you, PBS, for making such invaluable programs as "Now" and "Frontline" available on the web. I long for the day when I can succeed in getting an NPR signal on a satellite radio, but for now, I can get a bit of NPR on the net. Thankfully, NPR also uses the BBC as a major source for international reporting for which it may not have local resources.
As a former Foreign Service Officer, I understand why the Voice of America (VOA), funded by the State Department to provide news to foreigners, cannot broadcast to Americans - the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, which sought to shelter Americans from propaganda from their government (I wonder if the White House finds that notion as "quaint" as the protections of the Geneva Conventions?). But here's what I don't quite follow: how come NPR - a world class broadcasting institution increasingly funded by listeners and corporate donors - has not supplanted VOA as the voice of the United States abroad? VOA's budget ($166 million in 2006) buys radio coverage in large parts of the world, but its US Government funding "taints" its news coverage (News Item: "US Official Says...") in ways that BBC's underwriting by the British government does not. BBC's competitors are commercial - in world TV terms, that means CNN - whereas VOA is competing with what - Al Jazeera? Radio Caracas or Radio Havana?
News Brought To You By...The US Army
The US Government should be interested in how America is portrayed in the world, and Americans who want their country to be seen by the world as something other than a planetary policeman should be concerned too, especially when the United States military is not shy about playing the propaganda card. Thanks to the vigilant John Brown of Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review, we have this account of Donald Rumsfeld's recent speech at the "Network Centric Warfare Conference 2008" via Sharon Weinberger of Wired:
We need someone in the United States government, some entity, not like the old USIA . . . I think this agency, a new agency has to be something that would take advantage of the wonderful opportunities that exist today. There are multiple channels for information . . .
"Some entity..." Might that not be the US Army's Office of Strategic Communications?
“It’s about communicating to our audience what’s going on in the Army, and explaining it terms or concepts people can understand, so that they can be a part of achieving the goal,” said Col. Nelson McCouch, who heads the strategic communications division in Office of the Chief of Public Affairs. The role of OCPA’s strategic communications is to develop and implement plans for getting internal and external media to support the Army’s campaign plan with articles that explain what’s going on, McCouch said.
There are two other ‘legs’ that support the effort to disseminate information – the Office of Congressional Legislative Liaison and the Office of Strategic Communications. OCLL’s strategic communications team is responsible for making sure the Army’s messages are delivered to legislators on the Hill in a timely fashion, said Col. Wayne Sauer, who heads that office. “The Army wants Congress to know what’s going on so they can do something about it during the congressional cycle,’’ Sauer said.
In the Office of Strategic Communications, the mission to deliver the Army story is similar to OCPA. Whereas OCPA focuses informing Soldiers, family members and the public at large through the media, STRATCOM’s audience is expanded to target senior Army leaders – active and retired – business and social executives, and academic and think-tank representatives. “We are trying to instill a culture of engagement so that everyone at all levels tells the Army story the same way,’’ said Patti Benner, STRATCOM director.
Now, some of this "strategic communication" is plain old lobbying of Congress, to which the US military has always been attentive - just check the US defense budget. But what kind of operation is this, when US taxpayer funds are spent to encourage the spending of yet more taxpayer dollars?
"Strategic Communications" can be directed inwards - "soldiers, families, the public at large" as mentioned above, or outwards, as in the military version of public diplomacy:
Strategic communication means massing information among all agents of public information at a critical time and place to accomplish a specific objective. It avoids the destructive effects of mixed messages that result from not massing information. Dribbling out mixed, unsynchronized information instead of massing the release of unequivocal messages backed by a substantial body of facts is especially destructive during times of crisis, or when the government and military find themselves under enormous public or political pressure, fastidious public scrutiny, and emotional criticism.
This helpful explanation is from Brigadier General Mari K. Eder, who was until recently the Army's Deputy Chief of Public Affairs. "Massing information," avoiding messy democratic "fastidious public scrutiny" because of "unsynchronized information" - that sounds like something the Army could manage with a few billion more.
Before the United States goes so far down the road of "synchronizing" news via the US military, consider the bang-for-buck that a little bit of independent journalism gets you: Amy Goodman, according to Le Monde, gets circa $60,000 per year for her efforts. With that paltry sum, Congress gets information it would not otherwise have, listeners hear news that they never hear anywhere else, and American journalism maintains some credibility in the eyes of the world. Money well spent.