All posts tagged International Broadcasting

CUSIB’s Ted Lipien warns against diminished public stake in U.S. international broadcasting

By tedlipien | January 19, 2012 | Cold War, History, International Broadcasting, Poland | Comments Off

This report was published first by CUSIB.

In an article published in American Diplomacy, a quarterly electronic journal of commentary, analysis, and research on American foreign policy and its practice, the Committee for U.S. International Broadcasting (CUSIB) director Ted Lipien warns against diminished public stake in U.S. international broadcasting.

Lipien, a former acting associate director of the Voice of America, argues that de-federalizing VOA and limiting the independence and specialization of the surrogate broadcasters like Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty would make them less effective in projecting American opinions and values overseas. Lipien wrote that the current culture at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which manages U.S. government-funded international broadcasts, at the top executive level favors salesmanship more than hard-hitting journalism in defense of human rights which many broadcasters try to practice.

In his article, Lipien describes the State Department’s interference with VOA radio programs to Poland in the early decades of the Cold War. While opposing any kind of government censorship of journalists, Lipien believes that U.S. international broadcasting can be more effective as part of a broader public diplomacy effort by the U.S. government that reflects long-term American interests, supports media freedom and human rights, and is subject to public scrutiny.

Read the original article here:

Interweaving of Public Diplomacy and U.S. International Broadcasting: A Historical Analysis by Ted Lipien

American Diplomacy also published an article by a former VOA executive Alan L. Heil Jr:

All Quiet on the Western Front? 2012 Challenges and Opportunities in the Five-Year Strategic Plan for U.S. International Broadcasting by Alan L. Heil Jr.

U.S. official Victor Ashe calls for keeping a radio facility capable of reaching China

By BBGWatcher | December 20, 2011 | International Broadcasting | 3 Comments

This is an exclusive report by BBG Watch (BBGWatch.com). Republication is permitted with attribution.

BBGWatch.com – December 20, 2011 – Victor Ashe, a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), has called for keeping open the radio broadcasting facility on U.S. territory that is capable of transmitting shortwave radio programs to China. Some Obama Administration officials want to shut down the last remaining U.S.–based international broadcast station located in North Carolina. Ashe also called for urgent reforms in the way the federal agency in charge of U.S. international broadcasting operates. Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress have criticized the BBG for lacking transparency and exercising bad judgement with regard to broadcasting to China.

Victor Ashe’s statement released as a personal wish list for 2012 is unprecedented for a member of the BBG since these presidentially-appointed officials usually do not publicly express their misgivings about how their agency is being managed.

Ashe has become an outspoken critic of the permanent BBG bureaucracy in charge of planning and day-to-day operations of U.S. international broadcasting. He has made his displeasure known by visiting broadcasting services and technical facilities that some of the other BBG members wanted to eliminate based on the recommendations they had received from their executive staff.

It is not clear how the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson and the other members of the bipartisan board will react to Ashe’s statement. Isaacson, the former Chairman and CEO of CNN, former editor of Time Magazine and the author of the best-selling biography of Steve Jobs, is a Democrat. Ashe, a Republican, was the longest serving mayor of Knoxville and the President to the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He had also served as the U.S. Ambassador to Poland from 2004 to 2009.

In his statement, Ashe calls for keeping open the Edward R. Murrow Greenville Transmitting Station in Greenville, North Carolina, which he had recently visited despite objections from some of the BBG executives who want to close it down.

Ashe said in his statement that this facility is the only one on American soil where the U.S. government has jurisdiction. He pointed out that a similar station in the Philippines, operated by the BBG, is barred from transmitting radio programs to China due to the Philippine government’s reluctance to upset the Chinese government. “That could not happen on American territory,” Ashe noted in his statement.

BBG Governor Victor Ashe and VOA Director David Ensor meeting with VOA China Branch employees - BBG photo

Ashe, joined by the Voice of America Director David Ensor, also met last week with broadcasters of the VOA China Branch in Washington, D.C., 45 of whom were at risk of being fired and their radio and television programs terminated. BBG officials wanted to rely only on the Internet to deliver VOA news in Mandarin to China despite the fact that the Chinese government censors the Internet and blocks VOA Chinese websites. BBG officials claimed that the money saved from ending broadcasts and firing journalists would be used to expand online and new media presence in China.

BBG members had initially accepted their staff’s recommendation to end VOA radio and television programs to China on October 1, 2011, but later reversed their decision after a storm of protests by Chinese Americans, human rights organizations, and the action by members of Congress from both parties to block the silencing of broadcasts.

Ashe was reportedly instrumental in getting other BBG members to sign a Certificate of Recognition, which he and Ensor presented last week to the VOA China Branch to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasting to China. Ashe expressed his confidence in Ensor’s leadership.

Earlier, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) public affairs office had refused numerous employee requests to issue a press release about the Capitol Hill reception, hosted by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting to China. BBG public affairs experts also ignored an unprecendented video statement in support of VOA broadcasting to China recorded by the Chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Ashe is said to be also concerned by the way of some of the BBG top managers treat their subordinates and by the second-class status of the agency’s full-time contract employees. In his statement, Ashe refers to the government-wide employee surveys conducted by the Office of Personnel Management, in which the BBG has been consistently rated as being among the worst-managed federal agencies.

Ashe’s comment about “boorish behavior in the work place” may be a partial reference to a description used by a yet to be identified top official appointed by the BBG who was said to be discussing his desire to promote his favorite employees and contrasting them with “old white guys.” Sources have told BBG Watch that some BBG members wanted to have the official fired for making that remark but could not get a majority vote. The official is believed to be a former CNN associate of the BBG Chairman. Several former CNN employees have been hired in recent months by the BBG. BBG Watch sources describe Isaacson was well-meaning but too removed and distracted by the promotion of his recently published biography of Steve Jobs.

Ashe’s statement points to one success in his efforts to improve employee morale. Due to his recent intervention, contract employees at the BBG headquarters in Washington, D.C. were able to receive flu immunization shots to limit the risk of infection to the entire workforce. Until Ashe raised this issue in an open meeting, BBG executives were preventing these employees from receiving free flu shots, as well as denying them most other usual employment benefits, which these full time contractors still do not get.

In his statement, Ashe called for action and not just words to improve employee morale. Contract employees represent nearly half of the Voice of America workforce.

Ashe also paid a recent visit to Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa headquarters in Northern Virginia and praised Brian Conniff, President of the Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN), and his staff for their dedication in preparing broadcasts to the Middle East.

Ashe is believed to be the only current BBG member who regularly meets with groups of employees and listens to their complaints.

The BBG is likely to face further scrutiny from Congress in 2012. The same BBG executives who wanted to end VOA radio and television broadcasts to China have proposed a merger of Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) and MBN into a large corporate bureaucracy and want to de-federalize VOA and Radio and TV Marti.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors encompasses all U.S. civilian international broadcasting, including the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio Free Asia (RFA), Radio and TV Martí, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (MBN)—Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. The Broadcasting Board of Governors is a bipartisan board comprised of nine members. Eight, no more than four from one party, are appointed by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate; the ninth is the Secretary of State, who serves ex officio.

BBG Watch (BBGWatch.com), an independent website managed by former and current BBG employees, has obtained a copy of BBG Governor Ashe’s statement, which we post below.

Statement of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) member Victor H. Ashe

I hope that 2012 sees a new era of employee-management relations for BBG. I feel the Governors are becoming increasingly aware that having 45 percent of all VOA employees as contract employees presents major issues of fairness, concern and accountability. It creates two classes of employees for a single work force.

I hope BBG director Dick Lobo will appoint a broad based committee representing all groups to review the issue and make recommendations to the Board. The BBG governance committee must take a hard look at this. The recent flu shot issue which was favorably resolved highlights how foolish the two classes of employees had become as it made no sense to deny contract employees flu shots while offering them to federal employees all working in the same building and office space. How this ever occurred in the first place surprised me.

Surveys have consistently shown bad morale. We must turn this around. Contract employees are not surveyed by OPM. Recently, IBB sent out a limited survey on the contracts themselves but not on general work place issues. While well intended, that attempt falls short of what is needed to gauge employee thoughts. We must make a New Year’s resolution to do better in this area. We must walk the walk and not just talk the talk.

We must also ring the bell that boorish behavior in the work place will not be tolerated. We must be open and transparent in how we deal with it. I am confident that the new engaged leadership of David Ensor will prevail and create a new climate in this field. He is implementing new procedures.

I felt my visit to the Edward Murrow Transmission facility in Greenville, NC on December 7 was a good one and I learned a lot. I am convinced it is a serious mistake to close this facility which is the only one on American soil where the American government has jurisdiction. The station in the Philippines is barred from transmissions to China due the Philippine government’s reluctance to upset the Chinese government. That could not happen on American territory.

The Murrow facility has been hidden from public view and I urge it to be more visible. Its name had become Site B which is effectively nameless. However, President Kennedy had participated in 1962 naming it for Edward R Murrow, one of our nation’s most respected newscasters. The signs should be re-erected in North Carolina and the public of Pitt County invited to visit. We should be proud of the Murrow facility.

On December 14, I spent most of the day visiting and meeting employees of MBN in Springfield, VA and was deeply impressed by Brian Conniff and his dedicated staff. They are outstanding. In March the full Board plans to meet there.

Voice of America supporters in China say VOA radio broadcasts are needed

By BBGWatcher | December 19, 2011 | International Broadcasting | Comments Off

Women’s Rights in China (WRIC) NGO has produced a short video showing that both very young and older persons in China continue to rely on Voice of America (VOA) radio broadcasts for uncensored news and information. These comments, recorded in China, point to the censorship of the Internet by the Chinese authorities and the fact that hundreds of millions of Chinese cannot use the Internet to access VOA websites, which are being blocked in China, or can’t afford to have Internet access of any kind because they are too poor.

The Voice of America is celebrating this month the 70th anniversary of broadcasting to China. Its supporters in China seen in this video wish VOA happy birthday, which almost could not have been celebrated as the U.S. agency responsible for these broadcasts wanted to stop them shortly before the 70th anniversary date.

Thanks to numerous protests in China and in the United States, members of Congress from both parties prevented the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from implementing its plan to end VOA radio and TV programs to China on October 1, 2011, which happened to be the anniversary of the founding of communist China.

On December 6, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher hosted a large reception on Capitol Hill to mark the 70th anniversary of VOA broadcasts to China. Members of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, who initially wanted to fire 45 VOA China Branch broadcasters, may have realized that they had made a mistake by listening to the advice of their executive staff. Last week they had signed a Certificate of Recognition, which was presented to the VOA China Branch employees by BBG Governor Victor Ashe.

Women’s Rights in China Video was recorded in China by WRIC volunteers. Those appearing in this video have shown a lot of courage by admitting on camera that they are listeners to VOA radio broadcasts, but please note that their names are not used. They know that listening to VOA radio is safer than using the Internet.

Link to the Women’s Rights in China video on the 70th anniversary of Voice of America broadcasting to China.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors: Six Minutes to Armageddon

By The Federalist | December 12, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

by The Federalist

In an agency with a runaway reputation for being dysfunctional, the inside-the-Cohen-Building leader has to be the Persian News Network (PNN).

PNN is supposed to be one of the agency’s marquee operations, broadcasting to Iran. In reality, it is a service that is ripped apart by internal staff dissension, factionalism, out-of-control personalities and increasingly poor management.

Generally, the factions break down along three fault lines: pro-monarchists (supporters of the deposed Iranian royal family), pro-reformists (what some would label “pro-democracy”) and those who support engagement with the regime in Tehran.

Iranians are proud and intelligent people. They know their place in history. They have strong views and are capable of articulating those views with great emotion. They are also a very savvy ethnic group inside the United States with the capacity to exercise substantial clout in Washington’s centers of power: Capitol Hill, various think tanks and the media. They know the political game and play it very well.

Gone are the simpler days of the Voice of America’s (VOA) Farsi Service, a radio-only operation set up following the fall of the royal government and the establishment of the Iranian theocracy. Ramping up to include television broadcasts, the successor PNN service has become unwieldy, unfocused and poorly directed.

In one of the more demonstrative examples of how bad things are inside PNN, one of its program hosts went on an off-the-air tirade that resulted in colleagues ushering the individual out of the Cohen Building – no doubt before the Office of Security could arrive on the scene and do the same. Accounts vary as to the person’s “performance.” Some have him engaged in an abusive verbal rant in which the F-bomb was used disruptively, loudly and liberally. Other accounts have the individual either shoving or launching a chair, in addition to the abusive language. Some accounts suggest this lack of self control and unprofessional deportment has surfaced previously.

This is one example of the manner in which professional standards of conduct have deteriorated inside PNN adding to the agency’s already earned and deserved reputation for being a hostile work environment, one of the worst places to work in the Federal Government.

It also demonstrates how the agency creates an environment that enables aberrant behavior perhaps explaining it away under a label of “creativity.”

These and other matters have put PNN way above the radar and have attracted an ongoing interest on the part of commentators, other writers who follow the PNN nightmare, along with the ever-present Iranian-American expatriate organizations.

Aside from misconduct issues, one of the greater concerns is that PNN has become a multi-headed monster alternating its message to the Iranian people. We’ll discuss the consequences later in this commentary.

I Can’t See Clearly Now

On December 7, 2011 the BBG issued a press release protesting the jamming of BBC, BBG and Deutsche Welle television broadcasts to Iran.

It is unlikely that BBG umbrage over the jamming will give pause to the effort by the Iranians. From the Iranian point of view, if something is working, they are likely to continue with the practice. They have also been adept at demonstrating their capability to “reach out and touch” the BBG with their offensive cyber-technology capabilities. Remember, these are the guys who knocked out all BBG websites for five continuous hours not too long ago. Jamming television broadcasts is but another component of the same strategic warfare, along with its cyber-warfare technological resources – and this is real strategic planning, as opposed to the BBG “strategic flim, flam plan,” which contains a lot of braggadocio but really isn’t accomplishing its lofty, far-out visions.

As part of the issue of jamming programs, the really big rub for the BBG comes down to money. Leasing satellite channels and satellite time is very costly. One has to get some meaningful return on this kind of investment, particularly when it involves someone else’s money: namely, the American taxpayer. Having these programs blocked is the same as taking bag upon bag of US dollars, stacking them up and touching a match to the pile. Money wasted. Add to that television production costs before the show gets up to the satellite. More money wasted on a program no one can watch. The Iranians know this. They know the financial pressure the United States Government is under. They really know because the West has been doing the same to them for years, via sanctions. So this represents an opportunity to put a twist on things and do some financial sanctioning of their own, in a manner of speaking.

On the other hand, radio broadcasts are much more difficult to jam and have a much broader footprint, including shortwave. Yes, these programs don’t have the glitz of television. However, the American taxpayer shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing glitz. The American taxpayer is paying for effectiveness. The point is this: if the content is worth listening to, people will listen. Plus, the American taxpayers have a better chance of realizing some value from their investment.

Sometimes the best advice to the BBG and its IBB officials is to keep quiet. Whining about the effectiveness of your adversaries kind of lets the cat out of the bag that the other guys have their act together and are giving you a beating. You really need to keep them guessing. There must not be anyone in the BBG/IBB who are/were good at playing chess. It requires too much thinking, planning and intelligence. The Iranians must be good chess players.

And absent from the discussion is the possibility that – in addition to the jamming – it may be that PNN has lost its cachet with the Iranian audience. The message from the Iranian people back to the BBG/IBB may well be that the interest in PNN has waned. One has to consider that even if the jamming effort is good, it can’t be that good all the time. Something else is at work here. Remember: the Brits have closed their embassy in Tehran, but the BBC programs are still being watched by the Iranian people. The Iranian people are still on “connect” with BBC programs.

Hit The Road Jack

Comments in some quarters have it that the best way of dealing with the problems of PNN would be to put it under RFE/RL and maybe move it to Europe. This is probably not a good idea. If nothing else, penetration by Iranian agents and intelligence services is probably better in Europe than here in the United States. What is needed is better oversight. The problem is that the BBG has demonstrated it doesn’t have people in place with the proper skill sets to carry out effective oversight. Some people with the right skill sets want no part of PNN. It’s a career killer.

If that oversight isn’t coming – as is likely – the next thing to consider is dialing back on the costly television product and putting resources elsewhere. That means radio. This does not mean giving up on the television effort, but coming at it from a different direction. Less television, better content. And most importantly, content that is on message.

My Eyes Adore You

Just when you think things couldn’t possibly be worse: the Iranians appear to have brought down a US spy drone and have shown video of the aircraft on display. This doesn’t have a direct bearing on PNN broadcasts to Iran (unless the BBG tries to get its programs transmitted from a drone). However, recovered reasonably intact, the drone represents a gold mine of technological intelligence for the Iranians and anyone else who they may choose to share the technology with (as in the Chinese or the Russians). And it wouldn’t be unusual for the Iranians (possibly with some Chinese or Russian assistance) to do some “reverse engineering” and try to determine the stealth technology used by the United States.

Consequences

We promised a discussion of consequences regarding the dysfunctional nature of PNN. Here’s the big picture of why a dysfunctional PNN is very harmful to US interests and national security.

The Iranians are spending a great deal of effort moving their nuclear weapons program forward. They know that having nuclear weapons is a game changer. They are not about to back off from gaining the upper hand in establishing hegemony over their neighbors and perceived enemies. This is really bad.

The US Government can ill afford a message to the Iranian government and the Iranian people that is disjointed and conflicted. The US Government can ill afford having a PNN that sends contradictory messages that makes it appear that the United States Government is divided or in disarray over its Iranian policy. The published reports of internal PNN turmoil do exactly that.

Once again, let’s review the big picture and it isn’t pretty:

The Iranians and their Hezbollah clients recently busted a major CIA spy network operating in Iran and the Middle East. The extent of the damage has yet to be determined but the consequences can’t be good. Advantage: Iranians.

The Iranians have shot down that American drone spy plane. The plane was recovered and sensitive components appear to have been retrieved intact. This isn’t good. Advantage: Iranians.

The Iranians are moving more of their nuclear program underground where it can’t be seen by American spy satellites. That pushes events toward a “kinetic military option” by governments fearful of the Iranians possessing a nuclear weapon.

Last but not least, it takes about six minutes to determine if the trajectory of an Iranian ballistic missile launch is heading for Israel. That’s the equivalent of a “New York minute,” not a lot of time to make a decision as to what to do next. Without a doubt, this causes a lot of anxiety in both Tel Aviv and Washington. And unlike the case of the United States and the Russians, there is no hotline between Tel Aviv and Tehran (and a larger decision window). Advantage: Iranians.

With all of this uppermost in the minds of those who deal with national security issues and threat assessments, here’s a message for the BBG:

The editorial content of PNN must be factual and incontrovertible. Program content has to be right all the time. It cannot be a platform for individuals within PNN to opine a confused message. At present, the message coming out of PNN appears to be just that: contradictory and conflicted. Most certainly, that is not good as a matter of general good journalistic practices and more so not in the national interests of the United States.

For those within PNN who might take a more conciliatory approach with the regime in Tehran: a soft message may well be the worst message. It could be interpreted as a sign of weakness by people who may have more respect for a message that conveys strength, commitment and purpose. That is not to condone a message of irrational belligerence. There is plenty of that to go around coming out of Tehran. However, softness with the folks on the other side is not a virtue.

The road to Hell is paved with bodies labeled “good intentions.”

And, you don’t need a work environment with people popping off and putting the rest of the staff on edge.

The bottom line: at present, PNN is a liability, not an asset. It’s broken and we own it. No matter where you put it within the structure of US international broadcasting it will stay broken as long as incapable management within PNN and at the BBG/IBB can’t find the right people to turn things around. Like the rest of US international broadcasting, PNN should be reporting the news rather than making news.

And ever-present is “the six-minute scenario.”

Six minutes – less time than it takes to read this piece.

The Federalist would like to give special recognition to JJ Green, the national security correspondent for radio station WTOP in Washington, DC for his excellent reporting on Iran, the Middle East and elsewhere. His reports are archived on the WTOP website which includes a discussion of the “six-minute” scenario referenced in this commentary.

The Federalist
December 11, 2011

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: Reading the Deloitte Report

By The Federalist | December 1, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

by The Federalist

The Number One “bestseller” inside the Cohen Building these days is probably the report by Deloitte, the consultants contracted to study the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) intended reorganization of US international broadcasting.

The Deloitte report’s initial conclusions, gives the green light to the Board’s intended reorganization of the grantee entities under its control, starting with some minor, though likely disruptive, administrative changes.

Anything the Board attempts to rush through with its alleged “strategic plan” should be viewed with misgivings. And the more we read the report, the more we walk away with the feeling, “The devil is in the details.”

We have never been impressed with the greasy sales pitch from the IBB regarding its alleged “strategic plan,” which is now the “new strategic plan.” The sales pitch is big on oxymorons and, as expected from this cabal, way short on the details.

That leaves it to observers to ask the tough questions and do the critical analysis of just what is going on.

The BBG makes a lot of oversized claims, that don’t fit the reality of what is taking place. The biggest of the claims is that this reorganization will result in the BBG lording over “the leading global news network.”

Wait a minute!

For the purposes of example, let’s put the brakes on the BBG/IBB sales pitch and examine the line-up of assets under the BBG:

Here are the grantees:

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL): 28 language services

Radio Free Asia (RFA): 9 languages

Radio Sawa/al-Hurra television: 1 language (Arabic)

Radio/TV Marti: 1 language (Spanish)

Let’s pull out our National Geographic atlases and look at the regions covered by these assets:

RFE/RL:

Russia: the Russian Republic, Tatar-Bashkir, North Caucasus

The Middle East: Iran, Iraq

Central Asia: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan

The Caucasus: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia

South Asia: Afghanistan, Pakistan

The Balkans: Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia

Eastern Europe: Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine

RFA:

By countries: Burma, China, Cambodia, Korea, Laos, Tibet, and Vietnam

RADIO/TV MARTI:

Central/South America, the Caribbean

RADIO SAWA-al-HURRA:

The Middle East

Although not covered by this portion of the Deloitte report, the Voice of America (VOA) claims 43 languages in its broadcasts, by region, to Africa, Europe, the Americas, the Middle East/Central Asia, East Asia and South Asia, along with what is left of its Worldwide English broadcasts.

This is information culled directly from the BBG website (www.bbg.gov).

While the BBG may be overreaching in its claim to become “the world’s leading global news network,” it most certainly has virtually all the world (except North America) covered by its broadcasting operations. It may not be “the leading global news network,” but it most certainly has the assets of a rather large global news network.

So what’s the problem here?

In truth, the problem is that the BBG and its IBB “brain trust” (and we certainly use the term loosely), can’t get their arms around their existing “global news network.”

If that is the case – and it most certainly is, since they had to call upon the services of a consultant to try to figure things out for them – what is the BBG/IBB really up to?

Here’s the deal:

What the BBG/IBB alleged “strategic plan” represents is a reorganization and, in its effect, a downsizing of the size and scope of its operations.

Remember, senior agency officials have made it clear that it is their intended outcome to ultimately rely solely upon the Internet as a sole source platform for audio, video and text. That’s it.

The current BBG Internet “audience” is around 10 million. The rest of its audience breaks down to about 100 million for radio (the leader) and less than 100 million for its television programs.

By the way, the total world population is about 7 billion, a sizeable portion of which is in the intended target areas of BBG broadcasts. Let’s do the math: the BBG is going to take an aggregate audience of 200 million and ultimately reduce it to 10 million, in parts of the world where there are billions of the world’s population!

And this is the road to becoming “the world’s leading global news network?!?”

Not now. Not ever.

Enough is enough.

The appropriate course of action at this point is for the Congress to stamp the BBG’s alleged “strategic plan:” “Dead on Arrival.”

The American taxpayer should not be asked to pay for a plan that seriously undercuts the capability of the United States Government to broadcast directly to global populations. In its intended outcome, the BBG/IBB “plan” represents a direct threat to US national interests, national policy and national security. In its effect, this “strategic plan” would be more appropriate to an adversary of the United States, rather than a US Government agency.

We all know that the BBG intends to give the heave-ho to its core radio audiences. Here’s what’s in store for its television effort:

For the money it is currently spending, the BBG will find it increasingly difficult to justify the television portion of its operations. It is insufficiently appealing or compelling to an audience in size that remotely approaches effective dollar cost averaging. Hence, the intent to move as much video program output onto BBG websites as possible. Sooner or later, the television operation is going down the tubes (forgive the pun) as a form of direct, live broadcasting. And keep in mind that television is more than the production costs inside a BBG studio. It includes, purchasing satellite time and also providing stations in-country with downlink hardware – big hardware – that stays in place even after a station stops carrying BBG programs.

What keeps running through our mind is that admonition from a “Pogo” comic strip: “We have met the enemy and it is us.” The problem is, this isn’t a comic strip. This is real life with the BBG run amok.

And here’s another thing:

For this disaster-in-progress, the BBG intends to front load some big costs. Among them includes finding new office space for the monster it is creating. Most often mentioned is office space in the Dulles Town Center in Ashburn, Virginia, no doubt trying to get as far away from public view as possible.

With this in mind, we should disabuse the BBG workforce of the notion that the BBG intends to move all its current operations to this new location. No way. This is yet another signal that downsizing is in the agency’s future. No less than the new VOA director, David Ensor, has said that the agency isn’t going to be what it was. He used a graphic turn of a phrase to make the point: “There will be blood on the floor.”

Another element in this mess needs to be worked in here:

Since this is a downsizing of US international broadcasting, the “blood on the floor” represents reducing the size of the career staff.

We’ve taken note that the BBG corporate globalists have gotten on the bandwagon of glorifying so-called “citizen journalists.”

Whose citizens? Where do their loyalties lay? Who else are they working for? They are not employees of the US Government, accountable to same. And what journalistic standards do they adhere to? What is their agenda? “Citizen Journalists” is another way of saying that the BBG is intent upon lowering journalistic standards.

And this is what the BBG/IBB globalists want to embed inside the United States Government, to be paid for by the American taxpayers?

Forget it.

US Government international broadcasting – not the BBG/IBB – is doing exactly as the Congress intended. It is providing multiple streams of news and information to diverse audiences. It is doing this with specific missions, by the individual grantees and by the Voice of America.

The United States already has a global news network. What it doesn’t have is good management of that network at the top – the BBG and the IBB – and it isn’t going to get good management with the current cast of characters on the Third Floor of the Cohen Building. They can’t handle it. They are not up to the task. And worse, they seem to be operating with their own agenda.

Another thing that jumps out at us comes from the comments made about employee morale. Clearly, in order to carry out its agenda (not its mission), the Deloitte report envisions and appears to accept a decline in staff morale from the disruption likely to be a consequence of the Board’s disaster-in-progress. Yet again, this affirms the obvious from the Human Capital surveys: that the BBG has no commitment to the agency’s employees. None. The Board’s agenda is the destruction of US international broadcasting. Hammering the employees in the process comports with the Board’s goals. If you are an agency employee, you are expendable. And don’t forget the Ensor remark about there being “blood on the floor.” That likely means a reduction-in-force (RIF).

By the way, you don’t get a clearer example of the contempt the top levels of agency management have for its employees than the bonuses these senior officials handed out to themselves in FY2010. For what? The answer is: presiding over the deliberately set upon destruction of a major portion of US strategic communications. And that is on top of their well-established and perpetuated abysmal record in the Federal employee survey: at or near the bottom, all the time and every time.

And while we’re at it, we should throw in a word about the latest bit of BBG propaganda, its document entitled “Impact through Innovation and Integration.”

Let’s get one thing straight: the BBG/IBB is not on the cutting edge of “innovation.” If anything, they are desperately out of sight and trying to catch up to other world broadcasters like al-Jazeera (Arabic and English) and the Chinese government’s CCTV. And their way of “catching up” is to obliterate the core BBG/IBB audience base which relies on radio broadcasting. This agency is also not on the cutting edge of technologies to defeat cyber warfare measures by others. Remember, this is the agency that got shut down across the board on all its websites by the Iranian Cyber Army. Also, the Chinese government is effectively blocking its websites and probably its satellite television channels. And we should note its intended outcome of being all-Internet based has an audience of a meager 10 million lagging far behind its core radio audience and its believed television audience. In a world of over 7-billion people, the impact of that 10-million amounts to dust in the wind.

This is one of the main problems with the BBG and its IBB sycophants: they are constantly overreaching, refusing to recognize that they have failed miserably and apparently intend to rely upon deception as the way to sell what can only be seen as “damaged goods.” It is thoroughly outrageous.

The American taxpayer is being skunked by the BBG and its IBB “strategic flim flam plan.”

The consequence of the BBG/IBB plan is to permanently cripple US Government international broadcasting and to spend large sums of money doing it.

The Congress must necessarily assert itself and prevent this fiasco from going further.

The American people deserve nothing less.

Quick Note: Just when you think things couldn’t get any more tawdry inside the Cohen Building – now we learn that senior agency officials are holding a “raffle” for an autographed copy of the new Steve Jobs biography penned by BBG chairman Walter Isaacson.

At $5 a pop, the raffle is supposed to raise money for the Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). Of course, as with anything involving the BBG/IBB, this raises more questions than answers centered on the propriety of this stunt.

To all outward appearances, the BBG/IBB has lost its last ounce of common sense. They are out of touch with the purpose and mission of the agency. Put aside the intended beneficiary of the stunt (the CFC). What this amounts to is an awkward form of self-serving adulation directed toward the BBG chairman. We don’t begrudge Chairman Isaacson the success of his biography on Steve Jobs. But we have a lot of reservations about a stunt that borders on the ludicrous.

The Federalist
December 1, 2011

Legal analysis of BBG merger plan pays minimal attention to political, legislative and journalistic pitfalls

By BBGWatcher | November 23, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

FreeMediaOnline.org Washington, D.C – Truckee, CA, November 22, 2011 — Free Media Online Report and Commentary — While Free Media Online and BBG Watch do not expect the giant law firm of Baker & McKenzie to advise the Broadcasting Board of Governors on the journalistic pitfalls of centralization of news gathering and undermining the independence of the surrogate broadcasters and the Voice of America’s special role, its legal feasibility analysis of the proposed consolidation of private broadcasting grantees — RFE/RL, Inc. (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty – RFE/RL), Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc. (MBN) and Asia Pacific Network (Radio Free Asia) (RFA) — understates to a large degree the role of Congress and other legislative and public policy issues in the decision making process. The analysis fails to address the expected opposition to to the BBG proposal in Congress, within the U.S. foreign policy community, and among supporters of U.S. international broadcasting at home and abroad.

Independence of surrogate broadcasters and their ability to concentrate their news gathering operations on specific countries with a focus on human rights abuses were the key elements of the U.S. international broadcasting model developed by such giant figures of American foreign policy and public life as General Dwight Eisenhower, the author of the policy of containment George Kennan, General Charles Douglas (C.D.) Jackson who later became President Eisenhower’s advisor on countering Soviet propaganda, the hero of the Berlin Airlift General Lucius Clay, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew, U.S. intelligence specialist Frank Wisner, CIA Director Allen W. Dulles and many other distinguished Americans. Even young Ronald Reagan was involved in helping to support Radio Free Europe’s independent journalistic activities in defense of freedom. Presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Clinton likewise supported the dual model of U.S. international broadcasting with the surrogate radios and the Voice of America operating under different rules and independently of each other, each having a distinct mission that served to advance U.S. interests and to support democracy abroad in different ways.

The current BBG plan to eliminate the independence of surrogate broadcasters, centralize news gathering – using centralized controls which made the Voice of America far less effective in Eastern Europe than RFE/RL until the Reagan Administration took office — and eventually to privatize the Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti was, by contrast with the earlier plan, developed by anonymous BBG bureaucrats. They are clearly the only group that will benefit from their own proposal — not BBG members, not BBG journalists, not audiences abroad, not victims of human rights abuses, and certainly not the American people. Keep in mind that these same bureaucrats proposed earlier this year to end all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to China. Congress wisely rejected their proposal. They now want to do even greater damage to U.S. international broadcasting and public diplomacy abroad.

The BBG also plans to ask Congress to remove the Smith-Mundt Act’s restrictions on domestic distribution of its programs. This proposal is another reason behind the centralization of news gathering. When such a centralized system existed – but only at the Voice of America prior to the 1980s – VOA foreign language journalists literally had to beg the central VOA newsroom for coverage of country-specific and region specific news. The central newsroom at VOA wanted to operate like a newsroom at any domestic American media outfit.

The surrogate broadcasters, on the other hand, were providing much better, specialized news coverage due to the independence they enjoyed then but may soon lose. The BBG merger plan now threatens to destroy the ability of the surrogate broadcasters to specialize in certain topical and regional reporting. The BBG proposal will also destroy the current special role of the Voice of America — as it developed and improved over the years — as the voice of the American people and their public diplomacy messenger abroad.

What the architects of U.S. international broadcasting wanted to avoid at all cost, BBG bureaucrats want now to put in place for their own benefit and possibly to please the BBG Chairman Walter Issacson, a former CNN executive who has a vision of U.S. international broadcasting as a large CNN-like operation. Having just published a biography of Steve Jobs, he obviously had very little time to think through his idea, although to his credit he has attended all BBG public meetings unlike some of the other members of the part-time Board. The part-time nature of the bipartisan Board may also explain why the bureaucrats and not its members have been in charge of developing the strategic plan.

Chairman Isaacson and the Board may also be facing legal issues of a different nature than those addressed in the Baker & McKenzie report. One of the top BBG executives, who until now enjoyed Chairman Isaacson’s full support and was one of the few who enthusiastically embraced the planned consolidation, reportedly wrote in an email that the part of the organization under his control could use getting rid of “old white guys.” Other executives are known to have reservations about the proposed merger but are afraid to voice them publicly. Much larger public policy issues, however, are at stake.

The Baker & McKenzie analysis does not address any of the public policy issues, and their lawyers would probably would not be qualified to do so. However, they should have warned Chairman Isaacson and the BBG that any proposal to place essential government functions and public institutions under the control of private corporate bureaucrats will not be nearly as easy as the study seems to suggest from a purely legal point of view. At their last meeting, the BBG promised to release the Baker & McKenzie analysis but so far has failed to do so. We are making public parts of the report because of its significance for public policy. The analysis was paid for by U.S. taxpayers.

Interestingly and apparently without intending to do so, the Baker & McKenzie legal analysis gives BBG members, who also serve on the boards of directors of the surrogate broadcasters, very good legal reason not to support the proposed merger that would inevitably harm and diminish these entities. At least two and perhaps three of the eight BBG members, not counting the Secretary of State who is an ex officio member, seem to understand the dangers behind the proposal. Comments made at public BBG meetings suggest that Ambassador Victor Ashe who is a Republican, as well as two Democrats, Michael Meehan and Susan McCue, may have second thoughts about what the executive staff put forward for the Board’s approval.

Perhaps after reading the legal analysis as well as the earlier study done by Deloitte, other BBG members will realize that what they are dealing with are not primarily management and legal issues but public policy issues of great importance for foreign affairs, America’s image and human rights.

This is what the legal analysis points out in the Director Fiduciary Duty section:

“Regardless of the ultimate transaction structure, the individual members of the Board of Broadcasting Governors, as corporate directors of each of the Private Grantees, owe fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to each Grantee. The duty of care requires a director to inform himself or herself of the available facts concerning a transaction and its alternatives, and being so informed, to then act with due care in the discharge of the director’s responsibilities. The duty of loyalty requires a director to act in the best interests of the corporation and avoid self-dealing.”

In the Federal Legal Authority Analysis, the study makes getting Congressional approval for the merger appear painless and easy when in fact — as the BBG found out with their China plan — Congress is not likely to accept an effort by bureaucrats to expand their power if important government functions and foreign policy interests are threatened:

“In our opinion, subject to the qualifications discussed below, the BBG may continue, without amendment to the International Broadcasting Act, to make grants to consolidated entity equivalent to the grants currently made to the three Private Grantees. This would constitute a reprogramming and the Appropriations Act requires that the Committees on Appropriations be notified 15 days in advance of such reprogramming of funds. It is our opinion that the reprogramming of funds to provide grant funds to one consolidated grantee would be permissible and consistent with the International Broadcasting Act so long as the consolidated grantee will continue to perform the broadcasting and related functions currently performed by each of the Private Grantees.”

The Labor and Employment section provides an equally upbeat analysis:

“It does not appear that the proposed Transaction would pose any significant legal issues from a labor and employment law perspective with regard to current employees. In the United States, as a general rule, compensation, healthcare, retirement, pension and other benefits currently provided by the Grantees to employees may be changed as long as “vested rights” of employees are respected and the terms of the RFA’s collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) with the Newspaper Guild-Communication Workers of America (“CWA”) are taken into account as discussed below. To the extent any individual employees or executives are subject to an employment contract, the contractual obligations may result in additional costs in completing the Transaction if the Transaction would trigger a ‘termination.’”

In Transaction Structure section, the law firm gives the BBG various options for executing the merger but without going into any public policy concerns or possible difficulties:

“There are three basic ways that individual legal entities can structure a transaction to consolidate their operations under a single entity. First, one or more of the entities can merge into another existing entity, with that entity surviving; the non-surviving entities cease to exist at the effective date of the merger. Second, the entities can consolidate by each merging into a separate, newly created entity; in such a consolidation, the separate legal existence of each individual entity ends upon the effectiveness of the transaction and the newly created entity inherits the rights and obligations of each entity party to the consolidation. Third, one or more of the entities can transfer some or all of their assets to a single designated entity, either newly created or already in existence; following the sale, each seller entity then dissolves or continues to exist with minimal assets. It is also possible to use a combination of the techniques described above. For example, one entity might transfer most of its assets to a second entity (while keeping title to an asset that is difficult or time-consuming to transfer), while the third entity is merged into the second entity. Once the first entity’s final asset is able to be transferred to the second entity, the first entity can dissolve. These structuring considerations are routine and are typically addressed once due diligence has been performed on each participating entity’s assets and liabilities. In determining the appropriate structure for the Transaction the BBG should consider

(i) the corporate governance implications for the surviving entity in its state of incorporation,

(ii) the difficulty of transferring any important assets held by any of the Grantees,

(iii) the preservation of the brands and individual culture at each Grantee and

(iv) any statutory considerations raised by the relevant Grantee authorizing statutes. We note that, as discussed above, the International Broadcasting Act does not dictate one transaction structure over another. We note that a consolidation structure – one where there is a newly created consolidated entity – is sometimes used to reinforce the collaborative nature of a transaction and avoid the perception that one entity is absorbing another and being favored over another. Following a merger or consolidation, many companies opt to operate the constituent business operations as distinct divisions within one legal entity. This structure often allows companies to maximize the desired efficiencies while minimizing the impact of the transaction on brand value and operating culture. Thus, there could be a newly created entity with a broader, non-regional name and with three separate operating divisions named RFE/RL, RFA and MBN.”

The law firm does deserve some credit for advising the BBG that it “should carefully consider which transaction structure allows maximum efficiencies while preserving the brand and operating culture of each Grantee.” Of course, the legal analysis does not address the question whether the whole proposal would be good for American taxpayers and American interests abroad. Keep in mind that the BBG has not said how much the implementation of its five year strategic plan will cost. A separate study done by Deloitte indicated only minor savings from the merger itself but did not address any additional spending that BBG executives may be planning, as they most certainly do.

There is very little doubt that the BBG merger and privatization plan will be in the long run far more costly for U.S. taxpayers than the current arrangement. Turning the BBG into another NPR-like structure will not only shortchange foreign audiences and human rights victims abroad, it will also create yet another area of political controversy at home. The Administration and the Congress would be wise to put a stop to this proposal before it even gets off the ground. If, upon further reflection, the BBG would withdraw its plan, it would be even better. If they are politically smart, all BBG members should take that action and save themselves and the American people a lot of headaches and unnecessary expenses such the legal costs involved and the $1.3 Deloitte consulting contract, which includes $150,000 for travel. That money could be better spent on producing radio and TV broadcasts to countries like China and Russia.

Free Media Online president Ted Lipien who had worked for the Voice of America and U.S. international broadcasting for over 30 years in various journalistic, managerial, marketing and executive positions, provided FreeMediaOnline.org and BBG Watch websites with the following analysis:

“The decentralized model of U.S. international broadcasting with independent surrogate broadcasters and the Voice of America, each having a different mission and operating under different rules, served well the needs of the United States Government, the American people and radio listeners behind the Iron Curtain, as it now also serves information needs in countries like Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. It worked initially much better for Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, but once the Voice of America’s editorial independence was protected by law in 1976 and VOA news reporting decentralized during the Reagan Administration, the dual arrangement became even more effective in promoting human rights, media freedom and understanding of America.

After the United States Information Agency was abolished and the Broadcasting Board of Governors was created, this successful model was first weakened and may now be completely dismantled, with the Voice of America and U.S. public diplomacy being the primary losers. It would be great to have a BBC-like, journalistically independent international and domestic multimedia broadcaster, well-funded and easily identified abroad as the voice of the American people and to some degree the U.S. Government but also able to offer targeted and hard-hitting news and commentary to countries without free media.

But for a variety of historical and political reasons, this is not a good model for the United States. Privatization, centralization of news gathering and the removal of at least informal links between the Voice of America and the foreign policy community and U.S. public diplomacy will harm the cause of supporting media freedom, human rights and democracy. U.S. national security interests abroad will also be harmed by this proposal.

Someone, somewhere — whether they are U.S. diplomats, political figures, corporate officers, or journalists — will have to decide what goes into U.S. Government-funded broadcasts and to where they should be directed. No one with any knowledge of the history of successful public diplomacy wants to see interference with journalistic freedom. U.S. ambassadors and other State Department officials should not exercise a veto power over what goes on the air. But a complete divorce of U.S. international broadcasting from the experience of the U.S. Government’s foreign affairs community may not be good either for America and the world. The system of checks and balances that developed between U.S. Government broadcasters and Government officials toward the end of the Cold War, although far from perfect, gave the United States the ability to send both authoritative and journalistically bold messages targeted to specific countries. It might be wise to study this history before deciding on a new arrangement.”

Top BBG official predicts 'old white men' will lose jobs under merger plan

By BBGWatcher | November 21, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

“Old White Guys” – BBG Watch has learned from reliable sources that a top Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) official has written an email to a BBG member in which he brags about getting rid of “old white men” in anticipation of the BBG plan to merge some of its broadcasting entities — Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Middle East Broadcasting Netwoks (MBN) into a single corporate structure. We have learned subsequently that the actual quote was “old white guys” and was made in reference to the part of the organization under the official’s control. He is known, however, to be one of the very few enthusiastic supporters of the merger proposal and may have seen it as an opportunity to get a head start on personnel changes. Sources tell us that as someone with links to BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson, the official did not fear to lose his own job in the merger, but his remark may have damaged him beyond repair. Isaacson was reportedly horrified when he learned about it.

According to our sources, the email created a panic among BBG members who became afraid of a legal liability if the proposed merger goes forward and male employees who may lose their jobs decide to sue the BBG claiming race and gender discrimination.

Our sources tell us that a BBG member called for an urgent meeting at which the majority of members decided to reverse some recent personnel decisions which might be perceived as being directed against “old white males.” BBG members, who also serve on the boards of the surrogate broadcasting entities, even considered adopting a resolution expressing their opposition to any form of discrimination based on race, age, gender, religion, and national origin. In the end — we are told – a resolution was adopted although there was some discussion. One BBG member, who supported the official being discussed, reportedly stormed out of the meeting and had to be persuaded to return.

BBG Watch is not releasing the names of the individuals pending further confirmation of this story. The BBG merger plan remains highly controversial. It was evaluated by the Deloitte consulting firm which urged the BBG to proceed quickly to counter negative employee reaction. Deloitte is set to earn $1.3 million dollars if the plan goes forward.

The Deloitte study promises only minor savings. Our sources also told us that the heads of some of the broadcasting entities which would be affected by the merger informed the Board that they are not completely supportive of the plan as the Deloitte study implies.

The current administrative setup developed after World War II by prominent American foreign policy, military, and intelligence experts and supported by Congress grants the so-called “surrogate broadcasters” maximum programming and administrative independence to allow them to specialize in regional news gathering in support of democracy and human rights and to distance them from the U.S. Government. At the same time, the same group, also with the support of Congress, advocated keeping the Voice of America as the official broadcaster of the United States.

The merger plan supported by the BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson also anticipates de-Federalizing and privatizing the Voice of America. Isaacson, a former CNN Chairman, has a vision of turning BBG into a large, centralized news agency. Isaacson also wants to privatize the Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB), which oversees the operations of Radio and TV Martí from its headquarters in Miami, Florida. Radio and TV Martí provide news for people in Cuba, where media are controlled and highly censored by the authorities. Their de-Federalization would be viewed by Cubans in Cuba, Cuban Americans and many members of Congress as a major victory for the Castro regime.

A similar concept of centralized news gathering and centralized institutional structure was vigorously opposed by the early architects of U.S. international broadcasting as unsuitable for providing news and information to countries without free media. An overly-centralized system was kept at the Voice of America, where it diminished its effectiveness compared to the surrogate broadcasters who enjoyed considerable independence. The U.S. Congress granted VOA full editorial independence in 1976 while confirming its official role of the United States radio for international audiences. The centralized news gathering system at VOA was eventually modified during the Reagan Administration, allowing VOA foreign language services to gain the independence they needed to become more effective broadcasters.

While the surrogate independent radio model had among its early architects and supporters such famous Americans as General Dwight Eisenhower, General Charles Douglas (C.D.) Jackson, the hero of the Berlin Airlift General Lucius Clay, former U.S. Ambassador to Japan and former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew, the author of the containment policy George Kennan, U.S. intelligence specialist Frank Wisner, CIA Director Allen W. Dulles, Ambassador Arthur Bliss Lane and many other distinguished members, including Ronald Reagan, the current BBG plan was developed by bureaucrats who are completely unknown to the general public, as are most of the BBG members.

BBG Watch has learned that one of the authors of the BBG strategic plan may lose his current position for, among other things, not alerting BBG members to the opposition they encountered in Congress to their proposal to end all Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to China. We are told, however, that he will be moved to another job and given a raise at the time when due to his recommendations some VOA foreign language services are being closed down and their American news reporting and public diplomacy functions terminated. Top BBG officials have salaries well in excess of $100,000. One such salary could pay a good part of operating expenses of one small VOA foreign language service.

Only one BBG member Victor Ashe, who served as U.S. Ambassador to Poland, has foreign policy experience. He has expressed his reservations about the merger plan and the Deloitte study. The job of Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs who represents Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, an ex officio member, at BBG meetings has been recently vacant. Tara Sonenshine, the Executive Vice President of the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), had been nominated to this position by President Obama but her nomination has not yet been confirmed.

Ironically, all the architects of the current U.S. international broadcasting institutional setup and the members of Congress who supported it have been “old white men.”

Deloitte Tells BBG to Move Quickly with Consolidation – Free Media Online

By BBGWatcher | November 19, 2011 | Quotes | Comments Off

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” – Deloitte

“If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible,” is a conclusion of a consolidation study done by Deloitte, but the consulting firm recommends a quick action on the BBG plan to merge grantee broadcasters. Free Media Online has obtained a copy of the Grantee Merger Assessment done for the Broadcasting Board of Governors by Deloitte. It was announced at today’s BBG open meeting that the report will be posted on the BBG Strategy website. The report makes references to “language duplication” between VOA and the Grantees, which implies that there are no differences in mission between VOA and the Grantees. If VOA and the Grantees have different missions, then “language duplication” is a non-issue. If they have the same mission — which evidently they do not — then the logical step would be to combine VOA and the Grantees. Deloitte, however, did discover that VOA broadcasts may have a national security and foreign policy mission and is advocating a further study of the BBG’s de-Federalization proposal.

Here are some of the main elements of the report:

Key Findings:

Today RFE/RL, RFA and MBN are three separate private 501(c)(3) organizations with combined resources of approximately $240 million and approximately 2,000 full time employees and contractors. All have a common mission to act as a surrogate media outlet in countries that do not have an open media environment; additionally, unlike RFE/RL and RFA, MBN is charged with providing context about America, its people, and policies.

Aside from Arabic services to Iraq, there is no overlap in language services among the Grantees, or in bureau locations. With just a merger of the Grantees, there is no potential to eliminate duplication of language services beyond that already planned. A combined entity framework can set the foundation for achieving substantial synergies with respect to the large overlap with VOA language services, which is unanimously supported by all Grantee Presidents.

There are several potential benefits of a merger of the three grantee corporations:

- It would serve as a first step in the execution of the Board’s Strategic Plan that calls for consolidating and streamlining management and administrative infrastructure. A merger would create a single grantee management team which would facilitate coordination with the BBG in pursuit of its strategic objectives.

- It creates more financial transparency and demonstrates to stakeholders that BBG leadership is committed to allocating resources as efficiently as possible and eliminating waste – potentially garnering support and trust.

- It creates an enforceable structure for more formalized content sharing, advancing the Board’s strategy to harness original reporting from across the language services to create a global news service with rich programming.

- It creates resource savings over time with the elimination of duplicative administrative and technical infrastructures and pooled purchasing power (e.g., for equipment, services, and insurance). This is a key benefit in our current economic environment.

- Positive reaction from Congress if new services, technologies and broadcast medium can be achieved without an increase to the top line.

- Annual run rate savings of $9M, or about 10% can be achieved on approximately $90M of addressable spend which is approximately 38% of the aggregate Grantee budget.

Savings could expand to nearly $14M annually with aggressive facilities consolidation.

Risks of integrating the Grantee corporations include:

- Possible negative reaction from Congress if a merger of the Grantees impedes the flow of content to audiences.

- Uncertain result of merging a partially unionized workforce with non-unionized staff.

- A potentially broader impact of digital and physical security threats in a merged environment if not mitigated.

- Potential disruption to current foreign business licenses and relationships in host countries.

Over five years, the cumulative net savings from merging the Grantee organizations is estimated to be approximately $30M to $40M. There are cumulative savings of $35M to $50M available with one-time costs of $8M to $12M. The savings result from a small headcount reduction of approximately 45-50 resources, plus non-headcount savings related to sourcing efficiencies, and facilities and technology infrastructure consolidation. Longer term, there are opportunities for additional headcount reduction if facilities are more aggressively consolidated.

Conclusions:

Deloitte believes that the merging of the Grantees does have merit, and does make sense strategically and economically. We heard in numerous discussions with leaders across the Grantees that current structure is a product of the evolution of the Agency, is not ideal, and would not be the logical approach if one were starting fresh. We agree with that perspective. The current siloed structure is not an optimal foundation for the new strategic direction envisioned by the Board.

From an operational perspective, we see no roadblocks that cannot be overcome. The vast majority (around 75%) of the resources of the Grantees are devoted to content and programming, so their day to day roles will not change. Merging the administrative processes, policies, and supporting systems will be no more complicated here than in any other merger of a similar scale.

In the current economic environment, continuing to operate three separate organizations with redundant executive management teams, administrative infrastructures, audits, etc. seems to be an inefficient use of taxpayer resources. The potential annual savings of $9M to $14M could be redeployed toward journalistic initiatives that advance the Board strategic vision.

As with any merger there are risks associated with the potential decline in employee morale. These can be mitigated by swift decision-making and a strong change management program.

Delaying a decision about the path forward will create uncertainty which can dampen employee morale. In addition, delays will stall the advancement of the Board’s strategic plan and cause the organization to miss out on significant potential savings.

Recommendations and Next Steps:

We recommend that the Board approve the merger of the Grantees, and proceed with the design of the new organization and the implementation planning. Based on a typical merger timeframe of about 6 months from a decision, we believe that the Board should target a “Day 1” in July 2012.

To pursue the larger savings available by reducing duplication of language services, as noted earlier and broadly supported by Grantee leadership, we recommend commencing a study on the feasibility, benefits and costs of VOA/OCB de-federalization, reportable at the Board’s March 2012 meeting to explore 3 items:

1. The “quick hit” opportunities available from partially integrating some VOA/OCB operations into the Grantee structure without de-federalization. The objective of this study would be to identify initiatives that could be implemented in parallel with the Day
1 of the Grantee merger in July 2012.

2. The next tranche of opportunities that would become feasible in FY13 without de-federalization.

3. The feasibility of VOA/OCB de-federalization, including benefits, risks, and financial implications.

Key Principles:

There were several key principles that were consistently articulated throughout the visioning discussions with the Grantees. These are things that all believed should be the ‘guard rails’ of any potential integration.

There should be no change in the journalistic mission of the organizations – the current markets and audiences should continue to be served with the content appropriate for them.

The existing market-facing brands should remain intact as they are critical to success. The relationship between the brands and the grantee entity is different across the three organizations. For MBN, the brands (Alhurra, Radio Sawa, Afia Darfur) are the externally known identities, while for Radio Free Asia the brand and the organization are one in the same across its market. RFE/RL has individual brands by service that will be critical to maintain.

The new organization should maintain an entrepreneurial spirit and ability to remain nimble; avoiding bureaucracy.

Risks:

There are five primary potential risks that were identified from discussions with the Grantees.

Congressional reaction:

There is uncertainty as to reaction from Congress. The proposed merger has positive actions in doing more with less, but has the potential to disrupt content if not managed carefully.

Cultural differences:

The three organizations have cultural differences. MBN is a primarily a television focused entity and produces content in a single language , Arabic. RFE/RL and RFA are primarily radio entities (though expanding into other media) and produce content in many languages. Because RFA is much smaller in employee count and budget, it sees itself as a more tightly knit community than the others. It also operates with the least sophisticated resources of the three (e.g. production facilities, technical resources). Bringing together the cultures of these three organizations will require a focused change management effort. Mergers bring uncertainty and change, so there is a possibility that employee morale could suffer resulting in an increased risk of employee turnover. Decision-making delays can exacerbate this situation; employees who are uncertain of the path forward and their role (or lack thereof) in the new organization may be more likely to seek other opportunities.

Unions:

A significant portion of RFA’s workforce is unionized, while RFE/RL has 8 unionized employees and MBN has no unions. A deliberate plan is required to ensure that all parties’ interests are represented in the planning.

Security:

Because of the nature of their work, each organization comes under threat (both physical and digital). Today, when one organization is attacked, the others are unaffected. If the organizations are combined, a threat could affect the scope of the entire operation. For example, if systems are combined and there is a digital attack inspired by RFA’s content, programming and employees in the Middle East and Europe could be affected as well. That said, there are mitigation strategies that could be employed to address this risk.

Staff Reductions:

Management Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13-14 high-level management staff positions, including two Presidents, several VPs and other management support roles. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new leadership structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Finance/Admin Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 14-15 finance/admin staff positions, including finance management, accounting, and procurement personnel. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new finance organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

HR Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation is not estimated to reduce overall headcount for HR in the near term, however would likely result in a different mix of positions required -eliminating for example two Director Roles, but increasing the staff at various locations should no facility changes be assumed. The consolidation is likely to require job roles and benefits plans to be redefined and broadly, and HR policy will need to be revisited. If facilities consolidation occurs, there may be an opportunity to reduce 1-2 HR positions.

Facilities Staff Reductions – Real estate consolidation could yield approximately 3-5 facilities staff headcount reductions. In the near term for example, savings would result from offices in the Washington, DC metro area being consolidated. These savings could be realized quickly if existing space is subleased and facilities consolidation begins upon execution of the merger. If facilities consolidation is delayed until the nearest term leases expire, savings will begin to be realized in FY14 and fully realized in FY15.

Communications – Grantee consolidation could eliminate 2-3 communications positions. These savings could begin to be as soon as the new communications organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging.

Technology Staff Reductions – Grantee consolidation could eliminate an estimated 13 technology staff positions . These savings could begin to be realized as soon as the new technology organization structure is executed, and fully realized in the first full fiscal year after merging. The location/facilities strategy will affect the degree of opportunity in this area. On-site technical resources are required in facilities where production takes place and where there are significant groups of users. Because of the 24×7 nature of some of the operations, shifts are also required which increases overall staffing needs. With fewer locations, it may be possible to streamline the technical staff by up to 25 resources.

Costs to Achieve Staff Reductions – Estimated costs to achieve the identified headcount reduction savings is approximately $2.1M to $2.8M in severance costs. The timing of the severance costs will depend on the execution date of the merger and how aggressively the organization chooses to reduce headcount.

Observations on De-federalization of VOA/OCB and on TSI

VOA, OCB, and BBG/IBB make up approximately $500M (about 66%) of the overall spend on US International Broadcasting, or more than double the spend of the Grantee organizations combined. A full view of synergies opportunities across US International Broadcasting cannot be understood until these organizations are reviewed as well.

Throughout the assessment period, several themes emerged from the discussion regarding VOA, OCB and BBG/IBB:

While there are almost no content overlaps among the Grantees, there are significant overlaps with VOA. The Grantees believe that magnitude of the synergies available by addressing this overlap is greater than the benefits to be gained by just integrating the three Grantees.

All senior Grantee leadership indicated that the merger of the Grantees had merit if VOA was included due to the potential savings resulting from elimination of language service duplication.

It is unclear whether de-federalizing VOA is actually feasible or even desirable. Additional work is required to determine the pros and cons, and financial impact. Issues that must be included in the study are:

Potential loss of major backers:

BBG funding is for a Voice of America that could be perceived as a governmental, rather than an NGO function.

National security:

If VOA constitutes communications essential to national security, privatization may not be feasible.

In the near term, there are opportunities to find efficiencies with VOA, such as co-location to reduce costs. These opportunities are being addressed on an ad hoc basis.

The Grantees have an interest in taking on some of the distribution functions of TSI, especially if TSI is considering outsourcing them to a 3rd party. The Grantees would like to have the opportunity to ‘bid’ on this work before it goes to a 3rd party as they believe they can offer more cost effective solutions. They also would prefer to have great control over the distribution function to ensure their market needs are met.

There is question of whether the TSI backbone transmission infrastructure could be more efficiently operated by a grantee, rather than federal, organization. A reversal of the client/provider relationship between the federal and non-federal organizations could be explored in terms of efficiencies.

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: The Numbers Game

By The Federalist | November 18, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has announced that its own surveys (These are not completely independent surveys. They are produced by a contractor, InterMedia, for whom the BBG has been for years the only major client. The two depend on one another to prove success.) show an increase in audience size. A bigger audience is always a good news, but in general the BBG’s commercial media mentality and its preoccupation with increasing its reach where it is easy at the expense of serving audiences in countries like Russia and China, where it is difficult, should raise an alarm. When countries like Russia and China prevent the BBG from broadcasting internally and use internal censorship, BBG executives respond by proposing the elimination of Voice of America radio and television broadcasts to these countries. No doubt the BBG can get bigger numbers in less authoritarian nations, but is it wise? And is it wise to propose Internet-only VOA news delivery to China, a country that has the best Internet censorship and hacking capabilities in the world?

Our regular contributor, The Federalist, also makes other points on the BBG’s audience size announcement.

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: The Numbers Game
by The Federalist

In its press release of November 15, 2011 the BBG claims an audience increase of 22 million to a projected total of 187 million people, based on its “audience data.”

Here is a short primer on “the numbers game.”

Everything starts with the questions asked in the survey. The BBG does not provide a breakdown of the questions asked in the press release or in its “research methodology.” This is important because no one can examine how the BBG collates the responses.

Typically, survey questions will provide a range of questions. Within that range will be responses that would collectively be categorized as positive and perhaps one or two responses that would be categorized as negative. Depending on the intended outcome that the BBG wants to demonstrate, one method used could be to lump all the positives together, particularly if collectively they represent a positive aggregate response.

Everyone inside the Cohen Building knows that surveys are an inexact process. This is especially the case when conducting surveys in authoritarian or controlled societies. A lot also has to do with how the survey is conducted, often over the telephone. If people live in a controlled society, the prudent thing to do is to be judicious in how one responds to anonymous surveys. Thus, depending on how things are going in the target area, the responses could be more or less of an accurate representation of respondent habits.

One would also need to know where surveys were conducted: were they concentrated in major urban population centers or did they include respondents in the interior regions of the countries surveyed?

All this being said, let us work with the numbers the BBG provides.

If the BBG numbers are accurate, an audience of 187 million people is not to be taken lightly (for reasons we will get to below).

At the same time, one needs to look at the big picture in the world of numbers. For example:

The total global population is put at about 7 billion.

Of that number, an estimated 2 billion are at the subsistence level.

In China, latest estimates place the population at over 1.3 billion.

In short, 187 million can get lost in the cacophony of the 7 billion.

Next, one should examine the statements made in the press release in support of its survey findings.

“…in Egypt, where Alhurra TV doubled its weekly audience to 15% in tandem with the Arab Spring…”

The question here is how does this compare to other broadcasters, including the regional leader, al-Jazeera TV? The BBG press release doesn’t say. This is a key point. If the BBG audience is fractionally less than that of al-Jazeera, public opinion has moved away from that projected by the United States. Further, in our view, the so-called “Arab Spring” is over. This number could be artificially inflated by momentary events.

Also, the BBG doesn’t say how Alhurra TV fares in the region as a whole. That would be important to see if Alhurra TV is making inroads elsewhere. Since the BBG press release is silent on the point, we can presume that it is not.

“Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming;”

Those pesky Iranians. They continue to prove themselves adept at interdiction technology.

But beyond that, another question is how much of the audience loss may be due more to lack of interest than as much to government counter-measures? Keep in mind that the BBG claims that its Farsi-language “Parazit” is widely popular in Iran. One would think that if this were indeed true, it would be reflected in its survey results. Coupled with other agency research on Iran, what may be more the case is that the programs no longer have resonance with an Iranian audience. Further, one must also consider the internal conflict with the Persian News Network (PNN) which some writers allege has become a toady for the regime in Tehran.

Also keep in mind that PNN, largely television based, represents a substantial budgetary “gas guzzler” for the BBG.

We’re saving the best for last.

“While radio remains the BBG’s number one media platform, reaching 106 million people per week, television’s growth puts it 97 million people. The Internet audience was approximately 10 million, with the largest online audiences measured in Iraq, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran.”

Bingo!

There’s no “while” about it. Radio is still king.

But most important of all is this:

Even if you take the BBG numbers at face value, when you examine them in the context of the BBG “strategic plan,” you can clearly see its disaster in the making.

If you eliminate radio broadcasting, as it is the clear intent of the BBG strategic plan, you lose over half of your audience. That 187 million becomes 81 million.

The television component is no bargain. It is the most expensive production and delivery broadcast medium, requiring more people, more production time, satellite time and fees, etc. In terms of cost, it is the least sustainable of the media choices available to the BBG. Plus, one should keep in mind, as the BBG press release points out, it is vulnerable to interdiction, both in terms of blocking satellite channels and in terms of downlink requirements at the receiving end. While people use satellite dishes around the world, the fact remains that certain regimes periodically confiscate private satellite dishes, in part just because they can. Also, in those places where the BBG relies upon placement on television stations (they are not really affiliates in the same use of the word here in the US), these stations often walk a fine line with the sitting governments. Put something on the air that someone doesn’t like and good-bye BBG programs or risk the loss of one’s license and even invite some jail time if the regime is offended enough.

Last but definitely not least, its global Internet audience is tagged at 10 million. If the BBG carries through with its plans to use the Internet as its sole platform for audio, video and text, it will have the equivalent of no audience.

About 70 years into US international broadcasting, how long will it take the BBG to move its Internet audience to a size approximating its current radio audience, particularly when one notes the ability of third parties to engage effectively in cyber warfare and/or, as in the case with China, to have well-established controls to block websites the government deems as undesirable. It is complete fiction to believe that the BBG will have at its command an impenetrable cyber defense against these attacks.

And there is another thing. The BBG has to pay to be posted to search engines. Lose the search engines and there goes the recognition and access.

“Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming; and Pakistan, where the media market is increasingly fragmented and use of radio is declining.”

This statement may not be truly representative of the situational reality. The truth of the matter is that all global media markets are increasingly fragmented. This is a significant issue when one considers the BBG claim that its intended outcome is to be “the leading global news network.”

With specific regard to Pakistan, audience loss may have more to do with over-heated anti-American sentiment and a whole lot less to do with the assertion that “use of radio is declining.” It is well known that the Taliban make considerable use of radio in the border areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan. It is well known that the Pakistanis have become increasingly uneasy with unilateral US military actions within this territory. All of these things may have a whole lot more to do with the decline in the BBG’s audience in Pakistan.

Saying that “use of radio is declining” in Pakistan also seemingly contradicts the BBG effort with its “Radio Deewa” and “Radio Aap ki Dunyaa” projects in the region.

Let’s go back to the numbers:

The BBG is laying claim that the intended goal of its “new” strategic plan is to become the world’s leading global news network. What does that mean? How much of that 7 billion in total world population puts the BBG in the hunt to validate that claim? Hovering around 200 million according to its claimed global audience numbers, it’s a long haul to reach anything approximating a reasonable suggestion that the BBG is a “leading global news network.”

And keep in mind that if the BBG carries out its intended destruction of US Government international radio broadcasting, its audience gets cut by more than half. All of those people aren’t going to run to the Internet. That lesson was learned in Russia, contrary to the outrageous claims by the BBG of Russian audience increases. The BBG’s own research showed that its audience in Russia fell off a cliff when it ended its direct VOA Russian radio broadcasts in 2008.

The BBG has set a deadline of 2016 (its Soviet-style five-year plan) to reach its intended goals. Those goals, based on the BBG’s own numbers, would actually represent a substantially diminished audience with the loss of radio broadcasting. VOA director David Ensor essentially reiterated those goals in a recent C-SPAN television interview.

How does this intended outcome benefit the United States? How does this intended outcome represent a judicious use of US taxpayer money? Unfortunately, to all appearances the answer is” it doesn’t.

In the end, audience size aside, it all comes down to effectiveness. The BBG already a sizable “global news network” through its many and varied entities. And still, with all these assets, its penetration of global publics remains challenged.

One last thing: check the numbers of the press release:

106 million radio audience.
97 million television audience.
10 million Internet audience.

Total: 213 million.

That’s more than 187 million at the opening of the press release.

Well, we’ll give the BBG the difference. It’s still not enough to be “the leading global news network.”

Far from it.

The Federalist
November 16, 2011

###

From the BBG official website:

BBG Broadcasts Reach Record Audiences
(WASHINGTON, D.C.—November 15, 2011) U.S. government funded international broadcasters reached an estimated 187 million people every week in 2011, an increase of 22 million from last year’s figure, according to new audience data being made public by the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

“We are pleased that people the world over are responding in unprecedented numbers to our high-quality journalism and active audience engagement,” said BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson. “The ability of our broadcasters to inform, engage and connect audiences through traditional and social media alike lie behind these impressive results and will be essential to driving future audience reach and impact.”

The record numbers, released in the BBG Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), measure the combined audience of the Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), Radio and TV Martí, Radio Free Asia (RFA) and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks (Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa). The report details impact on audiences around the globe including people in the world’s most repressive media and political environments.

The BBG’s PAR follows on the heels of BBG’s latest strategic plan, Impact through Innovation and Integration, which sets an over-arching objective of making BBG the world’s leading international news agency working to foster freedom and democracy with the goal of reaching 216 million people weekly by 2016.

This year there were significant audience increases in Afghanistan, where RFE/RL and VOA together reach 75% of adults weekly; in Egypt, where Alhurra TV doubled its weekly audience to 15% in tandem with the Arab Spring; and in Indonesia, where VOA’s aggressive affiliate strategy has boosted weekly audiences to some 38 million adults.

Audiences in many other strategically relevant countries held strong. In Nigeria, VOA retains its position as a news source of record with 23 million weekly listeners. In Burma, VOA and RFA reach 26% and 24% of adults, respectively, amounting to a weekly audience of 10 million.

Audience declines took place notably in Iran, where the government continues aggressive jamming of every BBG transmission platform, including satellite uplink jamming; and Pakistan, where the media market is increasingly fragmented and use of radio is declining.

While radio remains the BBG’s number one media platform, reaching 106 million people per week, television’s growth puts it at 97 million people. The Internet audience was approximately 10 million, with the largest online audiences measured in Iraq, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran.

Download 2011 Performance and Accountability Report (PDF)

BBG 2011 Audience Overview (PDF)

BBG Research Methodology (PDF)

Overhaul Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Management – Helle Dale, Heritage Foundation

By BBGWatcher | November 8, 2011 | Uncategorized | Comments Off

Dr. Helle Dale of the Heritage Foundation is once again calling for a comprehensive overhaul of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. “Congress should undertake much overdue oversight of the management practices and structures of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). U.S. international broadcasting needs professional management and a transparent structure and does not have it at the moment, Dr. Dale posted on the Heritage Foundation website: Congress Should Overhaul BBG Management. She called the BBG “consistently inconsistent” and “the U.S. government’s most dysfunctional agency.”

Dr. Dale also describes the problem of low employee morale, which had been raised at the BBG open meeting last month by BBG member Ambassador Victor Ashe.

“Employees sometimes find Web sites blocked that contain content critical of the BBG. Management is so fearful of leaks to the Hill and the media that employees have occasionally been directed not to bring notepads or pencils to staff meetings. In the case of VOA’s China service, producers were warned by management against covering any congressional hearings relating to the decision to close down the China service. VOA personnel have also been warned against contacting the State Department despite the fact that State is actually a stakeholder in international broadcasting, as the Secretary of State sits on the BBG itself.”

In conclusion of her article, Dr. Dale wrote: “The United States has to retool and reinvigorate its most important communications tools—its international broadcasters—in order to compete.”

Read full report.

All posts tagged International Broadcasting

CUSIB’s Ted Lipien warns against diminished public stake in U.S. international broadcasting

U.S. official Victor Ashe calls for keeping a radio facility capable of reaching China

Voice of America supporters in China say VOA radio broadcasts are needed

The Broadcasting Board of Governors: Six Minutes to Armageddon

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: Reading the Deloitte Report

Legal analysis of BBG merger plan pays minimal attention to political, legislative and journalistic pitfalls

Top BBG official predicts 'old white men' will lose jobs under merger plan

Deloitte Tells BBG to Move Quickly with Consolidation – Free Media Online

US International Broadcasting and the BBG: The Numbers Game

Overhaul Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Management – Helle Dale, Heritage Foundation

U.S. Taxpayers Pay for Spreading Racist Views on Radio Liberty in Russia

Citizen Journalists in Belarus Tell Election Story to Voice of America but VOA Fails to Deliver News Back to Belarus

Kremlin Can’t Pursue War Against Internet Without Hackers, Expert Says, But This Is No Consolation for Voice of America

Broadcasting Board of Governors Tried to Hire John Cochran for a Public Relations Job While Cutting Voice of America Radio to Russia

RFE/RL Has Lost Its Uniqueness Warns Former Director of Radio Liberty's Russian Service

CUSIB’s Ted Lipien warns against diminished public stake in U.S. international broadcasting

BBG Watch stories added to TedLipien.com

Samizdat at Radio Free Europe – Radio Liberty describes discrimination against foreigners, women and ‘old white guys’

Top China-Watcher Dr. Willy Lam supports continuing Voice of America Chinese broadcasts

BBG Watch most popular posts focus on mismanagement at Broadcasting Board of Governors

Anonymous: This is correct? How is he justifying this? To retain these employee...

Brahna: Like too many others, Mr. Lobo fell into step, following "past practic...

Anonymous: Horsecrap. Nothing says SES members have to get bonuses. Anyone earn...

VOA contractor: I am very happy to see the POV director at VOA has posted a survey lin...

Anonymous1: You're right. it is truly extraordinary. Victor Ashe is a courageous...

Blogroll

My Photostream

February 2012
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Jan
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29

All posts tagged International Broadcasting

Blogroll

Login

My Photostream