• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

The VOA management coming soon in 2017

Y2kTheNewOldies

Y2kTheNewOldies

Walk of Fame Participant
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38284655

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-voice-of-america-232442

http://www.voanews.com/a/new-law-would-reorganize-voa-other-us-government/3635977.html

Funding and other issues coming soon to VOA in 2017

A US government-funded news service says editorial independence won't be at risk amid a raft of changes. Journalist Adam Harris looks at what Voice of America means to Americans and the rest of the world.
The director of the Broadcast Board of Governors (BBG) is promising the staff of Voice of America (VOA) and other partners that their editorial "firewall" with US policy makers "remains sacrosanct" despite a legislative change to its structure.
A new defence bill has raised concerns about the oversight of VOA and its affiliates, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Office of Cuba Broadcasting, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network.
The BBG was created to act as "a firewall between US government policymakers and the journalists", as a way to protect editorial independence.
But the new legislation concentrates power within the BBG in the hands of a chief executive, appointed by the president and approved by the Senate.
The change caused alarm that future presidents could use the networks, which reach an audience of 287 million people across 100 countries in 61 languages, as a powerful propaganda tool.
In the e-mail, which was provided to the BBC, VOA director Amanda Bennett told staffers that the "legislation makes no change to BBG's statutory firewall," meant to act as a buffer between the government and the newsroom.
"The firewall remains sacrosanct and completely in force, and will continue to ensure, without exception, the professional independence of our journalists and broadcasters," Bennett wrote, adding that the chief executive would be "legally required to abide by and oversee the firewall".
Voice of America launched in 1942 as an alternative designed to combat Nazi and Japanese propaganda. Its first broadcast - made on a transmitter loaned to the United States by the BBC - stated a modest purpose.
"Today, and daily from now on, we shall speak to you about America and the war," said journalist William Harlan Hale. "The news may be good for us. The news may be bad. But we shall tell you the truth."
Click to expand...
 
I'm curious as to what the stated rationale was for this change.

Was there a problem with the prior structure?
 
umfan said:
I'm curious as to what the stated rationale was for this change.

Was there a problem with the prior structure?
Click to expand...

The "rationale" apparently is to create or strengthen the "firewall." The "rationale" for that would be to keep The Donald from getting is grubby mitts on the VOA and turning it into a pure propaganda agency, like Tricky Dick tried to do.
 
The proposed change, on the surface, would appear to make it more, not less, likely that the Executive Branch could influence content.
 
In this site, VOA is possibly in a gray area, as it talks about a radio station, talking about politics and also being powered by the government. I would rather not jump the line from radio to politics, but the VOA can make choices it needs to do to make it happy.
 
Oscar Madison said:
The "rationale" apparently is to create or strengthen the "firewall." The "rationale" for that would be to keep The Donald from getting is grubby mitts on the VOA and turning it into a pure propaganda agency, like Tricky Dick tried to do.
Click to expand...

The VOA has always been a "propaganda" agency. While it has also always been the least critical of other forms of government and, perhaps, the least judgemental of the major short-wave broadcasters, its expressed purpose was to demonstrate democracy in action. That, in itself, is an endorsement of the US political system and is, therefore, propaganda.

Perhaps you have not ever lived in another country where folks compared the news and commentary of the VOA against similar efforts from Peking, London, Moscow and elsewhere. Otherwise, you'd know that much of the intended audience very much considers the VOA to be the mouthpiece of American government and is noted for its pro-capitalist and even "pro Yankee imperialist" points of view.
 
DavidEduardo said:


The VOA has always been a "propaganda" agency. While it has also always been the least critical of other forms of government and, perhaps, the least judgemental of the major short-wave broadcasters, its expressed purpose was to demonstrate democracy in action. That, in itself, is an endorsement of the US political system and is, therefore, propaganda.

Perhaps you have not ever lived in another country where folks compared the news and commentary of the VOA against similar efforts from Peking, London, Moscow and elsewhere. Otherwise, you'd know that much of the intended audience very much considers the VOA to be the mouthpiece of American government and is noted for its pro-capitalist and even "pro Yankee imperialist" points of view.
Click to expand...

So, did they rate VOA programming on a par with Radio Moscow's and Radio Peking's? That would indicate to me that the VOA was failing in much of its stated mission. And how did they feel about the dumbed-down, slow "Special English" used in some VOA programming? That they were being talked down to or -- as the VOA intended -- that they were being given help learning English?
 
Last edited:
CTListener said:
How did they feel about the dumbed-down, slow "Special English" used in some VOA programming? That they were being talked down to or -- as the VOA intended -- that they were being given help learning English?
Click to expand...

Mostly it was considered to be a service helpful in learning English. In the places where I lived, knowing English was considered important and anyone in the middle class or above was motivated to learn the basics, at least.
 
CTListener said:
So, did they rate VOA programming on a par with Radio Moscow's and Radio Peking's? That would indicate to me that the VOA was failing in much of its stated mission.
Click to expand...


I'd have generally lumped Radio Moscow's programming into the fiction department and perhaps Radio Peking a close second.

I will agree with David's assessment that VOA has been a propaganda agency, although I'd suggest it didn't necessarily have the negative aspect that tends to be associated with the dictionary definition of propaganda.

Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.

I always thought of VOA being the mission of selling America, in the sense of taking our message to the world about American ideals regarding democracy, human rights and basic freedoms, to name a few. But note that I also believe the news side of VOA has a mission, as presented by William Harlan Hale, 1st VOA Broadcast (1942),

“The news may be good. The news may be bad. We shall tell you the truth."


Perhaps the entertainment and information side of VOA has a little more flexibility on the good and bad, but even then, the VOA programming tends to be pretty fair and balanced.





CTListener said:
And how did they feel about the dumbed-down, slow "Special English" used in some VOA programming? That they were being talked down to or -- as the VOA intended -- that they were being given help learning English?
Click to expand...

Special English isn't dumbed down, but uses a far more limited vocabulary and a slower reading rate intended for those who are learning English and have limited English skills. If that meets your definition of being dumbed down, well, I guess it is, but the intent of any of the programs done in Special English is to educate the listener and as their English language skills improve, they move into listening to the regular English language programing.

VOA also runs "New Dynamic English" and "Functioning in Business" in addition to the Special English programing for those who want to add to their English language skills and their knowledge of how many people communicate in business and daily activities.
 
RadioFan2J3 said:


I always thought of VOA being the mission of selling America, in the sense of taking our message to the world about American ideals regarding democracy, human rights and basic freedoms, to name a few.
Click to expand...

Excellent way of saying it.

"Selling" is propaganda. In fact, in most of the romance languages make no differentiation between "propaganda" and "advertising" and "publicity".

Even if "selling" just means showing the things we are proud of, VOA is a propaganda machine. While the news may cover our defects as a nation, we don't expect the VOA to specifically do programming under the "here's more about what's wrong with us."
 
DavidEduardo said:
Even if "selling" just means showing the things we are proud of, VOA is a propaganda machine. While the news may cover our defects as a nation, we don't expect the VOA to specifically do programming under the "here's more about what's wrong with us."
Click to expand...

We also don't expect them to lie just to make some politician happy. The VOA charter, signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford, requires VOA to "serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news" and "be accurate, objective and comprehensive". All they have to do is follow those three words, and that will say more about who we are as a people and a country than anything else.

Perhaps one of the best ambassadors the US ever had was Willis Conover, who hosted a jazz show for The Voice for many years. He represented American culture to the world. He may have been a propagandist, but he gave a lot of jazz musicians worldwide careers at a time when they couldn't make a living in their home country.
 
TheBigA said:
We also don't expect them to lie just to make some politician happy. The VOA charter, signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford, requires VOA to "serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news" and "be accurate, objective and comprehensive". All they have to do is follow those three words, and that will say more about who we are as a people and a country than anything else.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. I do hope that at least the news side of VOA can maintain those words of the charter.

TheBigA said:
Perhaps one of the best ambassadors the US ever had was Willis Conover, who hosted a jazz show for The Voice for many years. He represented American culture to the world. He may have been a propagandist, but he gave a lot of jazz musicians worldwide careers at a time when they couldn't make a living in their home country.
Click to expand...

Very few people, relatively speaking, in the United States knew of him, but he was well known outside the United States.

A little trivia about Willis Conover. He was never a VOA employee. He was a contractor, renewing his contract each year for the near 40 years that he was associated with the Voice.

The Voice had and probably still has a few foreign language voicers who are contractors. They used to be referred to as POVs, purchase order vendors, but probably the correct term is a personal services contractor. Conover was probably one of only a few, and perhaps the only English speaking air person who was not an employee.
 
Last edited:
I can remember Harold Camping's Family Radio doing "Special English" on shortwave.....reading the King James Bible slowly.
 
RadioFan2J3 said:
Very few people, relatively speaking, in the United States knew of him, but he was well known outside the United States.
Click to expand...

The other popular host was Judy Massa. She brought country music to the rest of the world, and her show led to the popularization of American country music in Europe, Africa, and Japan.
 
RadioFan2J3 said:

The Voice had and probably still has a few foreign language voicers who are contractors. They used to be referred to as POVs, purchase order vendors, but probably the correct term is a personal services contractor.
Click to expand...

Using contract personnel is a relatively common part of ongoing VOA operations. Going back to 1985 I have done four or five separate projects for them that way. I turned down the last one that came up because the massive amount of paperwork involved for a small amount of money was just not worth it.

Similarly, I know a number of people who have worked the same way for offshoots of the same agency on projects like Radio Sawa, Radio Martí, etc.
 
DavidEduardo said:


Using contract personnel is a relatively common part of ongoing VOA operations. Going back to 1985 I have done four or five separate projects for them that way. I turned down the last one that came up because the massive amount of paperwork involved for a small amount of money was just not worth it.
Click to expand...



Yes, there are a fair number of folks in the logistics and support side of BBG who are contractors. Conover was one of the very few English voicers who were not direct hire Federal employees.


DavidEduardo said:

Similarly, I know a number of people who have worked the same way for offshoots of the same agency on projects like Radio Sawa, Radio Martí, etc.
Click to expand...


I think most of the Office of Cuba Broadcasting folks are Federal employees, but a number of the other "radios" are grantee organizations and few, if any, of those employees are actually Federal employees. They are employees of the grantee organization.
 
DavidEduardo said:
Using contract personnel is a relatively common part of ongoing VOA operations.
Click to expand...

And fairly common throughout government work. With constant pressure in Congress to limit the size of government, it's been easier to get money approved for work done by outside contractors than by hiring new employees.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom