BBC cuts 450 newsroom jobs in cost-cutting move

[DavidEduardo]

Not exactly. BBC was intended as a journalistic source and not more than that.
Voice of America was created to spread the American viewpoint into other parts of the world
(propaganda, if you will).

That served a strategic purpose during the Cold War. But the primary goals of the two
institutions are rather different.

It's actually the opposite.

The VOA and its associated services like Radio Mart?* are intended to be impartial and are not intended to spread any "viewpoint" but, instead, facts.

The purpose of VOA news is to present factual, opinionated stories. When I did, twice, the annual reviews of Radio Marti, part of the job was to score "impartiality" and "clarity" of the news coverage.

 

[BMR]

Not exactly. BBC was intended as a journalistic source and not more than that.
Voice of America was created to spread the American viewpoint into other parts of the world
(propaganda, if you will).

That served a strategic purpose during the Cold War. But the primary goals of the two
institutions are rather different.

Hmm. In theory you are right, and indeed in the 80s the BBC was less openly propagandistic than VOA.

However in practice the BBC World Service was until recently funded by the British government, and it did have the unwritten aim of expanding British 'soft power'. And both stations undoubtedly played a role in 'winning' the cold war.

 

[FreddyE1977]

It's actually the opposite.

The VOA and its associated services like Radio Mart?* are intended to be impartial and are not intended to spread any "viewpoint" but, instead, facts.

The purpose of VOA news is to present factual, opinionated stories. When I did, twice, the annual reviews of Radio Marti, part of the job was to score "impartiality" and "clarity" of the news coverage.

I'm sorry. I just don't believe that the government would plow tens of millions of dollars into
such an enterprise with the intent that it be "wholly impartial". There is always an agenda
whether we care to recognize that fact or not.

 

[BMR]

I'm sorry. I just don't believe that the government would plow tens of millions of dollars into
such an enterprise with the intent that it be "wholly impartial". There is always an agenda
whether we care to recognize that fact or not.

Absolutely true......and that goes for the BBC World Service too.

 

[TheBigA]

I'm sorry. I just don't believe that the government would plow tens of millions of dollars into
such an enterprise with the intent that it be "wholly impartial".

Depends on what you mean by "the government." There are a lot of moving parts.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The law that established VOA actually prohibits them from distributing their programming domestically.
Which is pretty much an open admission that they are producing propaganda. At the time propagandizing
people with their own tax dollars would have created a huge outcry.

 

[TheBigA]

The law that established VOA actually prohibits them from distributing their programming domestically.
Which is pretty much an open admission that they are producing propaganda.

Huh? What are you talking about? That has absolutely nothing to do with it. It would have been a violation of the Communications Act of 1934.

Those rules only apply to broadcasting. Any American can see VOA News by going to www.voanews.com.

 

[DavidEduardo]

The law that established VOA actually prohibits them from distributing their programming domestically.
Which is pretty much an open admission that they are producing propaganda. At the time propagandizing
people with their own tax dollars would have created a huge outcry.

Remember, the VOA for its first many decades, broadcast only on shortwave. The US never was a mass shortwave listening nations, and the FCC limited AM power to just 50 kw to avoid anything close to regional or national coverage due to its focus on local community service.

Wikipedia says, in part:

"VOA was established in 1942, and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103-415) was signed into law in 1976 by President Ford.The charter contains its mission "to broadcast accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information to an international audience", and it defines the legally mandated standards in the VOA journalistic code.[SUP]"

Since the VOA is not licensed by the FCC, and most of its transmitters were located outside the US, it purposely did not serve the domestic market. It was always listenable due to those transmitter that were in the US, but the charter established it as an international service, not a domestic one.

The main interest of the US Government in early years was not to give the appearance that the VOA was "competing" domestically; remember that the US did not have the equivalents of state broadcasters like the BBC early on. NPR came about late in radio's life and was not established as a licensee of transmitters even then.

In any case, like the BBC, the VOA is hardly a "propagandizer". As someone who live the majority of his years outside the US States, I often depended on the VOA and other short-wave broadcasters for information. The VOA was always the least prone to propagandizing, followed closely by the BBC and CBC. It's fame was is impartiality and fairness.

In fact, I did several of the congressionally mandated annual evaluations of Radio Marti, also a US government radio service. Its charter demanded fairness and accuracy in reporting, and propagandizing was prohibited and my job was, in no small part, to evaluate compliance with this aspect of the charter.

[/SUP]

 

[TheBigA]

NPR came about late in radio's life and was not established as a licensee of transmitters even then.

For the same reason. BTW NPR's currect CEO John Lansing was previously the head of the agency that oversees VOA.

Ironic that critics attack both NPR and the BBC for being the opposite of propaganda.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The most effective of all propaganda is that propaganda which denies that it's propaganda.

 

[CTListener]

The most effective of all propaganda is that propaganda which denies that it's propaganda.

I could never understand why the Nazis actually put "propaganda" right in the name of the ministry headed by Josef Goebbels -- Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. I mean, why do you tell the nation that what they're about to hear is propaganda?

 

[TheBigA]

The most effective of all propaganda is that propaganda which denies that it's propaganda.

Or calls the media "the enemy of the people." Don't open that door. People are going to believe what they want to believe, even when it's propaganda.

The point is there's no government policy that is attached to the government money. That's the difference.

Before you throw around the "p" word you should spend time in government. Most people know where the line is.

 

[Mediafrog+]

I could never understand why the Nazis actually put "propaganda" right in the name of the ministry headed by Josef Goebbels -- Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. I mean, why do you tell the nation that what they're about to hear is propaganda?

The word "propaganda" doesn't have the same negative connotation in many other countries, where its original meaning had to do with the dissemination of information. Here in the U.S. the word acquired its sordid status as it was linked to the media output of various oppressive foreign regimes.

 

[anotherguyTN]

The word "propaganda" doesn't have the same negative connotation in many other countries, where its original meaning had to do with the dissemination of information. Here in the U.S. the word acquired its sordid status as it was linked to the media output of various oppressive foreign regimes.

Would that apply to some of Trump's stuff?

 

[DavidEduardo]

The word "propaganda" doesn't have the same negative connotation in many other countries, where its original meaning had to do with the dissemination of information. Here in the U.S. the word acquired its sordid status as it was linked to the media output of various oppressive foreign regimes.

In Latin America, the word translates literally into the two main languages and means "advertising, promotion, influence reinforcing or changing".

A station in Spanish sells "publicidad" or "propaganda" and the term means "advertising". "Propaganda" tends to mean "opinion changing" more than "selling" but they are often used interchangeably.

In other words, in this hemisphere, the word means an effort to change opinion or behavior. Remember, English is not spoken as the primary language in most of the world, and even words that "look the same" in different languages often have different meanings entirely. One needs to be a polyglot to understand this thoroughly.

 

[CTListener]

Would that apply to some of Trump's stuff?

No that would be a word that, because of its origins, Goebbels would never think of using: shtick.

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/jul/15/bbc-announces-further-70-job-cuts-in-news-division

70 More jobs to get cut from BBC News.

The BBC has announced plans to cut a further 70 jobs from its news division, with Radio 4 and political programming expected to be badly hit.

Staff on shows such as Today, World at One and PM on Radio 4 are privately warning that audiences should expect less distinctive programmes, with more discussion of stories that have been covered across the rest of the BBC.

The corporation has already indicated that job cuts will result in the creation of centralised teams of reporters.

There will also be substantial cuts to politics programmes, with BBC Two’s Politics Live reduced to four days a week and Andrew Neil no longer presenting on a regular basis. His standalone Andrew Neil Show on BBC Two will not return in its current form, although the corporation is in talks about giving the veteran interviewer a new show on BBC One.