Kim's commentary on Alhurra's week of scrutiny.

We can expect this press attention to result in indignant reaction by members of Congress, think tank, and the like. In fact, we have already heard from Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), who previously expressed opposition to U.S. international broadcasts containing "all this diversity of thought."

The result could be the end of Alhurra. It's budget might be zeroed out. Or Congress may order that it be replaced by a resurrected VOA Arabic Service. As much as this would please many at VOA, such legislation could also come with instructions for U.S. international broadcasting to support U.S. policies. If so, U.S. international broadcasting would be a resurrected Radio Moscow, along with Radio Moscow's most notable characteristic: its dearth of audience.

One now can understand why BBC Arabic Television had many months of preparation, and is still only on the air 12 hours per day. Filling a 24/7 television schedule requires parsimony, and that often comes in the form of talking-heads programs. Arab talking heads are not always supportive of U.S. policies or fulsome in their praise of Israel. All 60 Minutes, ProPublica, or the Washington Post had to do is wait for inevitable utterance that offends U.S. sensibilities.

Larry Register said, "I don't think any government should be involved in news gathering." Ideally, international broadcasting should be a private endeavor. But there are audiences that need to be served in markets that have no commercial potential for international broadcasting. Public funding is necessary, but this can be done with government control. BBC World Service, funded by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, is the prime example. It does require decades of demonstrating that the publicly funded broadcaster is independent, to establish the credibility necessary for success in international broadcasting.

For U.S. international broadcasting, ensuring that independence is the job of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. The BBG can succeed if administrations, Congress, and the BBG members themselves accept the spirit as well as the letter of the International Broadcasting Act of 1994, which established the BBG as a firewall.

Is the concept understood, even by American journalists who ought to know better? The ProPublica piece begins by stating that Alhurra and Radio Sawa were "founded by the Bush administration to promote a positive image of the United States." The Washington Post article provides this background: "Propaganda has become a primary front in the war against terrorism, with the United States and al-Qaeda each investing heavily to win over hearts and minds. This article examines one aspect of the U.S. effort to influence people through the airwaves."

Promote a positive image? Win over hearts and minds? Influence people over the airwaves? People tune in international broadcasting to get news that is more comprehensive, more reliable, and more credible than the news they get from their state-controlled domestic media. As a general rule, the most credible station wins. Until U.S. decision makers, experts, and journalists understand this concept, there will be limited prospects for successful U.S. international broadcasting.

Back to post. Posted: 23 Jun 2008 Permalink Print