Australia is also confused about the difference between international broadcasting and public diplomacy (updated).

"[I]n arguing for the ABC to be charged with expanding Australia's public diplomacy program, [ABC managing director Mark] Scott rebuffed the very essence of public diplomacy, extolling Radio Australia's past when it 'stubbornly insisted that the service could not exist as a mouthpiece of government ... [and] that tradition endures'. But for public diplomacy a broadcaster cannot be 'independent' and ignore the demands of government who are responsible for setting Australia's foreign policy and the objectives of a 'country's economic and political interests'. ... For a 2007 Senate inquiry into Australia's public diplomacy program, the Institute of Public Affairs completed a content analysis of the Australia Network's broadcasting of supportive, neutral or negative content against the Australian values of a liberal democracy, human rights and free markets. Of the current affairs programs broadcast, the ABC sent out positive messages on the importance of liberal democracy, and either supported or was value-neutral on human rights. But there wasn't a single positive message in favour of free markets. Instead the ABC promoted a value-neutral or hostile free markets message. ... Instead of granting the ABC Australia's public diplomacy responsibilities, Australia should have an open tender process, and include in the selection criteria the obligation to prove a strong track record of promoting Australian values." Tim Wilson, The Australian, 10 November 2009.
     First, Australia must decide if it wants its international television channel to be a news station or a public diplomacy station. Which is the same thing as deciding whether it wants its international television channel to have an audience or not. This is because a channel devoted to public diplomacy won't have an audience, or at least not much of an audience. The audience for international broadcasting views or listens to get news that is more comprehensive, reliable, and credible than they news they get from their domestic media.
     If Australia wants to do public diplomacy via television, it should purchase 60-second spots on television stations that have large audiences because they do news rather than public diplomacy. These would include international channels such as CNN International and BBC World, and the more popular domestic channels in countries important to Australian foreign policy.
     Update: "The ABC has been in the business of 'soft diplomacy' for 70 years through Radio Australia and has been operating an international television network for nearly all this decade. Our international broadcasting responsibilities are in the ABC Charter. Like the BBC and a number of other global public broadcasters, through our international operations we put the nation on show. It is part of our core business. What we offer is not state broadcasting or government propaganda: the ABC’s international broadcasting operates to the same standards for independence as the ABC’s domestic service." Mark Scott, letter to Crikey (Melbourne), 12 November 2009. See also ABC press release, 5 November 2009 and text of Mark Scott's speech. See previous post about same subject. Posted: 13 Nov 2009 Permalink Print