What's really mind-blowing is how much conservatives want to increase government spending on international broadcasting.
Posted: 29 Sep 2010 Print Send a link
It's not so mind-blowing from a market-based analysis. (Heritage is more into central planning.) This is international broadcasting, as in broadcasting to other countries, as to countries where they speak other languages. China Radio International includes as target countries the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland. VOA targets none of these countries, especially not the United States, not even Americans abroad. So, outside of Africa, CRI has much more reason to broadcast in English than does VOA. And if CRI wants to invest in shortwave when it is obviously declining in popularity, it's their money. Note that China was manufacturing steam railroad locomotives until 1999.
Foreign Policy, Shadow Government blog, 24 Sept 2010, Will Inboden: "The freedom section of President Obama's address to the United Nations General Assembly ... was the most extensive, fulsome, and compelling defense of human rights and democracy of his presidency, and it strategically placed political freedom in the context of economic freedom and development. ... While presidential rhetoric matters, to have enduring meaning it must be backed up by action. ... The administration should ... should increase support for international broadcasting efforts, such as the vital work of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty."
Washington Times, 24 Sept 2010, Rep. Thaddeus G. McCotter: "With the eyes of the world upon him, Mr. Obama should have issued a new manifesto that declared [among four other things] (4) funding for Radio Farda and other democracy-building programs will be doubled; ... (6) the Global Online Freedom Act will be enacted to prevent American companies from assisting the Iranian regime's efforts to monitor and censor its people on the Internet."
See previous post about same subject.