Voice of America Russian radio broadcasts are to be completely eliminated as the Russian government under President Putin is trying to marginalize free media
FreeMediaOnline.org Dublin, CA, June 12, 2006. The Broadcasting Board of Governors' decision to eliminate some of the Voice of America (VOA) [Link] and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) [Link] radio programs in favor of expanding U.S. broadcasting to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and other Muslim regions will negatively impact independent journalists and broadcasters in a number of countries where free press is being suppressed by repressive governments and distorted by corrupt media practices. The two countries where independent radio broadcasters, samizdat press, and independent Internet sites are likely to be most affected by the BBG's latest decision are Russia and Belarus, both of which have experienced recent government attacks on press freedom. In addition, independent media in largely Muslim Central Asia are also likely to experience a negative impact of the BBG's decision. The Voice of America will suffer most of the program reductions. VOA Russian radio broadcasts are to be completely eliminated at the time when the Russian government under President Putin is trying to restrict and marginalize free media.
According to the BBG's press release, its decision to end Russian radio programs and radio broadcasts in several other languages was driven by a desire to divert limited resources to support the war on terror. The money saved will fund additional U.S. television and radio broadcasts to the Muslim world. But the decision was apparently also based on the assumption that radio is no longer as effective as television and the Internet in reaching mass audiences overseas. The BBG decided to continue VOA television programs to some of the countries where it plans to end radio broadcasts.The BBG members also believe that the Voice of America broadcasts are no longer needed in some languages if semi-private broadcasting entities under its control can produce surrogate programs at a lower cost and attract larger audiences. They do not view the Voice of America as a unique institution presenting American opinions and values to audiences abroad.
According to a FreeMediaOnline.org, a nonprofit research and advocacy organization supporting independent media worldwide, the BBG's assumption about television programming -- while correct for a long term strategy -- may not work for some countries where the need for information and independent journalism is especially great due to severe government restrictions on press freedom. The second assumption that a privatized broadcasting entity can authoritatively present U.S. policies and different views within the American society has never been sufficiently tested to determine its validity. FreeMediaOnline.org analysts believe that denying foreign audiences a direct link to the Voice of America programs and VOA journalists familiar with the American society will undermine free media and hurt the cause of U.S. public diplomacy. By cutting and reducing VOA programs, the Broadcasting Board of Governors is weakening America's ability to engage in a dialogue with different cultures. Its recent decision to go ahead with additional program cuts at VOA and RFE/RL seems similar to the dismantling of the United States Information Agency in the aftermath of the Cold War -- a move now seen from the post 9/11 perspective as a major mistake.
FreeMediaOnline.org favors a multimedia approach to program delivery and program placement with an emphasis on the use of Internet technology and satellite television. But its analysts acknowledge that traditional program delivery methods such as radio are still essential as part of a multimedia approach to program delivery for countries where free media does not function openly or is severely restricted. FreeMediaOnline.org supports independent U.S.-funded surrogate broadcasting but considers the Voice of America as equally essential for defending free media. Through its web site, the organization advocates greater U.S. and international support for independent journalists worldwide.
A single-medium program delivery strategy has not been proven useful when dealing with particularly repressive regimes. Some countries in this category have not seen a rapid growth of direct-to-home satellite television reception and private Internet use. The nations most affected by the most recent BBG decision on program cuts -- Russia, Belarus, and the Central Asian republics -- lack a significant number of owner-controlled satellite TV dishes and receivers. That is generally not the case in the Middle East and in the Balkans, where individual satellite dish ownership is more common. A one-fit-for-all approach to program delivery risks depriving populations and independent journalists in Eurasia of critical information and an all-important support for their struggle for human rights and free media.
With the exception of Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television, program delivery support for all the other broadcasters and services has been one of the BBG's major weaknesses. Despite successful launches of a number of new radio and television broadcasts to the Middle East with good program delivery infrastructure and respectable audience reach, the Board has come under criticism for lacking a long term broadcasting strategy for the rest of the world. Several Board members have been supporting their individual broadcasting projects to the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan by raiding the budgets of other broadcasting services under their control.
The BBG broadcasters and outside media experts have been urging the Board members to focus on lobbying the Administration, the Congress, and the private sector for more money for U.S. international broadcasting.The BBG members have largely ignored these calls opting instead for eliminating programs to countries which they views as strategically less important. Individual Board members have also become personally involved in the day-to-day development of programs to the Middle East and other Muslim regions. They have little time left to lobby for more money or to push for reforming the bureaucratic structures at VOA and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) -- another U.S. government bureaucracy under the BBG's control that is responsible for program delivery and providing other support services to U.S. international broadcasters.
Most of the Board members have been operating under the assumption that government employees at VOA and IBB cannot not be trusted to successfully launch and administer important projects for the Muslim world. The personal involvement of individual Board members in the day-to-day operations has produced significant results and successes, especially in the area of program delivery and audience reach. But as they were working on the new broadcasting projects to the Middle East, the Board members have ignored their responsibility to provide leadership and institute reforms within the government bureaucracies at VOA and IBB. Rather than trying to transform VOA into a modern, efficient, and properly funded broadcasting organization, the BBG has been slowly reducing VOA programs. The Board members have also ignored suggestions that they could fund their projects for the Muslim world at least in the short-term by downsizing the bureaucracy rather than ending radio broadcasts to countries like Russia, Belarus, or the semi-dictatorial republics in Central Asia.
Although they will not acknowledge it publicly, most BBG members have apparently concluded that the government bureaucracy of VOA and IBB cannot be reformed. They have supported instead the creation of semi-private broadcasting entities such as Radio Sawa and Alhurra Television. BBG provided these entities with excellent program delivery support, far better than what they have offered to VOA, RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia (RFA), and Radio and Television Marti. Thanks largely to excellent program delivery support, the new entities are reaching a considerably larger audience in the Middle East than the previous VOA radio broadcasts to the region. Critics, both in the Middle East and in Washington, have raised questions, however, whether Radio Sawa and Alhurra program content is having a significant long-term impact on the Muslim audience. Nevertheless, the new programs to the Middle East started at the initiative of the BBG members, including the new VOA television broadcasts to Iran, have been successful in attracting large audiences. Less publicized, however, are the costs of these projects in terms of the loss of programs to the rest of the world and the harm done to the cause of free media and America's ability to communicate with foreign audiences outside of the Muslim world.
Critics believe that in making decisions on program cuts, the BBG members may have been relying on faulty program delivery and media environment research. They also accuse the BBG of not taking into account a long-term view of U.S. international broadcasting and public diplomacy needs in the non-Muslim world. Audience research may not show high audience figures in countries such as Belarus and the Central Asian republics where most people are afraid to admit being interested in foreign broadcasts. The Board's focus on the Middle East has been blamed for its decisions to reduce or close down services broadcasting to countries deprived of free media or countries where long-term U.S. interests may suffer as a result of hostile local media coverage. Some critics of the BBG's strategy argue that the war of ideas may be first won not in the Muslim world, where the public opinion remains strongly against the U.S., but rather in other countries that may choose to support or not to support U.S. calls for cooperation in fighting terrorism and introducing democracy in the Middle East.
Some of the BBG's recent decisions on program cuts may have also been based on an insufficient understanding of program delivery issues in diverse media and political environments. Low-tech program delivery enhanced with some high-tech features and customized to fit local conditions has been more effective and often indispensable when governments exercise near total control over the local media through regulations, legal sanctions, and intimidation of journalists. High-tech delivery methods alone under these conditions may serve only a limited segment of the population. Relying on a single program delivery method has also been known to promote self-censorship among BBG broadcasters desperate to achieve local placement. Without such placement their services face the risk of being closed down by the Board dissatisfied with low audience ratings. A single-broadcaster option and a single-medium program delivery strategy carry with them considerable risks which the Office of Management and Budget, the Bush White House, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors chose to ignore.
Russia is a prime example where VOA television broadcasts have been successful in the past but are now experiencing severe difficulties with local program distribution due to the growing intimidation of local broadcasters by government authorities at every level. On the other hand, direct-to-home satellite delivery of television programs has been quite successful in Iran and in some other countries that also impose severe restrictions on their local media. Direct-to-home television programming from Washington may have a significant symbolic impact in Russia, Belarus and in Central Asia. Because of this impact and enormous prospects for future growth, VOA satellite television delivery to Eurasia and the rest of the world is worth pursuing even despite its current program delivery limitations. But due to the specific media practices in Eurasia at this time, satellite television should not be the only medium in which VOA offers its programs to the region.
This VOA Russian Service web page used by independent journalists working semi-legally or underground in Belarus is likely to disappear if BBG's announced elimination of VOA Russian-language radio broadcasts goes forward. A 15 to 30 minute weekly special radio program for Belarus, initiated by VOA broadcasters, is part of the VOA Russian program stream. More on the impact of BBG's decision on independent media in Belarus.
Unfortunately for the BBG members looking for ways to save money to fund expanded broadcasting to the Muslim world, one type of program delivery alone will not have a sufficient impact in some countries where independent media does not exist or is severely restricted. For international broadcasters such as the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, and Radio Free Asia to be fully effective in providing information and programs, traditional radio broadcasts must now be supplemented with at least some new high-tech program delivery methods, such as Internet-based content and satellite television. While high-tech program delivery alone cannot fully penetrate all regulatory and political barriers to outside media set up by repressive governments, low-tech program delivery is also no longer sufficient to support independent or underground local media, and in some cases it cannot serve the younger and more technologically sophisticated audience.
The right balance of low-tech and high-tech is needed for a successful program distribution strategy. For some countries, especially those with repressive regimes and insufficient satellite TV and Internet infrastructure, a high-tech program delivery strategy alone is either ineffective or can be unreliable. The BBG has not been able to obtain enough money from the Administration and the Congress to implement a comprehensive program delivery strategy for the entire world. Its previous program cuts affected countries which are now members of NATO and have a reasonably free press. The latest round of cuts, however, is far more questionable and potentially far more harmful.
Until the recent decision by the BBG, VOA and RFE/RL Eurasia broadcasters were pursuing a multimedia approach to program delivery and servicing their local affiliates with radio, television, Internet, and print media content as far as their limited budgets allowed. Some of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty affiliates in many of the countries affected by the BBG's decision must operate underground or without publicizing their use of programs and information from outside sources. They rely on VOA and RFE/RL for program content, professional contacts, and journalistic training. Even more important, however, is the moral support that the VOA and RFE/RL broadcasts provide in their struggle for free media. VOA's and RFE/RL's strategy has been aimed at increasing cooperation with the local media as a means of delivering information, defending freedom of expression, and engaging in a dialogue with foreign audiences with the help of independent journalists.
The ending of VOA radio programs for audiences in Belarus, Russia, and Central Asia will deprive independent broadcasters and journalists of an important and authoritative source of information about U.S. policies, American views, and human rights violations in the region. RFE/RL radio programs to Eurasia will continue, but it is not clear whether RFE/RL broadcasters based in the Czech Republic and in the region would be able to fill the void created by the announced cuts in VOA programs and the firing of VOA journalists based in Washington, D.C. The Voice of America broadcasts from Washington are seen as an important symbol of American's commitment to defending human rights. Their termination will help the regimes throughout Eurasia in their efforts to establish an even greater control over their domestic media.
While three hours of daily VOA radio programs to Russia represent the bulk of the announced cuts, VOA Russian Service programs to Belarus and Central Asia are part of the Russian-language program stream and thus also face elimination if the BBG decision is not reversed. Each one of the two special broadcasts has only 15 min. of airtime per week, but they offer the only direct link between journalists Washington and the independent media and audiences in the region. The future of the Internet version of these programs has not yet been decided, but the previous BBG-mandated radio program cuts at VOA had resulted in the eventual reduction and elimination of Internet content.
Web-posted transcripts from VOA's Russian-language radio program "Belarus Forum" have been republished and reprinted by the underground media in Belarus. VOA's program for Central Asia is co-produced once a month with an FM radio station in Kyrgyzstan. In Russia itself, a number of independent broadcasters still use VOA radio programs despite being pressured by the authorities to stop their cooperation with foreign broadcasters. VOA Russian Service journalists are currently trying to convince the BBG to reverse its program-cutting course and to reconfirm its support for free media. Their chances of success seem limited, however, unless the Congress or the White House decide to intervene by forcing the BBG to change its program-cutting strategy and by providing more money to support VOA and RFE/RL broadcasting to Eurasia.
Link to FreeMediaOnline.org in-depth analysis on the impact of the BBG program cuts for independent media in Russia, Belarus, and Central Asia
Link to BBG statement on program cuts 
Link to BBG 2004 Annual Report 
