Dreamweaver-Templates.org

FreeMediaOnline.org Dublin, CA, June 12, 2006. The Broadcasting Board of Governors' (BBG), acting upon directives from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and presumably the Bush White House, decided recently to eliminate several Voice of America (VOA) radio programs in favor of expanding broadcasting to the Middle East. Perhaps unbeknownst to many Administration officials and even some BBG members, the decision may result in ending VOA Russian-language radio and Internet broadcasts to Belarus, the only country left in Europe with a dictatorial regime. VOA Russian-language radio broadcasts and Internet content for largely Muslim Central Asia also face termination. At the same time, Russia will be deprived of a direct link between American-trained broadcasters and independent Russian journalists, which is now provided through the Voice of America's Russian-language radio programs.

Just as the VOA broadcasters in the Russian Service were struggling to maintain direct links with their independent broadcasters in their target region, the Bush Administration and the BBG have pulled the plug on one of the essential elements of the Voice of America's program delivery strategy in Russia and the rest of Eurasia. The strategy, developed by the VOA broadcasters themselves without much interest or support from the BBG, was to explain America to Russian-speaking audiences through multiple interactive media in order to minimize the impact of government interference with any single program delivery channel. VOA television, radio, and Internet programs were designed to reach different segments of the audience, to promote freedom of the press and democracy, and to improve VOA's audience reach and impact. In Russian cities where VOA managed to hold on to its local rebroadcasting partners despite pressures from the Russian authorities and minimal program delivery support from the BBG, VOA's combined radio, television, and Internet reach has been better than most American stations are able to achieve in metropolitan markets.

The announced cuts call for ending of all VOA Russian radio programs at the time when independent media in Russia is under increasing pressure from President Putin's government. Restrictions on independent media are even more severe in Belarus and in Central Asia, where VOA Russian programs also attract listeners and supply independent journalists with critical information. These strategic decisions by the Bush Administration and the BBG are likely to have a long-term negative impact on media freedom, U.S. international broadcasting, and U.S. public diplomacy in the entire Eurasia region.

In recent years, the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty have been expanding their effort to provide programming and professional support to independent journalists in Russia and elsewhere in Eurasia. This fact is not widely known or acknowledged even among foreign policy and media experts in Washington. It is doubtful that it was ever considered by the budget analysts at the OMB who recommended the termination of VOA Russian radio programs.

The decline of U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the region has been going on for over a decade and had started with the Clinton Administration's decision to disband the United States Information Agency (USIA). Most public diplomacy experts now think that the dismantling of USIA was a major mistake. By ending VOA radio programs in Russian, the BBG, a bipartisan body in charge of all taxpayer-supported U.S. civilian international broadcasts, seems to be using the same faulty judgment. Their latest decision will terminate the only remaining link between independent journalists in Russia and their colleagues in Washington.

The BBG had made similar program cuts in the past to pay for the increase of broadcasting to the Muslim countries in North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. But the latest decision can have potentially a much larger impact on press freedom and the struggling independent media than all the previous BBG-mandated program reductions at VOA and RFE/RL. Russia is by far the biggest and the most important country affected by the latest cuts, but stopping American radio broadcasts originating from Washington will also hurt independent media in Belarus, the Central Asian republics, and in a number of other nations.

Link to VOA's "Belarus Forum" web page >> "Belarus Forum" web page includes transcripts of radio and television interviews with U.S. human rights experts, U.S. officials, and Belarusian pro-democracy activists. Most of the interview material comes from VOA's 15-minute weekly Russian-language radio program prepared under the same name for audiences in Belarus, Russia, and other countries of the former Soviet Union.

The BBG justified its decision on program cuts by pointing to a critical need to divert limited resources for funding higher-priority projects. Despite some modest budget increases over the recent years, the Bush Administration and the Congress did not provide the BBG with enough money to guarantee a sufficient program development and program delivery support for its ambitious broadcasting project for the Muslim world. The Board claims that without cutting other programs, it would have been impossible to support the war on terror through the expansion of U.S. broadcasts to Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and other Muslim countries.

In an attempt to deal with an apparently impossible choice, the Board went along with the recommendations of the Office of Management and Budget, which has no independent expertise in program delivery to countries with highly restricted media environments. The proposed elimination of VOA radio programs in Eurasia was based on the assumption that radio is no longer as effective in reaching mass audiences as the combination of television and the Internet. There also seems to have been an assumption on the part of the OMB, and perhaps a few BBG members as well, that for some countries -- such as Russia, Belarus, Uzbekistan, and others -- a single U.S. taxpayer-funded broadcaster can do a sufficient job of providing news and presenting American views and values. In other words, the U.S. does not need both VOA and RFE/RL broadcasting to the same countries and regions in the same languages. The same could be said about Radio Free Asia (RFA), although broadcasting to Asia outside of the former Soviet Union has not been hit as hard by the BBG program cuts.

Assuming that U.S. international broadcasting and U.S. public diplomacy are as important as the Bush Administration, the Administration's critics, and the BBG all claim they are -- in the war of ideas and ideologies, the latest Bush Administration program cuts at VOA could be viewed as the military equivalent of trying to win all future wars by funding and using only one branch of the Armed Forces. Yet despite a general agreement among U.S. experts that effective public diplomacy, which includes international broadcasting, is an essential tool of foreign policy, this seems to be the OMB's view for U.S. broadcasts to many non-Muslim and even some Muslim nations.

In its defense, the BBG claims that it has had no other choice but to eliminate some of the programs at VOA and RFE/RL. The Board maintains that it has not received sufficient funding from the Administration and the Congress. It is less clear, however, whether the Board has been doing everything possible to resist the pressures from the OMB and to lobby Congress for increased funding. The Board also could have made decisions that might have improved the performance of U.S. international broadcasting without shutting down or reducing broadcasts to countries still ruled by dictatorial regimes. While such moves would not have solved the overall problem of insufficient budgets for U.S. international broadcasting in the long run, the elimination of just a few high-level administrative positions could have easily saved a number of small but highly effective language services from being shut down. This would be possible because many of these services have already been reduced to just a handful of broadcasters. Some of VOA language services operate with only two full time employees while managing to reach over 20% of the audience in one week.

In line with its well justified preference for satellite television, the BBG had decided to keep VOA television programs to some of the countries affected by the most recent cuts in radio broadcasts, most notably Russia. But the BBG statement made no mention of any plans for starting VOA Russian-language television programs to Belarus and Central Asia or for keeping the Belarusian and Central Asian program segments on VOA's Russian Service web site. Additionally, nearly all new television resources in recent years have been assigned to support broadcasts to the Middle East. With significant inflow of resources from the BBG, VOA television program to Iran has managed to attract a large audience. At the same time, VOA broadcasters producing television programs for Eurasia and the Balkans have been achieving similarly impressive results with staffs and budgets many times smaller. Their attempts to expand television production have been foiled in the past because of the inadequate technical facilities at VOA and their inability to get more money from the BBG.

The Eurasian services at VOA do not expect to start new television programs for Belarus or Central Asia because the outdated facilities cannot support the simultaneous expansion of television programs to the Middle East and to the other parts of the world. Satellite television viewers not only in Russia but also in China, another strategically important country, will not be able to receive production-rich news programs from VOA for many years unless there is a major influx of funds to modernize the technical facilities. VOA would also have to hire additional, language-competent television producers and reporters. This does not appear very likely for services that do not broadcast to the Muslim world.

It is not unusual for some of the VOA language services to produce commercial-free 30-minute daily television newscasts with less than 7 full-time Washington-based employees. Some of them -- including the Bosnian, Albanian, Azeri, Uzbek, and Turkish services -- broadcast to largely Muslim populations, yet they also are not considered priority services by the BBG. They have also not benefited significantly from improved access to television production facilities. Since program production consumes almost all of the broadcasters' energies, they have very little time and no resources to expand their relationships with independent journalists and underground media -- relationships that in many countries are essential for placement and secondary distribution of information.

Some BBG members may not have been even aware that the Voice of America has had a 15 min. weekly radio program in Russian for Belarus and a similar program for Central Asia. It is also likely that most if not all of the Board members have not been aware that their decision to eliminate VOA Russian-language radio programs would also mean the termination of these two special broadcasts together with their web-based content. But the BBG members are probably aware of the possible consequences of terminating VOA radio programs to Russia without having a clear program delivery strategy for television programs to Russia or the ability to support additional television program production. The Board decided to take the risks of such a move rather than try to resist the pressures from the OMB or implement administrative reforms that could have saved money without having to terminate the existing programs.

It is obvious from the recent program cuts announcement issued by the BBG that the Board's strategy is to devote maximum resources to the war on terror. To achieve this goal, the Board has been reducing and closing down services believed not to be most directly connected with the war effort. While some of the previous budget transfers had led to the elimination of VOA and RFE/RL services broadcasting to countries which are now members of NATO and generally respect freedom of the press -- countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Slovenia -- the latest round of radio cuts is affecting services broadcasting to countries with poor human rights records and little or no free media.

Also to be reduced but not cut entirely are VOA English radio programs. The English programs do not have a clearly defined audience outside of Africa, nor do they attract a large number of listeners in any single country outside of Africa, but they reach persecuted journalists worldwide, including underground media in communist China, and have a large combined audience worldwide. Fortunately, VOA English-to-Africa programs and VOA Special English programs (programs for those learning English) will continue at least for now.

Program delivery has been at the heart of most of the recent BBG decisions, successes, and failures. In analyzing the planned reduction of VOA English broadcasts, it is important to note that the BBG has provided practically no resources for innovative program delivery, local retransmissions, marketing, and placement of VOA English programs -- certainly nothing comparable to BBC's efforts in promoting and placing BBC English programs around the world. It is also true that some of the VOA English broadcasters have objected to being directly involved with program promotion and placement activities by claiming that it could undermine their objectivity as journalists or that it should be somebody else's job. But a few VOA English managers and broadcasters have been making valiant efforts to establish cooperation with English-language stations abroad, especially in Africa but also in Asia.

Without a strategic plan backed by significant support from the Board, however, local rebroadcasting of VOA English programs arranged by a few concerned broadcasters and managers is not likely to produce any measurable results outside of the English-speaking countries in Africa. Arranging for local retransmission of VOA English programs is simply too difficult without a strategic plan backed by significant resources. Broadcasters in VOA language services, including the English-to-Africa Service, have had far more success in working with local independent media outlets than their VOA English Service colleagues, but the program delivery support they have been getting from the BBG for their efforts has not been significantly greater. Their limited success has been due largely to their journalistic expertise and excellent contacts with local journalists and local media. They also have the advantage of broadcasting in local languages. What they lack is time, resources, and sometimes marketing expertise.

Since VOA and RFE/RL services broadcasting to Eurasia have no funds for employing innovative program delivery strategies, their ability to help the independent media and to expand their audience through cooperation with local journalists is being severely limited .Consequently, low ratings based on inadequate nationwide surveys conducted in countries where people may be afraid to admit being interested in foreign broadcasts, are used against VOA and RFE/RL language services. Yet in cities and regions where -- despite enormous difficulties and the lack of program delivery support from the Board -- VOA and RFE/RL language services have been able to develop and maintain cooperation with local broadcasting partners, their audience ratings have been impressive. In many cases, they have been far better than what most U.S. domestic broadcasters are able to achieve in their local markets.

Even if at this point some of the language services at VOA and RFE/RL were successful in reversing the decision to end their broadcasts, it would take an extraordinary leadership and effort on their part -- given their current resources from the BBG -- to further expand their impact and reach. The Bush Administration, the OMB, the BBG, and the Congress have deprived them of almost all resources and forced them to reduce their staff and operations to a bare minimum, often no more than between two and seven full-time employees per each language service. A complete overhaul of the bureaucracy at the BBG, the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), and VOA might release some major resources which then could be transferred to the programming side, but it is not clear whether this alone would provide a long-term solution to a major budget problem facing U.S. international broadcasting.

Challenges of Satellite Television Program Delivery in Eurasia and Long-Term Trends

While the BBG statement on the latest program cuts emphasized the continuation of television broadcasts, it made no reference to any problems with the local distribution of VOA television news programs in Belarus, Russia, and Central Asia. The Board may be aware that such a distribution is either impossible or greatly restricted in Eurasia, but the OMB and the Board members may have been influenced in their decisions by the success of direct-to-home satellite television delivery in a few other countries, particularly Iran. Unfortunately, this success cannot be quickly or easily duplicated in every other country. While the Board members are almost certainly right that satellite television represents the future of international broadcasting, by reducing radio programs they are undermining the current effectiveness of some of their own broadcasters for a significant number of years into the future. Cutting radio programs and reducing resources would be a misguided strategy for countries such as Russia, Belarus, and the Central Asian republics even if there were no major crises in the region. If a major crisis should erupt, VOA could be left without an effective program delivery to the region. Where local placement of BBG-funded programs still exists in the former Soviet Union, in most areas it faces the constant threat of being either stopped entirely or significantly reduced by central government officials and local authorities. This is true especially for television programs. It does not mean, however, that television broadcasting to the region is not a worthwhile endeavor, but at least its short-term limitations should be acknowledged and the risks hedged.

The Belarusian government does not allow any local rebroadcasting of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) radio or television programs on the Belarusian territory, and President Lukashenka is not likely to ever grant such a permission. He tolerates the presence of some independent print media and a few RFE/RL local reporters but subjects them to constant harassment. Similar although not quite as severe bans on VOA and RFE/RL rebroadcasts are in place in most of the Central Asian republics. Television and radio rebroadcasting of outside news programs is still possible in some places in Russia, but private stations have recently come under increasing pressure from the Russian authorities to stop their cooperation with VOA and RFE/RL. Some of the stations and networks in Russia bravely refused to submit to government pressure, but others have ceased VOA and RFE/RL television and radio rebroadcasts altogether rather than risk an administrative retaliation that could cost them their license to broadcast. A few independent stations, which still continue their cooperation with the international broadcasters, have scaled down their rebroadcasts or have asked that the programs be made less visible and less offensive to the authorities.The international broadcasters know that at some point such compromises can lead to self-censorship.

The advantage of the direct-to-home satellite television reception is that compromises over program content can be avoided and free journalism can be practiced without regard for what the local censors may think and how they may react. Some international broadcasters have adopted satellite television program delivery as their long-term strategy, with VOA being a leader in this area. In the short-term, however, only local television rebroadcasting can produce large audiences in countries such as Russia where satellite television viewing controlled by individual viewers using their own equipment is not yet common.

The problem with providing information to populations living under dictatorships and semi-dictatorships is so severe in some countries that a single-medium program delivery strategy is usually not sufficient if the broadcaster's goal is to reach a mass audience or at least a significant segment of the population. Program delivery through shortwave radio broadcasts also bypasses local censorship, but these broadcasts can be subject to jamming and are difficult to locate on the radio dial. Shortwave radio listenership is also diminishing in most regions of the world and even in countries where local media outlets are heavily censored.

The Internet offers tremendous opportunities for bypassing censorship at the receiving end, but in many countries it can now reach only a small audience, even though its use is rapidly expanding. The Internet has been, however, an extremely valuable tool for communicating with and delivering programs to independent journalists and broadcasters who in turn may be able to use such material in various way, including underground republishing. Unfortunately, BBG-funded broadcasters have not yet been able to take a full advantage of the power of the Internet due to the lack of sufficient resources and the lack of a clear strategy for working with the local media. While VOA management has been making strong efforts to improve and expand its Internet content, progress has been slow due to insufficient resources and bureaucratic barriers. RFE/RL's multilingual web sites, on the other hand, are a model of an affiliate and journalist-friendly approach to using the Internet. They also provide excellent news and analysis in many languages, including English. Unlike VOA, RFE/RL is a grantee organization and does not face the same bureaucratic barriers to technological and programming innovation. Both VOA and RFE/RL, however, are still not using the full potential of the Internet to establish and maintain partnerships with independent journalists and broadcasters.

According to a FreeMediaOnline.org analysis, a combination of satellite television, radio, and the Internet program delivery focused on cooperating with independent journalists is essential for most of the countries where the inadequacies of technical infrastructure and severe political restrictions on the local media make the use of more efficient program delivery strategies impractical. Satellite television programs, however, even if restricted to a small audience, have a clear advantage in terms of their political and emotional impact. They can also promote greater use of other media delivery channels, such as radio, the Internet, and the independent underground press. While satellite television by itself cannot reach a mass audience in a country like Belarus, it can have a significant publicity impact as part of a multimedia program delivery strategy. Satellite television combined with the Internet represents, in any case, the future of international broadcasting. In that respect, the BBG has been right in promoting the expansion of television programming even though this expansion has been largely limited so far to a few countries in the Muslim world.

For the time being, the Voice of America continues to attract a sizable audience in some regions in Russia through its television programs thanks to the still existing network of local affiliates. Without these affiliates, VOA television in Russia would not be nearly as effective. Despite the risks and recent challenges, VOA broadcasters believe in keeping and expanding their television production, but they see it as part of their long-term multimedia strategy and not as the only option for countries such as Russia at this time. The planned termination of VOA radio broadcasts in Russian makes this strategy extremely vulnerable to local political pressures. With a reduced program delivery in Russian, VOA would find it difficult to respond to any further attempts by the local authorities if they decide to clamp down even harder on the independent media in Russia. The same scenario may occur in a number of other countries, including Belarus and the Central Asian republics. VOA and RFE/RL affiliates in some of the countries affected by the BBG's latest decision must operate underground while others avoid publicizing their use of programs and information from outside sources but do so in the interest of promoting freedom of expression. Journalists in VOA and RFE/RL language services are usually the only ones who have sufficient contacts and sometimes the only ones who have the determination to establish and maintain professional relationships with the independent media operating semi-legally or underground. What they sometimes lack is marketing experience. They also do not have enough time to devote to this effort and enough help and resources.

The fact that delicate political considerations and relationships between journalists take precedence over commercial considerations in decisions on rebroadcasting and placement of programs had not been at first fully appreciated by the BBG members, many of whom came from the private U.S. broadcasting sector. Initially, the Board had been discouraging program placement efforts by VOA and RFE/RL journalists themselves. Some Board members advocated keeping the broadcasters out of the marketing process entirely and instead pushed for using professional sales specialists. It turned out that some of these private sector marketing specialists had no foreign policy experience or knowledge of foreign languages. After a while the Board realized that without a direct involvement of the program producers, placement efforts in some countries will not succeed. But even with this realization, the Board did not provide the non-Muslim language services with sufficient professional marketing training, other assistance, and resources.

A few VOA and RFE/RL journalists and program managers responsible for broadcasts to the countries outside of the Muslim world have been arranging program placement and developing cooperative arrangements with the independent media largely on their own without much additional funding or program delivery support from the BBG. Only in some cases they have been successfully assisted by marketing specialists who had been working as international journalists before and had an extensive knowledge of their media market. Unfortunately, some of the best marketing specialists have been detailed to work on program delivery for services broadcasting to the Muslim world, thus leaving the whole Eurasia region, China, and other parts of Asia without adequate program delivery support.

At the same time, the trend among VOA and RFE/RL broadcasters toward producing more interactive programs and working more closely with the independent media in the region has been far from universal. Some journalists still want to produce programs without worrying about their delivery and distribution, and many do not have sufficient marketing experience. The well known and respected journalists, who could be effective in marketing VOA and RFE/RL programs, are simply too overworked to take on additional duties. Without more leadership, marketing assistance, and funding from the Board, they will not be able to develop and maintain adequate relationships with the local media.

"Belarus Forum," the weekly Voice of America 15-minute radio program is unique in its use of the Russian language and its Russian-language Internet content, but it represents only a modest effort on the part of VOA compared to several hours of daily radio broadcasts in Belarusian from RFE/RL and the latest radio and television initiatives of Deutsche Welle and the European Union. The amount of time VOA devotes to its program for Belarus, 15 minutes per week, is also insignificant compared to the three hours of daily VOA broadcasts in Russian.

The Belarusian-American community, while supporting the very modest VOA program initiative for Belarus, is demanding that a separate Belarus service be created at VOA and that it be staffed by Belarusians who speak both Belarusian and Russian. The Belarusian-American community leaders also want VOA to produce a daily satellite television program for Belarus as an additional and perhaps the critical effort to break the information isolation of the Belarusian people through the special impact of television.

VOA "Belarus Forum" web page featuring an interview with Ethan S. Burger, an independent U.S. legal expert and political scientist who had observed some of the previous flawed elections in Belarus.

The current Voice America program for Belarus is produced by a well-respected Belarusian journalist working in VOA's Russian Service in Washington, D.C. VOA has never had a separate Belarusian broadcast service. Before the launch of the "Belarus Forum" program, VOA had never targeted audiences in Belarus with programs in any language or medium. VOA broadcasters were aware that without a strong push from the Congress and the Administration -- which has not materialized -- many of the Board members would not agree to a much longer program and would certainly not provide any money to establish a separate Belarus service. VOA's Russian service managers decided to start with a modest initiative while hoping that the Board would eventually realize the need for VOA to have its own Belarus service.

"Belarus Forum" is still part of the Russian Service program stream, which means that it can be heard also by audiences in Russia and in all other former Soviet republics. The program often features interviews with U.S. policy makers and independent American and Russian experts who comment on U.S.-Belarus relations and political developments in Belarus and Russia. The broadcast material provides content for the Belarus-focused page on the VOA Russian Service web site.

While the use of the Russian language is a controversial issue among some Belarusians, the majority of the population in Belarus understands Russian and uses Russian to receive news and information from the local and international media. VOA broadcasters lacked funds or permission from BBG to broadcast the program in Belarusian or in a bilingual version. According to a FreeMediaOnline.org analysis, there are clear advantages for audience building in producing a VOA program in Russian for audiences in Belarus, as long as both VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty also produce Belarusian-language broadcasts. FreeMediaOnline.org also advocates starting a bilingual (Belarusian/Russian) VOA television program which could have a significant psychological impact on the audience in Belarus and on the Lukasheka regime.

A Russian-language edition of any new television program for Belarus would also likely generate a significant interest among VOA audiences in Russia and in other regions where Russian is widely used, including Central Asia. Russia is a major political player in Belarus. President Putin supports the Lukashenka regime and props it up with economic subsidies. Future Russian policies toward Belarus are likely to be duplicated in managing Moscow's relationship with many other nations of the former Soviet Union. News from Belarus, Moscow's response, and Western reaction would interest a wide audience of Belarusians, Russians, and non-Russians.

At this point, however, VOA may find itself without any programming for Belarus in any language or medium. If the current Voice of America Russian-language program for Belarus is eliminated with the cessation of all VOA Russian radio broadcasts, Belarusians may no longer be able to receive news and analysis about their country's struggle for democracy directly from Washington-based VOA journalists who are regarded as being the best informed about U.S. policies and American public opinion. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which is also controlled by the BBG, will continue its surrogate radio programs in Belarusian, but RFE/RL does not have a similar Russian-language radio and Internet program specifically targeting the Russian-speaking population and providing an American perspective on political events in Belarus.

VOA's Russian-language radio program for Central Asia would also be terminated if the BBG announced cuts are implemented without any modifications. The elimination of VOA's Central Asian radio program in Russian would have a similar long-term impact on the independent media in the region. Due to a severe shortage of resources, VOA's Russian Service has not yet developed a significant network of affiliates in Central Asia after their previously-established network of local broadcasting partners and independent journalists had largely disappeared as a result of repressive actions by the local authorities. The termination of VOA Russian- language programs would mean the end of VOA's presence and impact in Central Asia and the abandonment of any efforts to rebuild the relationship between VOA and the independent media in the region.

The impact of discontinuing Voice of America radio broadcasts to the countries of Eurasia, many of which are deprived of free media and facing increasing political corruption and repression, may be even greater in its long-term effects than the actual loss of the 15-minute weekly radio broadcasts to Belarus and Central Asia or the termination of the three hour daily radio broadcasts to Russia. Audiences abroad regard VOA programs as an authoritative source of news about U.S. policies. But they also see VOA broadcasts as an emotional gesture of support for human rights from the U.S. government and the U.S. public opinion. As important as the Internet has been for the free flow of information, it does not have the same emotional and symbolic impact that radio or television broadcasts can have for people who are suffering from political oppression. And if satellite television cannot reach an audience because of a total ban on local rebroadcasts and a limited ownership of satellite dishes, that leaves radio as the only direct and immediate link with America when the local independent media is being slowly marginalized by dictatorial regimes.

The OMB and some BBG members have argued that the impact of the elimination of VOA radio broadcasts in Russian will be minimized because RFE/RL Russian radio broadcasts will continue. The Board and presumably the Administration and the Congress want to avoid duplication between VOA and RFE/RL. Undoubtedly, some duplication exists, as it does between all U.S. and all other international broadcasters. But the missions of the two BBG-funded organizations broadcasting to Eurasia are different. Each broadcaster offers a different type of programs and has its own strengths and weaknesses. VOA has a much better developed television production, while RFE/RL has practically no technical infrastructure to produce television. RFE/RL's strength is in its radio programs and outstanding multimedia Internet web sites in many languages. Given sufficient resources, RFE/RL could produce outstanding television programs which would have a different appeal than VOA programs because of RFE/RL's ability to provide more local, surrogate news content. On several occasions, RFE/RL journalists participated in successful joint television production efforts with local journalists. RFE/RL and VOA could also cooperate in producing television programs that could include both local and U.S.-oriented content. Unfortunately, such cooperation between VOA and RFE/RL has never been tried in television production.

The BBG's strategy may be to steer VOA to specialize in television while RFE/RL does radio programs. But such a decision, if it has been made, does not answer the question whether the Voice of America programs in themselves and in whatever format serve the long-term U.S. interests in promoting a better understanding and dialogue between America and Russia, and whether they support free media. Giving up on the Voice of America as a separate brand name and a symbol of America's commitment to free media is a risky move for the Administration that claims to know the importance of public diplomacy.

VOA journalists have always insisted that their programs from Washington are unique because of their ability to provide news and opinions with an American perspective. They also highlight their access to American opinion makers and their ability to deliver high-quality television programs. RFE/RL journalists, on the other hand, have more frequent and closer contacts with their countries of origin and a better access to local information. When any country experiences a long period of political oppression and stifling of the local media, a single outside source of information and a single medium of program delivery are hardly enough to make a difference. During the Cold War, there were more than five major international broadcasters producing programs in the same languages for a number of decades before the communist system started to crumble.

The staff at OMB and the BBG members, many of whom have a background in the private U.S. broadcasting business where programs are constantly terminated and renewed, seem to have adopted the same approach to the U.S. international broadcasting. Some of them may not fully realize the long-term public relations implications of their decisions and the long-term nature of any public diplomacy endeavor. As good administrators and business people, they expect immediate results and believe in stopping and restarting production cycles depending on the demand for certain types of programs. Unfortunately, the audiences they are trying to reach may be better served by a longer-term investment focused on good journalism and dialogue.

It is also true, however, that some BBG services, especially within the U.S. government bureaucracy, have given up on adjusting to the changing needs of their audiences. What they need, however, is help, leadership, and good management rather than a death sentence. A termination of a VOA or RFE/RL broadcast does not only affect a possibly underperforming service. Such a drastic move will also have a long-term effect on the audience and its perceptions of the U.S. Decisions to close down broadcasting services are risky. The Board members had to reverse some of their earlier decisions on a number of occasions, most notably in the case of VOA Uzbek and Turkish programs, which had been scheduled for termination but were later saved. They are now facing yet another crisis.

A strong argument can be made that the elimination of VOA broadcasts would have a significant long-term impact on the local audience and the local regime because they both perceive VOA an important symbol of U.S. involvement in the region and American support for human rights. If a country is ruled by a repressive regime or experiences ethnic conflicts, the termination of a RFE/RL service would be perceived as a loss of free and objective surrogate local news as well as a sign of U.S. indifference to human rights abuses. Usually one U.S. broadcast produced for a single program delivery medium is not enough for a country deprived of independent media. In most instances in the past, VOA had been unable to take on a role of a fully surrogate station and RFE/RL had found it difficult to provide programming that would sufficiently reflect American society, U.S. policies, and diverse opinions among Americans on important issues. Each broadcasting organization has specialized in doing what it does best, thus providing audiences with more programming choices and a wider range of information and opinions. Some of the BBG members believe that in order to fund broadcasting in support of the war on terror the United States can no longer afford both VOA and surrogate broadcasting. As individuals with private sector experience, they consider VOA too bureaucratic and inefficient. Yet some of the VOA language services have demonstrated their ability to attract greater audiences for their programs than the privatized BBG broadcasting entities. This has been especially true in Eurasia.

During a meeting on February 27, 2006 at the White House,President George W. Bush greets Svyatlana Zavadskaya, right, widow of an independent journalist who disappeared in Belarus in 2006 and is presumed dead. The second woman, Irina Krasovskaya, left, is a widow of a pro-democracy businessman who disappeared in 1999. The United States has condemned the Belarusian government's conduct leading up to the March 19 presidential election, harassment of civil society and independent media, and failure to investigate seriously the cases of the disappeared. White House photo by Paul Morse

The BBG's decision to cut VOA's Russian-language radio programs, which include "Belarus Forum," was announced just as Belarus leader Aleksandr Lukashenka was given yet another term of office in the aftermath of the March 19 presidential election widely viewed by Western observers as undemocratic and marked by violence and repression. Numerous independent political activists and journalists in Belarus have been jailed both before and after the vote. In previous years, some journalists and human rights activists have disappeared and are presumed to have been murdered. The local populations and independent journalists are likely to view the loss of the VOA program for Belarus, a similar program for Central Asia, and VOA radio programs to Russia as yet another sign of America's growing indifference to the press freedom restrictions and human rights violations in regions not directly affected by the U.S. war on terror.

The latest decision by the BBG may turn out to be a long-term strategic mistake if radical Islamist influence continues to grow in Central Asia and in secular Muslim countries such as Turkey. (VOA broadcasts to Turkey are also to be discontinued.) Russia, where the Muslim population is rapidly growing, may experience new crises due to ethnic and religious conflicts or disputes with her neighbors. Sustained objective reporting from the United States by VOA journalists can have a long-term positive impact on the human rights situation in the region and on how U.S. policies, values, and opinions are perceived by the local population. This impact is likely to be multiplied if VOA broadcasters would have sufficient resources and help from the Administration and the BBG to engage local journalists in a dialogue through jointly produced interactive programs.

One such highly successful interactive VOA radio program is a one-hour, Monday through Friday, radio call-in talk show "Govoritye s Amerikoy" ("Talk with America"). The program, hosted by a talented journalist Inna Dubinsky, draws top politicians and journalists from Russia and all other former Soviet republics. One of the recent guests on the program was the independent Belarusian candidate for president. Once a month "Govoritye s Amerikoy" is produced jointly with an FM station in a Central Asian capital and from time to time with radio stations in Russia. The program is to be terminated as part of the latest BBG cuts. It is unlikely that in the current political environment in Russia an interactive VOA television news program of this type could be rebroadcast by a Russian television station.

Web page of VOA Russian interactive radio call-in program "Govorite s Amerikoy" ("Talk to America") >> Link

Contrary to the opinion of some who see the BBG-funded international broadcasting as U.S. government propaganda, these broadcasts are produced in most cases by highly independent journalists who are deeply committed to the idea of protecting human rights and encouraging inter-ethnic and inter-religious dialogue. Protected by the VOA Charter, they are also unafraid to resist pressures from Administration officials who in the past have tried to influence the content of their programs.

The recent trend toward the production of interactive programs between international broadcasters and local stations signals a new way of making international broadcasting more relevant and more effective. Unfortunately, these changes are far from sufficient and will most likely be stopped and reversed if the BBG continues to announce new program cuts and takes away resources from additional language services. The morale of journalists working at VOA and RFE/RL on broadcasts to non-Islamic countries has reached an all time low.

While the OMB and the BBG are planning to cut VOA Russian radio programs, the Bush Administration has been vocal in condemning human rights abuses in Belarus, Uzbekistan, and in other former Soviet republics. In October 2004 President Bush signed into law the Belarus Democracy Act which included funds for supporting independent media in Belarus. The act also authorized "increased support for United States Government and surrogate radio broadcasting to the Republic of Belarus that will facilitate the unhindered dissemination of information."

Preoccupied with expanding broadcasts to the Islamic countries and even engaged in day-to-day planning of formats and program delivery, the Board members took little notice of the Belarus Democracy Act and the available funding. The Voice of America has so far not received any money under this legislation. And even if some Board members became aware of the assault on the independent media in Belarus, it was not a country or area to where most of them wanted to divert additional resources. The BBG's second stated mission priority may be "to provide clear and accurate information to regions of the world where freedom of information is suppressed or denied, or to areas that lack freedom and democracy," but the Board has made a strategic decision to focus almost entirely on the Muslim world. After the 9/11 attacks, the BBG defined its first priority as providing "accurate and objective news and information to priority areas in support of the war against terrorism." But by focusing on the war on terror so narrowly, the Board has abandoned its support for independent media in non-Muslim regions, and even in some Muslim nations. This means giving up on explaining U.S. policies and values to audiences in many countries that may play a critical role as either supporters, indifferent observers, or opponents of U.S. anti-terrorist strategy and tactics for years to come.

It is difficult for many foreign policy experts to believe that the United States can simply abandon international broadcasting as an effective tool for communicating with certain countries only because the current Administration, the OMB, the BBG , and the Congress seem unable to provide enough money to pursue a comprehensive, long-term U.S. broadcasting strategy. Putting almost all broadcasting resources in one area could be the equivalent of assigning all U.S. military forces to wage the war on terror in one area and leaving the country vulnerable to attacks in all other regions. Fortunately, that is not how the military strategy works, yet this seems to be the strategy for U.S. international broadcasting under the current Administration. The reason for this strategy seems to be that, unlike the Pentagon, the BBG has been unable to get enough money from Congress or enough support from the Administration. Link to BBG's Mission Statement and Strategic Plan>> | PDF version of BBG Strategic Plan | Powerpoint version of BBG Strategic Plan

Some BBG members may have also concluded that the government bureaucracy of VOA and the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), which provides technical and program delivery services, cannot be reformed and that the transfer of resources away from VOA and IBB, as well as their personal involvement in managing program production to the Islamic world, are necessary to achieve the desired results. Critics of the BBG have argued, however, that the Board members could have spent their time more productively providing leadership and reforming the organizations while at the same time lobbying the Congress and the Administration for more money for U.S. international broadcasting.

Personal involvement by some individual BBG members, particularly Norman Pattiz, who had recently left the Board, has produced some outstanding results, especially in the area of program delivery and audience reach in the Middle East. There is less consensus among experts, however, regarding the effectiveness of the music and entertainment-oriented program content advocated by Mr. Pattiz. During the Cold War, music programming at VOA and RFE/RL played an important role in attracting younger audiences, but it took up no more than 10 percent of airtime. Young listeners were also attracted by the political, social, cultural, and religious programs offered at that time. Still, thanks to Mr. Patizz's personal involvement, Radio Sawa with its network of numerous local FM rebroadcasting stations has had the best program delivery strategy of any BBG entity and possibly any international broadcaster. Radio Sawa also has had much better audience ratings than the previous VOA programs in Arabic, but this may be partly or largely due to much better program delivery funded by the BBG. Critics have also countered that Radio Sawa's audience building success has been achieved at the cost of closing down numerous language services at VOA and RFE/RL and leaving the still functioning services with practically no resources for program innovations and program delivery.

VOA Journalists Initiate Programs to Media-at-Risk Countries Without New Funding

With the Board members' attention focused on the Middle East, Afghanistan, and broadcasting to other Islamic regions, the launch of the VOA programs for Belarus and Central Asia happened only because of the initiative of a few VOA journalists rather than any directives from the BBG. The Eurasia Division and the Russian Service managers and broadcasters felt it necessary to respond to the deteriorating situation of the independent media in Belarus and Central Asia even without any extra funding and used their existing budget to support the programs' production.

The Russian Service also managed to start a daily 30-minute television newscast in Russian, again without any additional money from the Board, as did the VOA Ukrainian Service, which launched a 30-minute daily television news program during the Orange Revolution. VOA Ukrainian television programs were watched on large TV screens by thousands of pro-democracy demonstrators gathered at Kiev's main square. Some of the VOA Ukrainian television programs at that critical time included interactive exchanges between U.S. experts in Washington and independent Ukrainian journalists in Kiev. Link to President Bush's statement on the Belarus Democracy Act | Link to summary of Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 | Link to full text of Belarus Democracy Act

When VOA managers were planning the "Belarus Forum" program, they realized that broadcasting to Belarus faced a major program delivery challenge. They were encouraged, however, by the ability of the semi-legal and underground independent Belarusian media to receive and republish information from outside sources. "Belarus Forum" uses a combination of low-tech and high-tech program delivery. The planners of the program's distribution knew that low-tech program delivery solutions have been more effective and often indispensable when governments exercise near total control over the local media through regulations, legal sanctions, and intimidation.

Low-tech program delivery methods such as short wave radio broadcasts are, however, no longer sufficient by themselves even in countries with the most repressive regimes. To be fully effective for the population as a whole -- and especially for independent journalists, students, younger audiences, and local elites -- traditional international radio broadcasts must now be supplemented in most cases with high-tech program delivery formats, such as Internet-based content, satellite television, audio and video feeds, and interactive programs in various media. VOA journalists responsible for "Belarus Forum" developed an Internet page on the VOA Russian Service Web site that is frequently accessed by independent Belarusian journalists. Reports and interviews from VOA posted on that page have been republished by the underground media in Belarus.

Before the latest budget crunch and the BBG decision on program cuts, VOA journalists were planning to launch a television version of "Belarus Forum" despite a rather low level of DTH dish ownership in Belarus and despite budget shortages at the VOA services broadcasting to the non-Muslim countries. They were operating under the assumption that a satellite television program would spark a wave of new interest among Belarusians in using outside information from various sources. A significant number of Belarusians regularly travels on business to Poland and Russia where they can watch Western satellite television programs about their country without any fear. The plan was not put into action when it was discovered that VOA cannot provide a TV studio and a TV crew to produce a television edition of "Belarus Forum."

The European Union is now the only major international broadcaster producing television programs for Belarus. It was not by accident that these programs are being produced with the cooperation of independent broadcasters and journalists in the region. The EU investment for television, Internet, and radio programs for Belarus is over 2 million Euros. The EU programs, as well as the recently launched radio program for Belarus by Deutsche Welle, also face the same program delivery challenges. The Europeans seem convinced, however, that a multimedia approach, which includes television, is necessary to make a difference in a society that is being kept isolated from the outside world by a repressive regime. They are also using a two-language (Belarusian and Russian) strategy to maximize audience reach and impact.

An interview from VOA's "Belarus Forum" program is shown here as reprinted by "Charter 97," an Internet site operated by independent journalists in Belarus.

Independent media operating semi-legally or underground under dictatorial regimes have been using information from VOA programs. These programs are now being eliminated or reduced as a result of budget decisions by BBG and the Bush Administration. Many non-Islamic and even some Islamic countries in Central Asia and the Caucasus will be affected by the planned elimination of VOA Russian radio broadcasts.

High-tech program delivery alone cannot fully penetrate regulatory and political barriers set up by repressive governments to keep out the outside media. But low-tech program delivery is also no longer sufficient in supporting independent and underground local media.

International broadcasters require the right balance of low-tech and high-tech program delivery and multimedia content to reach an information-deprived audience, either directly or indirectly. Indirect program placement is accomplished through cooperation with local affiliates and through independent media operating semi-legally or underground.

In some countries, including Belarus and Russia, using only one approach to program production, delivery, and distribution is not likely to be successful. In recent years some VOA broadcasters have been pursuing a multimedia approach to program delivery and servicing their local affiliates and independent journalists without any extra funding or personnel specifically assigned for this purpose at the service level.

Shrinking Resources for Broadcasts to non-Islamic Countries Put Free Media at Risk

FreeMediaOnline.org believes that bold reforms and cuts in administrative positions at VOA and IBB could have been sufficient to provide multimedia programming and program delivery to both the Islamic world and to the other media-at-risk countries at least in the next fiscal year. They would not be sufficient, however, to sustain the production of high quality programming in the long run. For that to happen, BBG would have to obtain additional funding from the Administration and the Congress. While the BBG statement points out that the Board received slightly more money than in previous years, the amount is simply too small by hundreds of millions of dollars to pursue a multi-year U.S. broadcasting strategy covering more than just the Muslim world.

The most likely scenario is that the BBG will continue its strategy of closing down additional language services. Since most of the services broadcasting to relatively free and democratic countries have already been closed down, most of the new cuts will have a devastating long-term impact on media freedom worldwide. They will affect countries where independent media is restricted or does not exist except in a semi-legal or underground environment. The ultimate responsibility for maintaining a sufficiently-funded U.S. international broadcasting falls on the Administration and the Congress, neither of which seems to fully understands the value of a long-term broadcasting and program delivery strategy. Some Administration officials also do not seem to grasp the advantages of programs produced by journalists shielded from political influence as opposed to government-funded marketing experts producing propaganda broadcasts and placing propaganda material on local media outlets.

Only a few members of the U.S. Congress have been showing an active interest in supporting media freedom in the non-Islamic world through the U.S.-funded international broadcasts. The prime sponsor of the Belarus Democracy Act of 2004 was Congressman Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) who serves as the Co-Chairman of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (also known as the United States Helsinki Commission). The Helsinki Commission works to promote and foster democracy, human rights, and stability in Eastern and Central Europe. The U.S. Helsinki Commission Chairman Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has also been a strong supporter of expanding U.S. broadcasting to Belarus. Senator Biden, Senator Lugar, Senator Hagel, and Congressman Hyde have also shown active interest in U.S. international broadcasting, as did former Congressman Christopher Cox (R-Ca) before he resigned from Congress last year to become chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Another strong advocate of media freedom, human rights, and U.S. international broadcasting to the region has been the Democratic Congressman from California Tom Lantos. As a Jewish refugee who had fled the Nazi persecution in Hungary, Congressman Lantos knows from personal experience how important outside broadcasts can be for people who experience political, ethnic, religious, or racial oppression. He has been frequently interviewed by VOA and RFE/RL journalists on human rights issues in various countries, including some which will be affected by the BBG decision on program cuts. The officials at the OMB and the BBG clearly lack this kind of experience.

Many of the VOA and RFE/RL journalists also have personal knowledge what it means to live in a country cut off from the outside world and what it means to receive broadcasts produced by independent journalists who care about human rights. These journalists have realized that if their country is not Islamic, or even if it has an Islamic population, it may be too small or strategically insignificant for the BBG and the current Administration to justify the continuation of U.S. broadcasts. It does not seem to matter any more to some Administration officials and at least some members of the BBG whether media restrictions and human rights abuses still continue. Some BBG members may have opposed the decision to cut the programs. But the majority apparently felt that they could not continue to fund these broadcasts and at the same time properly contribute to the Administration's war on terror. Whether the same result could have been achieved without program cuts through a better management of resources and a more effective lobbying for money by individual BBG members or as a group is a question open to debate.

Elimination 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 on U.S. policies and American views on political and human rights violations in the region. It will also sever an important link between VOA journalists in Washington, D.C. and independent journalists in the region. RFE/RL radio programs to this region will continue, but it is not clear whether they alone and without more resources from BBG would be able to fill the void created by the announced cuts in VOA programs.

The BBG has not yet made a final decision on the future of the Internet version of VOA Russian-language radio programs to Belarus and Central Asia. VOA Russian Service broadcasters are currently trying to convince the BBG, the Bush Administration, and the Congress to reverse the cuts. One of their strongest arguments is that independent radio broadcasters in Russia use these programs or rely on them for information while they find themselves under increasing pressure from the authorities. Most of the governments in the region where Russian is widely spoken want to curtail independent news reporting and restrict cooperation of local journalists with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America, although all of them claim that they support freedom of the press and democracy. If the BBG decision on Russian radio program cuts is not reversed, it can have a serious long term negative impact on the independent media not only in Russia but also in Belarus, Central Asia, and in other regions of the former Soviet Union. It will send a signal to independent journalists everywhere that they cannot count on the U.S. for consistently supporting freedom of the press.

This report was written for FreeMediaOnline.org by Ted Lipien who had worked for over 30 years as an international broadcaster, reporter, manager, and marketing specialist at the Voice of America and the International Broadcasting Bureau. He helped VOA and RFE/RL establish cooperation with hundreds of radio and television stations in Europe and Eurasia and provided assistance and training to local broadcasters. As a former director of VOA's Eurasia Division, he supported the launch of the VOA radio program for Belarus and its web page. After retiring from VOA in April 2006, he publishes FreeMediaOnline.org and works as an international media analyst. He can be contacted at: contact@freemediaonline.org