The United States government will soon be producing and distributing in the United States foreign language broadcasts. It is not enough that we have endless Spanish radio and the twin evils of Univision and Telemundo, but at taxpayer expense?
Foreign Policy July 14, 2013 by John Hudson
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government's mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It's viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they "should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics." Fulbright's amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such "propaganda" should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. "from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity."
And the theory is that not only do the foreigners need this information, but the hyphenated Americans and immigrants need it as well.
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counter programming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. "Somalis have three options for news," the source said, "word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia."
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota's significant Somali expat community. "Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn't get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia," the source said. "It was silly."
One wonders why anyone living in America needs an American government source of news for information about another country. What does it matter that Somalis in America have government supplied information? And if it is as bad as public radio in this country, won't it be counterproductive anyway?
But the real threat is that the U.S. government will be in the business of producing and distributing for a domestic audience news directed at specific language groups who are clearly not assimilating if they are so concerned about their former country of residence. Also most likely the news broadcaster, the BBG will begin to slant news coverage to the domestic foreign presence, attempting to influence how they act in America, and the most likely manner is pandering to ethnic grievance mongering a la Al Sharpton. And they will be doing it in a foreign language, explicitly discouraging the learning of English and assimilation. This is just another aspect of how the Federal government wants to elect a new people.