Professor Monroe Price has a fascinating piece on how public diplomacy in the Obama era might look like. He draws on the notions of hospitality as a key value in rethinking the role of public diplomacy in an era that is global and networked.Â
Arguing that public diplomacy is in some serious need of innovation, he reimagines public diplomacy as not just speaking, but also listening. Seen through a more reciprocal, interactive lens, things like the Smith-Mundt Act, which forbids transmission of U.S. sponsored international broadcasting within the United States no longer makes any sense and the intransparency of internet filtering practices need to be reconsidered. The traditional model of public diplomacy, based on the international broadcasting paradigm, of states to states, seems archaic in the light of new technologies. I argued something similar earlier in an essay on how efforts to topple internet censorship in China are essentially adapted tactics from the Cold War era, where the Great Firewall essentially is Iron Curtain 2.0. What is needed is a transformation, not just an adaptation of the model in the light of new technologies.
There is also a political-economic argument in the moral sense to transforming public diplomacy. As Professor Price succcinctly states, “knowledge of the world is a public good”. Mancur Olson has helped us understand the dilemma most public goods face: everybody would benefit from better news about the world; crucial questions as “why do they hate us?” would actually have an answer. But who is going to pay for it? Most public goods, like roads, parks, museums, are paid for by the state. However, in the United States, the idea of a state-funded news organization informing the citizenry is heresy. It is ironic, of course, that the idea of United States sponsored news organizations informing the citizenries of other countries elsewhere in the world has a rich history – from Voice of America, to Radio Free Europe, etc.
Why is there a Voice of America for the rest of the world, but no Voice of America for Americans? How would a Voice of the World for Americans look like?
Lokman, you won’t be surprised to hear that I agree with you about the need for a US media outlet that focuses on listening to the rest of the world. But I worry that such mechanisms have difficulty justifying themselves in a market-based media environment. American consumers have demonstrated little interest in what international news is available. Strong internationally-focused publications like the Economist or the BBC are available, but they’re consumed generally by a 1-3% “elite” sector of the audience. It’s unclear that market-driven media would ever try to deliver international news to a larger audience as it’s unclear such an audience is demanding it.
One of the interesting things about countries that have taxpayer-funded media is that they’re able to make coverage decisions based on a public service function as well as market mechanisms. But it’s hard to maintain that public service function in the absence of demonstrated demand for that information… as the BBC is beginning to discover. I urge you to consider the important issue of hospitality from demand persectives as well as supply ones.
Lokman, your question about Smith-Mundt is timely, as well as the implicit question about how the U.S. government and the U.S. media informs the not just the American public, but a global audience who may or may not reside within the borders of the United States but get their news and information from within America’s domestic information sphere.
Ethan makes a major point about the public service aspect of informing the public. American media once considered their news rooms to be a public service, but today they are profit centers. The result, which Noam Chomsky documented ten years ago, is a shift that Pew Research shows today is one of retreat from the international scene.
This is important because if you look back at the original Congressional intent behind Smith-Mundt, you’ll find an active desire to privatize as much as possible. The international broadcasting institutionalized by Smith-Mundt was to fill a gap that US broadcasters were not able to fill. This included reaching foreign audiences in friendly countries through friendly media and into unfriendly countries. The clear intent of Congress at the time Smith-Mundt was debated and passed was that information products produced for overseas audiences would be available to American audiences through the media, academia, Congress, and private requests.
It is worthwhile to note that the 1972 amendment that “closed” a loophole in Smith-Mundt that allowed domestic distribution of USIA-produced material was not based on a desire to prevent government propaganda of American citizens. Behind the effort was Senator J. William Fulbright, yes that Fulbright, who was trying to kill international broadcasting – not domestic access to international broadcasting. He never liked VOA, RFE, etc and felt in 1972 that the radios should “take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” 1972?! This was a vendetta and not an attempt to protect sensitive American ears and minds.
I’ve written about this extensively at http://mountainrunner.us/smithmundt. You may also find a draft paper on the contemporary debates surrounding the passage of Smith-Mundt interesting. See http://mountainrunner.us/2008/07/rethinking_smithmundt_a_look_b.html.
Lastly, I’ve organized a first-time ever discussion on the Act that will take place in Washington, D.C., 13 January 2009. For information, check out http://armstrongsig.com/smith-mundt/.
To your question, what would a Voice of America for Americans look like? It should be largely the same as what overseas audience hear, see, and read. You’d be surprised how many astute non-US readers/listeners/watchers know that what they’re receiving Americans are by law not allowed to receive.
I believe that by making our information activities truly global and not just non-US, the increased transparency will increase the quality by better oversight, lead to an informed American public. The increased competition within the U.S. should also raise the quality of all news as right now there is little real competition in the foreign news sector.
Best,
Matt
Pingback: Web novinarstvo » U novoj eri veb-komunikacija Internet postaje poliglota