Radio Silence in China: VOA Abandons the Airwaves
By Huchen Zhang , Dan Dickey and David S. Jackson
September 8, 2011
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/2011/09/Radio-Silence-in-China-VOA-Abandons-
the-Airwaves
* Print PDF
* Download PDF
Share
* Facebook
* Twitter
* Email
* More
Abstract: On October 1, 2011, Voice of America´s (VOA) Chinese radio service
will go silent,
as U.S. international broadcasting abandons the airwaves and moves to the
Internet. In the
burgeoning age of new media, many, including the management at Voice of
America, seem
to be questioning the continued relevance of shortwave radio. Yet, while the
Internet offers
great potential, U.S. public diplomacy cannot rest exclusively on the use of a
single platform.
This is particularly true where the prevalence of Internet censorship is high.
Just this past
May, China announced the creation of its State Internet Information Office,
intended to
expand and enhance China´s information dissemination policy, and leading many
to question
whether abandoning the airwaves is truly the best way to reach America´s
audiences
throughout the world. On May 25, 2011, three expert panelists-the senior editor
at VOA´s
China branch, the CEO of Continental Electronics Corporation, and VOA´s former
director-discussed the current U.S. strategy for its international broadcasting.
HUCHEN ZHANG, Senior Editor, Voice of America China Branch: My name is Huchen
Zhang; I´ve been working at Voice of America´s (VOA) China branch for 20 years.
I´m
speaking to you today as a professional journalist and private citizen. What
I´m going to say
are my personal observations and opinions. They do not represent the official
policy of the
Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the International Broadcasting Bureau
(IBB), or
VOA.
On Valentine´s Day, the BBG announced to all the employees of the VOA´s China
branch its
proposal to eliminate VOA shortwave radio and TV broadcasts to China on October
1. By
switching to Web-only operations, the BBG told us, $8 million would be saved.
Forty-five
journalists (38 Mandarin and seven Cantonese, 59 percent of the branch´s
full-time
employees) would lose their jobs. In keeping with the spirit of Valentine´s
Day, we were told
that the decision had nothing to do with the performance of the China branch.
In fact, we
were told that we had been doing an excellent job. The decision was based, the
BBG said, on
the increase of the number of Internet users and decline in shortwave
listenership in China.
More than three months have passed, but I´m still shocked and bewildered by the
BBG´s
decision. Being a reasonable man, I´ve been looking at the issue from different
angles. I have
even tried to put myself in the BBG´s shoes. But no matter how I look at it, I
always come to
the conclusion that the BBG´s decision is based on faulty information and wrong
judgment. It
comes after the BBG has already abolished VOA radio and TV programming in
Arabic and
Russian, two vital strategic United Nations languages. If approved by Congress,
ending
shortwave transmissions to China would be the biggest blunder yet in the
history of U.S.
international broadcasting and public diplomacy.
In the next few minutes, I will try to put the BBG´s budget proposal into
perspective and show
you how I have come to this conclusion. Let´s first look at the bigger picture
of China´s rise
and U.S.-China relations.
In the past 20 years, the Chinese economy has been developing at a breath
taking pace,
thanks largely to the high efficiency of one-party totalitarian rule. Now China
is the world´s
second-largest economy. Many experts predict that the size of the Chinese
economy will
surpass that of the United States in real terms in 2020; some say even sooner.
In addition,
China is the largest holder of U.S. public debt. The United States pays China
$73 million a
day in debt interest.
China´s military might is growing as its economy expands. It has test-piloted
its first stealth
fighter jet. Its first aircraft carrier will soon be commissioned. It has
demonstrated the ability to
destroy a satellite in space. Its defense budget this year is 12.7 percent
bigger than last
year´s. More important, the military hardliners are having a greater say in the
country´s
decision making.
Emboldened by its economic and military power, China is vying with the United
States for
dominance in international affairs. Results of various latest public opinion
polls show that
over half of the American people surveyed believe China is America´s No. 1
potential
adversary.
In the past two years, China has spent $7 billion to expand its overseas
propaganda
operations through its state media outlets: the Xinhua News Agency, China
Central
Television (CCTV), the People´s Daily, and China Radio International, not even
including the
pseudo-official Phoenix TV.
Domestically, Beijing´s crackdown on political dissent has been ruthless. In
recent months,
hundreds of activist lawyers, bloggers, artists, clergy, and members of
independent religious
groups have been questioned, detained, confined to their homes, or have simply
disappeared, apparently to prevent the seeds of the Arab Spring from reaching
China. "The
human rights situation in China has gone from abysmally bad to worse," remarked
Congressman Chris Smith at a House hearing on May 13. "In fact, we´ve not seen
this level
of blatant violations of human rights since the crackdown on Tiananmen Square
protestors in
June 1989," he said.
At the same time, the Chinese government has further tightened its grip on the
press. This
includes traditional media and new media. The Internet and other high-tech
communications
in China are so rigidly controlled that the Communist regime can, in theory and
in reality,
track the movement of any individuals it wants to monitor. The Chinese
government recently
announced that it will use cell phone GPS technology for "crowd management," as
all cell
phone users in China are already required by law to provide their identity
before signing up
for mobile phone services.
While China´s Internet industry is expanding, the government´s Internet control
is also
becoming more and more sophisticated. China is adopting a "white list" system
to manage
the Web. Only Web sites with pre-approved domain names are allowed to be
connected into
the physical network. Internet users in China are required to prove their
identity before
registering any Internet account, and the Chinese government employs the
largest Internet
police force in the world. Routers to the networks in the outside world are
tightly controlled
and monitored. Some call Internet in China the "Great Chinese Intranet." A
Chinese dissident
in Shandong province told VOA that Chinese government security authorities
would call him
seconds after he made any tweets and would even read out the exact words to him.
Furthermore, any Internet company, including Internet giants Yahoo and Google,
are forced
to "cooperate" with the Chinese government. Foreign social media, such as
YouTube,
Facebook, and Twitter, are effectively blocked out of the Chinese market. The
Chinese have
developed their separate systems of social networks called "micro-blogs,"
monitored by
censors and protected by the Great Firewall from "outside invasion."
The official filtering of information from abroad, in fact, is so pervasive
that Communist Party
leader Hu Jintao´s admission during a joint news conference with President
Obama in
Washington earlier this year that China "has a long way to go in improving
human rights" was
deleted by censors from all official Chinese media.
In the eyes of some Chinese "netizens," Professor Fang Binxing, the Father of
the Great
Firewall, has become the Public Enemy No.1. Last December, he opened a
micro-blog on
Sina.com, the largest Chinese-language infotainment Web portal. Within three
hours, nearly
10,000 users left messages for him, most of them very critical of his leading
role in blocking
the World Wide Web. Fang had to shut down his account after a few days. On May
19, eggs
and shoes were thrown at him while he was giving a speech at central China´s
Wuhan
University. After the incident, his name and the word "shoe" became "sensitive"
words, and
couldn´t be searched on the Web.
It is against this backdrop that the BBG announced its plan to end VOA´s
shortwave radio
and satellite TV broadcasts to China, citing the following reasons, as The
Washington Times
reported on April 11: "The Chinese government has jammed shortwave radio
broadcasts for
many years, and shortwave listening is in dramatic decline while TV, Internet
and mobile use
are all increasing. Meanwhile, the Internet is censored but not completely
blocked."
It is a fact that Beijing has jammed Western shortwave broadcasts for many
years. The
People´s Republic of China has spent millions of dollars to do so. Why give the
Chinese
government a gift of this magnitude by unilaterally abdicating the airwaves?
Both Britain´s
BBC and Germany´s Deutsche Welle are doing just that in 2011. Can we in good
conscience
allow the West to lose its most significant radio and TV voices to the world´s
most populous
country, one whose media have been consistently ranked by Freedom House as "not
free"?
This is fiscal laryngitis at its most damaging.
While it is hard (but not impossible) to listen to VOA in big cities in the
coastal areas in China,
VOA Chinese broadcasting cannot be effectively jammed in the vast countryside.
The BBG
claims that VOA Chinese broadcasting has "virtually no audience," but the BBG´s
own
findings, cited by its principal research contractor Intermedia Survey, shows
that VOA´s
China branch has a reach of more than two million listeners and viewers every
week. That is
roughly 40 times the number of weekly visitors to the VOA Mandarin Web site,
according to
the latest BBG Language Service Review report. Under Web metrics, the LSR
report says,
there are 52,725 visitors a week to the VOA Web site. A footnote to those
numbers says:
"These audience figures are based on surveys conducted in politically
repressive
environments that are generally hostile to international broadcasting. Because
individuals in
these countries are discouraged or even prohibited by their governments from
listening to
U.S. international broadcasts, actual audience numbers may be higher than the
ones listed
here."
The BBG´s assessment is also drastically different from previous BBG studies.
For instance,
the State Department and BBG Office of Inspector General´s Report of Inspection
of VOA
China Branch (July 2010) states that, "since access to the Internet is more
easily controlled
than access to shortwave radio, international radio, and satellite broadcasts
such as VOA´s
remain the only dependable source of political news, especially during crises."
BBG claims it is "the leader in circumventing Internet censorship." The fact
is, although the
number of Internet users in China has increased exponentially, research results
show that
from 2007 to 2010, annual visits to VOA´s Chinese Web site remained virtually
unchanged
(except a short period in 2008 during the Beijing Olympics when the Chinese
government
temporarily lifted its ban on the Internet). Even though the BBG´s
circumvention technology
might work to a certain extent, the circumvention tools would endanger
on-the-ground
activists, as pointed out by many Internet-freedom groups.
Unlike surfing the Internet, the beauty of listening to shortwave radio
broadcasting is that it
cannot be detected. By the same token, any attempt to measure the exact
listenership in
China is bound to be futile, as we know the Chinese government has designated
VOA as an
"enemy station."
Let me give you some different numbers. The 2009-2012 Radio Industry
Competition and
Strategic Investment Report conducted by a well-known Chinese think tank
states: "Radio
broadcasting covers 60.2% of the Chinese population. The current size of radio
audiences
has reached 653 million. Of these 653 million, 394 million reside in urban
areas, while 257
million are located in rural areas." The report goes on to say: "Shortwave
radio markets in
China are still very robust, with their sales averaging tens of millions of
sets per year." The
report adds: "As listeners move quickly from analog broadcasts to digital
broadcasts, the
output of digital radio sets is expected to reach 25 million in 2010."
Other research done by Chinese scholars says that VOA Chinese broadcasts
attract more
than 10 million listeners. (General Theory of International Broadcasting, by
Wang Yuezhi and
Zhang Chao, 2009, Shandong Education Press).
Technological development has opened up new horizons for radio broadcasting.
VOA´s radio
programs in Chinese are now broadcast 24/7 via satellite just like our TV
shows. Currently,
they are not jammed or blocked by the Chinese government. Anyone in China who
owns a
satellite dish can listen to or watch them crystal clear.
Digital shortwave radio is another area that needs to be explored. According to
the industry
report, Chinese manufacturers produced more than 120 million FM radio chips for
cell
phones in 2009. If these chips have a shortwave function or if suitable apps
are developed
for mobile phones, millions upon millions of people will be able to listen to
VOA Chinese
broadcasting on their portable listening devices, such as cell phones, while
tilling the land,
driving, taking a walk, or doing household chores, when reading on the Internet
is not an
option.
At an IBB town hall meeting held in late February, we were told that the BBG
believes that
China´s economic stake in the Internet is so big that Beijing wouldn´t dare to
shut it down
completely. Yet we all know that after the riot broke out in Xinjiang in July
2009, the Internet
was totally shut down in the region for several months. Not even a single phone
call, text
message, or e-mail could get through to the vast Xinjiang region.
Now let me talk a little about VOA. VOA has been broadcasting in Chinese for 70
years.
Millions and millions, generation after generation of Chinese, have depended on
VOA for
timely, reliable, and otherwise unavailable information. This has been true
during the Cultural
Revolution, the downfall of the Gang of Four, and especially during the 1989
democracy
movement. At every twist and turn in modern Chinese history, the Chinese people
would tune
in to VOA for unfiltered information. Disgraced Chinese leader Zhao Ziyang´s
daughter told a
VOA China branch reporter during a 2005 interview that Zhao Ziyang loved to
listen to VOA
Chinese, "especially the reports on China and the world." She said, "VOA has
some special
reports which know China´s situation well. I always remember that my father
would bend his
waist to listen to that tiny radio during a certain time in the day, holding
the radio almost up to
his ear."
As the name suggests, Voice of America is the voice of the American government,
American
society, and the American people. To millions of Chinese people, it has been
and still is a
symbol of the United States of America. To eliminate VOA´s broadcasts in
Chinese has a
symbolic meaning larger than anybody could imagine. That´s why the Chinese
Communist
Party´s mouthpiece the People´s Daily lost no time in hailing the BBG´s
decision as a
"historical end," and many ordinary listeners have called in during our
shortwave and TV
shows to say they would personally donate money to fund VOA´s broadcasts in
Chinese.
By stressing the importance of shortwave radio and satellite TV broadcasts, I
am not saying
that we should not further develop our Internet capabilities. On the contrary,
I believe we
should strengthen our broadcasting and Web site at the same time. Our Web site
is
supported by all the content created by radio and TV journalists. To eliminate
our radio and
TV broadcasts and cut 59 percent of the staffers is like "taking away the
firewood from under
the cauldron."
We all understand budgetary constraints and know that Congress is struggling to
cut deficits.
What makes the BBG´s fiscal year 2012 budget plan interesting is that it
proposes a 2.5
percent increase in overall funding ($19 million more than FY 2010´s $748
million). In
addition, the BBG just received $10 million from the Congress for developing
Internet
circumvention technology. While cutting $8 million from the China branch, there
will be an
increase of $9 million for BBG and IBB management; while eliminating 45 core
journalistic
positions, the BBG and IBB will have 48 more managers.
Retaining vital frontline broadcasting can be done even in times of fiscal
austerity. It´s only a
matter of prioritizing. Communicating via all U.S. government-funded media to
China is a
national security imperative. It is important now, and it most assuredly will
be for the
protection of our children and grandchildren. To quote Congressman Dana
Rohrabacher:
"The $8 million `saved´ will do far more to weaken our efforts in China than it
will to balance
the budget." Now, we see clearly that there are alternatives for identifying
that $8 million that
are far less damaging to the U.S. national interest. It´s now up to the
Congress to make it so.
DAN DICKY, CEO, Continental Electronics Corporation: The United States, as the
world´s
sole remaining superpower and leading democracy, has an obligation to share its
beliefs
about political and economic freedom with the world. Ever since the days of
Radio Free
Europe, the U.S. has not only been the voice of freedom for millions of people
living under
authoritarian regimes, but it has also been the leader in developing the means
by which those
critical messages are transmitted.
During World War II, the founder of Continental Electronics Corporation learned
the value of
cross-border communications in winning hearts and minds. That became the
foundation for
Continental Electronics over 60 years ago. Today we continue to provide the
means for mass
communication around the country, the world, and even our solar system and
beyond.
Continental supplies long-distance communications gear to navies around the
world, to Radio
Free Europe, NASA, and many others. Continental is an American company,
employing
American workers, supplying American technology to transmit American ideals to
the world.
We´ve been doing it for more than 60 years!
Given our position as the world´s leading supplier of high-powered radio
transmitters, we are
able to easily recognize trends in the marketplace that point to some
disturbing facts. As the
U.S. has shifted increasingly to Internet- and satellite-based mediums for its
public
diplomacy, we´ve noticed that many other countries are embracing shortwave
radio
capacity-both to refurbish aging systems and also as new investments in
national and
regional radio coverage. Russia, for instance, is on the verge of a $500
million nationwide
plan to enhance its government-owned shortwave radio capacity. India has
embarked on a
five-year plan to completely modernize all of its local and international
broadcasting networks,
which reach billions of listeners. Nations in the Middle and Far East are
installing shortwave
networks that will cover their entire regions and well beyond. All of these
networks are being
designed to deliver analog and digital media, making them relevant for decades
into the
future.
Just as we were all watching our televisions to see the Arab Spring unfolding
dramatically, it
also became clear that there was a near total blackout of Western media assets
in countries
like Libya and Egypt. Why? Authoritarian leaders like Muammar Qadhafi went to
school on
events in Tunisia and Egypt and understood clearly the power that authoritarian
leaders had
to completely block Internet and satellite-based communications in their
countries. The world
cannot decry what it cannot see or hear, and protestors striving for democratic
reform quickly
become isolated when they can no longer hear what the rest of the world is
thinking and
doing in support of their efforts to overthrow non-democratic regimes.
A flip of the switch at the main telecommunications complex, a bit of jamming
by a mobile
satellite truck with its antenna pointing toward the sky, and suddenly the
incoming digital
information stops. While regimes can easily block or control Internet,
satellite, and mobile
telephone networks within their borders, they cannot so easily block shortwave
radio signals
which do not recognize geographic borders. The physics involved are somewhat
complex,
but it is a fact of nature that shortwave signals can reach any area on the
globe without any
assets in the target area except for a suitable receiver. Shortwave receivers
are cheap,
portable, and can be powered by manual or solar energy. No other such
broadcasting means
exists, and, because of the physics involved, this is unlikely to change for
generations.
Here in the U.S., it is easy to believe that satellite and Internet delivery
are ubiquitous.
Because these methods of delivery appear less expensive we cling to the
mistaken belief
that they are also better. But in the regions of the world where our message
will have the
greatest impact, these so-called cheaper delivery systems are not accessible.
Many areas of
the world have no infrastructure to support these technologies. Shortwave
radio, either in
analog or digital formats, requires no special infrastructure. Shortwave does
not require any
special skills or training on the part of the listener. We have to recognize
that even in
countries that have ubiquitous Internet or satellite coverage our message can
be easily
interrupted by choke points established by the local government for that
specific purpose.
Shortwave broadcasts are much more robust.
At Continental Electronics, we´ve noticed a complete shift of demand for
shortwave radio
transmitters away from the U.S. As budgets for upkeep and upgrades continue to
shrink, it is
my estimation that we are seriously in danger of losing a reliable, time-tested
means of
communicating American values with the world. The power of shortwave
communications
coupled with compelling digital content has not been lost on other players who
do seek to
disseminate their own message. In fact, we´ve seen a marked increase in
shortwave
transmitter demand ranging from pre-conflict Libya, to Saudi Arabia, Malaysia,
and, yes,
China.
Which leads us to one of the primary issues of focus today. China, while
systematically
working to block Internet communications and messaging that it does not
control, is also
ramping up its own shortwave capabilities-in English! In fact, it would seem
that just as
Voice of America is contemplating an end to its China service and its broader
shortwave
radio capacity, China is doing the exact opposite.
I´m not here to say that shortwave radio should be the only broadcasting
capability available
to transmit America´s message of hope and freedom, but there is an important
consideration
that I think has been lost in the debate. Shortwave radio, while certainly a
technology that has
been around for a long time, remains a key building block not only for current
transmission
capability, but can provide the backbone for the digital radio transformation
that is inevitably
in our future.
As digital technology has revolutionized every other communications medium, it
should come
as no surprise that shortwave radio has numerous digital tools available.
Digital Radio
Mondiale is a recognized standard around the world for sending voice, data, and
multimedia
content over the same shortwave bands that communicated behind the Iron Curtain
for
decades. It uses the same tools and much of the same content as Internet
delivery, but
cannot be easily censored by governments who may not appreciate those messages.
Many
countries are spending modest to moderate sums to upgrade their existing
networks with this
modern digital delivery system. They know it is cheaper to upgrade than to
start from scratch.
They understand the "pay me a little now, or pay me a whole lot more later"
argument.
The cost to upgrade a single transmitter capable of handling analog or digital
broadcasts is
between $1 million and $2 million. To create the same capability from scratch
can easily be
10 times that amount or more. The numbers get even worse when you look at
decommissioning an existing broadcast facility either here in the U.S. or
abroad. In many
cases, it will be impossible to restore that lost capability, no matter the
cost. There is a
growing arms race in international broadcasting and the U.S. is taking no
action except to
consider pulling back even further. We are losing this race simply because we
are running
backwards.
The U.S. closed down its shortwave transmitters in Greece a few years ago.
Those
transmitters had powered one station that could reach the whole of Europe, the
Middle East,
Africa, most of Russia, and the former Soviet republics. In fact, it could
reach almost every
region where there is a crisis today. Now there is a possibility we will make
the same mistake
that was made in Greece. Here in the U.S., there is talk of shutting down one
of the best
shortwave stations in the world, located in Greenville, North Carolina. This
station is situated
such that it can reach Africa, the Middle East, Europe, and South America from
within the
safety of our own borders. The Greenville station could have kept information
flowing into
Libya, and still can help ensure that we reach countries of concern to U.S.
national interests
both now and in the future. How much more could we do if we made modest
investments in a
few key facilities like these able to direct U.S. public diplomacy into Africa,
South Asia, and
the Far East?
In the end, there is a story here that certainly involves U.S. jobs both at my
company, as well
as here in Washington and the broadcast stations around the world, which helped
end the
Cold War. It also involves our global competitiveness, but most important, it
is a story about
maintaining America´s fundamental capability to continue to be the voice for
freedom and
democracy around the world in the 21st century, the digital century.DAVID S.
JACKSON,
Consultant, Burson-Marsteller and Turner Directer, Voice of America: Being
invited to
participate on this panel has been a little ironic for me because I´ve always
been a big
supporter of using the Internet and new media technologies to communicate with
international audiences. When I was at Voice of America, I did everything I
could to try to
convince the Broadcasting Board of Governors to make the kind of investment in
new media
that this board is now proposing. So I think it´s great that they want to
expand VOA´s Web-
based outreach, and put some real money into building an online infrastructure
that will take
the Internet seriously.
But having said that, I have some concerns about the BBG´s proposal:
* The first is that a strategy of reducing VOA´s China outreach to a
Web-only, new media
platform makes VOA too vulnerable to censorship or blocking. Our broadcasters
are very
good at evading blocking efforts, but the Chinese are also very good at
throwing up new
ones. VOA´s broadcasting to China has always relied on a strategy of
diversifying our
outreach as much as possible so as to minimize the chances that we could be cut
off entirely.
A Web-only strategy would be high risk.
* My second concern is that the plan to cut the Mandarin-speaking staff by
more than half,
as this proposal would do, will jeopardize VOA´s ability to cover China and to
effectively
compete with other media for audiences there.
* Lastly, I worry about the message that will be sent by VOA halting all
radio and TV
broadcasts, especially at a time when China is launching an international
television network
to broadcast to the U.S. and other countries.
The ideal solution, to me, would be to expand VOA online-and also keep
broadcasting. I
just think it´s too early to put all of our eggs into the Internet basket.
Voice of America has a long history of broadcasting to China. We´ve been
broadcasting there
for as long as VOA has been on the air-almost 70 years. We began with shortwave
radio,
and in 1994, we added TV.
In 1997, VOA´s Mandarin-language Web site went up. Since then, the Chinese
government
has done everything it could to keep the radio broadcasts-and the Web site-from
reaching
the Chinese people. The TV broadcasts have never been jammed.
China is one of only three countries in the world that go to the expense and
effort of
intentionally interfering with VOA´s broadcasts: The others are Iran and, at
least occasionally,
Zimbabwe.
Despite China´s efforts, however, VOA has managed to get through, using a
variety of
tactics, including transmitting on multiple frequencies and at different times
of the day. We´ve
learned from decades of broadcasting to information-deprived audiences that
people who are
denied access to accurate and objective information are not only highly
motivated, they´re
also very creative in finding sources of news and information they can trust.
How do we know we´re getting through? For one thing, the audiences tell us. VOA
gets
hundreds of letters and thousands of e-mails every month from China, sometimes
more than
10,000 e-mails in a month. When VOA´s radio or television shows open up the
phone lines
for calls from China, they can get hundreds of callers during an hour-long show.
We also know we´re getting through because the Chinese government occasionally
criticizes
VOA. It´s a back-handed compliment, to be sure, but a revealing one. Another
sign is that the
Chinese keep jamming us. If people weren´t listening to us, the Chinese
government wouldn´t
be jamming us.
Finally, we also have research surveys. The numbers in China have never been
very high,
percentage-wise. Five years ago, VOA´s combined, unduplicated audience for
radio and TV
broadcasts was estimated to be around 10 million people. The latest research
shows that the
numbers have declined to around one-tenth of 1 percent. In a nation of 1.3
billion people, that
represents about 1.3 million people.
There´s been criticism over the years about the validity of the research
surveys that have
been conducted in China, and the fact that the Chinese may not want to admit to
listening to
a foreign broadcaster that their government clearly doesn´t want them to hear.
On top of that,
some of the questions that the researchers have asked have included sensitive
ones about
their incomes, their use of a computer, and even what they think of the Chinese
government.
So it´s not surprising if the average Chinese citizen gets a little suspicious
about giving
truthful answers to questions like these.
But even if you put aside the research methodology and accept that the audience
in China for
VOA radio and television is small, I still think we should continue
broadcasting, and do it with
a full staff. China is too important economically, diplomatically, and
militarily, for us to do
anything less. We need to produce content that the Chinese can´t get anywhere
else, and we
need to use all the tools that we have to give it to them, which means
television, radio, and
Web-based technologies.
It´s expensive to do it all. But which country is more important? If you say
Iran, look at what
we´re doing there. VOA has built a huge audience in Iran by reaching out on all
fronts:
television, radio, and the Internet, including mobile platforms. The radio
these days comes
mainly from Radio Farda, which is broadcast by Radio Free Europe. But when I
left VOA,
about one in four adult Iranians either watched or listened to a VOA broadcast
at least once a
week-and that didn´t even include the Internet audience. These are numbers that
any U.S.
network would love to have in this country.
The BBG´s proposal for China is built around the fact that computer use is very
high there:
about 23 percent of the population now use computers to get news, and that
number is
growing. The corresponding number for radio is low: about 7 percent. But the
number for TV
is the highest of all: 94 percent. VOA even has some affiliates in China that
will broadcast
some of our content if it isn´t identified as coming from VOA, so we know
there´s an interest.
I know from my own experience that the BBG and VOA cannot afford to broadcast
on every
platform in every language, despite the fact that U.S. international
broadcasting is probably
the most cost-efficient tool we have in public diplomacy. Every year, the BBG
has to make
hard choices about how to spend taxpayer dollars the most effective way to
reach foreign
audiences. Those choices are never popular, but they have to be made because
they don´t
have unlimited funds, especially these days. But again, how many places are
more important
than China?
One final point: The BBG correctly points out that its proposal will not mean
that U.S.
international broadcasting will go silent in China. It plans to give VOA´s best
radio frequencies
and hours to Radio Free Asia, which will continue shortwave radio broadcasting
there.
The problem with that, though, is that Radio Free Asia and Voice of America
have different
missions. RFA is a "surrogate" broadcaster, which means it´s expected to
provide the kind of
local and regional news that a domestic station would provide if it could
operate in a free and
open society.
VOA, on the other hand, has been tasked with the unique mission of providing
not only news
and information, but also feature stories and other content that essentially
tell foreign
audiences who Americans are and what we believe in. VOA alone has to broadcast
editorials
and programs that show how our democracy works by featuring balanced
discussions with
opposing sides about our government and its policies.
No other broadcaster has this role, which is why VOA has the reputation for
being the one
place where you know you can get an unbiased and accurate description of where
the U.S.
government stands on the important issues of the day.
Will all this be available on VOA´s Web site? Of course. But there´s always a
chance that if
you´re an average Chinese citizen and you want to go to VOA´s Mandarin Web
site, you´re
going to run into the same kind of blocking that you´d get if you typed the
words "Dalai Lama"
into your Web browser.
As I said at the outset, I´m a big supporter of Web-based outreach. But in a
country as
important as China, I believe we need to use both old and new technologies to
make sure
that our voice can be heard.
Standard rig : ICOM R75 / 2x16 V / m@h40 heads Sennheiser
Please read and distribute this 15 year research article
http://tinyurl.com/5vzg7e
Please read my article on SINPO at http://tinyurl.com/yt7qjd
________________________
http://zlgr.multiply.com (radio monitoring site plus audio clips ) MAIN SITE
http://www.delicious.com/gr_greek1/@zach (all mypages !!)
........
Zacharias Liangas , Thessaloniki Greece
greekdx @ otenet dot gr ---
Pesawat penerima: ICOM R75 , Lowe HF150 , Degen 1102,1103,108,
Tecsun PL200/550, Chibo c300/c979, Yupi 7000
Antenna: 16m hor, 2x16 m V invert, 1m australian loop
---[Start Commercial]---------------------
Order your WRTH 2011:
http://www.hard-core-dx.com/redirect2.php?id=wrth2011
---[End Commercial]-----------------------
________________________________________
Hard-Core-DX mailing list
[email protected]
http://montreal.kotalampi.com/mailman/listinfo/hard-core-dx
http://www.hard-core-dx.com/
_______________________________________________
THE INFORMATION IN THIS ARTICLE IS FREE. It may be copied, distributed
and/or modified under the conditions set down in the Design Science License
published by Michael Stutz at
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/dsl.html
