This BBG’s demise eliminates the “firewall” of a nine-person bipartisan board with fixed and staggered terms, and replaces it with one politically-appointed CEO. This change will have consequences.
Traditionally, people around the world huddled around a shortwave radio to get news from abroad. Increasingly, they watch an international news channel via cable or satellite television, or access a foreign website or social media outlet. Whatever the medium used, the need for a credible alternative to domestic state-controlled media is the main reason international broadcasting has had an audience since the 1930s.
Credibility is the essence of successful international broadcasting. The shortwave frequencies, satellite channels, and online media are full of propaganda, but serious news consumers seek out the news organizations that they trust.
International broadcasting in languages such as Burmese or Hausa has little commercial potential. National governments must step in to provide the funding. The foremost challenge is to ensure that the journalism is independent from the governments that hold the purse strings.
To achieve this, there is no substitute for a multipartisan governing board. Its main function is to appoint the senior managers of the broadcasting organization, so that politicians don’t. This is how “public service” broadcasting corporations throughout the world, e.g. BBC, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, maintain their independence.
When a government is directly involved in the production of news, the results are generally deleterious. The outcome can be as extreme as the lies and distortions of German broadcasts before and during World War II. Or the output can be something like the stultifying commentaries that filled much of Radio Moscow’s schedule during the Cold War. And, as can be observed by watching Russia’s RT or China’s CCTV News on cable TV, propaganda can also be manifest by emphasizing some topics, while downplaying or ignoring others.
I believe I had a role in the creation of the BBG 21 years ago. As an audience research analyst at VOA and a student of international broadcasting, I was concerned about the impact of politically appointed VOA directors on the VOA news service. I wrote about this in “Too Many Voices of America,” Foreign Policy, Winter 1989-90.
So, if I was not the father of the BBG, I was at least its crazy uncle.
For the most part, the BBG functioned well as a firewall. Most importantly, directors of VOA and presidents of RFE/RL were no longer appointed by the president, but by the BBG. When a new president was elected, those directors and presidents and their senior managers stayed on. There was no jarring change of the news agenda that the audiences for international broadcasting would notice.
Only an independent news organization can build the credibility needed to attract an audience. Audiences that seek out international broadcasting are seeking an antidote to the state-controlled media in their own countries. More state-controlled media is not the answer.
Nevertheless, among the employees of U.S. government international broadcasting, few tears will be shed for the passing of the BBG. The BBG had to make
unpopular but necessary decisions. Veteran personnel with radio skills had to make room for new television and online talent. Language services of the Cold War era signed off while others, especially those serving Muslim nations, rose in priority.
With the new one-person oversight of U.S. international broadcasting, the pendulum that vexed VOA and the other entities before the 1990s begins to swing again. In the old days, some VOA directors were committed journalists, others were policy hawks. The latter imposed priorities on news output which conformed more to the administration’s agenda than to the tenets of journalism. This will eventually happen again with a presidentially appointed CEO.
The revision of the International Broadcasting Act does stipulate a three-year term for the CEO, so that, in theory, provides something of a buffer. There could be short-lived continuity when a new president is elected. When that term expires, a future president could, hypothetically speaking, have an unusual level of interest in the mass media, and might appoint a CEO with a peculiar notion of news.
The legislation also retains standards of journalism, e.g. the news “will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive.” The CEO, however, can interpret what is meant by that. There is no longer the moderating influence of a bipartisan board.
Why should the U.S. government fund a news organization if it cannot influence its content?
1) Only an independent news organization can build the credibility needed to attract an audience. Audiences that seek out international broadcasting are seeking an antidote to the state-controlled media in their own countries. More state-controlled media is not the answer.
2) Independence enables the balance that builds trust in a news organization. VOA began broadcasting in 1942 with the famous words, “The news may be good or bad, we shall tell you the truth.” To radio listeners in Europe, VOA and BBC reported the many Allied losses early in the war. They were therefore believed when reporting Allied victories later in the war.
3) Well and fully informed audiences are bolstered against disinformation, information, and what we now call the fake news of dictators and terrorists and other international miscreants. These audiences are better equipped to form their own opinions about current events.
4) An unfettered news service supports U.S. interests in the long term. If U.S. policies are wise and virtuous, fully informed audiences, will, in the long term, understand the reasoning behind U.S. international conduct.
5) It speaks well of the United States that it is providing the news service that many people around the world rely on. It will alienate publics abroad if the United States provides a news-like product that is actually propaganda.
With the resumption of the swinging pendulum, it is only a matter of time until a future CEO of U.S. international broadcasting cleans house in its newsrooms. The change of tone will be apparent to audiences abroad. Credibility can be lost in a matter of weeks. It will take decades to restore.
KIM ANDREW ELLIOTT
CPD Blog Contributor
Audience Research Analyst, U.S. International Broadcasting Bureau
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/blog/farewell-firewall
***
Obama signs off on reducing status of Broadcasting Board of Governors
image (not from article) from
bbgwatch.com
BBG Watch Commentary
President Barack Obama has signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017,” which includes a provision to reduce the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ (BBG) governing board to an advisory status while making the BBG CEO position subject to a future nomination by the president and vetting and confirmation by the U.S. Senate.
While signing the legislation into law, President Obama expressed reservations about several of the 2017 NDAA provisions dealing with the U.S. Department of Defense. President Obama also had some reservations about the amendment dealing with the BBG, but they are not likely to have any practical effect during the waning days of his presidency. It will be up to Donald Trump and his administration to decide how to implement any reforms at the BBG and whom to put in charge of the agency.
In 2013, Obama’s then Secretary of State and
ex officio BBG member Hillary Clinton called the Broadcasting Board of Governors
“practically defunct.” This year the BBG, now headed by BBG CEO John Lansing, with Amanda Bennett as the Voice of America director, has
dropped even further in its last place in the Partnership for Public Service 2016 “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government” rankings.
Some of the most experienced former and current VOA journalists are complaining about dropping morale, a drastic increase in biased, partisan reporting at the Voice of America, and
VOA programs which romanticize ISIS and other terrorists. The program which several highly experienced current and former VOA journalists described as “romanticizing a terrorist,” was, however,
publicly praised by VOA director Amanda Bennett.
Many of the critics of BBG management and VOA programs, including the latest VOA program devoted to an ISIS terrorist, are registered Democrats who had voted for Hillary Clinton.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: “My Administration strongly supports the bill’s structural reform of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which streamlines BBG operations and reduces inefficiencies, while retaining the longstanding statutory firewall, protecting against interference with and maintaining the professional independence of the agency’s journalists and broadcasters and thus their credibility as sources of independent news and information. Section 1288 would elevate the current Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to the head of the agency and reduce the current members of the Board, unless on expired terms, from serving as the collective head of the agency to serving as advisors to the Chief Executive Officer. While my Administration supports the empowerment of a Chief Executive Officer with the authority to carry out the BBG’s important functions, the manner of transition prescribed by section 1288 raises constitutional concerns related to my appointments and removal authority. My Administration will devise a plan to treat this provision in a manner that mitigates the constitutional concerns while adhering closely to the Congress’s intent.” [ Emphasis added.]
In February 2016,
President Obama delivered a major speech about the ideological threat from ISIL but did not mention the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the federal agency currently in charge of U.S. international media efforts. Bipartisan efforts to reform the BBG were led for several years by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), and Ranking Democrat, Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY).
Current BBG board chairman Jeff Shell, some of the current BBG board members, BBG CEO John Lansing, and VOA director Amanda Bennett strongly disagree that there is anything wrong with the agency’s management. At a recent BBG board meeting, they have all expressed
effusive praise for their “excellent” management team, even though BBG and VOA employees consider it the worst in the federal government, according to the most recent 2016 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).
The current BBG board brought John Lansing in September 2015 to lead the agency. He is believed to have been recommended to the BBG board by the outgoing BBG chairman Jeff Shell.
Amanda Bennett became VOA director several months later.
Neither of them has prior experience in U.S. government operations or management of U.S. foreign policy and public diplomacy.
Under the previous law governing the Broadcasting Board of Governors, John Lansing’s appointment was not proposed by President Obama and he was not vetted and confirmed by the U.S. Senate.
###
WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 23, 2016
Statement by the President on Signing the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017
Today, I have signed into law S. 2943, the “National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.” This Act authorizes fiscal year 2017 appropriations principally for the Department of Defense and for Department of Energy national security programs, provides vital benefits for military personnel and their families, and includes authorities to facilitate ongoing operations around the globe. It continues many critical authorizations necessary to ensure that we are able to sustain our momentum in countering the threat posed by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and to reassure our European allies, as well as many new authorizations that, among other things, provide the Departments of Defense and Energy more flexibility in countering cyber-attacks and our adversaries’ use of unmanned aerial vehicles. ...
My Administration strongly supports the bill’s structural reform of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which streamlines BBG operations and reduces inefficiencies, while retaining the longstanding statutory firewall, protecting against interference with and maintaining the professional independence of the agency’s journalists and broadcasters and thus their credibility as sources of independent news and information. Section 1288 would elevate the current Chief Executive Officer of the Broadcasting Board of Governors to the head of the agency and reduce the current members of the Board, unless on expired terms, from serving as the collective head of the agency to serving as advisors to the Chief Executive Officer. While my Administration supports the empowerment of a Chief Executive Officer with the authority to carry out the BBG’s important functions, the manner of transition prescribed by section 1288 raises constitutional concerns related to my appointments and removal authority. My Administration will devise a plan to treat this provision in a manner that mitigates the constitutional concerns while adhering closely to the Congress’s intent. ...
The Meaning of BBG
You have found the definitive source for the meaning of BBG. This page contains all the definitions of BBG, crowd sourced, moderated and curated by real people who care about the true definitions of BBG.
The Top Definition of BBG
The most popular meaning of BBG is: Beautiful Baby Girl
Example Usage of BBG
Your my beautiful baby girl
What Other Meanings of BBG Are There?
- Best Be Going
- Add your own definition of BBG.
What is BBG?
BBG is Beautiful Baby Girl
BBG Means
The definition of BBG is "Beautiful Baby Girl".
BBG Definition
The meaning of BBG
BBG means Beautiful Baby Girl.
Now you understand the definition of BBG - BBG means "Beautiful Baby Girl".
We're glad to be of assistance. Click here to thank us:
What does BBG mean? BBG is an acronym, abbreviation or slang word that is explained above. If you ever forget what BBG means, just come back to Slang.org and we'll define any acronym you need help with.
