This approach assumes that government will still have a significant need for such services. However, audiences today are far more informed and independent compared to the broadcasting era, when even accessing basic information was a challenge.
If the consolidation operations compromise any perception of editorial independence from government narratives—whether through staff relocation or direct influence—it will likely result in diminished audience engagement and limited impact. Trust and transparency are critical for maintaining relevance and credibility in today’s global media landscape.
You're correct and I agree: "the approach assumes the government will still have a significant need for such services." I disagree with your second sentence, "audiences today are far more informed and independent compared to the broadcasting era." By defintion, this does not generally apply to the USAGM's target audiences. Access to truthful, fact-based news **from the perspective of the target audience** is difficult or largely non-existent with the USAGM's target audiences. When that is largely untrue, that's an exception and largely because of severe disinformation and growing censorship targeting the market (see Ukraine, Hungary), but that's the exception. The basic operating concept of the agency is to go out of business. Unfortunately, business is good. (That the agency has significant problems that leadership over the years have failed to fix and made worse is a separate issue, but one that needs to be addressed.)
It is questionable whether the government should be involved in the news business in any form. Communicating government policy is a separate matter.
If we were to justify this on a country-by-country basis, we would end up with an incredible number of obligations. Hungary is said to have a problematic political situation, but there is also a thriving opposition media scene, so it’s clearly a waste of our money.
Nowadays, people who want information about America can access it in any way they need.
I completely agree that these bureaucrats will always find ways to justify their existence, so the only reasonable solution is to shut it down.
I was on the content distribution side - our primary competitor was always BBC - in any market, anywhere in the world. It was always my position that we'd be stronger if we spoke with one voice (pardon the pun) instead of five and collapsed all the silos into one organization. The saved money could improve the product. I am not hopeful anything logical will happen. And I worry about the content.
What were you even competing with the BBC for? That’s ridiculous. If your goal is to bring people the story of America or provide uncensored information, the BBC was never your competition.
Mr. Stackman, the reality in the 1990s was that many of our transmissions took place on Shortwave, which allowed direct contact. But no one was listening to Shortwave; they were listening to and watching their local broadcasters and content providers.
So, we worked to place our content there. Our content needed some value, and the BBC was our competition for that. To be clear, it was purely a business decision for many of them.
We couldn't air our ideas until we had access to distribution, and the BBC offered a wide assortment of content, cash, training, and equipment.
Shortwave was a direct medium, requiring no gatekeeper—an affiliate strategy needed permission from the gatekeeper to make business decisions that would benefit their operation. In the majority of cases, this was the quality of our content. But we needed to make a business case to access the top tier—the most listened to/watched/used platforms.
I always felt that an affiliate strategy was an interim step until the world caught up with the opportunities provided by tInternetnet. While the Internet would allow direct contact, it would also be subject to many of the same problems as old Shortwave—a modern version of jamming.
So our office advocated for an "all of the above" distribution strategy - or as much as our budgets would allow - maintaining short-and-medium wave capability, using affiliates that provided a large audience - and increasing distribution via Internet and mobile.
In short - If no one is hearing/seeing/reading your message, you're talking to yourself.
George, FWIW, I agree with you and I always argued that BBC was **not** our competition. The BBG's purpose, objectives, and desired enstate were substantively different than the BBC's. I made this argument in the meetings with western government broadcasters (then called the "DG-7" or something like that), to Congress, inside the agency, to academics, etc. The chief "competitor" were the peddlers of disinformation, the conveyors of misinformation, and breakthrough to deliver where there were gaps of information.
Doug's framing, at the risk of putting words in his mouth, is intended to be more nuanced. Think of what he's saying as nudging elbows with a colleague to file a story filed and get it read by an audience. Moreover, his framing isn't global, despite his words. Not all markets are the same and not all audiences are the same, so the "competition" Doug puts forward a false equivalency. In short, in a limited bandwidth world, some people saw BBC as competition for the ears and eyes. In some cases, I believe this argument was often intended to distract from questioning the BBG's product.
Given what is being done (or at least attemped) with USAID, there seems little reason to assume that much if anything with be left of USAGM by the end of this year. It is mostly unknown to the cadre calling for demolishing any part of the government spends a penny on foreign aid or outreach, but it is likely just further down the list. Meanwhile, the information security and staffing resources required to operate almost any government program has been put a extreme risk, and the consequences of those moves may be all State can handle for a while. As far as the importance of PD to the new administration, the choise of the acting US tells us all that is needed.
The Office of Cuba Broadcasting was authorized by the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, 22 USC 1465 et seq. (Public Law 98-111, 97 Stat. 749, adopted October 4, 1983). “The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall establish within the International Broadcasting Bureau a Cuba service….” The authorizing legislation was modified somewhat by the Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law 104-114, 110 Stat. 798 and 809 as well as Section 203 of the Coordination of Assistance Program Implementation and Reports to Congress, Reprogramming, 22 USC 6063.
This approach assumes that government will still have a significant need for such services. However, audiences today are far more informed and independent compared to the broadcasting era, when even accessing basic information was a challenge.
If the consolidation operations compromise any perception of editorial independence from government narratives—whether through staff relocation or direct influence—it will likely result in diminished audience engagement and limited impact. Trust and transparency are critical for maintaining relevance and credibility in today’s global media landscape.
You're correct and I agree: "the approach assumes the government will still have a significant need for such services." I disagree with your second sentence, "audiences today are far more informed and independent compared to the broadcasting era." By defintion, this does not generally apply to the USAGM's target audiences. Access to truthful, fact-based news **from the perspective of the target audience** is difficult or largely non-existent with the USAGM's target audiences. When that is largely untrue, that's an exception and largely because of severe disinformation and growing censorship targeting the market (see Ukraine, Hungary), but that's the exception. The basic operating concept of the agency is to go out of business. Unfortunately, business is good. (That the agency has significant problems that leadership over the years have failed to fix and made worse is a separate issue, but one that needs to be addressed.)
It is questionable whether the government should be involved in the news business in any form. Communicating government policy is a separate matter.
If we were to justify this on a country-by-country basis, we would end up with an incredible number of obligations. Hungary is said to have a problematic political situation, but there is also a thriving opposition media scene, so it’s clearly a waste of our money.
Nowadays, people who want information about America can access it in any way they need.
I completely agree that these bureaucrats will always find ways to justify their existence, so the only reasonable solution is to shut it down.
I was on the content distribution side - our primary competitor was always BBC - in any market, anywhere in the world. It was always my position that we'd be stronger if we spoke with one voice (pardon the pun) instead of five and collapsed all the silos into one organization. The saved money could improve the product. I am not hopeful anything logical will happen. And I worry about the content.
What were you even competing with the BBC for? That’s ridiculous. If your goal is to bring people the story of America or provide uncensored information, the BBC was never your competition.
Mr. Stackman, the reality in the 1990s was that many of our transmissions took place on Shortwave, which allowed direct contact. But no one was listening to Shortwave; they were listening to and watching their local broadcasters and content providers.
So, we worked to place our content there. Our content needed some value, and the BBC was our competition for that. To be clear, it was purely a business decision for many of them.
We couldn't air our ideas until we had access to distribution, and the BBC offered a wide assortment of content, cash, training, and equipment.
Shortwave was a direct medium, requiring no gatekeeper—an affiliate strategy needed permission from the gatekeeper to make business decisions that would benefit their operation. In the majority of cases, this was the quality of our content. But we needed to make a business case to access the top tier—the most listened to/watched/used platforms.
I always felt that an affiliate strategy was an interim step until the world caught up with the opportunities provided by tInternetnet. While the Internet would allow direct contact, it would also be subject to many of the same problems as old Shortwave—a modern version of jamming.
So our office advocated for an "all of the above" distribution strategy - or as much as our budgets would allow - maintaining short-and-medium wave capability, using affiliates that provided a large audience - and increasing distribution via Internet and mobile.
In short - If no one is hearing/seeing/reading your message, you're talking to yourself.
George, FWIW, I agree with you and I always argued that BBC was **not** our competition. The BBG's purpose, objectives, and desired enstate were substantively different than the BBC's. I made this argument in the meetings with western government broadcasters (then called the "DG-7" or something like that), to Congress, inside the agency, to academics, etc. The chief "competitor" were the peddlers of disinformation, the conveyors of misinformation, and breakthrough to deliver where there were gaps of information.
Doug's framing, at the risk of putting words in his mouth, is intended to be more nuanced. Think of what he's saying as nudging elbows with a colleague to file a story filed and get it read by an audience. Moreover, his framing isn't global, despite his words. Not all markets are the same and not all audiences are the same, so the "competition" Doug puts forward a false equivalency. In short, in a limited bandwidth world, some people saw BBC as competition for the ears and eyes. In some cases, I believe this argument was often intended to distract from questioning the BBG's product.
Given what is being done (or at least attemped) with USAID, there seems little reason to assume that much if anything with be left of USAGM by the end of this year. It is mostly unknown to the cadre calling for demolishing any part of the government spends a penny on foreign aid or outreach, but it is likely just further down the list. Meanwhile, the information security and staffing resources required to operate almost any government program has been put a extreme risk, and the consequences of those moves may be all State can handle for a while. As far as the importance of PD to the new administration, the choise of the acting US tells us all that is needed.
The Office of Cuba Broadcasting was authorized by the Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act, 22 USC 1465 et seq. (Public Law 98-111, 97 Stat. 749, adopted October 4, 1983). “The Broadcasting Board of Governors shall establish within the International Broadcasting Bureau a Cuba service….” The authorizing legislation was modified somewhat by the Cuba Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (LIBERTAD) Act of 1996, Public Law 104-114, 110 Stat. 798 and 809 as well as Section 203 of the Coordination of Assistance Program Implementation and Reports to Congress, Reprogramming, 22 USC 6063.