Losing sight of the forest because of a few trees
Some details in the "Clarifications Needed" post distracted some readers, so let me clarify the missed-information about the 2014/2015 bills to remake the BBG
Last week, I published “Clarifications are needed – When well-meaning academic reporting becomes misinformation.” The post was widely read and garnered quite a bit of attention. A number of readers emailed support and appreciation for the airing of events around the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) that otherwise remain barely known and generally hidden. Why these details remain largely unknown ten years later is, in my opinion, due to the general apathy from the government, both the legislative and executive branches, and the public, including academia, toward the agency. The result is a shallow understanding of BBG, now called the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), including its mission, how it is structured and why, how it operates, its relationship with and utility to US national security, and the nature and causes of its problems.
A couple of readers, however, said my critique was unfair due, in part, to UK libel laws that would hinder including some of the narrative from my post in academic publications. That raeaction shows they missed the forest from the trees.
These critics focused on the colorful details I shared of the relationship between the Prague Freedom Foundation (PFF) and L88 with the BBG. These details could not, I was told, appear in a UK academic publication without risk, at considering the lack availability of these details in a peer-reviewed source. However, that color commentary provided a backdrop to better understand a bill the authors had presented as one thing when that bill was really something else quite different.
I would not expect the authors to include PFF and L88 in their book. That storyline was too complex, required too many words to properly explain, and would have been a crazy distraction in the part of the book that was setting the scene for their main argument.
What I did expect was an accurate presentation of the facts. My critique was laser focused on a single paragraph in the book, specifically how they described proposed legislation for “an ambitious restructure” of BBG. This was not, in my opinion, a matter of interpretation of events, but a signficant error of omission resulting in not just an inaccurate historical record, but misleading information.
If you missed my prior post, I called out this paragraph from their book (pages 50-51):
For these reasons, an ambitious restructure was proposed in a bipartisan bill introduced in 2014 by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) (Weed 2016; Metzgar 2013). The Royce-Engel bill proposed creating a new International Communications Agency within the State Department, headed by the CEO. It also proposed to amalgamate surrogate stations into a single network, which VOA would supply with content, as well as continuing to carry government editorials. Controversially, the bill proposed to revoke legislation seen by journalists as forming the statutory firewall: that is, the International Broadcasting Act (1994) and VOA’s Charter (1976). Instead, the bill proposed to introduce new objectives “clarifying” that the purpose of all US-funded international media was to support US foreign policy.
The narrative above is rather anodyne: a bipartisan bill (sounds like broad support), establishing a CEO (sounds like a good leadership step), and consolidating the three grantee stations—Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Middle East Broadcasting Network—into one organization (sounds efficient).1 The only “controversy,” we are left to believe, is with the “statutory firewall,” but this could be balanced out in readers’ minds by the “clarifying” of the agency’s mission.
An aside, I have long argued against thinking the VOA Charter is some kind of statutory firewall. The Charter—enshrined in 22 USC 6202—is a set of unenforceable guidelines labeled as “standards” and “principles.” It is not, in any sense, a guardrail, let alone a firewall. The modern firewall was the since-abolished board, which insulated the agency from the whims of the rest of the executive branch and Congress.
Back to the bill. The reality of the Royce bill was far different than the authors’ narrative, thus my harsh words. And one only needed to read the bill. There should have been at least a mention of the Freedom News Network (FNN), since the bill created USICA and FNN, the latter being independent from, well, anything like oversight over its leadership and operations.
What the reader was not told was the 2014 bill, aka H.R. 4490, for House Resolution 4490, was reintroduced in the next session of Congress in May 2015. This second iteration, H.R. 2323, confirmed the intentions of the first since any inadvertent language in the original bill would have been removed or revised before being reintroduced.
So what did H.R. 4490 and the revised H.R. 2323, propose that has me so upset and claiming whitewashing? In my prior post, I shared an email I wrote to a colleague in July 2015 where I discussed some topline issues of the revised bill. By the way, USG is shorthand for the US Government as a whole, VOA is Voice of America, and “grantee” below refers to FNN.
On the topic of H.R. 2323, I think it’s worth highlighting the destruction of the agency and more importantly of the USG’s ability to leverage its tax dollars. The purpose of BBG’s broadcast entities has been press freedom and empowerment of audiences through access to and sharing of news and information. 2323 changes that. It puts both a revised VOA and a revised grantee on the track of being advocates of democracy promotion and mouthpieces of government. Instead of being about empowering the target audience, the VOA mission becomes a loudspeaker for USG (namely State) and the grantee transforms into an advocate of ‘democracy promotion’. Both will fall directly into the trappings of propaganda, in spirit and function. Whereas this charge was easily dismissed before, no longer will the backbone, the raison d’etre, be professional journalism to break through the ignorance and propaganda and empower with facts.
A closer read of 2323 exposes some serious defects that are apparently willful, especially considering this is a second edition of the bill, having been revised from 4490 in the previous Congress. It should be troubling that the board of FNN is selected by the grantee organizations. The ‘appropriate committees’ in Congress are consulted, but objections from Congress may only come in the form of enacting a ‘joint resolution of disapproval.’ (Section 221(b) and 221(c), p54-55).
Further, the proposed FNN may not be managed or guided, directly or indirectly, through grant management or other means, by the federal government, including the ‘parent’ of the revised BBG (proposed to be USICA). According to Section 221(d), p55,
At no time may the United States International Communications Agency add requirements to a grant agreement with the Freedom News Network that could be construed as inappropriate supervision, oversight, or management in accordance with section 108(d). Nothing in this title may be construed to make the Freedom News Network an agency, establishment, or instrumentality of the United States Government…
Under Section 110(c), the CEO of the new USICA, formerly known as the BBG, may, after consulting the USICA Board and ‘the appropriate Congressional committees’, determine that FNN is not carrying out the mission as described in Section 212 and found to be not adhering to the standards and principles in Section 213. After that, the CEO may then solicit and consider applications from ‘eligible entities’. The ability of USICA to manage by grant is nearly impossible with even the nuclear option — of terminating the grant — nearly impossible.
The new grantee may take on whatever mission it wants, including taking over VOA markets seemingly at will…
FNN may make whatever contracts it wishes, with whomever. Considering the present known role of L88/PFF, two entities that are one and the same, where PFF actively operates as a lobbyist for both L88 and 2323, serious questions should be raised about the true purpose and beneficiary of 2323. It does not appear that the audience, nor USG or the tax payer, are the beneficiary here.
The book’s audience didn’t need to know the PFF/L88 story to get a handle on this bill. It would have been distracting and blown up limits on the word count. However, properly telling the story around H.R. 4490 / H.R. 2323 would have reinforced the authors’ broader narrative and purpose. So not only is the reader misinformed, but the authors missed an opportunity.
Like the PFF/L88 story, the following also didn’t need to be in the book. However, they help show the reality of the bill was not as it was explained. Further below, I’ll offer an alternative paragraph that might present the bill in more accurate light.
In H.R. 2323 (2015), FNN’s board members, ostensibly providing guidence to the network, were selected by the presidents of Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Middle East Broadcast Network, the grantee networks to be consolidated into the new FNN. In the prior bill, the initial board was selected by the Chair and Ranking Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The White House could not review the selection of or reject FNN board members. In H.R. 2323 (2015), Congress could object to the initial board assembled by the network presidents through the “enactment of a joint resolution.” The FNN board replenished itself, also without oversight. Lest you think that bylaws might be a backdoor to outside governance, you’d be wrong. The bylaws were not subject to review or approval by the White House or Congress. The board, by the way, was unpaid.
Importantly, the bills created two new CEOs, one for USICA and one for FNN. The bill declared a candidate for USICA CEO “shall” have specific qualifications, and did not list any qualifications needed for the FNN CEO.2 The USICA CEO was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. The FNN CEO was selected by the FNN board and served at the pleasure of the FNN board. The White House nor any other executive agency had a say in hiring or firing the FNN CEO.
FNN created its own strategic plan. Though it shared its plan with USICA and the State Department, and others, it had no obligation to adhere to any recommendations or requirements made these or other entities. The bill specifically declared that USICA and the State Department “shall avoid even the appearance of involvement in daily operations, decisions, and management” of FNN. The Freedom News Network’s strategy, goals, and objectives were set independently by FNN and were not subject to White House or Congressional approval, and the grant of tax dollars to FNN could not be inconsistent with FNN’s strategic plan, which, again, FNN wrote. Let me restate this: FNN decided what it wanted to do, where, why, when, and how and did so as long as it provided adequate language in its strategic plan.
The bill did not just create FNN, it made impositions on USICA and its Voice of America. The most notable of these did not apply to FNN.
No employees of USICA, except the USICA CEO and the VOA Director may be paid more than GS15. This was a kind of leadership decapitation through eliminating Senior Executive Service (SES) positions at USICA and VOA since SES positions are paid above the GS15 payscale.
Replacement or new hires of GS14/15 may not occur without a detailed “staffing pattern” submitted to Congress or consultation with Congress. This was another way to remove or restrict senior leadership at the agency. This and the prior pay limit were ticking time bombs.
Detailed reports, including a “Listenership Report,” were required of USICA but not of FNN.
USICA board members may not serve beyond their terms. Seemingly innocuous, this was another ticking time bomb since, in the real world, the wheels of Presidential appointments grind slowly.
USICA board members “shall be selected by the President from among citizens distinguished in the fields of public diplomacy, mass communications, print, broadcast media, or foreign affairs.” FNN board members were to have only a “demonstrated background in media or the promotion of democracy and experience in measuring media impact.”
There is more, but I want to reiterate a few critical points of the Royce bill. First, it fragments, rather than integrates, US international media operations under two boards and two CEOs, not one like the authors stated. Second, FNN, which the authors didn’t mention, decided on its own what it would broadcast, to whom, to where, when, and why. Neither the White House, USICA, the State Department, or Congress could exercise any oversight over FNN’s operations, including FNN’s personnel or FNN’s governance. FNN could, for example, decide to enter VOA markets, even if meant redundancy and cannibalizing VOA audience share.
Even a brief mention of the Freedom News Network story would have strengthened the book’s broader narrative since FNN is a story of an attempt to capture the news agency. Though this capture wasn’t from the White House, as was the appointment of Michael Pack as USAGM CEO, it was still an attempted capture, and for similar reasons (plus, it seems, a profit motive when you include the PFF/L88 angle)3. The story reveals how vulnerable the agency was to capture. The authors could have spent more time on this point, but I am not faulting them for that.
I am feeling bold, so I’ll propose an alternate paragraph that better describes the Royce bill, or bills. I appreciate that the authors had not only a legal concern, but a very hard word limit. So, here is my (draft) attempt:
A bipartisan bill introduced in 2014 by Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) proposed creating a new International Communications Agency and a Freedom News Network, each with their own CEOs and their own boards (Weed 2016; Metzgar 2013). The Freedom News Network, created by amalgamating the grantee stations into a single network, would set its own strategy and select its own board and CEO independent from the White House, the State Department, and Congress. VOA, under the new ICA, would supply the Freedom News Network with content as well as continuing to carry government editorials. Controversially, the bill proposed to revoke legislation seen by journalists as forming the statutory firewall: that is, the International Broadcasting Act (1994) and VOA’s Charter (1976).
Their paragraph was 121 words, and mine above is 124. Editing someone else’s work is always easier, I’ll admit.
Also, in reviewing my original post, I found that I was wrong found in declaring the Royce bill passed the House in 2014. It did, as the Congressional Research Service report authored by Matt Weed referred to above (“Weed 2016”), accurately (of course) stated in a footnote (FN33).
From an insider’s point of view, that the bill passed the House wasn’t signficant. Though this is a point that understandably was not—and arguably could not, at least in how their book was structured—by the authors, the ease with which the bill was introduced and passed, and without any debate, reflected the ease of the near “capture” of the agency then. For a personal anecdote, in my meetings with Members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in my role as a Governor of the BBG, meetings that were both relationship building and sometimes to discuss options to help the agency get to a better place, it was remarkable how few Members on the committee had any real knowledge of the agency they were supposed to exercise oversight over. A few were surprised BBG and VOA still existed.
I greatly appreciate the work the authors put into an otherwise largely ignored yet important topic. Their scholarly research here fills an enormous gap, a gap that inexplicably exists. No, it’s not inexplicable. This broad subject area simply doesn’t garner the interest that it should. That’s for a different time.
Thanks for reading.
Today’s bonus picture is currently the desktop picture on my laptop.
Separately, I strongly disagree with calling the grantee networks, RFE/RL, RFA, MBN, surrogates. VOA is a surrogate as well, making all of USAGM (then BBG) surrogates. The concept of a “surrogate” here was to convey the radio station operated as a local station because local media was absent. That is, by definition, VOA’s mission as well. The whole of the agency’s purpose was to deliver news and information to audiences that lack adequate access to truthful news and information. The non-compete clause in the Smith-Mundt Act also emphasizes this: once there is adequate local media, the surrogate operations of VOA et al are no longer necessary in the target market.
Section 104(b) of HR 2323: the USICA CEO “shall be selected from among United States citizens with two or more of the following qualifications:
1) A distinguished career in managing a large organization or Federal agency.
2) Experience in the field of mass communications, print, or broadcast media.
3) Experience in foreign affairs or international relations.
4) Experience in directing United States public diplomacy programs.”
I didn’t mention conversations I had with the State Department about L88, including its effort to buy State Department buildings, including the building housing the US Mission to the EU, and L88’s poor management of a State Department building in Germany. Seriously, if you think the details I shared were crazy, there is so much more.
I've read thousands of your words on this topic and with each new entry I'm reminded that while I take pleasure in shaming House and Senate members for their lack of knowledge on foreign affairs and the need for robust public diplomacy, it's really about the lack of leadership at State and the White House. The executive branch when controlled by either party has failed to be a proponent for communications that present and explain our values and actions to the world. Our actions don't "speak for themselves" when others are doing all the interpretation. When the media environment is being so hotly contested, you might think we would care to spend a pittance in that contest. Yes, i was helping to channel $100s of millions (and yes, billions when totaled up) to DoD communications efforts because we all believed it was better than doing nothing but were we undermining BBG at the same time? I hazard to guess.