Reviewing a past attempt to "reform" US international broadcasting
When framing obscures important details
[Update: in the email I pasted below, I refer to a new—and still draft—version of the agency’s mission statement that I wrote. That related to a strategic plan I was developing for the agency then. I previously posted that plan here.]
In September, I wrote about my disappointment in how a bill to “reform” the Broadcasting Board of Governors, now called the US Agency for Global Media, was described in an otherwise thoughtful and deeply researched book on the agency. See here and a follow-up here. This is the book passage I objected to:
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 description above grossly mischaracterized what the bill would have done to the agency. In my first post, I described the setup for the bill, along with evidence disputing the framing. In my second post, which is linked above, I provided further explanation because, as the title of the post suggested, some readers lost the forest from the trees described in the first post.
This update will be shorter than either. In both of those posts, I shared an email I wrote to a colleague in July 2015 on the second iteration of the 2014 bill described above. The second iteration of the bill, which thankfully failed as well, showed the severest faults in the first bill were intended as they remained. In both the 2014 and 2015 iterations, the main feature of the bills was not creating a new International Communications Agency (ICA), whether in the State Department or otherwise, but creating a separate organization that included three of the agency’s five networks with the secondary feature of planing time bombs in ICA.
See the prior posts if you’re interested or need to review the conversation. This background may be helpful when considering what may be coming for the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM) and its components.
To veer of the purpose of this post, I’ll post comments later on the Project 2025 section about USAGM and the Voice of America (VOA). It is worthwhile to look at the critique, some of which is relevant and should be discussed. I’ll say now that the author included a curious, inexplicable error in their brief history of VOA: “The original network, VOA, functioned under the Office of Coordinator of Information as early as 1941, the War Department’s Office of War Information from 1942 to 1945, the State Department from 1945 to 1953, …” Did you catch it? The author states the Office of War Information (OWI) was under the Department of War. A friend asked me if I knew where that reference originated since we knew that OWI was not under the War Department. I tried different Google searches to see if there was a specific source the author used for that reference. I couldn’t find a particular source. However, when I used part of the sentence as my search term, Google AI’s overview above the search results told me OWI “operated under the War Department 1942 to 1945.” Interesting.
Let’s return the attention back to the bill to “reform” the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG). To repeat myself, I included an email I wrote in July 2015 in the two posts linked above. Below is an email I wrote to a colleague in May 2014, immediately after the bill was publicly introduced, where I highlighted parts of the bill I took issue with, explaining the intended purpose of the particular element, describing the issue around this element, and my suggestion on remedying this element since I considered it a damaging defect. As a reminder, I served as a Governor on the BBG from 2013 to 2017, and these were my own thoughts. Neither staff nor anyone else contributed to these (so don’t try to blame anyone else).
Submitted for your reading pleasure:
1. Use of 'public diplomacy'
intended purpose: to link the agency to foreign policy
issue: a[s] defined in 4490 and as commonly used in the US and abroad, 'public diplomacy' intends to create a relationship between peoples. This agency does 'share America's story' but not for the same reasons [as] the State Department. We 'share' the U.S. for three deeply related reasons. First, to counter propaganda about our history, our domestic events, policies, and more. Second, to create a frame of reference for non-US audiences to better understand our policies, our actions, and the statements of our leaders. Third, which often the most important and comprehensive reason, to provide an alternate view of their domestic situation (i.e. race relations, elections, health, etc), to see what is possible, what the freedom to speak and disagree can look like, and more.
The use of 'public diplomacy' is at odds with the mission stated elsewhere in 4490 on where the agency should focus its efforts.
This agency is about more than creating and disseminating content. It is primarily about the freedom of news, the freedom to speak and the freedom to listen. Our anti-censorship and internet freedom programs are a part of this, but not the only part. We need to emphasize this broader mission better. The use of the term also assumes this agency operates in areas where the U.S. matters most, but in fact, many of our markets the U.S. is not a key actor. We need to focus on the audience, not the U.S.
suggestion: remove references to 'public diplomacy' and insert text about the uniqueness of the agency, its mission and its value. There are several key efforts underway, and about to start, to correct the internal, and external, narrative of this agency that will remove any lingering and erroneous notion that we are 'another news agency' or that BBC or CNN is our competition or peers of this agency. Suggested starting points is the following text from the **draft** mission statement (last revised Feb 19):
The BBG is a unique and necessary instrument of U.S. foreign policy. We provide an important and necessary capability not provided by any other government agency, commercial operation, or non-governmental organization. By focusing on creating access to the news and information audiences need, and creating spaces for them to engage and share the information, we empower people to hold their government accountable, to know the facts about their adversaries (and our adversaries), to understand and develop rule of law, human security, and to better know and understand the United States. Further, these activities create the space for audiences to understand and engage the efforts of other U.S. Government agencies.
The BBG has no peer. No other government agency, commercial entity, or non-governmental organization does what we do. Our purpose, from the founding of a civilian Voice of America in late 1945 to the present day, has been to put ourselves out of business by establishing both the demand for and the existence of free and vibrant media in other lands. We operate where commercial agencies cannot or will not go. Our competition is ignorance, governments that try to hide the truth from their people, and international media that distort, obfuscate, and ignore the truth.
2. Two CEOs
intended purpose: to provide a single authority over each the grantee and the federal entity.
issue: It is not clear how the CEOs will work together and it could be interpreted that they are equals. We need more integration, not disaggregation.
suggestion: change the grantee chief to 'president', make the grantee chiefs 'director' to create equality with the Voice of America leadership. Subordinate grantee president to agency CEO.
3. Grantee Control
intended purpose: control of the grantee by the agency is assumed to be through meetings and grant management.
issue: it has been recently demonstrated that the agency lacks the authority to manage the grantees under the grant mechanisms. Hill staff believe if we had the right grant officers and leadership we would be able to exercise the necessary direction over the grantees to make sure they work with the agency, across borders, etc. However, the OMB sided with the grantees earlier this year, and against the OIG and the Board, stating the these grantees are different and additional control is not allowed. The current 4490 does allow the agency to terminate funding to the grantee, but this is unlikely under any scenario but the most extreme over time.
suggestion: add necessary language in 4490 to authorize the agency to exercise the necessary direction over the grantee through the grant mechanism and any other methods necessary.
4. Grant Board
intended purpose: provide a 'local' advisory and oversight function to the grantee leadership.
issue: this increases the chance of dissent within the agency. It is also redundant: the function of advising the agency has, since 1948, been in the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, formerly the Advisory Commission on Information. The at most incremental value of this board is likely to be outweighed by the additional bureaucratic burden of managing it, funding it, and integrating and deconflicting its input with the agency and other directions and requirements.
suggestion: eliminate the board. Remind the Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy of its role to provide relevant and timely guidance, with additional legislation if necessary (but unlikely), and confirm members to the Commission that are appropriate for the task.
The grantee is not NED or Freedom House and the structure does not need to mirror those entities. The agency, and the grantee, may share objectives, but we are content creators. This board undermines the agility the grantee and the agency requires and will likely undermine the ability to control or direct the grantee as required to be efficient, effective, and to prevent duplication in the absence of the first two.
5. Hiring of IBB and VOA staff
intended purpose: restrict automatic promotions to and hiring of GS14/15 positions to address needs of a modern communication agency.
issue: this process may not work as intended and may create additional friction on bringing in the right people. Lack of appropriate skills is in more levels than 14/15.
suggestion: allow the CEO to manage the issue of staffing and skills. Provide, if necessary, additional funding to offer buy-outs. See Defederalization Strategy below.
6. International Communications Agency
intended purpose: break from 'BBG' name
issue: besides association with President Carter's attempt to rename USIA, 'ICA' is easily misread as CIA, especially in other language where the word order changes.
suggestion: rename the agency the Voice of America or we can identify an appropriate name that crosses languages.
Related to 4490, not in 4490, but perhaps should be in:
a. Duplication across the Executive branch
Several other executive branch departments and bureaus attempt to do news media, local communication platforms, and anti-censorship in duplication with our efforts. But they lack the same time horizons, understanding of the technologies, have a different measurement of success (and failure), and more. We should have less cross-agency duplication.
b. Establish a grantee to execute unique projects and receive funds from the private or commercial sector
We need to centralize our ability to gather funds from across the interagency and create a better ability to get funds from the private sector. This is a different organization than the Consolidated Grantee in structure and function. The BBC created its own, which also permits some additional non-standard funding opportunities.
c. Defederalization Strategy
A modern media agency needs an agility to acquire the right skills and technologies which the federal agency lacks. However, there must remain a federal hub, or nub, to integrate with the federal government, to own federal assets as necessary (e.g. a transmitter placed on Embassy grounds, integration with national security meetings, security clearances, etc.). We may find it desirable to defederalize some of our broadcasting capabilities but the current grantee is not the right fit.
If you're interested, I’d happily explain any of the points above or detail the relevant arguments, issues, reports, etc. Comment on the post or reply to it if you received it from my substack in your inbox.
Some may not be aware that President Carter changed the US Information Agency’s (USIA) name to USICA, and that didn’t go over well. I don’t know of solid examples of USICA getting confused with the CIA, but it was an argument around then and made since.
When I entered the “public diplomacy” world near the turn of the century (to earn a Master of Public Diplomacy), I was told USIA went by USIS, for US Information Service, “because USIA sounds too much like CIA.” That, I since learned, was bogus: USIS existed for decades before USIA was around. USIS was often the known “brand” in many countries well before USIA entered the scene. USIS was a product or service where USIA was the agency. So the parting picture / parting shot today will be of a USIS product from September 1945 rather than a cycling pic.
The address in the header still stands and can be found here. This bulletin came out as USIS was transitioned from OWI to State under the executive order issued August 31, 1945, abolishing OWI and ordering the transfer of OWI’s (and those of the Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs) international information programs to the State Department.