Below are replies kindly provided by Kim Andrew Elliott to queries on my part regarding the role of Alhurra in the coverage of D.C. Car Chase:
Hello John,
Thank for your email. Good to hear from you.
I'll try to address your questions below...
(1) Why/how was the coverage by the Alhurra "exclusive?" (granted, the USG "indirectly" funds it). Copyright lawyers: Please enlighten me.
It was exclusive because Alhurra had the only broadcast-quality video recording of the crisis as it was unfolding near the Capitol. They were getting ready to do another story and happened to be at the right place at the right time.
(2) I'm willing to bet the MSM editors had no idea that Alhurra was a USG funded TV because of the Arabic above its English.
Probably.
They probably got it confused with Al Jazeera.
Well, "Alhurra" is pretty clear on the screen.
(3) As I looked at that clip, I thought I was a viewer in the Middle East ...
(4) Also, having served as a Foreign Service officer in communist-dominated Eastern Europe during the Cold War, seeing a major event being covered by a state (am referring to a central government) TV station (granted, only in part) left me quite concerned about the future of media freedom in the "homeland."
Relax. This was the only video of the event as it was unfolding, so other stations used it. It had no propaganda/public diplomacy value, other than publicity for Alhurra by making sure the Alhurra bug was on the screen.
(5) According to a senior VOA employee, apparently "the largest single market for VOA's Somali program is --- Minneapolis!" Was having such a large (granted "niche") domestic audience the original purpose of VOA's programs (begun in 1942), intended for international listeners? Well, I guess times have changed (I won't say, now the US has to propagandize the whole world, including its very own USA).
Web traffic for VOA Somali may be higher from the USA than from Somalia because there aren't yet many internet users in Somalia. The actual audience for VOA Somali, using traditional broadcast media such as shortwave, is much larger in Somalia than in the USA.
Immigrant communities in the USA want news about their home countries in their native languages, and VOA can provide this as a value-added public service at no additional cost to the US taxpayers. The only problem is if VOA is doing propaganda rather than news, but we can assume VOA is doing news unless someone finds evidence to the contrary.
(6) Perhaps unintentionally, but the USG is "hiding" its presence in this clip by not stating that "this footage is sponsored/presented thanks to U.S. government funding." So your typical American viewer -- not familiar with Alhurra or the sources of its funding -- has no idea that what s/he is seeing is brought to her/him thanks to taxpayers' money.
That probably would be more information than could fit in the bottom third of a TV screen. But remember, this was just video of a news event. Each MSM relayer of this video could decide whether to use it or not, and how to use it. It would be interesting to see how the various MSM outlets described Alhurra. Some did call it an Arab news outlet. Search news.google.com for...
Alhurra OR "Al Hurra"
... and an interesting content analysis could be undertaken.
At the Alhurra website, the English "About Us" is at the bottom of the page, then at the bottom of that page is the statement that Alhurra is funded by the US government.
(7) There are increasing questions in the media (see "Execution on our Streets" by Peter Van Buren) about the shooting of this mentally-ill woman (with a child in her car, thank God spared of bullets) by USG police forces. Would it not have been appropriate in such an uncertain situation for the MSM to provide footage not provided by a USG-funded media outlet?
No such video was available from any source other than Alhurra. The MSM will use the best video they can get. Someone might have been there filming a commercial, and that would have been used if necessary.
So, John, this is not a defining case of the domestic dissemination of USIB. It was a one-off lucky video opportunity for Alhurra.
If this had taken place before the domestic dissemination prohibition was lifted, it would have been an interesting conundrum. Some MSM would have used parts of the video without asking permission, citing "fair use." Others would have sought permission from Alhurra. Then Alhurra would have a dilemma: say no because of Smith-Mundt, or say yes because this is great publicity for Alhurra, Smith-Mundt be damned. Or Alhurra might have finessed it by saying "we can't give you specific permission, but note that Alhurra content is in the public domain."
The bigger question is whether serious news coverage will eventually have to be government-subsidized or at least funded by a nonprofit. That raises the possibility of the government or nonprofit trying the guide the news, either by emphasis within each news item, or by selection of news items to be broadcast. Commercial news media have many advertisers, and that tends to dilute the influence that any one advertiser might have.
OK to attribute the above comments to me by my name. [...]
Best,
Kim
1 comment:
Elliott's activities and his blog raise valid questions, despite the disclaimer on his blog site. He accepts no comments on items he posts, only email traffic from readers. So, for example, he has largely ignored stories published by BBG Watch, which has emerged in recent years as a main source of information about the many problems and mismanagement under the BBG and at VOA.
Why is he permitted to continue these blogging activities, which include expressing personal opinions about a subject (US International Broadcasting) that relates directly to his employment and often about international affairs linked to USIB, when any other employee if they wrote an article about these topics would have to submit material for prior review by the BBG or IBB public affairs departments?
Post a Comment