EDITORIALS, CONTENT ANALYSIS, VOICE OF AMERICA 19

Running head: VOICE OF AMERICA, EDITORIALS, CONTENT ANALYSIS

SELLING AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY OVERSEAS:

EDITORIALS BROADCAST BY THE VOICE OF AMERICA

Jill Ayers Moss

George Mason University

Comm 675: Content Analysis

August 7, 2009


ABSTRACT

Critics of short-statement editorials broadcast by the Voice of America argue they “…fail to articulate the rational and context that would help others understand U.S. policies,” (Trachtenberg, 2007). In an effort to reveal if the programming reflects a full range of United States government policies, in a thorough and sufficient manner, and with balanced discussion from varying perspectives, a census content analysis of 2009 editorials is proposed. The author will recruit two individuals to contextually analyze a census sample of Voice of America editorials broadcast between the months of January and July, 2009. The sample (n=580) for this study will be printed from the VOA Editorial web site and assigned a unique identification number by the author. Coders will be trained up to 30 in preparation for official data collection. To determine intercoder reliability of the categories employed, two coders will co-code a subsample (n=58) representing 10 percent of the entire population. The subsample will be randomly selected from the population, and will also be included in the full sample of this proposed study. The study’s reliability will be measured via simple percent agreement, the most prevalent measure in social sciences. Scotts’ Pi, Cohen’s kappa and Krippendorff’s alpha will also be measured for reliability.


Selling American Foreign Policy Overseas:

Editorials Broadcast by the Voice of America

Voice of America’s reputation as a credible legacy news organization is in jeopardy. The United States-funded news and information agency was born in 1942 out of a need to battle the Axis powers’ propaganda during World War Two, (Rawnsley, 1996; Krugler, 2000). Since then, VOA has played a valuable role in American foreign policy. United States international broadcasting is intended to enhance the State Department’s public diplomacy mission, (Alexandre, 1988). VOA’s contribution to this effort is embodied partly in the form of editorial programs aired daily by 45 language services comprising the news agency. Whether VOA’s short-statement editorials persuade the hearts and minds of foreign audiences is questionable. Accordingly, are tax-payer dollars being spent on an effective method of communicating America’s policy positions? To help settle this debate, a review of VOA editorial content is necessary.

VOA editorial programming is mandated by law. In 1976, President Gerald Ford signed the VOA Charter, which guarantees the agency’s journalistic integrity while supporting America’s national security interests. The three tenets of the Charter read: 1) VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective, and comprehensive; 2) VOA will represent America, not any single segment of American society, and will therefore present a balanced and comprehensive projection of significant American thought and institutions; and 3) VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies, (VOA Web site, 2009).

There is perhaps no other document revered in the offices of the Voice of America as much as the Charter. But to understand the degree to which the charter appears to enshrine protection of VOA newsgathering, it is necessary to examine the document itself.

Review of Literature

The three stated principles in the VOA Charter were designed to appeal to the concerns of three distinct elements involved in the debate over VOA autonomy. The first principle was pushed by VOA journalists who were sworn to professional standards. The news staff wanted this tenet included in the Charter to prevent government intrusions into its journalistic procedure. The second principle of the Charter was included to reassure congressional representatives that the fullest projection of American opinion, not just the current administration’s opinion, would be offered in VOA programming. The third principle was included to console the State Department and executive branch officials who wanted the administration’s views to be disseminated. This is why the Voice of America broadcasts editorials today.

Taken as a whole, the Charter’s three principles are tied to a supreme mission of furthering American foreign policy objectives. Presently at the Voice of America, approximately 700 international broadcasters communicate on behalf of the United States government to more than 135-million listeners/viewers/internet users worldwide. These highly skilled individuals provide information daily in 45 languages to audiences in Africa, the Near East, South Asia, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, East Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America. U.S. international broadcast transmissions include “direct-to-home satellite, AM, FM, Internet, digital audio satellite, and shortwave,” (BBG Web site, 2009). Because of its technical ability to reach virtually every corner of the world at a relatively modest cost, VOA’s potential to inform and persuade populations is significant.

Theoretical Grounding

From the beginning, VOA promised to tell its listeners the truth, regardless of whether the news was good or bad. Walter Lippman (1922) was the first to describe this agenda setting function of mass media in his seminal work, Public Opinion. News and truth, he noted, are not always the same. Yet, the news media’s responsibility, he argued, is to help shape public perception of the world.

McComb and Shaw (1972) further posited in Agenda Setting theory that newsroom staff and broadcasters play an important role in shaping political reality. Based on what news is reported and in what manner, the scholars argued the public learns not only about issues, but also how much importance to attach to each issue.

The Voice of America, through its editorials, may quite possibly enjoy such salience transfer. Yet, this was not the intention of VOA staff members who drafted the Charter in the 1950’s. Their formal statement of broadcast principles read: “The long-range interests of the United States are served by communicating directly with the peoples of the world by radio. To be effective, the Voice of America must win the attention and respect of listeners. These principles will therefore govern Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts,” (VOA Web site, 2009).

Harold Lasswell (1934) maintained that truth’s embrace was synonymous with harnessing the power of propaganda for Good rather than Evil. Seemingly, Lasswell’s notion of “…propaganda-for-good became the foundation of numerous official efforts to improve and spread democracy by agencies such as the Voice of America, the United States Information Agency, the Office of International Information and Educational Exchange, and the State Department,” (Sproule, 1997, p. 215).

The Nature of Propaganda

U.S. international broadcasting plays a distinct political role simply by nature of the fact it is directed at foreign audiences whose listening motives are mainly political interest or curiosity (Wasburn, 1992). In view of its political charge, is international broadcasting to be labeled propaganda? A meaningful answer must depend on how one defines propaganda. If we take the term in its broad sense -- communication that tries to influence, that aims to affect its audience -- the answer is “yes.” But if we take the word in its pejorative implication -- as signifying sinister manipulation, deceit, and concealing motives, the answer is “no.”

Indeed, United States international broadcasting is part of the State Department’s multi-faceted public diplomacy mission. The term public diplomacy originated as a euphemism for propaganda in 1965. “The phrase gave a respectable identity to the USIA [United States Information Agency] career officer, for it was one step removed from the ‘vulgar’ realm of ‘public relations’ and by its use of the term ‘diplomacy,’ explicitly enshrined the USIA along side the State Department as a legitimate organ of American foreign relations,” (Cull, 2006, ¶ 14). Today, scholars differ over a common definition, mainly because the practitioner’s approach to public diplomacy emphasizes dialogue rather than propaganda.

Regardless of whether it is called propaganda, public diplomacy or, as is the case of the Voice of America – the dissemination of objective news and information – a primary rationale for international broadcasting is to support United States national interests.

Abshire (1976) posits that democracies conduct their relationships with foreign countries through two channels. One channel is static diplomacy. “[The] other channel of relationships between nations is an outgrowth of democratic government, of the concept of popular sovereignty applied to foreign affairs. It conducts no negotiations, dispatches, no notes, signs no treaties, presents no demarches. It has come to be called ‘people-to-people diplomacy’ -- the direct reaching out of peoples to speak to other peoples, quite apart from the formal operations of their governments,” (p. 77).

U.S. international broadcasters are committed to telling the truth, if peaceful and enduring international order is achieved, it must be based on fact. Additionally, they are committed to an open world, where the free flow of information and ideas makes dialogue possible. “The technical apparatus and the general norm of open communications among the peoples of the world create an opportunity to complement statist diplomacy. International broadcasting can play an essential role in this process, for it alone permits something resembling the free intercourse of peoples, as distinct from governments,” (Abshire, p. 78).

In the case of blatant propagandists, the ultimate goal is to change the way people act and to leave them believing that those actions are voluntary, that the newly adopted behaviors—and the opinions underlying them—are their own (Pratkinis & Aronson, 1992.) To accomplish this, though, propagandists must first change the way people conceive of themselves and their social world. During the 1930’s and 1940’s, particularly during the height of World War Two, the new media of radio and movies provided propagandists with powerful new tools (Wood, 1992).

But true today, as in 1942 when U.S. international broadcasting was incepted, Voice of America broadcasts are intended to affect their audiences, but as communication, not manipulation. “…[Western] broadcasters do not distort their messages to impose some predetermined reaction or some monolithic orthodoxy, choosing rather to reflect their own societies’ diversities and divisions,” (Abshire, p. 39).

Information Flow

Regardless, if VOA editorials aim to manipulate, persuade or enlighten audiences, the manner in which the information reaches intended audiences does matter. Katz and Lazarsfeld (1955) argued that information from the media moves in two distinct stages. “Opinion leaders,” those who pay close attention to the mass media and its messages, first receive the information. They, thus, pass on their own interpretation to a “primary group” of individuals in their social network. Arguably, VOA is dependent on this two-step flow of information. A portion of VOA’s listening audience is comprised of “elites” in foreign countries – people who tend to have an education and access to technology. These so-called “elites” are considered “gatekeepers” in Lazarsfeld’s two-step flow. They are people who screen media messages and pass on those that help others share their views. When media effects do occur, they tend to be modest and isolated.

Most research on information flow since Lazarsfeld’s early work has focused on overall patterns of media use, rather than the use of specific content. Critics argue this is a sign media content is being ignored. The impact of powerful individual messages is not routinely assessed – only the amount of use being routinely made of a given medium. Although there is value in studying patterns of media use, it is also vital to examine the use of specific content. In this perspective, organized flows of information on a large scale aimed at overseas audiences, such as those represented by the Voice of America and similar institution, continue to deserve special attention. Content within the information flow, particularly VOA editorials, merits attention.

Proposed Research Questions

“If all communication has a goal or purpose – conscious or otherwise – then to one degree or another, all communication becomes, in part, an attempt to exercise influence,” (Singer, 1988, p.164). The third tenet of the VOA Charter serves as a significant means to influence public opinion. Yet, if VOA short-statement editorials are to be persuasive explications of American policy, a thorough review of the content and aim of the editorials is paramount.

In accordance with directives from the independent federal agency that supervises all U.S. nonmilitary international broadcasting services, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), editorial programming should focus on local issues of interest to various societies and populations. By “going local” in content, editorial programs are more likely to link information to global American policy concerns, thereby achieving greater program relevance and impact. Daily short-statement VOA editorials may include sound bites of U.S. policy makers, statements and opinions from local officials and unofficial sources in the target country or region. This explicit sourcing is intended to make the editorials more sophisticated and credible.

VOA editorials are cleared by the State Department, albeit not always in a timely fashion. In 2001, an agreement was signed between State and the International Broadcasting Bureau Office of Policy calling for vetting and clearing of short-statement editorials within 24 hours. This agreement has not been met by the State Department. In addition, the State Department appears to be hesitant in the use of sound bites from the President, the Secretary of State and other top U.S. officials.

Critics of VOA short-statement editorials argue they are “…vapid, uninspiring news reports posing as editorial opinions reflecting the views of the United States government.” David Trachtenberg, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy, claims VOA editorials “…fail to articulate the rational and context that would help others understand U.S. policies,” (Editorials Miss Opportunity” 2007).

Trachtenberg argues the editorials lack depth. “Simply quoting American officials without providing a more robust context for their comments is insufficient to explain US foreign policy to global audiences. It is a detached, achromatic approach that risks conveying neutrality. But the US cannot afford to be neutral for the sake of appearing impartial. What is needed is a more forceful, clear, and compelling articulation of US policy.”

Indeed, reporting the news objectively and broadcasting diverse views are important elements of VOA’s Charter. VOA Director Henry Loomis, under whose guidance the Charter was drafted, once said: “It is my hope, it is my belief that the Charter, like the Constitution, is so fundamental and so represents the realities of the world and the moral principles that undergird this nation that the Charter will endure for the life of the Voice,” (VOA Web site, 2009). But VOA has a broader mandate. “It has a responsibility to the American taxpayer to communicate the views of the United States government intelligently and persuasively,” (“Editorials Miss Opportunity” 2007).