So much going on, so much to think about, where does one begin when blogging?
As a former dance critic for public radio, I am saddened by the proposed congressional budget cuts to eliminate all funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I know it's politics, and we have a Republican-controlled Congress that whines that their perspectives are not voiced much at all on public radio. That may be true, and quite frankly that's probably why I like to tune in. I don't hear Rush Limbaugh. I don't hear Glenn Beck. I do hear Diane Rehm. I like to listen to Kojo Nnamdi. I feel at home with these probing, open and liberal public radio perspectives.
We've been talking a lot about credibility in class, and when you talk about the voice of reason, I think some of the best, most credible journalism I've heard coming out of the U.S. has been from public radio sources. The public radio brand is worth more than all of the commercially-run U.S. stations combined. The only time I really want to string em up is during membership campaigns, but hey, most of their funding does come from private donors. They don't have much choice. But I can live with that, and Í have even decided to donate, to continue to get interesting, thoughtful perspectives on local, national and world events.
In the international sphere, what do we have that has even half its weight in credibility of that of a good public radio station?
In the report to the members of the Committee on Foreign Relations entitled, U.S. International Broadcasting: Is Anybody Listening? Keeping the U.S. Connected," on page four there is an effort to put critics at bay who say that those opposed to U.S. policy are sometimes allowed to air their views without any rebuttal, but defending the BBG for airing such perspectives as a way of showing both sides of an argument. This discussion demonstrates the essential credibility problem of the BBG family of international broadcasting entities--they feel forced to air only pro-U.S. views in order ot receive continued support in Congress. However, by trying to only air the positive and feeling compelled to rebutt every criticism of the U.S., the IB entities demonstrate a strong pro-U.S. bias and are seen as just another set of vehicles for pro-U.S. propaganda.
How will we ever gain credibility in our international communications efforts without any journalistic backbone, and without showing not just "both sides" but a whole plethora of viewpoints surrounding pertinent issues? How can we ourselves understand the issues until we do so??
We have to LISTEN. We won't get anywhere by working to refute every criticism leveled at our country, because many criticisms are VALID. I love my country and am prepared to defend what I feel we do right, but I certainly know that there are areas that need a lot of improvement, and there are many failed foreign policies. We need to talk, and to have exchanges with other peoples to understand their points of view, and to improve our approaches to how we deal with people in many parts of the world. If we are, as the BBG expresses, aiming to encourage the free flow of information and the freedom of expression, then whatever flows back to us must be taken into consideration, analyzed carefully, and then our policies must be adjusted accordingly.
Like Walter Isaacson, BBG Chairman, I think many of these folks are still looking to "triumph" against some foe (there always has to be a foe), and to "win this struggle," (as Isaacson said at the Aspen Institute in Sept 2010) against whomever today's adversary appears to be, rather than seeking win-win scenarios with other countries, and entering into true exchanges of ideas with those countries' citizens. If we really want to be seen as credible, and not have U.S. IB initiatives die one slow death after the other, then that's what needs to happen.
Back to public radio--I am still thinking about that one. I now contribute to one of the public radio stations I enjoy so much, WAMU, and I am thinking that maybe that is okay, that we can all contribute if we want to, and not contribute if we dislike the way the news is presented, or if we don't feel represented. However, I have to say that I would rather have my government help sponsor (even a small percentage of) what I consider to be credible news networks like the public radio stations people enjoy throughout the country than to keep paying for IB initiatives that are routinely discredited overseas. Maybe the BBG is not the answer--maybe we need to find a new way forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment