For decades, the Voice of America has enjoyed the use of physical working space
in the press galleries in the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate, and
at the White House.
In these places, VOA’s status has been protected,
grandfathered year after year by the Radio Television Correspondents Association
(RTCA), and the White House Correspondents Association (WHCA).
However,
on Capitol Hill, VOA reporters are denied full voting status precisely because
they are part of a federal agency. You’ll find this statement in the section on
membership criteria: "[Gallery members must not] be employed by any legislative
or executive department or independent agency of the government."
And
this: "The applicant. . .must not work for any individual, political party,
corporation, organization, or agency of the U.S. Government, or in prosecuting
any claim before Congress or any federal government department, and will not do
so while a member of the Daily Press Galleries. . ."
It should be noted
that numerous reporters representing foreign governments, to cite some examples
— Russian State Radio/TV, and various Chinese media outlets — are among those
with general credentials issued by the congressional press
galleries.
However, VOA’s membership is a direct technical violation of a
guideline that, one has to assume, is still applied when assessing applications
by other organizations.
PROTRACTED DEBATE
Historical notes show
that beginning in the 1950’s (VOA moved from New York to Washington in 1954) the
question of the presence and accreditation of VOA’s and other government-funded
media, was the subject of protracted debate.
In 1951, rules of Congress
"[did] do not permit members of the Galleries to accept regular employment with
any Government agency." In fact, when any non-government reporters "[planned]
to engage in any temporary work such as special broadcasts for the Voice of
America" a public notice had to be posted.
In 1962, the press gallery
association reaffirmed a ban on membership for VOA, though VOA reporters were
allowed use of facilities. There was actually a subcommittee on the question,
with records showing a notation "VOA – Conflict of Interest". In 1968, a
requirement was renewed for anyone performing work for any government agency to
notify the Executive Committee.
In 1973 and 1976, VOA and Radio Liberty
applications for membership were rejected. But in 1979, the association voted
to move a recommendation to the House Speaker and Senate Rules Committee for
full membership status for VOA congressional correspondents.
There’s a
long gap in the record until 1981, when the Gallery Executive Committee (by a 6
to 1 vote) agreed to admit VOA if the Senate Rules Committee agreed. In 1982 it
was agreed that VOA did not qualify for membership, but the option was left open
for VOA to ask for an exemption from the Senate Rules Committee and House
Speaker.
In 1983, Vic Ratner (then with ABC News) objected to a rules
change or exception ". . .on the grounds that it would open the doors for
Membership for the government agencies. . . blur the distinction between private
news agencies and government agencies. . .and raise the specter of government
control of the gallery." Also rejected was an amendment that would have allowed
"government news correspondents and broadcasters. . . [to have non-voting]
status…"
Finally, in July of 1983, the correspondents committee, Senate
Rules Committee, and Speaker’s Office agreed to admit VOA, and Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty (which were directly overseen by the CIA at one point in
history), as non-voting members.
A considerable degree of
Washington-style persuasion occurred behind the scenes . The single piece of
remaining evidence in the record is a letter from then VOA Director Ken
Tomlinson to Gene Gibbons, then chairman of the Radio Television Correspondent
Association.
Tomlinson (who passed away in 2014) referred to Gibbons’
efforts and "informal conversations" that enabled "us to put the VOA
accreditation controversy behind us." And Tomlinson said: " . . . one of the
positive aspects about our not participating in Gallery elections is that no one
will confuse our journalistic needs with political desires [emphasis
added]."
No record exists apparently of any communications from Gibbons
to Tomlinson, and there are no other notes that detail the substance of actual
debate in RTCA meetings, or notes from those "informal conversations" referred
to by Tomlinson.
In 2004, the last date in the historical notes, the RTCA
Executive Committee also granted admission to U.S.-funded Middle East Television
Network (now called the Middle East Broadcasting Network, or MBN), but again
only with non-voting status.
FEDERALLY-FUNDED MEDIA INCREASINGLY ENMESHED
IN NATIONAL SECURITY, FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES
So, back to the
guidelines of the RTCA — while VOA’s working space and non-voting status in
Capitol galleries were grandfathered, there has been no change in language
barring those "employed by any legislative or executive department or
independent agency of the government."
I would argue it’s time for
non-government news organizations that have traditionally held key leadership
roles in media associations to revisit the question of accreditation for VOA and
other US government media.
This is especially relevant amid developments
that at the end of the day more completely associate and enmesh VOA and other
government-funded media with national security and foreign policy objectives of
the United States, as well as government programs for Countering Violent
Extremism (CVE) and Russian disinformation.
Two executive orders signed
by President Barack Obama set the stage. The first was in 2011, the second was
Executive Order 13584 in 2016 calling for an "integrated strategic counter
terrorism communications initiative" and "collaborative work among executive
departments and agencies [to bring] together expertise, capabilities, and
resources to realize efficiencies and better coordination of U.S. Government
communications investments to combat terrorism and extremism."
A Center
for Strategic Counterterrorism Communications (CSCC) (criticized in subsequent
years as ineffective) was also established. A steering committee was to advise
the Secretary of State, to include representatives of all departments and
agencies — from Defense and CIA to USAID and others, but notably including VOA’s
parent agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Near the end of his
presidency, Obama’s signing of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
formalized creation of a State Department-based Global Engagement Center to
counter ISIS, Russian and other disinformation, costing $160 million in FY
2017/2018, sourced initially from the Pentagon budget.
Under this law,
BBG is to be reduced to advisory status, and a CEO (as of this writing still
John Lansing, an Obama holdover) was made a powerful figure directing a
supposedly independent agency.
I say supposedly, because it should be
apparent to anyone watching controversies surrounding the BBG, and monitoring
sentiment on Capitol Hill, that VOA and other government media outlets are
federal entities.
They are not news companies, as one former VOA director
tried to assert at one point.
I include Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty,
Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks (which are known as
"grantee" agencies) in this description because without congressional funding,
they too would not exist. All are part of a larger effort, taxpayer funded to
support larger national policy agendas.
As I wrote in an opinion piece in
the Columbia Journalism Review, the Obama-signed NDAA created
a five
member International Broadcasting Advisory Board (IBAB), not yet formed. Like
the BBG, it will include the Secretary of State, who will "[advise] the CEO
[emphasis added]" empowered by the legislation.
It’s difficult to think
that there will not be significant regular coordination between this board and
the CEO overseeing VOA and other government media now accredited with Washington
press galleries, and with the Global Engagement Center.
Remember — that
State Department center’s job is to "[lead], synchronize, and coordinate efforts
of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign
state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining
United States national security interests."
The much-vaunted firewall
that supposedly insulates VOA from interference in its journalistic functions is
unlikely to be much more than a paper tiger against the background of larger CVE
and counter-Russian disinformation policy goals.
I cited one example,
what is called the Extremism Watch Desk, which was established by BBG/VOA
officials so they could be seen to be doing more in line with the Obama
administration’s CVE agenda.
It challenges common sense to think that
there won’t be interaction between this VOA unit, and the Center for Global
Engagement, which will be "[supporting] the development and dissemination of
fact-based narratives and analysis to counter propaganda and disinformation
directed at the United States and United States allies and partner
nations."
When I covered Congress for VOA in the House of Representatives
between 2002 and early 2010, I got along with colleagues in non-government
media. But I could always sense that VOA reporters were seen as different, held
at arm’s length to a significant degree because VOA was a federal
agency.
During four years as VOA Chief White House Correspondent, I was
again struck by how the White House and other journalists viewed VOA reporters,
and their parent agency. Speaking generally, we were respected as professional
journalists. However, the Broadcasting Board of Governors most certainly was
not.
I’ll always remember comments to this effect by a then chief White
House reporter for a major network, which interestingly came during a discussion
of how many tickets would be granted to VOA to attend the annual White House
Correspondent’s Dinner, who had some choice derogatory comments about specific
members of the BBG.
In essence, BBG members themselves were considered to
be little more than bureaucrats serving on a board overseeing propaganda media.
As good as we were, VOA reporters were nonetheless tainted by that attitude
which, to a great degree, is still pervasive in the Washington press
corps.
It should be noted that at the White House, where VOA’s working
space has been grandfathered year after year as on Capitol Hill — VOA White
House reporters do vote in WHCA elections.
Yet, VOA faced restrictions,
whether formally written somewhere or not, the most glaring that presidents do
not call on VOA reporters during formal news conferences.
In one rare
occurrence, at a joint press conference with President Obama, Pakistan’s
president called on a VOA language service reporter. What no one knew,
including VOA’s main White House reporters, was that this had been pre-arranged
through contacts with the Pakistani embassy.
The same thing applied
overseas, where in my experience VOA White House correspondents were never
called on by the president at final news conferences wrapping up major regional
summits and other events.
As for daily White House press briefings, VOA
reporters were still considered second or third class citizens, struggling for
question opportunities. Meanwhile, organizations that were seemingly of much
lower stature were called on frequently in the course of the average
week.
In my four years covering the Obama White house, VOA was excluded
from all but one foreign policy-related background briefing. The exception (on
Syria) came only after I and my No. 2 correspondent complained to the press
secretary (then, Jay Carney).
By the way, like Congress, the Obama
administration was fed up with ongoing morale and performance crises at VOA and
BBG. Obama granted more interviews to Between the Ferns, You Tube, Linked In
and various bloggers than he did to VOA: one brief and limited in scope, in
2011.
VOA still operates under its congressionally-approved 1976 Charter,
requiring it to report accurately, objectively and comprehensively, and reflect
a range of opinions. But it also still carries what are called "editorials"
reflecting U.S. government policies and positions, written by a special policy
office in the VOA building with links to the White House and NSC, the State
Department, and other agencies.
TIME TO RE-VISIT GUIDELINES ON
FEDERALLY-EMPLOYED JOURNALISTS
VOA has successfully made the case to
Washington press associations that its government-paid reporters are no
different than those working for commercial media.
But the defense bill
signed by Obama marked a new stepping off point, and it’s one that correspondent
organizations on Capitol Hill and at the White House must take note of, and at
the very least need to decide where they stand.
Are they OK with
maintaining full or partial memberships for VOA reporters who, in the end, are
paid by a U.S. federal agency being drawn ever closer to government policy and
direction? Will they put to a vote whether government-paid journalists should
have full voting status in the galleries?
Will they continue with a wink
and a nod allowing government-funded media to maintain physical working space in
a White House media gallery that, especially under Trump, is much sought after
by a range of non-government media?
If the answer is yes, then VOA should
retain its two person booth in the White House basement next to
NPR.
However, President Donald Trump should break with decades of
accepted practice and begin answering questions from VOA White House reporters
at formal news conferences, in Washington and abroad.
There should be no
grousing by non-government reporters, many of whom privately still disparage VOA
as a "propaganda" outlet.
But if it’s to be business as usual, it will be
in the face of evidence that VOA and similar media are, in fact, card-carrying
members of the government’s national security and foreign policy
apparatus.
In the ongoing environment of animosity between President
Trump and media, press organizations may choose to strike what they see as a
symbolic blow for press freedom, and end the last vestiges of discrimination
against government media.
If that is the case, it’s also time for
commercial media to end policies that still prevent their own journalists from
appearing on government-funded media such as VOA.
This would be the time
for The Washington Post, which in one article described VOA and RFE/RL as being
staffed with "professional journalists", to get fully on board should the
congressional RTCA decide to fully "normalize" VOA’s status.
So, again:
fully recognize VOA and other government media reporters as being no different
from commercial counterparts, revise gallery guidelines that still technically
bar them from full voting status, and at the White House revise policies
restricting questions by VOA...
Or leave things the way they are, with
congressional galleries in technical violation of their own criteria on the
books for decades, and at the White House, news organizations imposing unspoken
levels of discrimination against VOA and other government-funded
media.
It will be interesting, to say the least, to observe what course
non-government media organizations take on this issue, especially against the
background of the latest speculation about who President Trump may appoint to
replace Obama holdovers at the BBG, and at VOA.
A close ally of Steve
Bannon is apparently being considered, Michael Pack, a conservative who heads
the Claremont Institute. He had served as director of USIA’s WORLDNET TV, as
senior vice president for television programming at the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, and produced award-winning documentaries, principally for PBS.
This was reported by Politico, which quoted an unidentified "senior government
official" about worries that government media independence would not be
protected.
But I’ll say it again — anyone who believes government-funded
broadcasters can be truly independent needs to read up on the history of the
organizations themselves, from their founding to present day, but especially the
most recent legislative history — which makes clear where things are
headed.
Dan Robinson(BIO) Dan Robinson had a nearly 35 year career at
Voice of America, as Senior White House Correspondent from 2010 until 2014,
Congressional Correspondent from 2002 to 2010, chief of VOA’s Burma broadcast
service, as well as Southeast Asia Bureau Chief and East Africa Bureau Chief.
Dan is a 1979 graduate of the School of International Service at The American
University.
ALSO SEE:
DAN
ROBINSON: At the BBG — A World of Alternate Universes, BBG Watch, December 5,
2016 (via DXLD)