White House Attack on VOA Misguided and Dangerous

The White House attack on the integrity of the reporters and editors at Voice of America is unwarranted and dangerous. Its claim in its April 10, 2020 1600 Daily posting that “Journalists should report the facts, but VOA has instead amplified Beijing’s propaganda” is not only false, it puts VOA journalists around the world in danger.

But first some history.

The Voice of America is indeed owned and operated by the US government. It is not a propaganda machine for whatever administration is in power. The reporters and editors have independence to find and report stories, no matter where those stories lead.

The VOA Charter was drafted in 1960 and then signed into law in 1974. Here is the concise charter:

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.

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.
3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

In addition, in 1994 when the US foreign policy agencies were re-arranged, a firewall under the 1994 U.S. International Broadcasting Act was built to protect VOA from direct control by any policy making agency.

The firewall prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news, thereby safeguarding the ability of our journalists to develop content that reflects the highest professional standards of journalism, free of political interference.

The firewall ensures that VOA can make the final decisions on what stories to cover, and how they are covered.

The independence of VOA was re-affirmed in 2016 under the National Defense Authorization Act.

• The Secretary of State and (Broadcast Board of Governors) Chief Executive Officer, in carrying out their functions, will respect the professional independence and integrity of the Board, its broadcasting services and the grantees.
• The Inspector General of the State Department and Foreign Service shall respect the journalistic integrity of all the broadcasters covered by this chapter

For details go to the following”

• VOA and the Firewall
• VOA: Mission and Values:

On top of all the legal protection, there is the Code of Ethics that all VOA journalists must agree to as part of their employment. Here are some key points:

PREAMBLE

Accuracy, balance, comprehensiveness, and objectivity are the qualities audiences around the world expect of VOA. These standards are legally mandated in the VOA Charter.

SUMMARY

VOA staff avoid imbalance or bias in their news reports. VOA does not speak for the U.S. government. VOA staff do not accept treatment or assistance from U.S. government officials or agencies that is more favorable or less favorable than that of staff of private sector news organizations.

Accuracy and Balance

• • It is essential that accuracy takes priority over speed in our reporting, programming and online/social media presence.
  • VOA rejects efforts by foreign and domestic special interest groups to use its radio and TV broadcasts, websites and social media sites as platforms for their own views. Regardless of the medium, the views of a single party must be challenged if alternative opinions are unrepresented.

Fairness

• • VOA always presents a full and fair account of events
  • VOA journalists will not fabricate, distort, or dramatize an event

Context and Comprehensiveness

• • VOA staff avoid using political or other biases in their reporting, programming, websites and social media sites

Past Administrations’ attacks on VOA

In the 1980s, a political appointed ambassador complained that a VOA reporter used the term Contras when discussing the US-backed armed forces fighting the Nicaragua government in the 1980s. The ambassador said the reporter should have called them Freedom Fighters, a term more in line with the Reagan political philosophy.

In 2001, shortly after the Al Qaeda attack on the United States, VOA had the opportunity to interview the head of the Taliban leader Mullah Omar. At the time the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and were giving Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden sanctuary.

At the time every news organization in the world was trying to get an interview with Omar. The world wanted to know what he was thinking harboring Bin Laden and what he thought might happen in the aftermath of the Al Qaeda attack on the United States.

Omar chose VOA. For a reason.

At the time I knew the VOA Bureau Chief in Hong Kong, which was the bureau in charge of this story. I later met the reporter. They both said Omar agreed to the VOA interview because he knew most of the people of Afghanistan listened to and trusted VOA above all other news services. It was also made clear to him that his interview would not be carried in its entirety but rather would be part of a larger story.

Almost immediately the George W. Bush Administration tried to prevent the interview from getting on the air.

• CNN: (https://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/24/gen.voa.taliban/index.html)
• The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/sep/26/afghanistan.features11

“We didn’t think that the American taxpayer, the Voice of America, should be broadcasting the voice of the Taliban,” State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said.

VOA pushed back.

“We were never going to give him an open mike,” Joe O’Connell, director of external affairs for VOA told CNN.

O’Connell said parts of the interview were to be used in a five-minute report on different language broadcasts.

The move by the Bush Administration caused a led to complaints of censorship and that the moves violated the VOA Charter. In the end, the interview got out, but the reporter and many of the editors involved were reassigned in ways that each of them thought they were being punished.

The Society of Professional Journalists was part of an international effort to support the VOA frontline reporters and editors. The SPJ convention in Seattle that year passed a resolution of supportof the VOA journalists.

In that resolution the SPJ stated (in part):

WHEREAS the Society of Professional Journalists believes truth is best revealed in the light of contesting opinions.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Society commend VOA for its editorial integrity in this matter, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Society salute the courage of VOA’s news executives who risked the displeasure of their own government in the service of their mission to inform, and that it find VOA’s practice in this case an exemplar of the most fundamental principles of democracy, and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Society condemn the efforts that were made to prevent VOA from carrying out its mission of responsible, objective and comprehensive reporting,

The SPJ – and journalism groups around the world – stood up for the VOA to protect it from government interference in its reporting. As a result, the VOA has withstood the winds of political control over the years. It remains a news organization widely respected around the world for its independence and fair and accurate reporting.

And now, the VOA is once again being attacked by an administration that wants a propaganda arm rather than a real news organization.

The Trump Administration attack on the VOA in its 1600 Daily commentary on the White House website is uncalled for and dangerous.

The claim that the VOA speaks for America’s adversaries is just plain wrong. The VOA reported on not only how the government addressed the issue but also how dissidents were being harassed by the Chinese government for revealing information about COVID-19 that the government did not want released.

Some examples:

• China Cracking Down on Those Critical of COVID-19 Response (April 2)
• China Reports Just 8 New COVID-19 Infections (March 13)
• Voice of America experiences record audience numbers due to its robust global coverage of COVID-19

The attack is dangerous because it opens VOA and its journalists to unwarranted attacks.

If the administration tries to make VOA nothing put a public relations arm of the US government – as it implies it wants under this attack – then that would make the journalists agents of the US government and subject to espionage laws and other “agents of foreign power” acts in other countries. It would also make the journalists targets of mobs with “nationalistic” feelings who want to attack any soft target directly related to the US government.

One of the strong points of VOA has been its proven independence from US government political control. When ever it does a news story, listeners around the world know that the story is fair, accurate and not dictated by a political master.

To be clear, there are times when VOA does broadcast something that is the official position of the US government. At those times the statement is clearly identified as the position of the US government. Think of it as an editorial. Divorced from the news gathering arm of the organization.

In addition, the White House statement is playing to a US domestic audience that does not know much (if anything) about the importance VOA plays in providing accurate news to countries with controlled media. Also, they are unaware of how, by being fair and balanced in its coverage, the VOA represents the best of American ideals. Think of it…Here is a US-government news organization airing stories that are often critical of the US government. (Try doing that in China, Russia, Nicaragua, etc.)

The White House statement shows brazen politics and unbelievable ignorance in its statement about the VOA.

Fortunately, the VOA is finding all sorts of support.

• Washington Post editorial: No, Mr. Trump, VOA is not Chinese propaganda. Now don’t turn it into U.S. propaganda.
• Committee to Protect Journalists
• PEN America: White House Denigration of VOA Unfounded
• (And a bit of historic support) – WHY THE VOICE OF AMERICA REMAINS A VITAL FORCE IN THE WORLD

And, hopefully, soon the Society of Professional Journalists.

-30-

 

New Provision Threatens VOA Editorial Independence

This item first appeared in the blog site of the SPJ International Committee

Politico reported this week a provision included in the just-passed National Defense Authorization Act would get rid of the bipartisan board running Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and other news outlets with a single CEO nominated by the president.

The Voice of America has had a long and strong reputation for presenting the news in a fair and balanced nature in spite of the political winds blowing in Washington. Efforts by administrations to slant the news or to not report events with the full vigor expected of journalists have all failed.

The independence of the VOA was first drafted in 1960 and then signed into law by Pres. Gerald R. Ford.

The Code of Ethics for VOA journalists is also very clear what their role is:

“VOA reporters and broadcasters must strive for accuracy and objectivity in all their work. They do not speak for the U.S. government. They accept no treatment or assistance from U.S. government officials or agencies that is more favorable or less favorable than that granted to staff of private-sector news agencies. Furthermore, VOA professionals, careful to preserve the integrity of their organization, strive for excellence and avoid imbalance or bias in their broadcasts.”

All this was possible because of the multi-party nature of the board of governors that controlled the VOA and other broadcast outlets. Now, according to the Political piece: “Essentially, Trump is finally getting his Trump TV — financed by taxpayers to the tune of $800 million per year.”

The SPJ stood up for the reporters and editors of VOA when the George W. Bush Administration tried to prevent VOA from interviewing and airing its exclusive interviews with the leadership of the Taliban just as the Afghanistan war was starting.

Numerous VOA reporters received the highest awards the SPJ offered for reporting over the years.

All this could change because of a provision slipped into the authorization bill by House Foreign Affairs Chairman Ed Royce. He argued the CEO structure would make VOA more efficient.

What it also does is make the VOA susceptible to pressure from the White House to become a propaganda organ rather than an honest news organization.

Mullah Omar, VOA and the SPJ: An Issue Revisited

The latest reports of the death of Taliban leader Mullah Omar Mohammad remind me of how the SPJ was a vital part of an effort to stop the George W. Bush Administration from interfering with the editorial independence of the Voice of America.

Soon after the 9/11 attacks a VOA reporter got an exclusive interview with Mohammad. The VOA planned to run excerpts from the interview as part of a larger story on Afghan reactions to a speech by President Bush. Almost immediately, the White House, State Department and Pentagon raised objections to the airing the interview, arguing such a broadcast gives a voice to terrorists.

The Voice of America – and other U.S. government broadcast outlets such as Radio Free Asia — is controlled by an independent board of governors. The creation of the board came about when VOA’s home agency – U.S. Information Agency – was wrapped into the State Department. The idea was to ensure the news organization was not controlled by a policy making agency of the U.S. government.

The VOA Charter that protects the VOA editorial independence from government interference was drafted in 1960 and signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1976.

The points of the charter are very clear:

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.
3. VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinion on these policies.

The Bush Administration brushed aside points one and three. It weighed in – heavily – to have the Mohammad interview spiked.

Voice of America reporters responded with letters complaining about the attempted censorship by the U.S. government in violation of the charter. And for a while the issue in the United States was moving in the direction the administration wanted. Fortunately, the SPJ International Committee caught wind of the situation and mobilized support for the news organization.

The SPJ and the Hong Kong Correspondents Club issued similar statements condemning the actions of the Bush Administration and called on it to honor the VOA Charter and the editorial independence of the reporters and editors.

Other groups around the world soon also rallied to the side of editorial independence.

In subsequent years, the SPJ followed the efforts by Bush Administration officials to limit the independence of VOA reporters.

2001 SPJ Convention Resolutions

WHEREAS the Voice of America in September obtained an interview with Taliban leader Mohammed Omar, and

WHEREAS the U.S. Department of State sought to intervene against use of that interview, and its spokesman called the broadcast inappropriate, and

WHEREAS the VOA nevertheless used the interview in a five-minute report in the local Afghan languages and in its English broadcasts, and

WHEREAS the Society of Professional Journalists believes truth is best revealed in the light of contesting opinions.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Society commend VOA for its editorial integrity in this matter, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Society salute the courage of VOA’s news executives who risked the displeasure of their own government in the service of their mission to inform, and that it find VOA’s practice in this case an exemplar of the most fundamental principles of democracy…

2004 SPJ Convention Resolutions

WHEREAS, the Voice of America has editorial independence protected by law and executive order, and

Whereas, VOA journalists have received numerous awards for excellence in journalism, including several from the Society of Professional Journalists, and

Whereas, the U.S. government has attempted since 2001 to curtail VOA’s reporting, including an exclusive interview with the head of the Taliban, and

Whereas, the independent Broadcasting Board of Governors scuttled a plan in 2002 to shut down all but two VOA bureaus after journalism and human-rights organizations stepped forward to criticize the action;

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Society of Professional Journalists supports the journalists of VOA who seek to report without bias stories of importance and interest to the world community, and

Be it further resolved that SPJ opposes any actions by the U.S. government to diminish VOA’s news-gathering capability or the integrity; and that copies of this resolution be sent to VOA and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration worked slowly and surely to punish the reporters and editors who authorized the interview, conducted the interview and who raised the alarm over the administration’s attempts to censor the organization. Reporters and editors were reassigned to less sensitive areas or strongly encouraged to take lucrative buy-outs and leave VOA.

The battle for editorial independence in VOA continues. Reporters and editors still report of behind the scenes pressure from policy agencies – Pentagon, State Department, White House, etc – to go soft or hard on stories, depending on government policy. The reporters and editors continue to push back and continue to put out excellent and balanced stories.

And these journalists deserve our continued support. There are unthinking members of our profession and within the SPJ who dismiss the VOA as “just another government propaganda” operation. If they paid attention to the VOA and its charter, they would know it is one of the best and most trusted news organizations in the world.

NHK credibility on the line

Government-owned news organizations usually cause some people to pause and think about the impartiality of the editorial policy. And yet some of the most respectable news organizations in the world depend on government largesse.

No one will question the quality and independent nature of the BBC.

Likewise, the Voice of America has an international reputation of fairness and impartiality. (A handful of misinformed Americans and anti-US propagandists outside America think otherwise, but the facts are against them.) And has a charter protecting journalists from interference from political control.

In Asia RTHK in Hong Kong fights daily to keep mainland China and the Hong Kong government out of its editorial policy. So far, it has been successful.

Also in Asia the NHK is seen as a global example of a government-financed news organization that digs deep, tells its stories without bias and stays with the facts.

Now, the reputation of the NHK is on the line.

In recent months, some members of the board of governors at NHK have expressed extreme positions, such as the Rape of Nanjing never happened and defended the practice of “sex slaves” during World War II.

Board member Naoki Hyakuta said Japan was lured into the war by America because of the economic embargo imposed after Japan invaded China. He also said Japan was liberating Asia from white colonialism.

According to the Independent in London, NHK’s new chairman, Katsuto Momii, stunned journalists by saying it was “only natural” that NHK should follow the government line on Japan’s territorial disputes with its neighbors. “When the government says ‘left’ we can’t say ‘right’,” he said.

It is that very statement that has people – including other news organizations in Japan – nervous.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe named Momii and Hyakuta to the 12-member board. He also named two other members who have also expressed hardline nationalist views.

Abe has a history of interfering with the NHK prodcuts.

According to The Diplomat:

[Abe] was the central player in the notorious muzzling of a NHK documentary about the comfort women that took place a few years ago. The documentary in question concerned efforts by women’s rights groups in Japan to highlight the government’s failure adequately to compensate surviving comfort women. Abe, already a very senior government official, paid a personal visit to NHK shortly before airtime to insist that the documentary be “fair and neutral.” NHK management immediately called the producers to demand drastic editorial changes to the already completed program. Last-minute revisions included the removal of all criticism of LDP policy and Emperor Hirohito. Also cut were dramatic confessions by two Japanese veterans admitting rape. Criticisms of the women’s movement were hurriedly inserted, including an interview with a discredited revisionist historian. Even the program title was whitewashed, from “Japanese Military’s Wartime Sexual Violence” to “Questioning Wartime Sexual Violence.” Far from being “fair and neutral” the final program was a lop-sided swipe at the redress movement and a complete exoneration of the LDP.

The Japanese High Court cleared Abe of charges of interference and berated the documentary producers for over reacting to Abe’s visit.

If the views of the board find their way into the NHK reporting, Japan and the world will lose what has been an excellent news organization.

A bit more reading on this issue:

• The Japan Times: NHK’s credibility at stake
• The Independent: How Japan’s ‘BBC’ is rewriting its role in the Second World War
• ChannelNewsAsia: NHK manager’s Nanjing denial no problem, says Japan govt
• The Diplomat: NHK and Abe’s Agenda
• The Guardian: Japanese broadcaster’s board member praised ritual suicide of rightwinger

Hong Kong freedoms under attack — again

Each year the Hong Kong Journalist Association issues a report on the state of media and civil freedom in Hong Kong. Each year, the report is a little more pessimistic than the previous year.

The 2010 report — “The Vice Tightens: Pressure Grows on Free Expression in Hong Kong” — continues in that depressing pattern.

The report looks at issues where the Hong Kong political and legal establishment are deferring more and more to Beijing or their proxies in Hong Kong.

An issue of direct concern to Hong Kong journalists is the status of government-owned Radio Television Hong Kong.

The government decided RTHK will remain a government department, despite petitions from the public and non-governmental organizations, that it should become an independent public service broadcaster.

The status of RTHK has long been an issue for free-press advocates.

Under its current status as a government department RTHK has limited editorial freedom –although the government said it will issue a charter guaranteeing RTHK full editorial independence.

For many veterans in the battle for RTHK independence, the issuance of a charter is not a victory.

When the Voice of America aired an interview with Taliban leader Mullah Omar September 21, 2001 the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell intervened to kill the story.

He failed.

The attempt by the U.S. government to step in and censor a legitimate news story sent chills of fear among supporters of editorial independence for RTHK. VOA has long been known as a fair reporting news organization. Partly because its charter — signed into law by Pres. Ford in 1976 — protects it.

Point One of the charter states, “VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news.” That means no slanting the news to fit a political agenda.

The folks at RTHK got nervous because if the U.S. government could get away with intimidating VOA, what chance did RTHK have against the Hong Kong or Chinese governments.

In the end VOA won and story ran.

RTHK has always faced massive pressure by the Hong Kong government — British or Chinese — to “be more positive.” Since the handover in 1997 pressure on the Chinese language side increased so much that many journalists feared for their jobs unless they tread gently around stories critical of China.

The HKJA also pointed out the government is unwilling to adopt a more open approach towards government information. The report cites an investigation by the Ombudsman that found misunderstandings of the government  code on access to information.

The cure, said the HKJA is enactment of a freedom of information law.

Again, this has been an ongoing issue that has involved journalism groups from around the world in support of the HKJA position. In 2002 or 2003 the U.S. SPJ president spoke on RTHK about the importance of freedom of information laws.

The HKJA also noted an increased lack of interest by the Hong Kong government to defend its citizens from harassment in China. Two major incidents last year involved the detention of a journalist and a cameraman in Chengdu on trumped-up drug charges as they tried to report on the aftermath of the 2008 earthquake.

In another case Hong Kong journalists were beaten and detained by local officials in Urumqi. The journalists were covering the ethnic riots in that region.

The Hong Kong government promised to follow up on these cases but nothing concrete emerged.

The HKJA said in its report that the government is not living up to its international commitments – under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – to uphold freedom of expression and press freedom.

The Hong Kong government has also been lax in protesting arbitrary rules set up by Beijing to keep out journalists from news organizations, such as Apple Daily.

All in all the past year was another one of concern for supporters of civil liberties and free press in Hong Kong.