Very often, we here at VOA News get emails from someone in our global audience who challenges one of our reports not because it is wrong, but because he or she simply doesn’t like what the report says or disagrees with what one of the sources in the report is quoted as saying.
Is this legitimate criticism? Well, far be it for us to tell audiences what they may or may not write us.
But let us put the question back to the audience: what would you have VOA do? Not quote somebody? Not report at all on a certain topic? Or leave out one or more significant viewpoints in a report that tries to present multiple points of view?
If that were our practice, we might find it difficult to write any reports or to quote many officials, including some very prominent ones.
We raise this topic in light of an email we received recently which accused us of doing a disservice to our audiences in reporting on what has become a rather contentious topic --- climate change.
The writer was referring to a TV report about a recent appearance at the National Press Club in Washington by Director James Hansen of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies.
Hansen is among the first scientists to sound a warning about the potential dangers of greenhouse gases and global warming. He now asserts the dangers are even greater.
In the VOA report, he says, “We really have reached a point of a planetary emergency” and he predicts, “We are going to lose all of the sea ice in the Arctic summer season, and we know we are going to lose that sea ice because the planet is out of energy balance.”
Our emailer accuses Hansen of ranting and raving and insists “the science is not on his (Hansen’s) side.”
He accuses VOA of failing to do adequate research, suggests a couple of websites we should use and ends by demanding that we “start reporting the science and not the propaganda.”
Ouch!
Well, it’s not as if we don’t recognize there are other points of view. In this report, for example, our reporter notes there are those who, as the report puts it, “downplay the warnings of global warming and dispute the claim the climate system is reaching a tipping point.” It even quotes a lawyer representing energy interests as saying, “Most people who work on climate change issues… believe there are a suite of technological applications that we will be able to apply that can reverse, or at least adapt, to the consequences of global warming.”
This all gets back to a point we have made before. We think it is our responsibility to present significant points of view and let the audiences weigh them and draw their own conclusions. We don’t decide for you.
A final note: we looked at the two websites suggested by our emailer as sources of expertise on climate change. One of them is for a supposedly independent non-profit center which, after a little search, we learned is reported to have taken money from a major energy corporation, something that journalists generally view as a conflict of interest. The other is the website of a scientist who, when we looked into his work, characterizes himself as a global warming optimist and who appeared in a documentary film titled, “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.
03 July 2008
02 July 2008
Journalists Taking Government Money
Here’s a question: if a journalist for another news organization appears on VOA and accepts a token payment for his or her time and trouble, is the journalist’s credibility irreparably damaged because it is ultimately US government money? Is there a risk audiences might believe the journalist’s opinion has been “bought”?
There is a debate under way on this topic right now.
It started after a privately-financed investigative journalism organization called ProPublica reported on the appearance fees paid to some guests by Alhurra, the Arabic-language television service funded by the US government through the Board of Broadcasting Governors (BBG), the same board that oversees the operations of the Voice of America.
ProPublica published a report stating that Alhurra paid “high-profile Washington journalists” and some former officials and lobbyists “tens of thousands of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to appear on the network as commentators, according to interviews and a review of company records.”
The ProPublica report quoted Kelly McBride, a specialist on media ethics at the Poynter Institute, a professional journalism center in St. Petersburg, Fla., as saying reporters damage their ability to be objective when they accept government money.
But one journalist who took Alhurra money disagreed.
David Corn of Mother Jones magazine noted the payment of appearance fees is not unusual, whether by commercial media in the US or by foreign media that are state-supported.
He went on to say: “If the Voice of America (or Alhurra) is producing radio and television programs watched and heard (by whatever the number of people) in foreign countries, don't we want it to represent a full range of views? I noted that as long as I was granted complete editorial freedom to say what I thought, I saw nothing wrong in accepting a modest fee for what was in essence freelance work…And I even believe there is something positive about a government-underwritten network using a journalist who has been rather critical of the current administration.”
Letitia King, a spokeswoman for the BBG, had the following statement: “Following common practice among international broadcasters, Alhurra has paid for expert guest appearances since its inception. This ensures that Alhurra has the richest possible pool of high caliber guests to facilitate broader discussions on America and American foreign policy. Like most networks, Alhurra provides transportation by car to and from their broadcast studios. Alhurra follows firmly controlled guidelines concerning fees for expert commentary.”
What do you think?
There is a debate under way on this topic right now.
It started after a privately-financed investigative journalism organization called ProPublica reported on the appearance fees paid to some guests by Alhurra, the Arabic-language television service funded by the US government through the Board of Broadcasting Governors (BBG), the same board that oversees the operations of the Voice of America.
ProPublica published a report stating that Alhurra paid “high-profile Washington journalists” and some former officials and lobbyists “tens of thousands of dollars in U.S. taxpayer money to appear on the network as commentators, according to interviews and a review of company records.”
The ProPublica report quoted Kelly McBride, a specialist on media ethics at the Poynter Institute, a professional journalism center in St. Petersburg, Fla., as saying reporters damage their ability to be objective when they accept government money.
But one journalist who took Alhurra money disagreed.
David Corn of Mother Jones magazine noted the payment of appearance fees is not unusual, whether by commercial media in the US or by foreign media that are state-supported.
He went on to say: “If the Voice of America (or Alhurra) is producing radio and television programs watched and heard (by whatever the number of people) in foreign countries, don't we want it to represent a full range of views? I noted that as long as I was granted complete editorial freedom to say what I thought, I saw nothing wrong in accepting a modest fee for what was in essence freelance work…And I even believe there is something positive about a government-underwritten network using a journalist who has been rather critical of the current administration.”
Letitia King, a spokeswoman for the BBG, had the following statement: “Following common practice among international broadcasters, Alhurra has paid for expert guest appearances since its inception. This ensures that Alhurra has the richest possible pool of high caliber guests to facilitate broader discussions on America and American foreign policy. Like most networks, Alhurra provides transportation by car to and from their broadcast studios. Alhurra follows firmly controlled guidelines concerning fees for expert commentary.”
What do you think?
25 June 2008
Making A Difference
Audiences around the world don’t just share the desires to feel entertained or informed. They also, from time to time, want to feel inspired. And what better way to inspire audiences than to tell the stories of individuals who are engaged in activities that are truly inspirational.
So VOA is today launching a new multimedia series profiling people around the world who are, as the series is called, Making A Difference.
“We hope to inspire those who see, hear and read about these people, who are making a difference against some terrific odds,” says Steve Redisch, VOA's Executive Editor. “Our audience will see that others are enduring problems and situations similar to their own, and yet finding solutions.”
The series premier is about Cynthia Maung, a Burmese doctor and refugee who established a health clinic in Thailand along the border between the two countries. Her work taking care of refugees has led the Burmese government to brand her a terrorist.
Future profiles include those of an Ethiopian man who travels by donkey to remote villages throughout the country distributing books to children; a day in the life of Dr. Robert Gallo, including reflections on his groundbreaking discovery of and research into HIV; and a close-up look at a retired Liberian priest who teaches people how to type in order to make a living on the streets of the country's capital city, Monrovia.
Series producer Erin Brummett Klein says their stories “go beyond the news we see and hear everyday and explore the human spirit behind individual actions that help people.”
We hope you’ll enjoy these profiles. And if you are inspired by them, we want to hear your stories of what you decided to do. Write us here at the VOA News Blog.
So VOA is today launching a new multimedia series profiling people around the world who are, as the series is called, Making A Difference.
“We hope to inspire those who see, hear and read about these people, who are making a difference against some terrific odds,” says Steve Redisch, VOA's Executive Editor. “Our audience will see that others are enduring problems and situations similar to their own, and yet finding solutions.”
The series premier is about Cynthia Maung, a Burmese doctor and refugee who established a health clinic in Thailand along the border between the two countries. Her work taking care of refugees has led the Burmese government to brand her a terrorist.
Future profiles include those of an Ethiopian man who travels by donkey to remote villages throughout the country distributing books to children; a day in the life of Dr. Robert Gallo, including reflections on his groundbreaking discovery of and research into HIV; and a close-up look at a retired Liberian priest who teaches people how to type in order to make a living on the streets of the country's capital city, Monrovia.
Series producer Erin Brummett Klein says their stories “go beyond the news we see and hear everyday and explore the human spirit behind individual actions that help people.”
We hope you’ll enjoy these profiles. And if you are inspired by them, we want to hear your stories of what you decided to do. Write us here at the VOA News Blog.
19 June 2008
Journalists As Refugees
June 20th is World Refugee Day and the US-based Committee to Protect Journalists has just completed a study on the number of journalists who have joined the ranks of the global refugee community. CPJ reports at least 82 journalists fled their native countries under threat or harassment in the last 12 months, with more than half coming from Iraq and Somalia. CPJ says the rate of journalists going into exile—about seven per month—is double the average that recorded since it began compiling such data in 2001.
CPJ reports 51 journalists fled after being assaulted or threatened with violence or death. It says police surveillance, repeated interrogations, and sporadic detentions prompted another 19 journalists to flee while the threat of imprisonment led 12 more to seek exile.
Joel Simon, CPJ executive director, says: “CPJ is concerned when threats, imprisonment, and harassment force any journalist from his or her home, but when the media are driven out en masse as in Iraq and Somalia, a vital piece of those societies is being lost.”
The CPJ survey documents the cases of 22 Iraqi journalists and 21 Somali journalists who have fled their homes. At least 14 journalists fled Chad, although most have since returned. In the last year, at least four journalist s left Eritrea and three left Ethiopia.
Meanwhile, VOA’s correspondent in Moscow, Peter Fedynsky, reports controversy surrounds the investigations of two journalists killed in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Please take a look at his report with the latest on the 2006 murder of Anna Politkovskaya and the 2007 killing of Alisher Saipov, a stringer for VOA's Uzbek Service.
CPJ reports 51 journalists fled after being assaulted or threatened with violence or death. It says police surveillance, repeated interrogations, and sporadic detentions prompted another 19 journalists to flee while the threat of imprisonment led 12 more to seek exile.
Joel Simon, CPJ executive director, says: “CPJ is concerned when threats, imprisonment, and harassment force any journalist from his or her home, but when the media are driven out en masse as in Iraq and Somalia, a vital piece of those societies is being lost.”
The CPJ survey documents the cases of 22 Iraqi journalists and 21 Somali journalists who have fled their homes. At least 14 journalists fled Chad, although most have since returned. In the last year, at least four journalist s left Eritrea and three left Ethiopia.
Meanwhile, VOA’s correspondent in Moscow, Peter Fedynsky, reports controversy surrounds the investigations of two journalists killed in Russia and Kyrgyzstan. Please take a look at his report with the latest on the 2006 murder of Anna Politkovskaya and the 2007 killing of Alisher Saipov, a stringer for VOA's Uzbek Service.
13 June 2008
Zimbabwe, Performance Review and Objectivity
Every VOA programming service regularly undergoes what is called a performance review. A dedicated team of specialists evaluates the content and production values of the service’s output for TV, radio and the web. These evaluations are usually coupled with fresh research data and an analysis of the service’s audience and its needs and desires. The goal is to improve overall quality and hopefully increase audience appeal while checking on the service's adherence to VOA's standards.
This past week VOA’s Zimbabwe service, known as Studio 7, had its performance review. Given the current crisis in Zimbabwe, Studio 7, now in its sixth year, is providing an important service to Zimbabweans. Its audience has increased steadily despite what our research terms “substantial barriers” to tuning to VOA, including jamming, recurring power outages and ever-soaring battery prices.
Interviews conducted among listeners in three Zimbabwean cities late last year found that almost unanimously, they think Studio 7 delivers credible stories of Zimbabwean news and politics. Most said if VOA went off the air, they would be very sad and at a loss for equivalent coverage.
While radio remains the dominant method for Zimbabweans to access news, cell phone use has increased substantially in the last two years with a corresponding increase in the use of SMS to get news. Studio 7 has integrated SMS text messaging into its operations.
Internet use has also grown. VOA’s Zimbabwe website has experienced remarkable growth with monthly average visits exploding from about 16,500 a month in 2006 to just under 70,000 visits a month this year.
And like VOA’s broadcasts to Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe website posts news content in three languages: English, Shona and Ndebele.
The latest performance review found Studio 7 “has done an outstanding job of providing comprehensive coverage” of political developments in Zimbabwe. Reports on the political atmosphere, voter expectations, incidents of violence and more were described as “remarkable for the depth of views and analysis they offered.”
The review noted one of the service’s challenges has been getting senior Zimbabwean government officials to appear in programs. They routinely declined, accusing Studio 7 of being opposed to President Robert Mugabe. As a result, broadcasts mainly included the voices of opposition politicians, human rights activists and regional analysts.
But over the past two years, some high profile individuals within the Mugabe government have appeared on Studio 7. They include cabinet ministers, ambassadors and the chief spokesman of the ruling party.
As the performance review team’s content analysis report states, “the appearance of these officials… has allowed for a more comprehensive and balanced presentation of the news. The impact and credibility of Studio 7 may have contributed to prompting Zimbabwean officials to participate in… programs they regard as anti-Mugabe.” The review team now hopes that perhaps Mr. Mugabe himself will soon consent to an interview.
Given that government-controlled media dominate Zimbabwe and that, unlike VOA, they make no effort to air points of view other than Mr. Mugabe’s, some might wonder why Studio 7, like all VOA services, strives to be inclusive?
To answer that, we want to quote Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times. At a meeting held earlier this year of leading journalists and journalism educators, there was a discussion about objectivity in which he said the following:
“…our job is not to tell people what we think, or what they ought to think, but to provide them with enough information to make up their own minds about what they ought to think. That’s my standard of objectivity.”
If that sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because we have said much the same right here on the News Blog:
“…we believe strongly that our responsibility is to inform audiences about all significant points of view and let them make up their own minds. It is not our job to tell the people in our audiences what position to take or what to believe. When we say, ‘we report and you decide,’ we mean it.”
We still mean it.
This past week VOA’s Zimbabwe service, known as Studio 7, had its performance review. Given the current crisis in Zimbabwe, Studio 7, now in its sixth year, is providing an important service to Zimbabweans. Its audience has increased steadily despite what our research terms “substantial barriers” to tuning to VOA, including jamming, recurring power outages and ever-soaring battery prices.
Interviews conducted among listeners in three Zimbabwean cities late last year found that almost unanimously, they think Studio 7 delivers credible stories of Zimbabwean news and politics. Most said if VOA went off the air, they would be very sad and at a loss for equivalent coverage.
While radio remains the dominant method for Zimbabweans to access news, cell phone use has increased substantially in the last two years with a corresponding increase in the use of SMS to get news. Studio 7 has integrated SMS text messaging into its operations.
Internet use has also grown. VOA’s Zimbabwe website has experienced remarkable growth with monthly average visits exploding from about 16,500 a month in 2006 to just under 70,000 visits a month this year.
And like VOA’s broadcasts to Zimbabwe, the Zimbabwe website posts news content in three languages: English, Shona and Ndebele.
The latest performance review found Studio 7 “has done an outstanding job of providing comprehensive coverage” of political developments in Zimbabwe. Reports on the political atmosphere, voter expectations, incidents of violence and more were described as “remarkable for the depth of views and analysis they offered.”
The review noted one of the service’s challenges has been getting senior Zimbabwean government officials to appear in programs. They routinely declined, accusing Studio 7 of being opposed to President Robert Mugabe. As a result, broadcasts mainly included the voices of opposition politicians, human rights activists and regional analysts.
But over the past two years, some high profile individuals within the Mugabe government have appeared on Studio 7. They include cabinet ministers, ambassadors and the chief spokesman of the ruling party.
As the performance review team’s content analysis report states, “the appearance of these officials… has allowed for a more comprehensive and balanced presentation of the news. The impact and credibility of Studio 7 may have contributed to prompting Zimbabwean officials to participate in… programs they regard as anti-Mugabe.” The review team now hopes that perhaps Mr. Mugabe himself will soon consent to an interview.
Given that government-controlled media dominate Zimbabwe and that, unlike VOA, they make no effort to air points of view other than Mr. Mugabe’s, some might wonder why Studio 7, like all VOA services, strives to be inclusive?
To answer that, we want to quote Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the New York Times. At a meeting held earlier this year of leading journalists and journalism educators, there was a discussion about objectivity in which he said the following:
“…our job is not to tell people what we think, or what they ought to think, but to provide them with enough information to make up their own minds about what they ought to think. That’s my standard of objectivity.”
If that sounds somewhat familiar, it’s because we have said much the same right here on the News Blog:
“…we believe strongly that our responsibility is to inform audiences about all significant points of view and let them make up their own minds. It is not our job to tell the people in our audiences what position to take or what to believe. When we say, ‘we report and you decide,’ we mean it.”
We still mean it.
11 June 2008
Protecting Reputations
We moved a report on May 27 from London with the headline: “Study Finds Rampant Child Abuse by Aid Workers, Peacekeepers.” The article was about a report by Save the Children UK which accused some international aid workers and peacekeepers of sexually exploiting children living in countries affected by conflict and natural disaster. It was, to say the least, a shocking story.
The article as displayed on VOANews.com included a photograph of a Brazilian UN peacekeeper being followed by Haitian child --- clearly marked as a “file photo.” It was not intended to imply the soldier in the picture was involved in the kind of abuse described in the Save The Children report.
Unfortunately, that is just what one reader from Brazil saw:
“This picture gives an idea that the Brazilian Peacekeeper is guilty. I'm very upset about this. I'm a former Peacekeeper, (who) was in Haiti from December 2006 until May 2007…I left my family, my wife and my son in Brazil and went to Haiti to help that people, to fight against the gangs, to help the children, to help the weak people, to bring peace to that place.”
The writer told us that he reads and listens to VOA about twice a week and likes it. But, he doesn’t approve of the decision to run that file photo with the item on child abuse. He says, “I hope to get an excuse. I hope (for) an answer. I hope (for) justice.”
Our web team has sent him an apology. It says:
“We struggled to find a photo to illustrate that report. Obviously we're not going to find a photo that represents abuse - and the best we could do was to find a photo that illustrated how dependent local populations, including children, are on international peacekeepers, because they play such an important role. We were very careful to make sure the photo caption did not give the impression the peacekeeper in the picture was involved in any abuse. We apologize, because we tried very hard to avoid exactly the kind of impression you report. Please understand that was not our intent.”
In retrospect, we think a better decision might have been not to use any file photo but a picture of the actual cover of the Save The Children report.
The article as displayed on VOANews.com included a photograph of a Brazilian UN peacekeeper being followed by Haitian child --- clearly marked as a “file photo.” It was not intended to imply the soldier in the picture was involved in the kind of abuse described in the Save The Children report.
Unfortunately, that is just what one reader from Brazil saw:
“This picture gives an idea that the Brazilian Peacekeeper is guilty. I'm very upset about this. I'm a former Peacekeeper, (who) was in Haiti from December 2006 until May 2007…I left my family, my wife and my son in Brazil and went to Haiti to help that people, to fight against the gangs, to help the children, to help the weak people, to bring peace to that place.”
The writer told us that he reads and listens to VOA about twice a week and likes it. But, he doesn’t approve of the decision to run that file photo with the item on child abuse. He says, “I hope to get an excuse. I hope (for) an answer. I hope (for) justice.”
Our web team has sent him an apology. It says:
“We struggled to find a photo to illustrate that report. Obviously we're not going to find a photo that represents abuse - and the best we could do was to find a photo that illustrated how dependent local populations, including children, are on international peacekeepers, because they play such an important role. We were very careful to make sure the photo caption did not give the impression the peacekeeper in the picture was involved in any abuse. We apologize, because we tried very hard to avoid exactly the kind of impression you report. Please understand that was not our intent.”
In retrospect, we think a better decision might have been not to use any file photo but a picture of the actual cover of the Save The Children report.
03 June 2008
Drawing A Line Between Honest Reporting And “Influence Operations”
VOA Director Dan Austin has delivered a speech at a panel on new media in Germany. It is well worth reading in its entirety. But we wanted to point out a few noteworthy passages:
“Ever since the Voice of America was founded in 1942, we have been in competition with those who use media to mislead and manipulate, to promote agendas of narrow self-interest, even hate.
“I can tell you from experience that there seems to be little we can do to make some of those who inhabit this space responsible, let alone accountable.
“That is not to say, however, that there is nothing to be done. Indeed I want to offer some practical steps that I believe broadcasters and, in some cases, governments can take to promote better, more responsible use of both old and new media.”
Austin calls first for more resources for international media training. He also calls for more legal protections for journalists and more access to information:
“That includes open meeting laws, freedom of information statutes, and transparency in the workings of government.”
The VOA Director also calls for “rigidly enforcing the dividing line between government-financed efforts to inform people – and government-financed attempts to influence and even mislead a population without revealing that government's involvement or motives.”
He then makes a point which readers of the News Blog will find familiar:
“The Voice of America does not do propaganda. And neither do other international broadcasters who recognize that credibility with an audience is the most powerful tool they have, that reporting news accurately and fairly in order to help people reach their own decisions is an end, not a means.
“If we draw the line between honest, fair reporting and analysis and “influence operations” that are disguised as journalism, we show the world what it means to be responsible. We also give the people of the world, who often know propaganda when they see it, a clear choice of whom to believe, and whom to ignore or reject.”
“Ever since the Voice of America was founded in 1942, we have been in competition with those who use media to mislead and manipulate, to promote agendas of narrow self-interest, even hate.
“I can tell you from experience that there seems to be little we can do to make some of those who inhabit this space responsible, let alone accountable.
“That is not to say, however, that there is nothing to be done. Indeed I want to offer some practical steps that I believe broadcasters and, in some cases, governments can take to promote better, more responsible use of both old and new media.”
Austin calls first for more resources for international media training. He also calls for more legal protections for journalists and more access to information:
“That includes open meeting laws, freedom of information statutes, and transparency in the workings of government.”
The VOA Director also calls for “rigidly enforcing the dividing line between government-financed efforts to inform people – and government-financed attempts to influence and even mislead a population without revealing that government's involvement or motives.”
He then makes a point which readers of the News Blog will find familiar:
“The Voice of America does not do propaganda. And neither do other international broadcasters who recognize that credibility with an audience is the most powerful tool they have, that reporting news accurately and fairly in order to help people reach their own decisions is an end, not a means.
“If we draw the line between honest, fair reporting and analysis and “influence operations” that are disguised as journalism, we show the world what it means to be responsible. We also give the people of the world, who often know propaganda when they see it, a clear choice of whom to believe, and whom to ignore or reject.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)