VOA Director Danforth Austin has a response to this week’s post in which a reader in Sweden proposed that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, in an effort to be more competitive in international TV markets, “try to finance an international channel produced by the (U.S.) Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and with PBS quality programming.”
Director Austin notes a decision was made long ago by U.S. government-funded international broadcasters “that Americans living abroad and English speakers in democracies that enjoy a free press are already well served by commercial television and don't require programming subsidized by American taxpayers.”
He goes on to say that at VOA, “we continually work to improve our television efforts--over 300 hours of original television are produced every week... These programs are in the vernacular language of the markets to which they're broadcast, and are often carried as part of a local affiliate's program mix.”
That said, VOA does offer English-language video, audio and text through our English-language web portal, which is accessible to anyone with an Internet connection.
27 October 2010
26 October 2010
The Future of U.S. International Broadcasting?
Last week I asked for reader views on the challenges to U.S. international broadcasting. I received one very thoughtful response from Sten in Sweden that I would like to share with you all.
Sten notes there is no VOA presence in Northern Europe (save via the web) but he says the presence of other government financed broadcasts is, as he puts it, “quite impressive.”
“I have through my satellite dish a handful of free English language news channels… channels from Russia, France, Germany, Iran and UK and two mixed from Japan and Korea. Many of those channels can also be followed via Internet. The American alternative is CNN,” he writes.
“The TV broadcasts from Russia and Iran are good. It´s a shame to admit it, but they are often more interesting than CNN… And they are certainly not transmitting a positive picture of your country.”
Sten says in his satellite world there is only one authoritative broadcaster of American news and that is National Public Radio (NPR).
Sten’s proposal is that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees VOA, should “try to finance an international channel produced by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS, the TV counterpart of NPR) and with PBS quality programming.”
Sten says he is convinced that there is demand in many countries for more quality television. And he believes the American origin of a broadcast “would not be a hindrance as long as it is PBS. So the audience would be there – probably worldwide.”
Thanks for sharing your views with us, Sten. We will run your thoughts by VOA and BBG management and see what they think.
Sten notes there is no VOA presence in Northern Europe (save via the web) but he says the presence of other government financed broadcasts is, as he puts it, “quite impressive.”
“I have through my satellite dish a handful of free English language news channels… channels from Russia, France, Germany, Iran and UK and two mixed from Japan and Korea. Many of those channels can also be followed via Internet. The American alternative is CNN,” he writes.
“The TV broadcasts from Russia and Iran are good. It´s a shame to admit it, but they are often more interesting than CNN… And they are certainly not transmitting a positive picture of your country.”
Sten says in his satellite world there is only one authoritative broadcaster of American news and that is National Public Radio (NPR).
Sten’s proposal is that the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees VOA, should “try to finance an international channel produced by the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS, the TV counterpart of NPR) and with PBS quality programming.”
Sten says he is convinced that there is demand in many countries for more quality television. And he believes the American origin of a broadcast “would not be a hindrance as long as it is PBS. So the audience would be there – probably worldwide.”
Thanks for sharing your views with us, Sten. We will run your thoughts by VOA and BBG management and see what they think.
25 October 2010
Internet Anti-Censorship: Circumvention Tools
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University has issued a new study on the use of circumvention tools that let users bypass Internet filtering aimed at blocking access to various types of content.
The key findings:
1. The study estimates that “no more than three percent of Internet users in countries that engage in substantial filtering use circumvention tools. The actual number is likely considerably less.”
2. “Many more users use simple web proxies than use either blocking-resistant tools or VPN (virtual private network) services.”
As the Berkman study notes, “The OpenNet Initiative has documented network filtering of the Internet by national governments in over forty countries worldwide. Countries use this network filtering as one of many methods to control the flow of online content that is objectionable to the filtering governments for social, political, and security reasons. Filtering is particularly appealing to governments as it allows them to control content not published within their national borders.”
If filtering is so pervasive, why is there not more use of circumvention tools?
The Berkman study offers this opinion:
“…It may be that there is just not as much interest in circumventing Internet filtering as widely believed for any of a number of reasons. For example, users in many filtering countries may simply prefer to access local content, written in their own languages about topics of local interest, despite the fact that the local content is subject to traditional government regulation and therefore highly censored. We note that three of the nations that have tens of millions of Internet users and who aggressively filter the Internet –China, Iran and Vietnam – have made significant investments in creating locally hosted alternatives to popular social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Our findings may suggest the logic of this approach – a large percentage of users in nations that aggressively filter the Internet either do not know how to conveniently reach these popular sites, or they have decided to use censored, local alternatives.”
VOA uses web-based proxy servers to distribute the latest news and information via the web to reach target audiences in countries like China and Iran, where the main VOA web sites are blocked. Since governments like these block access to proxies once they discover them, the addresses are replaced frequently and new ones sent out in email newsletter to allow users continued uncensored access to the web.
VOA also provides links to audiences in countries like China and Iran that enable them to download a special software called Freegate that users can install on their computers to permit them to have direct, uncensored access to the web without the use of special web-based proxies.
The key findings:
1. The study estimates that “no more than three percent of Internet users in countries that engage in substantial filtering use circumvention tools. The actual number is likely considerably less.”
2. “Many more users use simple web proxies than use either blocking-resistant tools or VPN (virtual private network) services.”
As the Berkman study notes, “The OpenNet Initiative has documented network filtering of the Internet by national governments in over forty countries worldwide. Countries use this network filtering as one of many methods to control the flow of online content that is objectionable to the filtering governments for social, political, and security reasons. Filtering is particularly appealing to governments as it allows them to control content not published within their national borders.”
If filtering is so pervasive, why is there not more use of circumvention tools?
The Berkman study offers this opinion:
“…It may be that there is just not as much interest in circumventing Internet filtering as widely believed for any of a number of reasons. For example, users in many filtering countries may simply prefer to access local content, written in their own languages about topics of local interest, despite the fact that the local content is subject to traditional government regulation and therefore highly censored. We note that three of the nations that have tens of millions of Internet users and who aggressively filter the Internet –China, Iran and Vietnam – have made significant investments in creating locally hosted alternatives to popular social media platforms like YouTube and Facebook. Our findings may suggest the logic of this approach – a large percentage of users in nations that aggressively filter the Internet either do not know how to conveniently reach these popular sites, or they have decided to use censored, local alternatives.”
VOA uses web-based proxy servers to distribute the latest news and information via the web to reach target audiences in countries like China and Iran, where the main VOA web sites are blocked. Since governments like these block access to proxies once they discover them, the addresses are replaced frequently and new ones sent out in email newsletter to allow users continued uncensored access to the web.
VOA also provides links to audiences in countries like China and Iran that enable them to download a special software called Freegate that users can install on their computers to permit them to have direct, uncensored access to the web without the use of special web-based proxies.
21 October 2010
Press Freedom Update
Reporters Without Borders has come out with its annual press freedom index. The 10 lowest ranked countries are: Rwanda, Yemen, China, Sudan, Syria, Burma, Iran, Turkmenistan, North Korea and, at the bottom, Eritrea.
At the top of the list are: Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia and Ireland.
The United States is ranked 20th.
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said: “We must salute the engines of press freedom, with Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland at their head. We must also pay homage to the human rights activists, journalists and bloggers throughout the world who bravely defend the right to speak out. Their fate is our constant concern. We reiterate our call for the release of Liu Xiaobo, the symbol of the pressure for free speech building up in China, which censorship for the time being is still managing to contain. And we warn the Chinese authorities against taking a road from which there is no way out.”
Liu Xiaobo is the human-rights campaigner who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and is imprisoned in China.
In a statement, Julliard continued: “We are also worried by the harsher line being taken by governments at the other end of the index. Rwanda, Yemen and Syria have joined Burma and North Korea in the group of the world’s most repressive countries towards journalists. This does not bode well for 2011. Unfortunately, the trend in the most authoritarian countries is not one of improvement.”
The full report includes rankings for all countries as well as an explanation of how the index was compiled. VOA’s report on this year’s index is here.
At the top of the list are: Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria, New Zealand, Estonia and Ireland.
The United States is ranked 20th.
Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard said: “We must salute the engines of press freedom, with Finland, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland at their head. We must also pay homage to the human rights activists, journalists and bloggers throughout the world who bravely defend the right to speak out. Their fate is our constant concern. We reiterate our call for the release of Liu Xiaobo, the symbol of the pressure for free speech building up in China, which censorship for the time being is still managing to contain. And we warn the Chinese authorities against taking a road from which there is no way out.”
Liu Xiaobo is the human-rights campaigner who just won the Nobel Peace Prize and is imprisoned in China.
In a statement, Julliard continued: “We are also worried by the harsher line being taken by governments at the other end of the index. Rwanda, Yemen and Syria have joined Burma and North Korea in the group of the world’s most repressive countries towards journalists. This does not bode well for 2011. Unfortunately, the trend in the most authoritarian countries is not one of improvement.”
The full report includes rankings for all countries as well as an explanation of how the index was compiled. VOA’s report on this year’s index is here.
20 October 2010
Challenges to International Broadcasting?
Later this month, I’ve been asked to speak to university students on the topic: “The Challenges to US International Broadcasting in the 21st century.”
I’m soliciting opinions from key managers here at VOA and its parent agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
But I’m also interested in hearing the views of our audience – that is, your views. So if you have some thoughts, please send them to the VOA Media Watch by October 27th at our email address: VOANewsBlog@gmail.com
I’m soliciting opinions from key managers here at VOA and its parent agency, the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
But I’m also interested in hearing the views of our audience – that is, your views. So if you have some thoughts, please send them to the VOA Media Watch by October 27th at our email address: VOANewsBlog@gmail.com
19 October 2010
Cyber-threats
There was a good discussion at VOA last week on online freedom and national security. Much of the back-and-forth among the panelists dealt with such threats as cyber-crime, terrorist use of the Internet, surveillance needs, outdated laws and so forth.
But responding to an emailed question posed by “a guy from China”, Ambassador Philip Verveer, the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy at the Department of State, voiced this opinion about the greatest threat to Internet freedom:
“There are a whole range of threats. The greatest threat, I think, to online freedom turns out to be administrations that attempt to use censorship and other means of repression to prevent the free flow of information, to prevent this quite remarkable institution from being able to function fully and freely.”
Aside from Ambassador Verveer, the other panelists were Richard McNally, an FBI counter-terrorism official; Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology; Martin Libicki, Senior Management Scientist at RAND; and Nancy Scola, Associate Editor, techPresident.com.
You can still watch the entire panel discussion here.
But responding to an emailed question posed by “a guy from China”, Ambassador Philip Verveer, the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy at the Department of State, voiced this opinion about the greatest threat to Internet freedom:
“There are a whole range of threats. The greatest threat, I think, to online freedom turns out to be administrations that attempt to use censorship and other means of repression to prevent the free flow of information, to prevent this quite remarkable institution from being able to function fully and freely.”
Aside from Ambassador Verveer, the other panelists were Richard McNally, an FBI counter-terrorism official; Greg Nojeim, senior counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology; Martin Libicki, Senior Management Scientist at RAND; and Nancy Scola, Associate Editor, techPresident.com.
You can still watch the entire panel discussion here.
18 October 2010
Boboev Fined
A VOA Uzbek Service journalist, Abdulmalik Boboev, was fined more than $10,000 last Friday by an Uzbek court that convicted him of slander, insult and publishing information harmful to the public peace. A lawyer for Mr. Boboev, who pled not guilty and denied doing anything wrong, said his client is considering an appeal of the verdict.
According to a VOA statement, VOA Director Danforth W. Austin said, "We are reviewing the decision by the Uzbek court. We are pleased that Mr. Boboev wasn't sentenced to jail. However, we remain concerned that his work as a journalist has resulted in a substantial fine. We will continue to follow his case, and hope that he will be able to continue providing fair, comprehensive and accurate reports to our audience without fear of retaliation."
The 41 year-old Mr. Boboev was among several journalists summoned by the Prosecutor-General's Office last year for questioning about their journalistic activities.
After the judge’s decision Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent released a statement saying it was, “Concerned about the implications of this case for the state of media freedom in Uzbekistan.” U.S. officials had raised the case with the Uzbek government and sent American diplomats to observe the trial.
Over the last two years, Uzbekistan has jailed eight reporters.
According to a VOA statement, VOA Director Danforth W. Austin said, "We are reviewing the decision by the Uzbek court. We are pleased that Mr. Boboev wasn't sentenced to jail. However, we remain concerned that his work as a journalist has resulted in a substantial fine. We will continue to follow his case, and hope that he will be able to continue providing fair, comprehensive and accurate reports to our audience without fear of retaliation."
The 41 year-old Mr. Boboev was among several journalists summoned by the Prosecutor-General's Office last year for questioning about their journalistic activities.
After the judge’s decision Friday, the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent released a statement saying it was, “Concerned about the implications of this case for the state of media freedom in Uzbekistan.” U.S. officials had raised the case with the Uzbek government and sent American diplomats to observe the trial.
Over the last two years, Uzbekistan has jailed eight reporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)