[Senate Hearing 106-617]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-617
BROADCASTING: THE REVIEW OF PRIORITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2000
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
senate
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-329 CC WASHINGTON : 2000
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina, Chairman
RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland
GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming PAUL D. WELLSTONE, Minnesota
JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri BARBARA BOXER, California
BILL FRIST, Tennessee ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey
LINCOLN D. CHAFEE, Rhode Island
Stephen E. Biegun, Staff Director
Edwin K. Hall, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
ROD GRAMS, Minnesota, Chairman
JESSE HELMS, North Carolina BARBARA BOXER, California
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts
BILL FRIST, Tennessee RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Kaufman, Hon. Edward E., Governor, Broadcasting Board of
Governors, Washington, DC...................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses of Edward Kaufman and Alberto Mora to additional
questions from Senator Jesse Helms......................... 32
Responses of Edward Kaufman and Alberto Mora to additional
questions from Senator Russell Feingold.................... 40
Mora, Hon. Alberto, Governor, Broadcasting Board of Governors;
accompanied by: Tom Korologos, Governor, Broadcasting Board of
Governors; Sanford Ungar, Director, Voice of America; Thomas A.
Dine, President, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Dick Richter,
President, Radio Free Asia, Washington, DC..................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Responses of Edward Kaufman and Alberto Mora to additional
questions from Senator Jesse Helms......................... 32
Responses of Edward Kaufman and Alberto Mora to additional
questions from Senator Russell Feingold.................... 40
SaveVOA Committee, statement submitted for the record............ 41
(iii)
BROADCASTING: THE REVIEW OF PRIORITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 26, 2000
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on International Operations,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., in
room SD-419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Rod Grams
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Grams and Feingold.
Senator Grams. Well, good afternoon. I would like to bring
this hearing to order.
And I want to welcome everybody here today. I want to
especially welcome our witnesses from the Broadcasting Board of
Governors, Mr. Edward Kaufman and Mr. Alberto Mora. We want to
thank you for coming to testify before us today.
Now, as the co-chairmen of the subcommittee of the Board,
which recently completed the congressionally mandated language
services review on broadcasting priorities, they are
particularly well suited to discuss the relevance of U.S.
Government supported international broadcasting in the post-
cold war era.
Now, since this is the Foreign Relations Committee's first
hearing devoted to broadcasting since USIA was folded into the
State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors became
an independent agency, I hope our witnesses will feel free to
express their personal views on matters outside the confines of
the language review.
I know they are both well-versed in all aspects of our
Nation's broadcasting operations.
And as you are well aware, there is a significant
difference between the role of VOA and that of the surrogate
services, which now seek to fill a void in countries where a
free press does not exist.
Surrogate services provide independent news and cultural
information about a targeted nation, operating in place of
indigenous news stations. VOA has a different mission.
It is charged with presenting ``a balanced and
comprehensive projection of significant American thought and
institutions,'' ``the policies of the United States clearly and
effectively,'' and ``responsible discussion and opinion on
these policies.''
Mr. Kaufman, Mr. Mora, I am interested in hearing from our
witnesses on how well you both believe VOA is carrying out
these missions.
I am pleased the Broadcasting Board of Governors designated
your subcommittee to supervise a thorough review of language
services. And I appreciate your efforts to prioritize our
expenditures and provide focus to our international
broadcasting efforts.
While the results of your review have been controversial,
that is hardly surprising. And in my experience, any time
budget cuts are recommended, of course, controversy follows.
So I look forward to your testimony and a discussion of
international broadcasting priorities as we now enter a new
century.
So, again, I want to thank you both for taking time to join
us today.
We are joined by Senator Feingold of Wisconsin. And
Senator, did you have opening remarks?
Senator Feingold. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
would like to thank you and Senator Boxer, also, for this
hearing today, and thank the witnesses for being here to
testify.
As many of you know, I have a long history of interest in
the nature and oversight of our overseas broadcasting programs.
I have fought for streamlining, for consolidation and above
all for fiscal responsibility. I have consistently--and some
have even said relentlessly--pressed for the elimination of
obsolete services and for the inclusion of fiscal independence
in our understanding of what a truly independent broadcast
would mean.
I do remain concerned about the self-perpetuating nature of
programming established to deal with a specific time and set of
circumstances, which, I think, we would all agree have changed
dramatically over recent years.
With that said, I am no enemy of broadcasting. As the
ranking member of the subcommittee on African Affairs, I have
been impressed by the excellent work of Voice of America in the
region.
Low literacy rates and underdeveloped infrastructure
throughout sub-Saharan Africa make radio a remarkably powerful
mode of communication.
And I know that the VOA has in many cases made the most of
the possibilities, helping to reunite families separated in
civil strife, exploring the possibilities for conflict
resolution, and introducing ideas of democratic accountability
to its listeners.
I look forward to hearing more about the Broadcasting Board
of Governors' plans for Africa, as well as their efforts to
eliminate redundancy and to phaseout obsolete programs during
today's hearing.
The process of reforming overseas broadcasting for the
post-cold war era is by no means finished. This hearing is a
good opportunity to identify and discuss the many challenges
that remain.
And I, again, thank the Chair.
Senator Grams. All right. Thank you very much, Senator
Feingold.
Gentlemen, I would like to hear your opening statements.
Mr. Mora, we will begin with you.
Mr. Mora. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALBERTO MORA, GOVERNOR, BROADCASTING BOARD OF
GOVERNORS; ACCOMPANIED BY: TOM KOROLOGOS, GOVERNOR,
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS; SANFORD UNGAR, DIRECTOR, VOICE
OF AMERICA; THOMAS A. DINE, PRESIDENT, RADIO FREE EUROPE/RADIO
LIBERTY; DICK RICHTER, PRESIDENT, RADIO FREE ASIA, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feingold, on behalf of
Chairman Mark Nathanson and our other colleagues on the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, we would like to thank you for
the opportunity to testify on the Board's efforts relating to
language service review.
My name is Alberto Mora. I am accompanied by my fellow
Governors, Ted Kaufman, to my left, and Tom Korologos, as well
as by VOA Director Sanford Ungar, RFE/RL Director Tom Dine, and
RFA Director Dick Richter, among other colleagues in
international broadcasting.
Following my testimony, which condenses our longer written
statement, Governor Kaufman, with your indulgence, shall make a
brief statement. We ask that a full version of our written
statements be included in the record.
Senator Grams. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Mora. As this is the first time the Board will testify
since celebrating our independence on October 1, 1999, it is
also an opportunity to thank this committee for its work in
creating the new independent BBG in the Foreign Affairs Reform
and Restructuring Act of 1998.
Independence is an embrace of the idea that all of our
broadcasters are journalists who are accurate, objective and
comprehensive in their approach to the delivery of news and
information.
The creation of this new entity also reaffirms the role of
international broadcasting in the new century as a voice of
human rights and democratic freedoms with new global challenges
and priorities to address.
The creation of an independent BBG also belies statements
that we are a cold war institution whose work is done.
International broadcasting will continue to be vital as long as
segments of the world's population are denied access to a free
press and hunger for alternative sources of news and
information.
As far as we are concerned, the end of the cold war did not
bring an end to history, nor did it bring an end to repressive
regimes.
U.S. international broadcasting reaches out to the world in
61 different languages, touching well over 100 million
listeners, viewers and Internet users.
Freedom House estimates that more than 4 billion people
live in societies where governments severely control or
suppress print and broadcast media, or where the media is only
partially free.
The Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty,
Radio Free Asia, WORLDNET Television, and Radio and Television
Marti, our constituent elements, provide these populations with
news, balanced analysis, insights into American policy, and the
straight story on what is going on in their own countries.
In the past year, we fulfilled our mission during the
crisis in Kosovo, as we did in Iran, Iraq, Korea, Cuba and many
other places.
And we were on the ground in Chechnya during the efforts--
through the efforts of RFE/RL correspondent, Andrei Babitsky,
whose courageous and celebrated coverage of that crisis was
ultimately ended by the Russian Government.
And I may take a moment, Mr. Chairman, to thank this
committee and the Senate for their support of Andrei Babitsky
during the past year.
Congress has mandated that the Board ``review,'' evaluate,
and determine at least annually, after consultation with the
Secretary of State, the addition or deletion of language
services.'' The process we call language service review
implements this mandate through a methodology that assesses
both the priority and impact of our 61 language services.
Stated succinctly, this process seeks to ensure that U.S.
international broadcasting is present and effective where U.S.
strategic interests are most pressing.
Language service review has led us to make some tough
decisions. As a result of this process, we have decided to
reduce 16 language services, enhance 13 services, and further
review 12 others.
We would note here that the reductions have principally
affected VOA broadcasting in Polish, Hungarian, and Czech, as
well as RFE/RL broadcasting in Romanian and--and Bulgarian.
In essence, we have reduced broadcasting to areas where we
were a mainstay during the cold war, but are newly democratic.
And we have or will reallocate resources to other areas of the
world that are still repressed or struggling to establish
democracy.
These decisions are particularly important, given that the
funding environment for broadcasting is static. But the
political and strategic environment offers new challenges. The
Board recognizes the seriousness of this exercise. Adjustment
to language services have direct implications for personnel,
budget and foreign policy.
We have not sought to impose such change from the top, but
rather have sought consensus with the heads of the broadcasting
services. And we have not sought to duplicate the existing
program review function of the broadcasters.
Language service review is an overarching, strategic
analysis, whereas program review evaluates the specific
programming of each language service for content and
presentation.
Two questions form the basis of language service review:
Where should we broadcast, and how well are we broadcasting it?
We answered the first question by evaluating and ranking all
language services in order of priority, using the criteria of
U.S. strategic interest, press freedom, political freedom,
economic freedom and population size.
We answered the second question by assessing impact through
a service by service review, using the criteria of audience
size, both general and elite, programming quality, transmission
effectiveness, budget, broadcast hours, in-country awareness
and media environment and use.
This analysis yielded a number of compelling findings as we
classified our language services in terms of higher and lower
priority and higher or lower impact.
One key finding was that the cold war priorities continued
to fade. The importance of broadcasting to Poland, Hungary and
the Czech Republic, for example, has sharply diminished as
these nations have become members of NATO and developed free
and open media.
In contrast, a host of existing and new priorities stand
out, including China, Russia, the Middle East, Serbia, Nigeria,
India and Pakistan and Iran and Iraq, among others.
U.S. international broadcasting, as expected, has the
greatest impact in terms of percentage of adult listening in
denied or information poor areas such as Central Africa,
Afghanistan, Cambodia, Haiti and many other countries. However,
it is our objective to increase the impact of these other
services as well.
When we looked at budget outlays, there also emerged
significant mismatches of priorities and resources. For
example, our combined allocation for VOA and RFE/RL
broadcasting to Romania totaled $2.9 million and ranked tenth
dollar-wise of our 61 language services. However, Romania
figures in the lower tier of services in terms of priority. In
contrast for our higher priority Kurdish service ranks 53rd
among all services.
The goal of the Board in providing a strategic direction
for U.S. international broadcasting and in spending the
taxpayer's dollars wisely is to ensure that we have sufficient
impact in our higher priority language services.
Toward this end, it is the Board's duty to reallocate
resources as necessary among our language service and
ultimately to decide if we must delete or add specific
languages.
We also expect to begin selected enhancements in the near
future and other enhancements in fiscal year 2001 as funds from
the reductions become available after accounting for severance
costs.
For example, these enhancements include establishing a
robust advertising and marketing program in Russia and the
Ukraine to support RFE/RL broadcast services and also by
enlarging the VOA affiliate's network in Colombia and enhancing
VOA reporting there by expanding news and information directly
related to that country.
It is precisely through this type of reallocation of
resources away from the priorities of yesterday and toward the
priority of today and tomorrow that the Board seized a concrete
utility of language service review.
Thus while VOA programming may be reduced in Eastern
Europe, the savings from these reductions will eventually
flower as new programming in Indonesia, Africa, and other parts
of the world.
The language service review process, as noted, looked at
transmission effectiveness as one of the criteria in assessing
impact. It is imperative that our broadcast be readily
available to our target audiences. We are committed to
succeeding in an increasingly multi-media world.
There are two basic issues in achieving this success. The
first concerns the selection of the medium to use, whether
radio, television, Internet or a combination of these. Because
we broadcast worldwide, we confront every type of media
environment. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to any
specific area.
The second issue concerns how well we distribute our
broadcast in the chosen medium. Although the role of television
was not specifically addressed during the language service
review process, the parenthetical word about the future of
television would be appropriate here.
It is not news that TV is on the rise everywhere. It has
been so for many years. However, the growing consumer
preference for television in key markets relative to radio is
an important factor in our language service review
deliberations.
WORLDNET television has been a part of U.S. international
broadcasting now for two decades. For nearly half that time,
selected VOA language services have offered TV simulcasts of
their radio shows.
Now, we find that a visually enhanced television product in
vernacular languages could well fill an important niche in many
media markets, allowing us to reach new audiences.
We believe the way to structure ourselves to produce this
new TV programming is through a reorganization of WORLDNET. We
have proposed a merger of WORLDNET into VOA to launch a
serious, sustained television effort with a single editorial
operation. This would leverage VOA's language capabilities and
brand name with WORLDNET's technical capabilities.
Similar considerations apply, I should add, to the Board's
consideration of the Internet. As the Internet explodes around
the world, it increasingly allows us an efficient and effective
synergy with our traditional radio broadcasts and will meld
perfectly with enhanced TV programming.
The Board has made our expanded use of the Internet a top
priority. However, we fully understand the limitations for
reaching mass audiences of this medium and will not sacrifice
our other delivery methods as we pursue this opportunity.
One of the unfortunate results of language service review
is that some of our broadcast services will lose funded
positions, and we will be forced to conduct a reduction in
force to downsize these language services.
As the Board shifts priorities from some parts of the world
to others, we need to realign personnel resources accordingly.
Unlike some other government agencies where jobs may be easily
transferred to other positions, it is more difficult to move
Voice of America broadcasters from one language service to
another, given the high level of language skills and knowledge
of the audience that are required.
For example, as a result of language service review,
broadcasting to Poland will be reduced, while broadcasting to
Indonesia may be enhanced. But we cannot transfer easily a
Polish broadcaster to the Indonesian service unless he or she
has the required language skills.
While this is a regrettable situation, we can assure you
that we will be working diligently to provide affected
employees with appropriate counseling, assistance in pursuing
employment leads and consideration in matching their skills
against vacancies that may occur within our organization or
elsewhere in the Federal Government.
Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the recent accomplishments of
each of our broadcasting entities under our supervision, and we
are proud to be part of broadcasting's long history of
achievement.
We thank you and the committee for your historic support.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Mora, for your
statement.
Mr. Kaufman.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, GOVERNOR, BROADCASTING
BOARD OF GOVERNORS, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Kaufman. Mr. Chairman, Senator Feingold, I would like
to add just a few words to what Governor Mora has delivered
this afternoon.
Historically, nations have had three main types of tools
they have used to advance their foreign policy. They are
political, which is primarily diplomacy and the State
Department; strategic, which is primarily the Defense
Department and military; and economic, which is used in many
ways, but, of course, the most popular way today, which is most
controversial, is economic sanctions.
However, in the modern world, we need a strong fourth
option, in addition to diplomacy, Armed Forces and economic
sanctions. I suggest Thomas Friedman's book, ``The Lexus and
the Olive Tree,'' where he goes into great detail about the
interrelationship between these three and the media.
We need the ability to use the media, radio, television,
and the Internet, to effect decisionmaking worldwide and to
explain our policies abroad.
Globalization may be making the world more inter-dependent,
but it does not mean we understand each other better than
before. Many of our modern international involvements are
caused by the rise of ethnic, racial, religious and regional
conflicts. Often, these are started by hate radio or by a
dictator who uses state radio to inflame the radical elements
in the country.
We must be able to help counteract these activities, to
minimize the conflict. U.S. international broadcasting does
that.
The language service review effort by the Broadcasting
Board of Governors was an effort to focus our limited resources
on areas of the world where we need to have impact, to meet
foreign policy challenges.
We hope that this committee can support this effort and the
funding that we require to implement. Thank you, both.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Mr. Kaufman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mora and Mr. Kaufman
follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALBERTO MORA AND EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, GOVERNORS,
BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, we would like to thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the Board's efforts relating to
language service review. As this is the first time the Board will
testify since celebrating our independence on October 1, 1999, it is
also an opportunity to thank this committee for its work in creating
the new, independent BBG in the Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998.
Independence is an embrace of the idea that all of our broadcasters
are journalists who are accurate, objective, and comprehensive in their
approach to the delivery of news and information. The creation of this
new entity also reaffirms the role of international broadcasting in the
new century as a voice of human rights and democratic freedoms with new
global challenges and priorities to address.
The creation of an independent BBG also belies statements that we
are a Cold War institution whose work is done. International
broadcasting will continue to be vital as long as segments of the
world's population are denied access to a free press and hunger for
alternative sources of news and information about their own countries
and the rest of the world. The end of the Cold War was not the end of
history; it was not the end of repressive regimes. Our mission is
growing as are our methods of delivering news and information to people
around the globe.
U.S. international broadcasting reaches out to the world in 61
different languages, touching more than 100 million listeners, viewers,
and Internet users. Freedom House estimates that more than four billion
people live in societies where governments severely control or suppress
print and broadcast media or where the media is only partly free. The
Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia,
WORLDNET Television, and Radio and TV Marti provide these populations
with news, balanced analysis, insights into American policy, and the
straight story on what is going on in their own countries. In the past
year, we fulfilled our mission during the crisis in Kosovo, providing
an accurate source of news and supplying information leading to the
reunification of refugee families. We are present in Iran, Iraq, Korea,
and Cuba. And we were on the ground in Chechnya through the efforts of
correspondent Andrei Babitsky, whose coverage of that crisis was
ultimately ended by the Russian Government.
LANGUAGE SERVICE REVIEW
U.S. international broadcasting needs to be present where U.S.
strategic interests are the most pressing and where credible news and
information are restricted or otherwise unavailable. Congress has
mandated that the Board ``review, evaluate, and determine, at least
annually, after consultation with the Secretary of State, the addition
or deletion of language services.'' The process we call ``language
service review'' implements this mandate through a methodology that
assesses both the priority and impact of our 61 language services.
Language service review has led us to take some tough decisions. We
have reduced broadcasting to areas where we were a mainstay during the
Cold War but are newly democratic, and will reallocate resources to
other areas of the world that are still repressed or struggling to
establish democracy. These decisions are particularly important given
that the funding environment for broadcasting is static, but the
political and strategic environment offers us new challenges.
The Board recognizes the seriousness of this exercise. Adjustments
to language services have direct implications for personnel, budget,
and foreign policy. We have not sought to impose such change from the
top but rather have sought consensus with the heads of the broadcasting
services.
Methodology
Two questions form the basis of language service review--Where
should we broadcast? and How well are we broadcasting? We answer the
first question by evaluating and ranking all U.S. international
broadcasting language services in order of priority, using the criteria
of U.S. strategic interests, press freedom, political freedom, economic
freedom, and population size. We answer the second question by
assessing impact through a service-by-service review, using the
criteria of audience size (both general and elite), programming
quality, transmission effectiveness, budget, broadcast hours, in-
country awareness, and media environment and use.
Through language service review, we are able to sort our language
services in terms of higher and lower priority and higher and lower
impact. The goal of the Board in providing a strategic direction for
U.S. international broadcasting, and in spending the taxpayers' dollars
wisely, is to ensure that we have sufficient impact in the higher
priority areas. Toward this end, it is the Board's duty to reallocate
resources as necessary among our language services and ultimately
decide if we must delete or add specific language services.
Results
As a result of the Board's language service review this year, we
have taken decisions to reduce 16 language services, enhance 13
services, and further review 12. The details of these actions are
complex. We would highlight here that the reductions have principally
affected Voice of America broadcasting in Polish, Hungarian, and Czech
as well as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasting in Bulgarian
and Romanian. These VOA services reach countries that are now NATO
members and possess free and open media. The two RFE/RL services have
had unsustainably high budgets, reflecting Cold War priorities.
The Board expects to begin selected enhancements in the near future
and other enhancements in FY 2001 as funds from the reductions become
available after accounting for severance costs. These will include:
establishing a robust advertising and marketing program in
Russia and the Ukraine to support RFE/RL broadcast services;
acquiring 24-hour FM frequencies in Jakarta and Dili to
serve the capital and East Timor, respectively;
reinstating 13.5 broadcast hours across a range of services
for Africa; and
enlarging the VOA affiliates network in Colombia and
enhancing VOA reporting for Colombia by expanding news and
information directly related to Colombia.
It is precisely through this type of reallocation of resources,
away from the priorities of yesterday and toward the priorities of
today and tomorrow, that the Board sees the concrete utility of
language service review.
Consultation with the Department of State
We welcome the Secretary of State as an ex officio member of the
Board. We have always recognized that U.S. international broadcasting
exists to further the broad foreign policy objectives of the United
States. Through the Secretary's designee to the Board, Under Secretary
of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Evelyn S. Lieberman,
we have quickly established an excellent working relationship. We
acknowledge our respective roles. We determine what and how we
broadcast. The Department of State offers guidance on where we should
broadcast and advises us on foreign policy priorities as these relate
to U.S. international broadcasting. Early in this year's review
process, the Board formally requested the Department's views on these
priorities and received a detailed briefing by its Office of Policy
Planning. We will be implementing actions regarding Russia, Indonesia,
the Ukraine, Africa, among other areas that are fully consistent with
Department guidance.
Technology
The language service review process, as noted, looked at
transmission effectiveness as one of the criteria in assessing impact.
It is imperative that our broadcasts be readily available to our target
audiences. We are committed to succeeding in an increasingly multi-
media world.
There are two basic issues in achieving this. The first concerns
the media we choose to use--radio, TV, Internet, or a combination of
these. Because we broadcast worldwide, we confront every type of media
environment. There is no ``one size fits all'' for use of media to
reach our target audiences. What we seek to do is accommodate the media
market, do what we feel we can be competitive at, what the priority of
the language service requires, and what we can afford. We seek
synergies across media. In markets where two of our language services
operate, we seek to balance the use of media between the two.It is not
news that TV is on the rise everywhere; it has been so for many years.
However, the growing disproportionate access and use of TV in key
markets relative to radio is an important factor in our language
service review deliberations. WORLDNET TV has been a part of U.S.
international broadcasting for two decades. For nearly half that time,
selected VOA language services have offered TV simulcasts of their
radio shows. Now we find that a visually enhanced TV product in
vernacular languages offering timely and relevant news and information
could well fill an important niche in many media markets, allowing us
to reach new audiences.
We believe the way to structure ourselves to produce this new TV
program is through a reorganization of WORLDNET. We have proposed a
merger of WORLDNET into VOA to launch a serious, sustained television
effort with a single editorial operation. This would leverage VOA's
language capabilities and brand name, and WORLDNET's technical
capabilities.
As the Internet explodes around the world, it increasingly allows
us an efficient and effective synergy with our traditional radio
broadcasts, and will meld perfectly with enhanced TV programs.
Together, our broadcasters now stream real and archive audio in over 30
languages and archive text in nearly all languages. RFE/RL Web sites,
which provide the very best news and information anywhere on the states
of the former Soviet Union, receive over 15 million hits per month. The
Board has made our expanded use of the Internet a top priority.
However, we fully understand its limitations in reaching mass
audiences, and are therefore in no way sacrificing our other delivery
methods as we pursue this effort.
The second issue concerns how well we distribute our broadcasts via
the chosen medium. For both radio and TV we have essentially two
options--direct broadcasts and broadcasts via affiliate stations. Since
the end of the Cold War, as media markets in Central and Eastern Europe
and elsewhere have opened, FM radio has generally become the medium of
choice among radio listeners. To make our programs available on FM, we
have had to develop an aggressive radio affiliates recruitment effort.
This remains a priority.
At the same time, we have not forsaken direct radio broadcasts via
shortwave and medium-wave. Shortwave remains key to reaching audiences
in rural areas and across many under-developed nations. Medium-wave, or
AM, provides us with yet a third modality that is very effective for
shorter-distance yet cross-border situations, and is more amenable to
listeners than shortwave. Our shortwave and AM are also the backbone of
our essential surge broadcasting capability.
Distributing TV products likewise offers the affiliate option as
well as direct-to-home, via satellite. The latter might seem to offer
relatively low penetration, but in key areas such as the Gulf states in
the Middle East, per capita ownership of satellite dishes is very high.
Given that these same households hardly use radio, reaching them at all
necessitates a TV product distributed via satellite. In less-developed
areas, such as Albania and Kosovo, satellite ownership is surprisingly
high. It was to reach the Albanian speakers in these areas that VOA
debuted a new Albanian-language TV simulcast program last fall.
Choosing the appropriate medium and distribution means is,
therefore, a complex undertaking. In the end, it's a market-by-market
determination. Language service review will increasingly focus on the
opportunities and trade-offs that this situation demands.
Reductions in Force
One of the unfortunate results of language service review is that
some of our broadcast services will lose funded positions and we will
be forced to conduct a reduction-in-force (RIF) to downsize these
language services. As the Board's review determined a shifting priority
from some parts of the world to others, we need to realign personnel
resources accordingly. Unlike some other government agencies where jobs
may be easily transferred to other positions, it is more difficult to
move Voice of America broadcasters from one language service to
another, given the high level of language skills and knowledge of the
audience that are required. For example, as a result of language
service review, broadcasting to Poland will be reduced while
broadcasting to Indonesia may ultimately be enhanced. But we cannot
easily transfer a Polish broadcaster to the Indonesian service unless
he or she has the required language skills.
While this is a regrettable situation, we can assure you that we
will be working diligently to provide affected employees with
appropriate counseling, assistance in pursuing employment leads, and
consideration in matching their skills against vacancies that may occur
within our organization or elsewhere in the Federal Government. We
expect to be able to provide new employment opportunities within the
BBG to some of the 51 employees who will be displaced by the pending
RIF. Some others are eligible for retirement. But we are committed to
providing the best possible assistance to these employees that we can.
Mr. Chairman, we are proud of the recent accomplishments of each of
the broadcasting entities under the supervision of the BBG and we are
proud to be a part of broadcasting's long history of achievement.
Language service review is not an exercise designed to penalize a
service or to augment one broadcast entity to the detriment of the
other. Each service has a specific mission to accomplish and each must
refocus its broadcast targets to preserve its greatest impact on a
changing world. Savings gained from reductions in a broadcast entity
will be used to bolster its programs to other areas of the world. For
example, while VOA's programming may be reduced in Eastern Europe, the
savings from these reductions will eventually flower as new programming
in Indonesia, Africa, and other parts of the world.
RECENT BROADCASTING CHALLENGES
While the focus of this hearing is devoted to the process for
identifying the priority and impact of our language services, we would
also like to take this opportunity to stress some of the recent
challenges and accomplishments of each of the broadcast entities.
Perhaps the most dramatic story of recent months has been in Russia
with respect to RFE/RL's coverage of the war in Chechnya. As this
committee well knows, RFE/RL correspondent Andrei Babitsky was detained
by the Russians because of his on the scene coverage of that conflict,
telling the Russian people and others in the region the facts behind
the war, including the carnage in the Chechen civilian population, the
drama of the refugees, and the death toll among Russian soldiers. Mr.
Babitsky's own human drama brought to light the work that is being done
around the world by the correspondents of each of our service entities,
bringing news and information to societies that do not enjoy the free
flow of information.
In the past several years, broadcasting has tackled many
challenges, both technological and ideological. Broadcasting to the
former Yugoslavia was dramatically expanded during the NATO airstrikes
and mass killings of Kosovar Albanians by the Serb militia. Both VOA in
Albanian and Serbian, and RFE in its South Slavic service, rose to meet
the challenge. We established new services to the Balkans, with RFE in
Albanian and VOA in Macedonian, leading the way in establishing the
``Ring around Serbia'' of FM stations broadcasting news from British,
German, and French international broadcasters. A network of more than
30 affiliate stations was created in Bosnia which carries a two-hour
Bosnian language program and a Serbian language newscast that updated
audiences on Kosovo throughout the day.
We are working to update and streamline our technical capacity to
better meet future challenges. A VOA-TV and WORLDNET pilot program
demonstrated that we can take advantage of VOA's global network of
foreign and U.S. correspondents for radio and television in a
multimedia approach. We are continuing to work toward the conversion to
digital systems that can allow a single digital journalistic product to
be available via radio, TV, or the Internet without costly conversion.
We have refined and expanded websites to provide Internet access to
news, information, and analysis.
Voice of America
The events of 1999 were challenging for the VOA as it launched its
53rd language service by initiating broadcasts in Macedonian to the
Balkans. When the Kosovo crisis led to NATO bombing, VOA was on the air
to give accurate and objective information to Albanians and Serbs. As
Milosevic cracked down on indigenous private media, VOA stepped up its
broadcasting and transmissions to the region in conjunction with sister
stations RFE/RL, BBC, Radio France International, and Deutsche Welle.
Special programming in Albanian helped families separated by the
fighting to find each other in the refugee camps. Newly trained video
journalists were able to capture the Kosovo story and give an honest
picture of events to audiences in the Balkans, Russia, and China who
had been receiving misleading information from their governments.
As VOA moves into the new century, it is diversifying the ways
audiences can choose to access its news and information programs. While
still primarily a radio network, VOA is increasingly making programs
available for television and Internet broadcasting. These media help us
reach a broader and more diverse audience in certain countries where
the reliance on international radio and shortwave is declining. This
was demonstrated during coverage of the recent elections in Taiwan, as
VOA's China Branch provided live Mandarin updates and analysis,
simulcast for radio, TV and the Internet and viewed by large audiences
in Taiwan and Mainland China.
Last January, VOA won its first silver medal in the category of
Television News Special at the New York Festivals, taking the prize for
a feature on a young woman's search for her family among the thousands
of refugees crossing into Albania during the Kosovo war. In addition to
authoritative news broadcasts, VOA offers its listeners music,
education, cultural and call-in shows. Twenty-four hours a day, seven
days a week, VOA is on the air to bring America's story and America's
point of view to an estimated 91 million regular listeners worldwide.
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), on the air for half a
century this year, broadcasts more than 800 hours a week in 26
languages providing daily news, analysis and current affairs
programming for a coherent, objective account of the events in their
region and the world.
As a surrogate radio, or ``home service'' to countries where the
media are struggling amid chaotic economic conditions and often
dictatorships to achieve financial and editorial independence, RFE/RL's
mission remains the promotion of democratic values and institutions by
disseminating factual information and ideas. Based on the conviction
that the first requirement of democracy is a well-informed citizenry,
RFE/RL strives to provide objective news and analysis; help strengthen
civil societies; combat ethnic and religious intolerance; and provide a
model for local media.
RFE/RL maintains 22 bureaus and has regular ties with more than
1,000 local freelancers and stringers. It uses shortwave broadcasts to
reach its listeners, but increasingly is utilizing AM/FM stations
through 98 affiliate partners in all its broadcast countries except
Belarus, Iran, Iraq, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. In addition, RFE/RL
maintains an active presence on the Internet.
RFE/RL, with its extensive news coverage of events in Serbia,
Kosovo and Montenegro, was able to penetrate the information blockage
imposed on Yugoslav citizens by President Slobodan Milosovic during
last year's military conflict with NATO. A dramatic example of the
effectiveness of RFE/RL broadcasts was reported by NATO and US
officials. On May 19-20, 1999 NATO spokesman Jamie Shea and U.S. State
Department spokesman Jamie Rubin gave RFE/RL credit for breaking the
news that police units loyal to Serbian President Slobodan Milosovic
had used water cannon against 600 women and children in the town of
Krusevac who were protesting the fact that their husbands and fathers
were fighting and being killed in Kosovo. When Serbian troops heard
these and other reports of police brutality against their families,
they deserted the battlefield to come home and defend their loved ones.
In Armenia, an RFE/RL correspondent was on the scene when gunmen
attacked the Parliament building on October 27, 1999, and killed the
Prime Minister, Vazgen Sarkisyan, the speaker of the Parliament and six
other Armenian political leaders. The correspondent telephoned Prague
headquarters from the Parliament building and broke the story.
Radio Free Asia
Like RFE/RL, Radio Free Asia (RFA) is a surrogate radio service
broadcasting to areas where the media is controlled. For over three
years RFA has been broadcasting via short wave to China, Tibet, North
Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, and Burma. With the help of Congress,
seven months ago RFA completed its build-up to 24 hours of daily
programming to China in multiple languages and dialects. Programming is
in Mandarin at 12 hours a day, Tibetan in three different dialects at 8
hours a day, three hours of Cantonese, one hour of Uyghur, and an hour-
and-a half a week of Shanghaiese. RFA strives to reach the largest and
most diverse audience possible. Listener response indicates that RFA
has been successful in reaching across age groups and all walks of
life.
RFA continues to break stories in its target countries, such as
unrest in Xinjiang's Hotan region reported by the Uyghur service.
Aggressive reporting on events in North Korea is carried almost weekly
by South Korean newspapers and news agencies. RFA continues to cover
extensively the Vietnamese government's crackdown on the United
Buddhist church and the Hoa Hao Buddhist sect. The recently inaugurated
Tibetan call-in program is the only forum of its kind where Chinese and
Tibetan callers have the opportunity to discuss with each other social
and political issues. In Cambodia, RFA broadcasts about the existence
of secret illegal marijuana plantations led to the public burning of
the fields by Prime Minister Hun Sen. The Mandarin Service obtained the
first interview with Dickinson College scholar Song Yongyi following
his release from a Chinese prison. He had been accused of purchasing
``intelligence for foreigners'' during a trip to China to gather
information on the Cultural Revolution. And since RFA's first
broadcasts to China, it has reported on worker protests that went
unreported by the Chinese and Western media.
Broadcasting to Cuba
The Office of Cuba Broadcasting (OCB) provides coordinated
management of the Radio Marti and TV Marti programs from its
headquarters in Miami, Florida. Radio and TV Marti are dedicated to the
promotion of freedom and democracy in Cuba, with a programmatic
strategy based on the promotion of human rights. Last year, Radio Marti
provided coverage of: the Ibero-American Summit in Lisbon, Portugal,
interviewing 17 presidents; the Rio Group Meeting; the Caribbean Summit
in the Dominican Republic, the First Lady's visit to Nicaragua and
Honduras; and the U.N. Human Rights Commission. Radio and TV Marti
continue to provide information to the people of Cuba through reports
of the most important U.S. news stories, digests of world news, stories
related to Cuba. Among these reports are information on political
repression in Cuba, stories on the plight of dissidents, coverage of
the U.S. presidential race, and of the events surrounding the case of
Elian Gonzalez. This year, TV Marti will develop two new programs. The
first, designed to reach women in Cuba, will feature in-depth analysis
and discussion of political changes in Cuba and women's health and
medicine. The second will feature a political analyst and an economist
who will analyze and discuss local and international issues that affect
Cuba.
Again, thank you for this opportunity to share with you the results
of the first language service review and to highlight some of the
accomplishments of each of the service entities over the past year. We
would be glad to answer any questions you or other Members of the
committee might have.
Senator Grams. Gentlemen, just some brief questions today.
As I noted in my opening statement, there is significant
difference between the role of VOA and that of the surrogate
services, which seek to fill a void where a free press does not
exist. However, I would like you to compare the services under
the Board's supervision in another respect.
Will you compare the management, the cost effectiveness and
the impact of the operations run within the Government, such as
the VOA, and compare those with those run as independent
private entities? Those would be Radio Free Europe, Radio
Liberty, Radio Free Asia. Can you give me a comparison of
those?
Mr. Kaufman. Clearly, the Government--because it is the
Government--has special requirements. These have been developed
over the years by the Congress and by the President and require
special considerations of all kinds to meet objectives and to
make sure there is no waste, fraud and abuse.
Our surrogate organizations, which are independent
grantees, are not required by law to meet a lot of these same
requirements. Primarily, because of the efforts of Senator
Feingold earlier in this decade, we have tried very hard to
have our surrogate broadcasters meet the same requirements as
the Government, especially when it comes to requirements of
comparability and pay for employees and operations, to make
sure that we are maintaining the policy requirements of the
Congress and the President.
And, again, Senator Feingold was the author of the
legislation to do that. In this area we have tried to go beyond
the letter of the legislation and really tried to get to the
spirit of what Senator Feingold had in mind when he wrote that
legislation.
So I think many people would say it is easier to operate if
you are not part of the Federal Government. I think that is a
fair statement.
But I also think that there are requirements that we have
in terms of our employees and in terms of the way we operate
that require us to run our surrogates as much as possible like
they were part of the Federal Government.
Senator Grams. Mr. Mora, would you like to----
Mr. Mora. I think I would echo Governor Kaufman's answer
and emphasize what we all have discovered on the Board of
Governors, that when you are operating more in the private
sector as RFE/RL does and Radio Free Asia, there is greater
agility and greater management flexibility that is otherwise
not found in a government bureaucracy.
Senator Grams. Now, I have been told the number of VOA
listeners per week has dropped by some 20 percent in the last 5
years.
How do the trends in VOA audience levels in the last 5
years compare to the surrogate services run on a more
independent basis from that of the Government? Would you care
to compare those numbers?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, frankly that statistic takes me by
surprise. I am not aware that that number has come to the
attention of the Board, and perhaps we can hear from the VOA
director later with respect to that question. But I am simply
not familiar with a drop in listenership to that extent.
Having said that, there is no question that audiences in
Central Europe, the former denied areas that have now begun to
democratize, the former Soviet Union and these other countries,
that the listenership not only for Voice of America, but for
other international radio services has dropped.
As media becomes more free and more diverse, there is a
greater choice of indigenous media available to local
listeners. The trend worldwide has been for a decreased
listenership for international radio services, not only Voice
of America and RFE/RL.
Having said that, though, we retain a significant audience
particularly among elites in many of those formerly denied
territories.
Senator Grams. Mr. Kaufman.
Mr. Kaufman. There is a basic difference here, as you so
eloquently stated in your opening statement. Surrogate
broadcasting is broadcasting that would be carried on if there
was a free press in that country.
If you do research around the world, you find whether it is
in Minnesota, Wisconsin or right here, if you ask people what
they are most interested in, they are most interested in what
is going on in Minnesota, Wisconsin or right here.
They are not as much interested in what is going on in the
world at large; so that obviously surrogate radio in places
where it exists has a big leg up over the Voice of America.
But the other point is that we have a mission that goes
beyond just what people want to hear. We have to make it
palatable, but we have an obligation to bring the foreign
policy considerations and the opinions of the United States
around the world.
It is very important for us to provide local news.
Surrogate broadcasting provides a very real need, but I think
it is like the ying and the yang. I think you need both in
order to do well. And we have countries literally side by side
where VOA will have a higher listenership than Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty has in the same area and vice versa.
The reality of reduced resources is driving our language
service review.
But we really believe that VOA and the grantees provide
very distinct and needed services. For instance, there is no
doubt that in places like China and Russia you need both of
those services. You need the Voice of America presenting the
view of the United States, and you need the local surrogate
service providing what is going on in the local country.
Whether, in times of reduced funding, we can afford to have
both in some other countries is a question that we plan on
dealing with in the second round of language service review and
on out into the future.
Senator Grams. Which governments devote the most effort and
resources to trying to jam American broadcast, and how
effective are these jamming devices? Are there more areas that
work harder to keep us out, and what are the effective ways
they do that?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, the--let me see. The current
governments that jam our international broadcast services
include Cuba, China, and Vietnam. Iran, for a period of time
during the Iranian elections, jammed services. The Chinese
Government is jamming, of course not only Mandarin service, but
the Tibetan service and other vernacular services there.
Jamming radio is not an exact science. Jamming--even the
most determined jamming is ultimately permeable. We find that
we have audiences in all these countries, notwithstanding the
efforts by the local governments to jam.
The quality of the jamming varies, depending upon the
location and atmospheric conditions, but ultimately, we find
both Voice of America and Radio Free Asia, that the signals are
getting through and that the audiences are not only sustained,
but in the case of Radio Free Asia and Voice of America growing
in those specific countries.
Senator Grams. So you would say that they are not that
effective in jamming, or they are at times, but you find ways
to get around?
Mr. Mora. Well, that is correct. Now--I mean, there is a
lot of detail involved here. For example, the jamming efforts
of the Cuba regime in Havana are quite effective. Radio Marti,
for example, has great difficulty penetrating the localized
jamming in the capital city of Havana. But you find that Radio
Marti is effective in communicating its message outside of the
capital city elsewhere.
But I do not mean to say that it does not create a
trouble--a great trouble for us and that it is not a hindrance
to the effective communication of our message.
Senator Grams. Is it cost effective to try and do the
broadcasting, even if the jamming is going on? I mean, are we
getting enough penetration to make it worthwhile?
Mr. Mora. I think the answer to that is unquestionably yes,
Senator.
Senator Grams. OK. Mr. Kaufman, would you----
Mr. Kaufman. Yes. Just two points: One is we cannot allow
dictators to know that if they jam our radio broadcast they
will be successful in ending them. It is a little like
negotiating with hostage-takers. In the short run, we may have
to broadcast into some places and spend money without getting
through, but we have to let the dictators know they cannot stop
us.
The second point is--and I know the Foreign Relations
Committee is considering a number of issues with regard to
China--it would be very helpful if China understood that, in a
time when they are trying to promote free trade and trying to
promote freedom of transmission of ideas, they should not be
allowed to continue to jam us the way they do.
And I think it should be an objective of this foreign
policy to support negotiation with China to stop the jamming.
Senator Grams. Thank you.
Senator Feingold.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, thank you for acknowledging
my interest in this over the years, and I appreciate your
report.
The legislation that we enacted in 1994 mandated that RFE/
RL prepare themselves for a cutoff of public funding, and were
required to either find private sources of funding or accept
elimination.
Last year, these surrogate services were given a reprieve
by Congress, one that I did not entirely agree with, but I just
wonder if you can answer: Over the past 6 years, did RFE/RL
ever make any steps toward fiscal independence?
Mr. Kaufman. Absolutely. There was a major effort to try to
privatize. As you know, we went ahead and privatized the
Polish, Czech and research services. When the BBG first came
in, it was one of the first things on our agenda, because of
your legislation, to make sure that it was done.
They made major efforts trying to privatize. I do not know
whether to quote Governor Korologos or ask him to say it
himself, but we propounded the Korologos rule when it comes to
this, after several years of trying to privatize. The problem
with privatization is nobody is going to privatize and then
broadcast what we want them to broadcast, or what is the U.S.
foreign policy.
You cannot go into a country like Serbia and broadcast into
Serbia, if you want to sell Nikes and say the kinds of things
we say about what Milosevic is doing to the country. We found
that the people who might be interested in buying the name of
RFE/RL were not interested in projecting U.S. foreign policy or
doing any of the things that we think are important.
Again, to get to the Korologos rule--the Korologos rule is:
If it is worth doing, it is worth paying for. And that is kind
of what we came up with as the way to approach this.
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, if I might add to amplify the
question a bit, it is well worth remembering that RFE/RL has
suffered a two-thirds reduction in personnel and budget since
1995, from about 1,200 employees to approximately 445; and from
a budget of--at that time of approximately $225 million to its
current approximately $75 million.
But as we have seen particularly in the situation of Russia
recently and specifically the situation of Andrei Babitsky and
the efforts of the Russian Government to choke off information
about what is actually happening in that area of the world and
disquieting policy and pronouncement by President Putin and
others in the current administration to suggest that the regime
may be reconsidering prior policy of openness with respect to
the media, RFE/RL and particularly our RL transmissions to
Russia remain vitally important. And that serves as a symbol
for the continuing importance and vitality of Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty broadcasts to the region.
Senator Feingold. I understand that, but my question had to
do with the privatization aspect----
Mr. Mora. Where the----
Senator Feingold [continuing]. Whether it is privatized
or--I heard--I heard your answer. Well, could you talk a little
bit more specifically about what you have done to eliminate
redundancy in countries that are served both by VOA and RFE/RL?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, we--in the course of the language
service review, Governor Kaufman and I constituted the
subcommittee entrusted by the Board with the responsibility
recognized earlier on that, first of all, in terms of analyzing
the expenditures to particularly the broadcasting to specific
areas, the only fair way to do so would be to aggregate both
VOA and RFE/RL expenditures toward the same country in order to
reach a correct assessment of the totality of the U.S.
broadcasting investment to that country.
So all of our analysis and our description that we have
described to you today is based upon that premise.
We also operate from the premise that in an area of
shrinking budgets, one of the closest and most--the hardest
looks that we had to give to our expenditures was precisely to
those countries in which there is an overlap between RFE and RL
broadcasting.
Some of the cuts that were announced this year by the BBG
reflect our assessment that economies can be made in several of
those countries where there is duplicate broadcasting. And the
subcommittee and the entire BBG has to take a much closer look
at all those countries in which there is duplicate broadcasting
next year.
Now, as Governor Kaufman said, even though we think there
are further economies that are available to us, I think we will
be recommending some of them next year. In some countries like,
for example, Russia and China, it makes great good sense to
have two robust services broadcasting, simply because it is so
much in the American interest that there be a clear
communication with the populations in those countries.
Senator Feingold. Let me follow on the question of jamming
that the Chairman got us started on, with specific reference to
Cuba. You indicated that the Cuban Government was significantly
successful in jamming Radio Marti, but not entirely successful,
is that correct?
What about TV Marti? I am told that virtually no one ever
sees that, and are we sure that is such a great concession to
Castro to not have that, if we were to continue, let us say,
Radio Marti?
Mr. Kaufman. Absolutely, Senator. The way I like to think
about it is if you are in some country, and we are broadcasting
into your country things you do not want to hear.
An aide comes in, and the leader says, we want to stop
them. How much will it cost to jam the broadcast coming in?
And the aide says, you know, $1 million a month, or
whatever it costs.
And then the dictator is going to say, well, how long do we
have to do this? Will we have to do it for 1 month or 10 months
or a year or 2 years?
And the answer would come back, we would have to probably
do it indefinitely, because there is no case where America has
shut down a broadcasting service because a dictator has blocked
it or jammed it.
So I think, as I said earlier, it is the cost of doing
business. I do not think we can say to Castro that, because you
decide you are going to spend the money to block TV that we
should stop broadcasting television. I think that is the reason
we should continue.
And I think we are trying to find more and different ways
to try to get our television signal into Cuba. But I guess it
gets back, like I said to the hostage thing. In the short term,
is it expedient to negotiate with hostage-takers? Yes.
But as a society and civilization, we say it is not good to
give in to hostage-takers, because it increases the chance that
they will pick somebody else up off the street. And I think
that is kind of our approach with TV Marti.
But clearly that is in the discretion of the Congress. It
is not our decision whether we do TV Marti or not.
Senator Feingold. Well, I think it is an interesting
argument which I am listening to, but I question whether the
argument is--can be rigidly applied.
Let us say we had three services vis-a-vis Cuba. And one
was completely ineffective, as it appears that TV Marti may be.
I hope we will at least consider the possibility that something
that is entirely ineffective that we continue, let us say,
Radio Marti. And that would not necessarily be a signal to Mr.
Castro that he can frustrate our objectives.
It might even be a signal to him that we are efficient and
can focus our money on things that work, but I do think it is
an interesting argument. And I want to think about it.
The language service review appears to have much more
cutting of VOA programming than that of RFE/RL programming.
Could you explain to me why that choice was made?
Mr. Mora. I think the simple answer is that RFE/RL endured
its cuts back in 1995. But notwithstanding that, I think a
budgetary and programmatic fact, RFE/RL is cutting back certain
services. In fact, the ballpark estimate of savings that are
anticipated from the RFE/RL cuts that were put into place by
this cycle of language review total approximately $1 million.
And we will be looking, as I mentioned earlier, at
reductions again next year in RFE/RL programming as well.
Senator Feingold. Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify
something before----
Senator Grams. That is fine. Go ahead.
Senator Feingold. Did you say one of the reasons that it
was done is because RFE/RL had cuts in the past?
Mr. Mora. Yes, sir. There was a two-thirds reduction in the
VOA budget, RFE/RL budget and RFE/RL personnel in 1995.
Senator Feingold. Let me just suggest those cuts were made
on purpose and it was not the intention that the money would
come from another source, so----
Mr. Mora. No, Senator.
Senator Feingold. I just want to be sure you understand
what the intent was.
Mr. Mora. No. No, Senator. I mean, just to suggest--
whatever the intent, the cuts were made.
Senator Feingold. As they were intended to be.
Mr. Kaufman. This was before the Board was set up, but I
think it is a model of how cuts can be made and maintain
service.
What went on there is absolutely incredible. When you look
at what was done, that move and the way it was done, and the
way the morale was maintained, I think the guidance by the
Congress was excellent and I think the implementation by the
people on the ground was excellent.
But I think they did really get cut to the bone. They have
had a cap on how much they can spend for a while now.
Meanwhile, costs and everything else have gone up. I think they
are really in rough shape, not that VOA is not. VOA is in the
same position.
But they are still recovering from some rather amazing work
that was done through your legislation.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Senator.
Gentlemen, I am also concerned VOA is becoming less of a
voice of things American and more of a multi-cultural voice of
news about the various countries of the world, inverting again
its intended purpose as Mr. Kaufman, you know, pointed out
before, the role of VOA.
Certain requirements under the VOA's charter appear to have
fallen by the wayside in the course of this administration.
For example, what non-news program does the Voice of
America currently carry to explain U.S. foreign policy and to
explain significant currents in American thought today?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, that question is at a level of
specificity that we would invite the VOA director to come and
testify with respect to that specific question, if you would
desire.
Senator Grams. Sure, that would be fine. We can also get
more details in writing later, and we would like that as well.
Mr. Kaufman. Of course.
Senator Grams. Mr. Ungar.
Mr. Ungar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Sanford Ungar,
Director of the Voice of America since last June.
If I understand your question correctly, you wanted to know
what non-news programs we present that explain U.S. foreign
policy and American culture.
Senator Grams. That is correct.
Mr. Ungar. We continue to have, as VOA has for many, many
years, a very broad selection of programs; for example,
presenting the music of the United States and other aspects of
American culture.
We now have a 24-hour music service. We have for years--in
fact, many people will tell you that in Eastern Europe one of
the major factors during the cold war years was the jazz
programs on the Voice of America.
Senator Grams. I thought you meant country and western.
Mr. Ungar. Well, we also do country and western, as a
matter of fact. We make a major effort in country and western
and other contemporary music.
There is a woman named Judy Massa, who is one of the best-
known advocates and presenters of American country music in the
world. She has a program called ``Border Crossings,'' as well,
which is quite popular in many places.
We provide a great deal of information about American
foreign policy, about American policies in general, about the
States of the United States, and what is happening across this
country.
We have recently compiled a report that will be submitted
to the committee, demonstrating--it is this thick
[indicating]--demonstrating our coverage of American culture,
American society and events across the country.
Senator Grams. Would you say these are random programs then
on various topics, or are there appointed times for certain
type of programming to do certain things?
Mr. Ungar. Well, there are, in addition, editorials on the
Voice of America, which are not prepared by the Voice of
America staff itself, but by the Office of Policy of the
International Broadcasting Bureau.
And 1 minute per hour there are editorials in all 53 of our
language services that represent the official view of the U.S.
Government, primarily on foreign policy issues.
But I would not say our programming is random at all. I
would say that we are making a particular effort to modernize,
streamline, make our programming crisper and make it appeal to
a younger audience around the world as well.
And I think we could demonstrate convincingly that it
represents accurately the policy debate in the United States.
Senator Grams. So do you disagree with the statement I made
or my concern that VOA is becoming less of a voice of things
American rather than becoming more of a multi-cultural voice?
Mr. Ungar. I do disagree with that statement, Senator. I
would say, Mr. Chairman, that VOA has always regarded it as
part of its mission to provide balanced, neutral, reliable,
trustworthy information about the world for the world.
And we continue to cover international events in a broad
sense. And that, too, is part of VOA's purpose. But I would not
say that we are becoming less a voice of things American.
Senator Grams. OK. I can appreciate your answers, but I
still would like to maybe submit this question in more detail
and writing, and then have more of a detailed response and
examples, if we could, that we could look at and study.
Mr. Kaufman. By the way, section 2420 of the law requires
us to give you information on how we are using products of the
50 States. We have compiled that report, and we will be sending
that up to you shortly.
Senator Grams. OK. I used to be in radio. And I know we had
to keep logs, so there is nothing----
Mr. Ungar. Yes. We are well aware of your excellent record
in broadcasting, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Grams. All right. Well, thank you very much. Thank
you.
The language service review has led to plans to rely more
heavily on Internet streamlining of radio transmissions as
well. Is this actually likely to reach many people given the
event that in fairly highly developed Central European
democracies, only a tiny sliver of the population is affluent
enough to have some Internet access?
I understand, for instance, that less than 2 percent of the
people in Poland now have Internet access. So is this, again,
getting the bang for the buck, so to speak?
Mr. Kaufman. Yes. First of all, Internet is the future. If
you were to try and design something for us to help
international broadcasting, you could not do any better than
the Internet. What happens in so many countries as you go
through Europe, nationalities are not all together.
There are Russians all over Eastern Europe. When we have
the Internet up and running, Russians will be able to get
Russian services off the Internet no matter where they are. And
the same thing with Romanians and Hungarians and so on.
So first off, the future is the Internet. People can get it
now, but eventually more will be able to get streaming of our
radio and TV broadcasts.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. Is this going to replace radio and television?
Absolutely not, not in the foreseeable future. But for
instance, we just finished a survey in Estonia and found that
90 percent of the elites in Estonia use the Internet regularly.
I do not say that is typical of every place, but if there
are 90 percent in Estonia, you just have to wonder where it is
going.
In Beijing, 5 percent of the people in Beijing say they
have regular access to the Internet.
So I think our interest in the Internet is forward looking.
But I think right now it provides a wonderful supplement to the
other things that we are doing.
We are going to be doing a lot more on the Internet, and we
are going to be coming to ask you for help in doing some of the
things we are going to have to do in terms of infrastructure to
make that real.
Senator Grams. I realize this about China and other parts
of Europe, but what about Africa? Is that also----
Mr. Kaufman. No. In Africa, we have wonderful listenership
to short wave. Twenty-four percent of the people in Nigeria,
almost that many in Ethiopia, listen to Voice of America
regularly.
So, as Governor Mora said, in areas that are not served by
popular media, short wave works just great. In addition we are
developing more medium wave and FM.
But when you get to Europe it becomes a very, very
competitive marketplace. At the same time, these countries are
the ones that are entering NATO.
Senator Feingold put in his legislation that we have to
look at each one of these countries in terms of what
competitive media exists and what is the media environment that
we are broadcasting into, to consider whether we should
continue to broadcast there.
Senator Grams. I am just interested, when you say 24
percent listenership, how do you measure that? Do you have a
Nielsen's----
Mr. Kaufman. No, we do our own surveys.
Senator Grams [continuing]. That sort of thing? Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. We do more and more research. One of the big
things that Congress has done for us the last 2 years is to
give us more money for research.
And, you know in broadcasting, without some way of knowing
what your listeners think, you can be fooled to believe
anything.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. Thanks to Congress, we have a very rich
research service, which we want to expand. And we actually poll
in Nigeria--and in Nigeria, it is not difficult. You can poll
in Nigeria fairly easy. When you get to places like China, it
gets a lot more difficult.
Senator Grams. Mr. Mora.
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, this also goes back to the issue
that the focus of language service review and of the Board is
to increase the effectiveness of our broadcasting services. I
think the feeling among the Board is that perhaps for too long
we were broadcasting this year because we broadcast last year.
Through research in all the countries in which we were
broadcasting, that now enables us to gauge with a much greater
level of precision whether or not we actually have an audience
and are having an impact in the intellectual discourse of that
country.
The point is that the Board is determined to ensure that
our broadcast services have an impact. If they do not have an
impact, then we will analyze the measures that are required to
ensure that we do have an impact.
And if that means that we have to reallocate funds from
lower priority language services to ensure impact in the higher
priority services, the Board is prepared to do that, but so the
point being that we look at every country separately. We
analyze what the media preferences are. We analyze what it will
take to become effective in that country.
And then the Board will tailor our broadcasting strategies
and our choice of media to that specific country and that
specific set of circumstances.
Senator Grams. OK. It is my understanding that the Board
refused to follow through on a request by VOA's leadership to
get $4.5 million transferred from the State Department's budget
as specifically permitted by the appropriations legislation
that we passed, to cover mandated cost of living increases.
So the question is: Would you explain the reasons the Board
makes that decision, including any concerns that acting
otherwise would further delay the need to make hard choices
about RIF's at VOA?
Mr. Kaufman. Yes. The language service review process is a
strategic process. It is not a budget driven process.
No matter what we had done on that decision of the $4.5
million, we still would have had these RIF's, because the
changes are being made in the services based on strategic
considerations as Governor Mora pointed out in his original
request.
The second point is that the decision on the $4.5 million
was based on the promise that we would not have any RIF's. And
clearly, since this is strategic driven service, and we were
going to go ahead with the RIF's, it would have been improper
for us to have taken the $4.5 million based on no RIF's, when
in fact, we were going to have RIF's.
Senator Grams. Yes. Is it true that some 33 RIF's that
should have taken place under the previous director were
deferred, and does this make your job even more difficult now?
Mr. Kaufman. I think what happened in that year was we were
able to use funds from IBB to pay for those 33 positions that
VOA had projected they had to RIF, so we did not RIF. That
would have been a budget-driven RIF.
No, I would say that the decision we make on these RIF's
was based on the language review process, which Governor Mora
laid out, where we are trying to decide what our priorities are
in each country, what we can do, and then generate funds to be
used in the places where we are having less impact or in our
higher priority countries.
Senator Grams. Yes. Mr. Mora, any----
Mr. Mora. Senator, I think I would just add to that answer,
that when the language service review was underway, as Governor
Kaufman has indicated, the focus of the subcommittee and
ultimately of the committee was on strategic redirection for
our language services.
It was only after the decision was made on how to redirect
the language services that an assessment was made as to what,
if any, RIF's would be entailed as a result of these decisions.
So the initial planning was not based on whether it would
or would not produce RIF's. That came after the fact and was a
secondary element--not an element at all in our initial
decisions to make these kinds of changes.
Senator Grams. OK. Have any of the broadcasting services
absorbed entire offices or any large groups of lawyers who used
to work at USIA before USIA was folded into the State
Department by the reorganization legislation developed by this
committee?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, as a former general counsel of
USIA, let me say that the Broadcasting Board of Governors
absorbed a general counsel's office as part of the separation
of personnel and functions between the former USIA and now the
new BBG.
But the ratio of attorneys to staff was, to my knowledge,
something that was consistent with the similar division of
personnel between the two agencies.
It does not appear to me, at least, based upon my current
experience and my past experience as general counsel to be
anything out of the ordinary in any Federal agency.
Senator Grams. That was going to be my followup question.
Is there any ratio of lawyers to staff now that is out of
whack? I mean, do we have some high-price lawyers and need some
staff that we are not able to hire or have to let go?
So is that ratio, do you think, in balance, or could we use
fewer lawyers and more staff?
Mr. Mora. Well, we have----
Senator Grams. Nothing against lawyers, of course.
Mr. Mora. We--yes, yes. Thank you.
We have, I believe, currently three attorneys on staff. And
we will be hiring two more, which represents a relatively small
complement of attorneys, given the various legal skills that
are required to effectively operate a Federal agency; for
example, personnel, procurement, as well as just general
telecommunications expertise are three sets of legal skills
that are absolutely required.
Once you fill those, there is not really a lot more room
for other general skills. So my personal opinion is that we do
not have too large a staff of attorneys at the BBG.
Mr. Kaufman. We took the office at USIA and said some
portion--I think it was almost half the office--goes with USIA
to State and a little less than half the office comes to do our
support work.
So the lawyers essentially who were doing our support work
before independence were doing our support work after
independence. And it was just that they are sitting in a
different office than the one they were sitting in previously.
Senator Grams. But there would not be an increase in
numbers or----
Mr. Kaufman. No increase in numbers.
Senator Grams. OK.
Senator Grams. All right. There is a proposal being
considered to merge WORLDNET TV with Voice of America. Have any
developments or problems at WORLDNET led to the proposal for
this merger?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, this is an important point of the
testimony. And I think if we are going to leave the committee
with one message, it would be to allow us to retain the
flexibility to tailor our television services as the needs of
the local target audiences or country would require.
Any efforts, however well intentioned on the budgetary side
to restrict our ability to reshape our television broadcast
services--thank you--could end up being counter-productive in
the sense that it would hamper our efforts to communicate
effectively with target audiences.
Some countries, for example Indonesia, surveys indicate
that 73 percent of Indonesians take their primary news and
information from television.
Surveys in China indicate that 90 percent of the Chinese
would say that their primary source of news and information is
television, as opposed to much lower--much, much lower
percentages for radio in those two countries.
And these two countries are not idiosyncratic. We find a
trend toward a consumer preference of television as opposed to
other media services in country after country.
International broadcasting has to meet this kind of
challenge. We have to do better television. We have to have the
ability to broadcast in television if local audience
preferences state that.
If we are precluded from effectively implementing
television services as an integral part of VOA's international
operations or RFE/RL's or RFA's international operations, it
would be equivalent to restricting us to, say, to the telegraph
as a way of communicating with target audiences. Simply, it is
an unnecessary and counterproductive decision.
Mr. Kaufman. They asked Willie Sutton, why did he rob
banks. And he said, ``That is where the money is.''
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. The reason we have to get into TV is because
that is where the listeners are.
Senator Grams. Well, the language service review appears to
have concluded that we are living in more of a TV world now
than we are in a radio world. However, questions remain as to
whether VOA is the viable home for TV, and whether VOA is up to
the task of running a television service. Would you agree with
that or not?
Mr. Kaufman. Our core business is going out, obtaining the
news, knowing the local language and culture, and being able to
deliver the news in the local language. You know, ``We speak
your language,'' is our theme.
Nobody else in the world has the ability that U.S.
International Broadcasting has to speak to so many people in
their own language. That is all we want to do with TV.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. This is not rocket science. What we want to be
able to do is be able to broadcast on television the same as we
do on radio.
The people that have the expertise almost unique in the
whole world are our journalists, not just the ones in VOA and
OCB, but RFE/RL and RFA. They know about how to get the news.
And they know how to present it.
They did not know TV. But we hired a contractor who is
excellent at bringing people in and training them how to use
these small video cameras. We trained over 100 audio-
journalists who are now photojournalists. They can now go out
and get the news.
We should send you some of the results. One of our
photojournalists won an award in New York.
What we want to do is be able to present the news. We want
to be able to get to where the listeners are. People want to
get the news on television. We want to present the news. What
we do now in some cases, we just have a picture of a man or
woman reading the news.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Kaufman. People are interested in receiving the news on
television. We want to get way beyond that. But VOA is the
place where this has to be, because they have the expertise in
gathering and sending out the news.
Mr. Mora. As a point of clarification, Senator, our
language service review did not come to the conclusion that
television is overwhelmingly the medium of choice. What we did
recognize in the course of the process was that in some
countries it was overwhelmingly the medium of choice for
consumers.
But we still recognize, for example, that television is not
a factor in certain countries. For example, Afghanistan, there
is neither any television nor is there any Internet.
But between an Afghanistan and, say, a Moscow where--
another capital city in which television is the preferred
medium of choice for news and information, there are many steps
in between.
And we have to retain the flexibility and our broadcasters
have to retain the flexibility for picking a point in the
continuum, the right blend of media which will most effectively
communicate our message to those audiences.
But having said that, let me turn it over to the VOA
Director who otherwise I think would strangle me with this cord
unless I give him a chance to speak.
Mr. Ungar. Just a few words on this point, Mr. Chairman. As
Governor Mora has stated, the language service review is an
entirely separate process from the development of VOA TV.
I believe that my mandate in becoming the Director of Voice
of America was to help turn the Voice of America into a modern
multi-media organization. And I think that is what we are in
the process of doing with radio, television and the Internet.
As Governor Kaufman says, our job is to get the information
and then figure out how best to distribute it in one of these
three media or all of these three media in each place.
We have had a pilot project in VOA TV that has been an
enormous success, and it would give me the greatest pleasure to
send you some of those programs. We are doing more and more
simulcast programs, radio and television, in languages, in the
foreign languages.
The key point here is that WORLDNET television, however
wonderful a job it has done in many areas over the years, has
very few language qualified employees. WORLDNET has the
technicians and some of the technology. Voice of America has
the language qualified people.
What this really does is to preserve jobs for the Voice of
America and not in any way eliminate them.
Senator Grams. Other than diverse language capabilities of
the VOA staff, would that staff be prepared to produce quality
television broadcasts? And I guess from your answers, you feel
that they have.
Mr. Kaufman. They have. Our pilot program has been
wonderful. And if you do have a chance to look at some of their
product, it is excellent.
Senator Grams. I would appreciate it if you could give me a
couple of copies.
Mr. Ungar. The videocassettes will come up with our answers
to the other----
Senator Grams. Very good.
Mr. Ungar. OK.
Senator Grams. I will look forward to that.
What advantages might there be to maintaining an
independent television entity under the supervisory of the
Board? And if that were to occur, what would you change from
the WORLDNET enterprise as it stands today?
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, We are looking at this. This is
actually a work in progress at the Board. I am not sure that we
have reached any hard and fast decisions as to absolutely final
configuration of these various entities.
But I think the arguments we have articulated here today,
particularly the statement that Director Ungar just made to the
effect that we have to meld the technical television skills of
our WORLDNET employees with the language capabilities of our
broadcasters is the trumping argument, arguing in favor of a
consolidation of these two services in a single broadcast
entity.
I should add also that we are in the process of training
and over time will train each of our VOA journalists in the use
of the--kind of like a handicam as the basic reportorial tool.
No longer the microphone and the cassette deck, but it is
going to be a video camera, which will capture digital video,
as well as sound; and it will enable our newsmen and newswomen
to produce video and sound and Internet from the same
technological base.
Senator Grams. Yes.
Mr. Mora. It will give us enormous flexibility and is
already bearing wonderful fruit at VOA.
Mr. Kaufman. It would require tremendous duplication. I
mean, you would be delivering and gathering the news twice.
Our basic approach is to come up with what the news is, and
then send it out.
If it goes out on television, that is fine, AM, FM,
shortwave, Internet, whatever way it is, we would like to have
all that consolidated in one place. I think it is the most
efficient way to do it, and I think you would get the best
product that way.
Senator Grams. If and when you accrue savings from the
reductions in service following this year's language services
review, where do you expect to use those funds in order to
increase your service? Where do you have the greatest need?
Mr. Mora. Well, there are several things. One there is some
countries that we want to do some things in. We are going to do
some interesting things in Indonesia, in the Middle East,
places where we want to go into and do programs to try to
really increase our impact.
This is all about: How do we get U.S. foreign policy out
there--and we need impact. And we have to use some money to try
to figure out how to do it. One of the biggest things we have
never done, we have never spent money for promotion.
In many countries people do not know when we are on and
what time, and what station. Things that you and your business
do as a matter of course, telling people when you can watch--
listen to your shows and the rest of it, we have no money for
that.
We have never spent a dime, as far as I know, for any of
those kinds of things. We have got to have a more effective
promotion system, because we are going into modern media
markets.
If you say, ``Well, why are we in modern media markets?'',
Russia is a perfect example. We have got to have impact in
Russia. And if you are in Russia right now, you are hit with
all kinds of different modern media.
And if you do not know where to find Radio Liberty, and you
want Radio Liberty, because when the elections come up, the
only place that Russians can go to get objective reporting on
the elections was Radio Liberty.
Or in Chechnya, the only place that Russians can go and get
objective reporting of what was going on in Chechnya was
through Radio Liberty, both--and Voice of America, for Chechnya
and Voice of America for the elections. Both of these working
together, hitting different audiences different ways. That is
where they went. But they do not know where to find them many
times.
Mr. Mora. Mr. Chairman, if I could amplify, this gets to
the heart of the process, and it is quite a complex process,
because it is akin to three dimensional chess.
We weigh so many variables with each of our language
services. For example, the subcommittee knew at a certain point
in our deliberations that we wanted to free up resources to be
bolder in experimenting with the Internet.
We knew we wanted to free up resources to experiment with
marketing as Governor Kaufman has indicated. We knew we wanted
to enhance perhaps our broadcast capability to Colombia.
We were concerned about some reports that cultural trends
in India may be indicating a turn away from Western traditions,
with all that might imply. We wanted to communicate better to
India. We knew we have to communicate better with Russia.
And when you posit these kinds of questions, ``What does it
take to become more effective in a particular country?'' then
you have a limited number of variables among which to choose.
It could be your programming is not adequate and that--the
solution to that may not require resources, but maybe a
readjustment of the programming mix to that particular country.
But it could be that you do not know what it is causing the
problem, which would argue for investment of money into
research.
It might be that the transmitting signal or the signal
transmitting to the country is not effective, not a clear
signal, which would mean an increase in broadcasting capability
and transmission capabilities. It could be a marketing problem,
which would argue for an increase in marketing funds.
The specific solution to a problem presented by a
particular country in which we are not effective could be any
one of a number of factors, most of which would require the
investment of additional resources.
So the Board felt it incumbent to free up some of these
resources so as to be able to make the investments that
research would indicate were required, in order to increase the
effectiveness of a country.
So this is a generic answer to your question. And the
answer would depend upon the specific country in question and
upon the actual hard data that we are able to generate
concerning what would be required in order to increase the
effectiveness and audience share of U.S. International
Broadcasting in that country.
Senator Grams. What countries do you think have the highest
listenership?
Mr. Kaufman. Nigeria and Ethiopia.
Mr. Mora. Bangladesh.
Mr. Ungar. If I may, Mr. Chairman, the top five countries
in number of listeners for VOA are China, Bangladesh, Nigeria,
Ethiopia and Afghanistan. That is a very changed picture from
the past. But those are our top five in absolute numbers.
In terms of percentage penetration, the top five might turn
out differently.
Senator Grams. What about Europe? I suppose that has been a
big difference, Eastern Europe.
Mr. Ungar. Well, that is just the point. There are places
in Europe where we have a very substantial listenership. For
example, in the Balkans, during the Kosovo crisis last year, we
got figures indicating that about 83 percent of Albanians in
the refugee camps were listening to the Voice of America
Albanian Service. And part of that was a family reunification
program we were running.
We also had very high statistics in the Serbian service.
Our colleagues in Radio Free Europe had similarly high
statistics during the Kosovo engagement and in some of those
services.
But there are places in Europe where our audience is way
down. You mentioned before that there was perhaps 2 percent
Internet usage in Poland. Well, at the moment, the audience for
Voice of America in Poland is about 1.1 percent, lower than
Internet usage.
Now, at some point, we have to notice that and understand
that while we want to continue providing information, we have
to shift where the emphasis is.
Mr. Mora. OK. Maybe we should have Tom Dine come up here
and talk about Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. And while he is
coming up, we want to ask Dick Richter from Radio Free Asia--
Radio Free Asia broadcasts into countries where it is almost
impossible to find out what your listenership is.
Senator Grams. OK. I need you to speak into the microphone
so we have got your----
Mr. Dine. OK.
Senator Grams [continuing]. Voice on record here.
Mr. Dine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Dine. I
am President of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.
You asked for a quantitative answer, so my answer is there
are 148 million people in Russia. Our largest audience is in
Russia, followed by Ukraine, and then Romania. But what we look
at are the percentages, because we are not a mass audience
radio.
We are trying to attract the influential persons in these
countries. And in that case, the numbers look a little
different. The highest percentage of listening elites in our
area of broadcasting starts with Bosnia. And this spills over
into Serbia. And by Serbia, I also mean Kosovo, Albanian
Kosovars as well as Montenegrans.
The next highest percentage is Azerbaijan. Here we have a
dictator who has clamped down on a free press consistently over
the last 8 years and has not always been friendly toward us.
But our largest percentage beyond the southeastern Balkans
is Azerbaijan, followed by Lithuania.
There is no pattern, except to pick up on what both of our
Governors have said, you have got to have a good program. You
have got to attract a listening audience and tell the listening
audience where to find us. And you have got to compete in the
local market. And that is what we are doing.
Senator Grams. OK. Well, thank you. Would you state your
name and your title again, so we have that on the record?
Mr. Dine. Tom Dine, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's
President.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, Tom.
Mr. Dine. Thank you.
Mr. Richter. Dick Richter from Radio Free Asia.
Senator Grams. Again, would you state your name once more
and your title?
Mr. Richter. It is Dick Richter, President of Radio Free
Asia.
Senator Grams. Thank you.
Mr. Richter. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to take the
opportunity to say a few things about Radio Free Asia. First, I
would like to say a word about something that Mr. Kaufman
mentioned a short time ago about trying to advertise where we
are heard.
We actually have done, at the Board's behest, some
advertising for our website on other websites at a very, very
low cost, and in some newspapers. Actually, on other websites,
there was no cost at all. Foreign language newspapers, we were
able to do it at a low cost.
And we almost were able to get a Chinese mainland website
to run a banner ad for us. Then at the last minute, they
realized that it would not be such a good idea, so they decided
not to. But it was really at the 11th hour that they pulled
out, so it is not for want of trying that we have not done
that.
The other thing is in Cambodia, which is one of the few
countries--the only country that we broadcast to that we
actually have bureau on the ground in Phnom Penh--we have been
able to advertise in some of the local newspapers our
frequencies and our times at, again, a very low expenditure of
money.
In terms of doing research and trying to figure out how
many listeners we have in all of the countries that we
broadcast to, China, of course, is very, very difficult.
And we did manage to have a three-site survey done about a
year ago, which indicated that we were the third most listened
to international broadcast medium after VOA and BBC.
We also are quite sure that many people were not willing to
admit that they listened to us, because they were afraid of
saying that they listened to us.
On the other hand, we have some very, very courageous
listeners who will call us every single day on 800 numbers on
talk shows that we have, and they are connected with a
broadcaster sitting in Washington. They ask the most outrageous
questions and bring up the most severe criticism of the Chinese
Government that you could possibly imagine.
As a matter of fact, our broadcaster was saying that he was
anticipating a bunch of questions the other day about Elian
Gonzalez. And fortunately, he said, ``I did not have to defend
the attorney general or anybody else,'' he said, ``because I
would have found it a little bit difficult, because I have had
situations which were analogous to what poor little Elian went
through.''
And he said, ``I felt very nervous about trying to answer
questions like that,'' but fortunately he did not have to.
Just the other day, we got our second letter in Chinese
Braille. It was a letter from somebody who was fulsome in his
praise for our broadcasts. And then he went on to criticize the
harsh, brutal treatment of handicapped people in China. All of
this is to say that we do have very substantial feedback on the
kinds of things that we do.
On jamming--to say that a broadcast service is jammed
creates the impression, I think, understandably that it is just
completely blocked out, that the signal just can't be heard,
which is not really the case at all.
And I would like to point out that in Korea, for instance,
about 2 months ago the jamming became more intense on one
particular frequency. But it still was not severe enough to
block out that frequency, and the listeners were still able to
hear our broadcast despite the fact that there was jamming.
That is frequently the way the situation is in China too,
because we come in on so many different frequencies that we are
able to be heard throughout the country basically all the time.
Senator Grams. Thank you very much, sir.
Just a couple of quick followup questions, and then I will
let you go. With the planned diminution of radio broadcasting
coverage being made in Central and Eastern Europe countries,
will there then be a redirection of resources from radio to TV
or from radio to the Internet?
Mr. Kaufman. No. In some places, we are going to go to the
Internet.
But in terms of television what has happened is a bad
coincidence. I mean, I do not generally believe in
coincidences, but this is a coincidence. And that is the whole
movement between WORLDNET and VOA TV coming at the same time
that we were doing the language service review, there is an
impression that somehow the two are united. They are not.
What we would be doing in television is totally based on
transferring resources from WORLDNET to VOA TV. It has nothing
to do with the language service review.
In terms of the Internet, yes, we are using the Internet
some places where we think it can be successful and places
where we have very low listenership. And we are going to be
looking at the Internet as a way to help us in a place like
Poland, where our listenership is so low that the Internet
looks attractive.
Senator Grams. One final question, what does the drop in
listenership indicate about the News Now formula that VOA has
been using in the last couple of years? Again, you would have
to agree with my premise there has been a drop in listenership,
and then we go from there.
Mr. Ungar. Mr. Chairman, I would like an opportunity to
examine those figures about the listenership, by the way,
because we believe now that we have 91 million listeners a week
around the world, and that that does not capture some of our
impact on the Internet, on satellite television and on some of
our affiliates.
Having said that, it is about a year--a little more than a
year, I think, since VOA moved to the 24-hour-a-day News Now
format for its English language programming.
And, of course, any change of that sort is always going to
be controversial. It was made before I arrived at VOA, but for
every complaint, there is also a compliment about the fact that
VOA news--reliable news is available 24 hours a day in English
around the world.
There is some repetition in it, needless to say, but I do
not think that there is any correlation between an alleged loss
of listenership in English and the VOA News Now format.
Senator Grams. OK. Well, thank you very much. Any final
comments you would like to make?
Mr. Kaufman. Thank you for having us and giving us an
opportunity to talk about international broadcasting, which we
feel strongly can be incredibly helpful to the United States'
future and the United States foreign policy.
Senator Grams. I would like to leave the business record
open for 3 days in case other Senators would like to, you know,
direct some questions to you in writing. Senator Biden might or
others.
And then also if there is any other questions we would have
to clarify what we have asked, we would like to submit to you,
so we will leave the record open for 3 days. And, of course, we
would appreciate a quick response. And I look forward to seeing
those videos.
All right, gentlemen, thank you.
Mr. Mora, Mr. Kaufman, thank you.
Mr. Mora. Thank you.
Mr. Kaufman. Thank you.
Mr. Ungar. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
----------
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
RESPONSES OF EDWARD KAUFMAN AND ALBERTO MORA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
FOR THE RECORD FROM SENATOR HELMS
Question 1. Did the Agency proceed with the implementation of the
VOA-TV project before authorization from Congress or approval of the
reprogramming request for transfer of Worldnet assets to VOA-TV?
Answer. No. At this time, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG)
has not proceeded with the merger of Worldnet into the Voice of
America. We are still awaiting approval of our reprogramnming request
by oversight committees in Congress.
In terms of background on the genesis of this project, the
conference report on the fiscal year 1998 appropriation encouraged the
BBG to review current television programming and explore new ways to
broadcast internationally in this medium. In response, the BBG informed
the Congress of a pilot project called VOA-TV in September 1998 (letter
attached). In August 1999, we sent our respective oversight committees
another letter detailing the successes of the pilot project and our
plans to expand the transition to VOA-TV (also attached).
In February 2000, the BBG sent a reprogramming letter to several
congressional committees, including the Committee on Foreign Relations,
proposing to merge Worldnet resources into the Voice of America,
thereby creating a component within the VOA called VOA-TV. The
rationale for this merger is to take maximum advantage of the 53
languages spoken by VOA employees by transmitting in the medium of
television to target audiences that prefer to receive news and
information via TV.
Broadcasting Board of Governors,
330 Independence Ave., SW,
Washington, DC, September 25, 1998.
The Honorable Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) wishes to inform the
committee of an amended proposal for application of savings identified
within the Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 International Broadcasting Operations
(IBO) appropriation. This letter supplements the August 20, 1998,
letter which proposed planned redistributions within the IBO account,
as well as an appropriations transfer to the Radio Construction
account.
In our August 20th letter, we identified an estimated availability
of $9.014 million, resulting from a third-quarter review (through June
30, 1998) of IBO funds. Since then, we have conducted a final end-of-
year review and identified additional savings of $1.05 million that was
earmarked for transmission costs of the surrogate Farsi broadcasts into
Iran.
Earlier this year, we presented a plan to the Congress which
identified a total of $2.6 million to initiate a surrogate Farsi
service in Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL). Of this amount, a
total of $1.55 million was allocated to RFE/RL for start-up and
operations of the new service. The remaining amount, $1.05 million, was
allocated to the IBB's Office of Engineering for transmission costs
into Iran. Since that plan was approved by the Congress in late May,
1998, we have moved forward in implementing the new service. We have
recently hired a Service Director, secured office space for the Farsi
service in Prague, and are in the final stages of hiring the
appropriate staff and refurbishing the office. However, we project that
Farsi broadcasting will not commence until early in FY 1999. As a
result, we do not anticipate utilizing any of these transmission funds
in FY 1998.
In light of the combined availability of $10.064 million, Agency
staff have been engaged in discussions with Appropriations Committee
staff in both the House and Senate, concerning the most appropriate
utilization of these funds. As a result, we have identified the total
amount of favorable exchange rate gains realized within FY 1998 and
would like to propose transferring the entire amount, $4.828 million,
to the Buying Power Maintenance account. We feel it would be prudent at
this time to transfer these favorable gains so that potential
downshifts in the U.S. dollar's value internationally could be negated
to the maximum extent possible. The remaining availability, $5.236
million, would be dedicated to the most critical of the projects
identified in our August 20th letter. Specifically, the BBG would like
to propose the following reprogramming and transfer actions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iran Amount Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audience Research............ $750,000 Reprogram from within IBO
VOA-TV Consulting Services... $170,000 Reprogram from within IBO
Technical Operations Area \1\ $1,450,000 Reprogram from within IBO
Fire Safety Project.
Solid State modulators....... $2,866,000 Transfer to Radio
Construction
IBO Exchange Rate Gains...... $4,828,000 Transfer to Buying Power
Maintenance account
TOTAL...................... $10,064,000 Total surplus identified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Please note that this cost estimate increased from the estimate of
$1,300,000 included in the August 20, 1998, letter.
We also wish to inform the committee of an initiative related to
television. Last year, in the FY 1998 House Appropriations Committee
report, H.R. 2267, the BBG and the International Broadcasting Bureau
(IBB) were urged to develop a ``streamlined, low-cost television
component to news and information broadcasting in local languages . .
.'' (p. 129). In light of this direction and, in recognition of the
changing world media consumption patterns, we undertook a comprehensive
review of our television operations, changes in television technology,
and of how best to use existing resources within IBB, WORLDNET
television, and the Voice of America (VOA) to meet the objectives set
forth by the Congress and to maximize the global audience for U.S.
international broadcasting. In our review, we have identified a number
of technological and broadcasting changes which create substantial and
unique opportunities for U.S. international broadcasting. We now
propose to hire consultants to conduct a television pilot project (our
August 20th letter identified a reprogramming request of $170,000 for
this purpose). We believe, based on our assessments, that changes in
broadcast technology and the extensive language and field network of
the VOA provide an enormous opportunity to produce high-quality, low-
cost television in local languages around the world. The Broadcasting
Board of Governors will report to the Congress no later than April 1,
1999, on the results of the pilot project and will propose, at that
time, any organizational changes relating to this initiative.
We have consulted with the Director of the U.S. Information Agency
on the substance of this letter and he concurs in these proposals.
Please refer to Enclosure A for the specific breakout proposed for
funding shifts between accounts. As always, we appreciate the
committee's support for international broadcasting.
Sincerely,
David Burke, Chairman,
Broadcasting Board of Governors.
[Enclosure A]
United States Information Agency--Summary of International Broadcasting Operations FY-1998 Reprogramming
[Funds in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 1998
Estimate Proposed 1998 Plan Net Changes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcasting Board of Governors.................. $1,400 $1,400 --
International Broadcasting Bureau:
Voice of America............................. 101,172 99,642 (1,530)
Unallocated Funds............................ 1,347 -- (1,347)
WORLDNET Television and Film Service......... 21,559 21,470 (89)
Engineering and Technical Operations......... 114,264 108,907 (5,357)
Program Support.............................. 14,963 15,422 459
Administrative Support....................... 12,854 13,024 170
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, International Broadcasting Bureau 266,159 258,465 (7,694)
Independent Grantee Organizations:
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.............. 69,969 69,969 --
Radio Free Iraq.............................. 5,000 5,000 --
Radio Free Asia.............................. 24,100 24,100 --
--------------------------------------------------------------
Total, International Broadcasting.......... 366,628 358,934 (7,694)
Office of Cuba Broadcasting...................... 24,882 24,882 --
Radio Construction............................... 40,000 42,866 2,866
Buying Power Maintenance Fund.................... -- 4,828 4,828
==============================================================
TOTAL...................................... 431,510 431,510 --
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcasting Board of Governors,
330 Independence Ave., SW,
Washington, DC, August 6, 1999.
The Honorable Jesse Helms,
Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations,
United States Senate.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) wishes to update the
committee on the pilot project we have been conducting to explore
options of enhancing our television capabilities. As we informed you
last September, based on our assessments, changes in broadcast
technology and the extensive language and field network of the Voice of
America (VOA) provide an enormous opportunity to produce high-quality,
low-cost television in local languages around the world.
In October 1998, with your approval, the BBG launched a pilot
program under the rubric of VOA-TV. While, prior to the pilot, VOA had
produced some television broadcasts, this programming was generally
limited to simulcasts of its radio shows and was somewhat basic in its
scope. As you know, the VOA-TV pilot project has been designed to test
three premises: (1) whether VOA could train journalists in the use of
digital equipment and convergence technology to produce reports usable
simultaneously on radio, television and the Internet, (2) whether the
unique ability of the VOA's 53 language services to communicate with
local audiences could be used to reach rapidly expanding audiences in
television and on the Internet; and (3) whether the existing assets and
funding of the Worldnet Television and Film Service and the VOA could
be consolidated to create economies of scale that would produce, for
the same amount of funding, more high quality television programming in
additional languages worldwide.
To test these premises, the International Broadcasting Bureau
(IBB), using the existing resources of VOA, Worldnet, and the multi-
year Digital Broadcasting Project, acquired small format digital
cameras and digital editing equipment that have both broadcast quality
video and audio elements. It also retained Michael Rosenblum Associates
(MRA), a global leader in this medium, to train approximately 45
journalists, producers, and directors from VOA and Worldnet in the use
of the new equipment and to supervise production of video journalist
reporting.
The BBG believes the pilot project has been an immense success. The
MRA training sessions have demonstrated that VOA and Worldnet
journalists can, using this newly developed digital platform, ``produce
high quality reports that can be utilized alternatively for television,
radio or the Internet, as internal production demand requires. This
ability, coupled with the unique language skills of VOA journalists and
the extensive network of overseas bureaus and stringers, can lead to
the creation of a unique global television network--one, which can
produce in-depth news and information in dozens of languages. In
addition, we have begun working with directors and producers to enhance
the quality of simulcast radio shows, adding more video roll-ins and
high quality graphics to make the shows more attractive to potential
viewers: These simulcasts will produce a steady stream of programming
for VOA-TV. Our discussions with potential rebroadcast affiliates
ranging from Russia and Kosovo to Indonesia and Haiti indicate that
there are enormous possibilities for placement of this programming. We
believe, based on the results of the pilot project, that high quality
productions in local languages could greatly expand the reach and
audience for U.S. international broadcasting, through a shifting of
base resources.
Our experience with VOA-TV thus far indicates that it is the best
use for television broadcasting assets. While Worldnet continues to
make important contributions to U.S. Government-sponsored international
broadcasting, we believe that the impending independence of
international broadcasting and the shift of Interactive Dialogues to
the Department of State make FY 2000 an appropriate time to restructure
our television operations. At the outset of FY 2000, we will submit a
reprogramming proposal, describing in detail our intentions to shift
Worldnet assets to VOA.
Until then, we plan to continue and expand the VOA-TV pilot
project. To date, we have begun the transition of our conventional
radio studios to radio/TV simulcast studios, and we have initiated a
pilot project for two-way interactive video and audio on the web. Our
plans to continue the VOA-TV project include the following:
--Continue and expand the training of the videojournalists (VJs).
--Begin to modernize the VOA bureaus in London, New York and Los
Angeles so that they can accommodate video journalism and T3 lines so
that they can feed into Washington programming.
--Bring a robotic radio/TV simulcast studio on-line, to augment
conventional television facilities.
--Expand the website toward video capability.
--Initiate a Russian Language Magazine program to test the audience
market overseas.
--Continue to work closely with the AFGE union on affected
employees throughout this period, engaging in an on-going dialogue on
the implementation of VOA-TV.
The BBG, IBB, and VOA will be intimately involved in reviewing and
modifying existing programming, in an effort to meet the needs of our
current audience, while appealing to additional markets and viewers.
Once approved by Congress, all current Worldnet employees will be
transitioned into similar positions within VOA in an orderly manner,
with re-training throughout the organization to take maximum advantage
of the new technology available to these journalists. Through the use
of this new technology, the IBB will be able to produce better, more
directly ``mission'' related broadcasts within existing base funding.
We would like to assure the committee that throughout the
transition from Worldnet to VOA-TV, Worldnet's existing support for
U.S. Government foreign policy initiatives will be maintained and
access to IBB television studios facilities, and the satellite delivery
system will continue unabated. VOA-TV's global capability makes it
uniquely suited to deal with surge broadcasting. The VOA will continue
to place major figures on the air, not just in radio, but on television
and the web as well. As with VOA radio today, the BBG is committed to
establishing a system and infrastructure to make television
broadcasting available on a 24-hour basis as needed.
Question 2. You speak about free and open media in the countries of
Central and Eastern Europe as a justification of diminution of
broadcasting there. How much programming does the media in those
countries devote to U.S. foreign policy issues (as VOA's Charter
requires VOA to cover)? Given recent restrictions on domestic media in
Hungary and government and party control of many stations in Poland,
how fully independent are the media in the region?
Answer. Since 1990, Freedom House has rated the media of both
Poland and Hungary as free. An independent and professional media is
the best guarantor of coverage of all points of view, including the
U.S. point of view. However, it would be rare that media anywhere would
focus on U.S. foreign policy issues and provide congruence with that
aspect of the VOA Charter. For instance, this does not exist in the
United Kingdom or Germany, and we would not expect Poland and Hungary
to be exceptions. VOA will still fulfill its Charter with regard to
these countries by providing news feeds to affiliated radio and
television stations and by providing news and information via the
Internet to news outlets and individuals. We expect that with time, VOA
will reach a larger number of people through these methods of program
placement. Synopses of the media environments in Hungary and Poland
follow.
Hungary. All the major print media--national and regional
newspapers, magazines, and tabloids--are in private hands, some as part
of foreign media companies. The print media enjoy considerable freedom,
although journalists and opposition politicians are concerned that the
expression of different views in the press may be circumscribed by the
small number of owners who control most of the print media. Currently
around 70 percent of radio and television are privatized. There are
three national public television channels and 26 commercial channels.
Approximately thirty private radio stations operate around the country,
though no national stations are in private hands. As of 1997 (latest
available data), forty percent of TV households had cable subscriptions
and twenty-two percent had access to satellite television.
Poland. The constitution provides for freedom of speech and the
press, and the Government generally respects this right. There are ten
commercial television stations. State-owned TVP channels 1 and 2
continue to dominate, holding about one-half the market share. Close to
another third of market share is held by privately-owned POLSAT, and
the remainder divided among smaller national and local networks. Radio
remains influential in Poland and is a highly competitive market. There
are 119 commercial radio stations, including six national stations,
five of which are state owned. Many local radio stations have started
to unite within networks to compete for nationwide advertising budgets
with public and nationwide commercial stations. Poland's print media
are led by several outstanding dailies and a few tabloids. Each
publication presents a particular political and economic affiliation or
stance. Relatively small in print runs, Poland's newspapers serve to
frame the issues for the rest of the media, and hence the nation.
Perhaps the most interesting aspect of Poland's media has been the
phenomenal growth of specialized publications, ranging from economic
and trade journals, to specialized technical publications, to local
versions of women's and men's magazines.
Question 3. Based on estimates which the broadcasting organizations
have no doubt made, could you give us figures on the number of
listeners globally of VOA and RFE/RL per week for each of the last ten
years? Has there been a decline in VOA listenership?
Answer. Research shows that the global audience for VOA
listenership has remained relatively stable over the last five years.
Prior to the creation of the IBB Office of Research in 1997, USIA's
Office of Research was responsible for calculating VOA's global
audience. During the period of 1990 through 1993, they produced no
estimates for VOA's audience.
Drawn from estimates by both the USIA and IBB Offices of Research,
VOA's global audience for the period of 1994 through 1999 remained
fairly stable. The numbers are:
1994 92 million
1996 86 million
1997 83 million
1998 86 million
1999 91 million
Because there is a margin of error in calculating these global
figures, statistically, VOA's audience has been stable for the past
five years. (Note: USIA did not produce a global audience estimate for
1995.)
Within the global estimates, there have been significant trends.
Listenership dropped considerably in Eastern Europe and the Former
Soviet Union from 1994 to 1999, from 21 million to 9 million. Other
international broadcasters such as the BBC and Deutsche Welle
experienced similar trends, due to circumstances within the target
countries, principally competition from local media. During this same
period, VOA's audience on the African continent grew from 20 million in
1994 to 36 million in 1999. In essence, each region comprised
approximately 22-23% of VOA's global audience in 1994. However, in
1999, Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union made up 10% of VOA's
worldwide audience, while African listeners comprised 40%.
RFE/RL has maintained a leading position among international
broadcasters at a time when listenership to all international radios in
the vernacular languages is declining throughout RFE/RL's broadcast
region. Well over half of all regular listeners to international radio
in RFE/RL's 24 country broadcast region are listeners to RFE/RL. This
translates to between 13 and 18 million regular listeners weekly. Of
the total audience to international radio reached in the course of 12
months, almost two thirds--between 34 and 46 million listeners--listen
to RFE/RL.
RFE/RL is particularly effective in reaching political,
governmental, media, cultural and business decision-makers and opinion-
makers. In studies of elites carried out in thirteen countries, RFE/RL
has an average regular listenership of 28 percent and an average 12
month reach of 60 percent. The RFE/RL audience size has stabilized in
most countries after the initial drop from the 1988 to 1993 period.
Listenership has increased dramatically at times of political crisis
such as the Russian government's financial collapse in August 1998 or
the NATO-Serbia military conflict in 1999.
Available audience data for the past decade follows. In
interpreting this set of data, it should be noted that numbers are not
available for all years, and that in-country research began only in
1991. During this period, listenership to all short wave broadcasters
declined. In those countries where RFE/RL has been able to get a
significant number of reliable, in-country FM and AM rebroadcasters,
its listening rates have risen.
[In millions, rounded]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Weekly Listeners 12-Month Listeners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................... 16 40 (includes Iran and Iraq)
1999................................... 13 38
1998................................... 13 39
1996................................... 24 61 (includes Poland)
1995................................... 24 61
1994................................... 25 60
1993................................... 26 57 (includes Hungary)
1992................................... 24 --
1990................................... -- 65
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 4. There is a significant difference between the role of
VOA and that of the ``surrogate services'' which seek to fill a void
where a free press does not exist. But could you please compare the
services under the Board's supervision in another respect. Can you
compare the management, cost-effectiveness, and impact of the
operations run within the government (as VOA is) and those run as
independent, private entities (such as Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
and Radio Free Asia)?
Answer. As with many federal and federal grantee organizations,
direct comparisons on management and operations are difficult to make,
given the specific organizational authorities and guidelines that
differentiate and govern a federal entity and a federal grantee
organization. This difference is particularly pronounced regarding the
flexibility of procurement and personnel practices. Government
organizations are required to work within and to meet the uniformed
standards of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the federal
personnel system.
It is also important to note that a large portion of the budget of
U.S. international broadcasting, approximately $111 million for
engineering and technical services, is administered centrally under the
International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB) to provide transmission and
other support for all of the international broadcasting services.
Because nearly one-quarter of the BBG's total budget resources are
managed centrally to serve all transmission needs, most of the
significant procurement contracts for transmission facilities
administered by the IBB are administered according to Federal
contracting procedures under the FAR. This allows all of the service
entities to take advantage of BBG investments in transmission
resources, benefiting from economies of scale in the critical areas of
transmission, research, and marketing.
As you know, the Voice of America's mission includes the mandate to
represent America and present a balanced and comprehensive projection
of significant American thought and institutions. VOA is also required
to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively.
In conjunction with these mandates, it is logical that the VOA's
workforce would consist of Civil Service employees with all of the
benefits that other federal employees enjoy. RFA and RFE/RL, as U.S.
Government grantees, operate under personnel rules more closely aligned
with private sector systems, although the Board encourages a policy of
essential pay comparability among employees of all of the service
entities.
The Voice of America's budget for FY 1999 was $106 million,
employing 1,152 people to broadcast in 53 languages around the world
utilizing 912 weekly broadcast hours. Radio Free Asia operated with $22
million, employing 248, and broadcasting in 10 languages for 225.5
hours per week. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, with a budget of
approximately $75 million (inclusive of one-time start up costs for
Radio Free Iraq), employed 476 people in FY 1999, broadcasting in 26
languages for 830 hours per week. Although these figures do not invite
a direct budget comparison, they do indicate some degree of
comparability among the various service entities.
Please note that it's difficult to assess productivity levels based
strictly on expenditures per broadcast hour. Each of the entities is
unique in its mission, history, and target area. While Radio Free Asia
might have a higher average cost per broadcast hour than Radio Free
Europe/Radio Liberty based upon total expenditures, it could be the
result of higher rent costs (RFE/RL currently pays $1/month in Prague).
However, RFA also benefits from a lower average salary in each language
service due to the relatively short tenure of employees in an
organization that began its broadcasts in 1996. Conversely, RFE/RL and
VOA have broadcast for over half a century and employ a workforce that
has been with the organization longer, equating to higher salaries.
VOA's mission to broadcast about the world to the world creates
inefficiencies due to the vast scope of its mandate. As non-profit,
private organizations, RFA and RFE/RL have greater flexibility than
federal entities in personnel management. Because RFA and RFE/RL staff
are neither government employees nor unionized, employees can be hired
when available. Conversely, employees are also ``at will'' personnel,
meaning that either the employee or the broadcaster may terminate the
employment contract with appropriate notice.
At the same time, RFA and RFE/RL must operate under the same
budgetary and staffing limitations and regulations as any entity that
receives an appropriation from the Congress. For example, RFA and RFE/
RL cannot hire more than the authorized number of employees, and is
accountable to Congress through the Broadcasting Board of Governors for
spending their appropriated funds as Congress authorized. Unlike some
other federal grantees, RFA and RFE/RL are also required to receive and
expend funds as any federal agency does. They receive funding in
monthly allotments based on an annual financial plan, and must spend
annual appropriations by the end of each fiscal year, rather than carry
forward remaining balances.
The Broadcasting Board of Governors is cognizant of the realities
of these unique organizations and has taken steps to ensure uniformity
wherever feasible and cost-effective. The Board continues to look
across the organizations, public and private, to apply ``best
practices'' in ways that make sense for overall efficiency and
effectiveness. We are proud of each of our operations, the way they are
managed respectively, and the impact they make around the world each
day.
Question 5a. Who jams American broadcasts?
Answer. The BBG broadcasts of Radio Marti, Radio Free Asia and the
Voice of America suffer from jamming of various types. The language
services affected by this jamming include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcaster Language Source of Jamming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OCB......................... Spanish Cuba
RFA......................... Korea North Korea
Mandarin China
Tibetan China
Uyghur China
Vietnamese Vietnam
VOA......................... North Korea North Korea
Mandarin China
Tibetan China
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For approximately three weeks prior to the recent elections in
Iran, VOA, RL and BBC Farsi/Persian broadcasts were heavily jammed.
This jamming ended almost immediately after the elections and there is
no jamming of Farsi/Persian programs from VOA, RL or BBC at present.
RFE/RL broadcasts are no longer jammed by any country in the RFE/RL
broadcast region, which now includes Iran and Iraq. But, some of the
region's governments do impose ``restrictions'' from time to time.
During the last six months, there have been several examples of
governments failing to rebroadcast RFE/RL programs on local state-owned
medium wave of FM transmitters in Armenia, Russia, and Kazakhstan.
Question 5b. Which governments devote the most effort and resources
to jamming?
Answer. If one assumes that it takes roughly the same amount of
effort and resources to jam any one hour of progranuning without regard
to the language or location of the broadcast, then one measure of
resources required is the number of transmitter hours jammed by any
given country.
The following is a table of the number of daily transmitter hours
of BBG programming jammed by various countries. Each broadcast hour is
broadcast from a number of transmitters simultaneously to combat
jamming and changing radio propagation conditions:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily
Country Total Daily Broadcaster Language Transmitter
Jammed Hours Hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
China................................. 242 VOA Mandarin 92
............... ..................... Tibetan 13
............... RFA Mandann 100
............... ..................... Tibetan 34
............... ..................... Uyghur 3
Cuba.................................. 93 OCB Spanish 93
Vietnam............................... 14 RFA Vietnamese 14
North Korea........................... 13 VOA Korean 7
............... RFA Korean 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5c. How is the jamming impeding the reach of our
broadcasting?
Answer. In general, jamming hinders but does not prevent the public
from listening to short wave broadcasts. The jamming is generally
against all frequencies and all hours of a given language broadcast.
The effectiveness of the jamming varies greatly in large geographic
target areas, such as China and Tibet, but is fairly uniform in smaller
target areas such as Korea and Vietnam.
In large cities in China, such as Beijing and Shanghai, where the
BBG has a remote monitoring capability, jamming is particularly
effective. Travelers outside large urban centers--where the primary
mode of jamming is ``skywave''--note improved reception. This has led
to speculation that the Chinese may be employing ``local'' or ``ground
wave'' jamming near larger cities. We have no direct evidence of this,
but these same characteristics were noted in the former Soviet Union
and Eastern Europe--where we know groundwave jamming was employed--
before jamming ceased in 1987.
China jams 21 of RFA's 24 hour per day broadcasts to China and
Tibet. RFA's three hours of daily Cantonese broadcasts are jam free. In
spite of China's jamming efforts, RFA is being heard throughout the
country. RFA has received calls and letters from virtually every
province and autonomous region in China.
Question 5d. In particular, could you report on the efforts and
resources spent by China's government to jam VOA or Radio Free Asia
broadcasts?
Answer. We assume that the cost of jamming a single frequency is at
least as much as the cost of broadcasting the original program on one
frequency. We say ``at least'' because it is clear that most jamming
involves multiple transmitters on each frequency but the power output
of each transmitter is probably lower than that of the original
broadcast.
The annual cost of transmitting all 192 daily transmitter hours of
RFA and VOA Mandarin is $5.4 million. We assume then, that if the
Chinese were purchasing power and transmission resources at the same
rate we are, that they would be spending at least $ 5.4 million to jam
RFA and VOA Mandarin language programs.
Anecdotal reports from several RFA listeners in China indicate the
Chinese government has erected several new jamming stations and/or
upgraded old facilities around major metropolitan areas in China. These
jamming stations are expensive to operate because they require great
amounts of electrical power and must be manned around the clock.
Question 6. Is VOA programming too long in form--a hold over from
Cold War era format suited to the short wave listener and somewhat
older listeners? Does a longer format make it hard to attract younger
listeners and to place programming on radio affiliates around the world
(increasingly the method of choice for broadcasting as compared to
short wave)?
VOA broadcasts go to almost every country in the world except North
American and Western European ones. Therefore, VOA is confronted with a
wide variety of media markets, levels of competition, and newsgathering
preferences. Throughout Europe, for example, audiences use television
as their primary source of information. In Africa, radio is the
dominant (sometimes only) means of newsgathering available in rural
areas and some cities. Television, AM and FM are on the rise in African
cities, however. Generally, most recent research has indicated that the
average time spent listening to international broadcasts (across all
media) is 15-30 minutes. VOA has found that longer programs do not
always equate with more listeners.
Furthermore, the diversity of transmission options requires VOA to
provide programs in a number of different formats. Some services (e.g.,
Thai, Brazilian) are exclusively ``feed'' services, delivering
newsfeeds to affiliates several times a day and occasional features,
but having no direct broadcasts on short wave or AM. Other services
(e.g., Mandarin, Burmese, Farsi) have no affiliated stations in the
target regions and must rely on direct short wave, AM, television/
satellite or Internet broadcasts. The programs may be of different
formats and lengths accordingly.
In Eastern and Central Europe, VOA has found that only smaller,
less popular and less commercially viable stations are willing to take
one- to two-hour long blocks of programs. And these programs may not be
placed in high listenership time slots. This limits VOA's ability to
reach a large or diversified audience in increasingly competitive
markets. With the changes being implemented by VOA in FY2000 in several
Eastern and Central European language services, shorter news feeds in
radio and television will increase the attractiveness of VOA programs
to larger, more powerful stations, and increase the number and variety
of listeners with access to VOA's information.
______
RESPONSES OF EDWARD KAUFMAN AND ALBERTO MORA TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS
FOR THE RECORD FROM SENATOR FEINGOLD
Question 1. I know that there is some real enthusiasm within the
BBG for possibilities presented by the Internet and television. But I
also know that in sub-Saharan Africa, it will be a long time before any
mode of communication besides radio makes sense. Please describe your
long-term plans for broadcasting to Africa?
Answer. Radio remains the dominant newsgathering and entertainment
medium throughout sub-Saharan Africa. In fact, approximately 40% of VOA
worldwide audience is in sub-Saharan Africa. VOA will continue to
devote the bulk of its African-targeted resources to radio. Short wave
transmission stations in Botswana, Morocco, Sao Tome, Sri Lanka, Greece
and North Carolina give VOA outstanding coverage across the continent.
Medium wave (AM) in Botswana, Sao Tome, and Greece augment this
coverage in certain regions of the continent. VOA plans to maintain
these direct broadcast facilities serving African listeners.
Two affiliate marketing offices are planned for Africa, with the
first, in Abidjan, Cote d'Ivoire already open. These offices will work
closely with stations to support and expand our affiliate network. By
the end of this fiscal year, for example, VOA will have a virtually
unbroken string of affiliates along the densely populated coast line of
West Africa from Abidjan in the West to Port Harcourt, Nigeria in the
East. Other recent affiliate progress has been made in the Great Lakes
region, including a powerful AM station in Mwanza, Tanzania that covers
much of Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and parts of eastern
Congo (DRC). A string of stations in Mozambique have also recently
agreed to be VOA affiliates for Portuguese and English broadcasts.
In addition to affiliations, VOA will seek to purchase FM licenses
in selected larger African cities. Recently, Kenyan President Daniel
Arap Moi agreed to let VOA broadcast 24-hours-a-day in Nairobi, and
other similar deals will be pursued in high priority cities in Africa.
Finally, while radio is dominant, television and the Internet are
not completely useless in Africa. Worldnet Television, in conjunction
with VOA's Africa Division, has had a great deal of success placing a
weekly public affairs program called Africa Journal on stations in
larger cities across the continent. The relative dearth of well
produced programs focussing on Africa makes this program extremely
valuable to affiliates and popular with audiences. A radio/television
call-in simulcast program hosted by VOA's popular Uganda broadcaster
Shaka Ssali is planned for development later this year. In addition to
these English programs, we are planning to create a simulcast program
for Africa in French. Finally, experiments with placing Africa Division
programs on the Internet and taking e-mail-questions from listeners are
showing some signs of success. Internet components of VOA programs to
Africa will be expanded as necessary to reach the growing audience with
access, especially at universities, NGOs, media outlets, and in larger
cities.
Question 2. What is the current status of the Radio Democracy for
Africa initiative? What new approach does it represent?
Answer. President Clinton proposed Radio Democracy for Africa (RDA)
in March 1998 during his trip to the continent. VOA sought
reprogramming authority in FY1998 and FY1999 to create 13 hours of
programs in the Africa Division (8 new hours plus 5 restructured hours)
for RDA. This authority was granted by the House but was denied by the
Senate. Funds for RDA were requested in VOA's FY2000 budget submission.
However, while VOA was given permission to create RDA programming, it
was not given additional funds to enhance Africa Division programs.
Faced with a funding deficit in FY2000, VOA has been unable to fund RDA
internally. While some services were able to expand broadcasting in
response to particular outbreaks of violence or other crises in FY1999,
all such expansions were scaled back to original programming levels at
the start of FY2000.
VOA remains extremely interested in enhancing its programming to
Africa by developing programs specifically designed to discuss violence
prevention, conflict resolution, justice and reconciliation, and
democracy building themes and topics. We feel that VOA is uniquely
positioned to provide this programming and to combine it with training
and other activities to strengthen the media and increase the chances
that democracy will take root. Given our current funding limitations,
such program enhancements are impossible at this time.
However, we have recently been awarded a grant from USAID's Office
of Transition Initiatives to enhance programming in Hausa and English
to Nigeria. This grant will allow VOA to develop special conflict
resolution and democracy building programs, recruit and train
stringers, and provide other training programs to Nigeria-based
journalists. We are seeking other alternative funding sources to
develop democracy building programming in the absence of appropriated
funds to implement the Radio Democracy for Africa initiative.
______
STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAVEVOA COMMITTEE
Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, the members of the
SaveVOA Committee, comprised of retired and present employees of the
Voice of America, our country's broadcasting voice to the world, thank
you for the opportunity to have our remarks included in the record of
the April 26 hearing on Broadcasting Priorities before the Subcommittee
for International Operations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
QUO VADIS
In 1994, in a plan submitted to the President after the enactment
of P.L. 103-236 which dealt with the consolidation of international
broadcasting, the IBB Chairman of the Board stated that ``the devil is
in the details.'' Almost six years have passed since that statement was
written. With the present situation at the Voice of America, faced with
an apparently dwindling listenership in the English and language
services, a deteriorating sense of mission and employee morale, those
unresolved details have returned to bedevil an institution which, since
its inception, has been a beacon of hope and freedom to the nations of
the world as well as a most effective arm of U.S. public diplomacy.
In our opinion, programming changes for international radio should
have been formulated ten years ago in the wake of the fall of the
Berlin Wall and the resulting changes in the media environment in
Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. With the consolidation of
international broadcasting in 1994 and subsequently, the changed status
of the International Broadcasting Bureau as an independent agency,
there should have been serious research and discussion conducted as to
potential changes in VOA programming. Indeed, Section 1323 of the
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 calls for the
Director to organize and chair a coordinating committee to examine and
make recommendations to the Board on long-term strategies for the
future of international broadcasting. In addition to representatives of
RFA, RFE/RL, the BBG as well as VOA, OCB and WorldNet on this
coordinating committee, if indeed the committee is operative, we
recommend the inclusion of other representatives, for example, experts
from academia such as Ms. Ellen Mickiewicz of Duke University who has
written on the changing media environment in the former Soviet Union,
Dr. S. Frederick Starr, formerly of the Woodrow Wilson Institute,
Tulane University and Oberlin College and author of ``Red and Hot: The
History of Jazz in the Soviet Union,'' as well as former members of
Congress such as Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton and former California
Congressman, Robert Dornan. This task force could also include, as
appropriate, directors of various ethnic organizations such as the
Polish-American Congress, the Central & East European Coalition, Joint
Baltic American Committee as well as current members of congressional
committees such as the Human Rights and the Central European caucus.
This blue-ribbon bipartisan task force project which could make
recommendations on present and future IBB programming could be funded
through the IBB Office of Research.
RAISON D'ETRE
Section 1321 (2) of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring
Act states that open communication of information and ideas among the
peoples of the world contributes to international peace and stability
and the promotion of such communication is in the interests of the
United States. Section 1321 (4) states that international broadcasting
is, and should remain, an essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy.
In this regard, The SaveVOA Committee believes that the diminution
of broadcasts to the Central and East European Services, as well as the
Baltic countries seriously compromises U.S. national interests in those
countries as well as thwarting the role of VOA broadcasts as an
essential instrument of U.S. foreign policy as defined by the Foreign
Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act.
Under the proposed plan of the Board of Governors, the affected
services will be reduced to a bare-bones operation adding video and
Internet functions. In essence, the Board's decision is tantamount to
closing the services as the two or three remaining staffers cannot
possibly prepare quality output five to seven days a week in radio, TV
and the Internet in the plan submitted by the Board of Governors. As a
result, the essential reason for the existence of these services--to
serve U.S. national interests--will be compromised as well as
destroying the credibility that VOA has built up over many decades in
the affected countries. Radio, via the uniqueness of VOA, still remains
the medium by which the American people can convey their ideals,
values, policies and information to people in other lands in the most
and direct and economical way possible.
To quote John Chancellor, VOA's director from 1965-67: ``There is
something magic about these studios, something that leads one to a
deeper understanding of the basic significance of the Voice of America.
Every day, almost every hour, from the second floor at 330 Independence
Avenue, SW, there exists a link to someone in another country. The
broadcasters at the Voice understand this magic link, because the
reality they perceive is the reality of the listener. They realize the
basic fact which makes the VOA important: that the studios in
Washington are really foreign posts. They understand that micro seconds
after they speak, what they say is communicated to people in bedrooms,
living rooms, tents, cars, caravans, as they enter the world of the
listener. The official corridors of Washington fade, and the
broadcasters are with the listeners. It is essential that this
connection be understood, for without this knowledge, no understanding
is possible of what I unashamedly call the magic of the Voice.''
The SaveVOA Committee does not view VOA as just another media
outlet but as the voice of the American people, telling America's story
to the world with the purpose of keeping American influence intact in
the target areas. VOA tells America's story as no other radio can or
will. We believe the Board's decision to curtail VOA broadcasts to
countries where these broadcasts remain vital and transforming our
Agency's mission will erode America's stature in the target areas.
Here, we argue for a substantive presence for VOA broadcasts in
specific countries, something as yet undefined by the IBB Board of
Governors. We believe that the Board, before eliminating VOA broadcasts
should attempt to define the concept of what a substantive presence for
U.S. international broadcasts in each individual country should be.
Above all, new forms of communication such as TV and the Internet
should be utilized to supplement rather than supplant the radio which
remains the most cost-effective and dependable means for reaching
people in the target area.
In its testimony, the Board said that it ``reduced broadcasting to
areas where we were a mainstay during the Cold War but are newly
democratic and will reallocate resources to other areas of the world
that still repressed or struggling to establish democracy.'' All the
information at our disposal points to the fact that Poland, the Czech
Republic, Hungary and the Baltic republics, after years of Soviet
domination remain fragile democracies struggling with the transition to
democratic reforms and a market economy, the establishment of a free
press, and the eradication of anti-Semitic and anti-foreign
philosophies. Above all, the sabre-rattling from Russia and the
uncertainties about the policies of the new Russian government demand a
substantive informational presence for Voice of America broadcasts at
this critical time.
In addition, the Board mentioned that the affected services are
being cut because of the fact that they are new NATO members. Here
there is an obvious discrepancy as Greece and Turkey have been NATO
members for a number of years. However, the Board believes and we
concur that it is important to continue to broadcast to Greece and
Turkey notwithstanding the fact that they are members of NATO.
At the April 26th hearing, the representatives of the IBB Board of
Governors testified that Congress ``mandated that the Board review,
evaluate and determine, at least annually . . . the addition or
deletion of language services.'' Since the Board insists that it is not
eliminating the affected language services, we question why this
wording was used to justify its decision to cut the broadcasts. Or, as
we fear, the drastic reduction of the services is already seen as a
prelude to their actual deletion.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Board's decision to cut the
broadcasting frequencies to the affected countries means that VOA
radio, for all practical purposes, will cease to exist.
SURROGATE BROADCASTING
At the hearing, Senator Feingold asked why the Board elected to cut
VOA programming and not RFE/RL's. This is a question that the SaveVOA
Committee asks as well.
Section 308 9g (4) of P.L. 103-236 states that ``duplication of
language services and technical operations between RFE/RL and the IBB
be reduced to the extent appropriate as determined by the Board.''
Section 1328 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act asks
the Board to make an assessment of the extent to which USG funding may
be appropriate in the year 2000 and subsequent years for surrogate
broadcasting, including an analysis of the environment for independent
media, the extent of government control of the media, the ability of
independent journalists and news organizations to operate and other
indications of whether the people of such countries enjoy freedom of
expression.
It is a fact that there is duplication of language services and
overlap of RFE/RL and VOA programming which the Broadcast Consolidation
Act was supposed to correct. For example, RFE Estonian continues to
operate and compete with VOA Estonian disregarding the fact that the
opening up of the media in that country has largely diminished the need
for RFE's surrogate programming. Overlap is also evident in Armenian
and Georgian programming where RL has three times more broadcast time
than VOA even though research shows that VOA broadcasts with less air
time remain competitive. If the media climate has changed in Russia,
the former republics, and Eastern Europe which the Board cites as a
reason for cutting VOA, it stands to reason that the Board would begin
to review the necessity for surrogate programming to other countries,
as mandated by the Congress. In this respect, we would like to point
out that in 1994, the Board cut the VOA Bulgarian broadcasts which far
outranked RFE Bulgarian in popularity at that time. For this reason, it
is difficult to understand what criteria the Board uses in evaluating
the language services.
In determining the need for surrogate programming, it is difficult
to imagine that the Board would put Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in
the same category as Iraq or Iran as far as the need for surrogate
broadcasts is concerned.
LISTENERSHIP PERCENTAGES
In its report, the Board quoted the drop in the percentage of
listeners as a reason for cutting VOA broadcasts. The utilization of
listener percentages in determining whether or not VOA programs will
maintain a viable presence in a particular country is questionable
since it seems as if all decisions on VOA broadcasting will now depend
on commercial, mass audience figures. As we know, the audience for VOA
broadcasts fluctuates depending on world events. During times of
crisis, the audience is higher, at other times, it drops. If indeed VOA
should have a substantive presence in other countries of the world in
times of peace as well as conflict, as we contend, then cuts based
solely on audience figures are not justified.
Regarding percentages, the SaveVOA Committee points out that
National Public Radio which is subsidized by the U.S. Congress through
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting registers from 0.5% to a 3
percent share of the listening audience. However, that low percentage
of listenership does not affect the funding it receives nor is it used
to justify cuts in the programming. The SaveVOA Committee believes that
the critical mission of VOA of explaining U.S. policy to the world is
even more deserving of congressional financial support as an arm of
U.S. public diplomacy.
If a drop in listenership was indeed a consideration, we find it
curious that the Board would permit Radio Liberty Russian to broadcast
24 hours daily especially in view of the fact that RL Russian has
dropped from a high of 21% of the listening audience to 0.8%. Indeed,
the question arises about the need for surrogate broadcasts especially
around the clock to Russia in view of the opening up of its domestic
media.
These obvious inconsistencies in the Board's testimony are
troubling. The SaveVOA Committee hopes that Senator Feingold will
continue to pursue the question of the need for surrogate radio in
Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union in view of the changes in
the media environment in those countries, as the Senator expressed at
the hearing.
In this regard, we question why the Board plans to establish, as it
testified, a robust advertising and marketing program in Russia and the
Ukraine to support RFE/RL broadcast services if the need for surrogate
programming there is diminishing and if the programs have ceased to
attract listeners. In addition, we ask why a similar advertising and
marketing program was not done for VOA services in Eastern Europe if
the marketing program endeavors to increase listenership figures.
As an alternative to the costly advertising and marketing campaign
contemplated by the Board, it may be more cost-effective to connect
with the listeners by revitalizing the VOA Audience Mail section. In
contrast to BBC which at one time employed over 30 mail assistants, VOA
traditionally employed less than five staff people plus contractors to
answer the volume of mail it receives. In order to strengthen contacts
with the listeners, it might also be advantageous for VOA to
reestablish its worldwide listeners' clubs, which played a vital role
in the VOA's popularity in Bangladesh and Nigeria, expanding the club
movement to other countries as well.
VOA-TV EXPERIMENT
At the hearing, Board members testified that a TV operation in
vernacular languages could fill an important niche in many media
markets. Although that may be true, to our knowledge there has not been
any global demand for a VOA-TV product nor has the Congress shown any
inclination to adequately fund such an endeavor.
Board member Mr. Kaufman testified that an outside consultant had
trained over 100 IBB employees in video journalistic techniques. This
outside contractor who was hired under a sole-source contract received
over $3 million dollars which roughly translated means that training
each employee in video journalism cost the U.S. taxpayer over $30,000
per student for a three-week training course. We have no idea how many
of the people who were trained under this pilot project actually
emerged as qualified video journalists.
The point is that the evidence shows that in 1998, the Board
decided to go into TV and evidently began the process of abandoning
radio. We do not know if this decision was made at the direction and
with the consent of the Congress. In this respect, we trust that in
funding the TV pilot project that the Agency met reprogramming
notification requirements for the reallocation of funds.
Since the Board talks about more ``bang for the buck,'' it might
have been more cost-effective to utilize the talents of the employees
we already have in WorldNet in training employees for TV rather than in
incurring the considerable costs of an outside consultant in preparing
TV feature material that might or might not ever be used.
The Board testified that it has not forsaken direct radio
broadcasts via shortwave and medium-wave. We hope that this is true as
simultaneous broadcasting on shortwave together with placement on
affiliate stations should be a priority. For example, shortwave
broadcasts to Poland reach not only listeners in the country but also
are heard in surrounding areas which have a Polish population. The same
is true for VOA Hungarian broadcasts. Before shortwave broadcasts were
cancelled, Hungarian broadcasts were heard in Vojvodina and Romania
which have a substantial Hungarian population. Unfortunately, with the
Board's decision to cut the shortwave broadcasting to the target areas,
the opportunity to reach these listeners has been lost.
Programming
The SaveVOA Committee urges the Congress to assure the Agency's
compliance with Section 2420 of the 1998 Foreign Affairs Reform and
Restructuring Act which calls for a daily program on U.S. states. This
type of programming which is an ideal vehicle for the Voice of America
to pursue, could very well stimulate the increase in listenership which
the Board endeavors to do as well as advance U.S. trade and tourism.
OVERHEAD COSTS
Since the International Broadcasting Consolidation Act of 1994
which was supposed to streamline international broadcasting operations,
the managerial, administrative and Office of Personnel structures of
our Agency have continued to stifle the organization by adding layer
upon layer of wasteful bureaucracy. A plethora of needless non-
broadcasting adjuncts and positions such as Chiefs of Staff, Special
Advisors, Executive Assistants, budget analysts, strategic planners,
have sapped the vital funds necessary for a more efficient operation of
our Agency. If the Board is striving to prioritize expenditures and
provide focus to our international broadcasting efforts, we believe it
is essential to review the bureaucratic overhead strangling our Agency
before attempting to effect cost savings by RIF'ing the lifeblood of
our organization--the broadcasters.
CONCLUSION
The SaveVOA Committee thanks the members of the Subcommittee on
International Operations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for
the opportunity to submit remarks on International Broadcasting
Priorities.
-