Voice of America v. Al Jazeera

[George L. Singleton]

VAdmiral Norbert Ryan has kindly had the Military Officers Association of America do an article about me regarding my interest in seeing that portion of the 9/11 Commission Report more fully implemented to bring up in native dialects, 24/7 and use both in TV and radio format the Voice of America.

It is my opinion (at age 68 now, looking back) that any war today has to have a proactive progadanda arm which in the case of SW Asia and the Middle East is Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera, which at the moment is eating our lunch out of the UAE.

In Pakistan, out OF 166 million total population, around 46 million are illiterate. In Afghanistan out of a population of around 37 million, around 26.3 million are illiterate.

Hundreds of millions of Muslims, in the aggregate, in SW Asia and the Middle East being illiterate they depend 100% on radio and TV, often in the mountains of Pakistan and Afghanistan these are battery operated.

We are badly ignoring the radio and TV broadcast mediums propaganda side of this war. Little ole ladies in tennis shoes are testifying in 2008 before House and Senate Appropriations Committees against using Voice of American in the War on Terrorism. Understand, since 1998 when the US Information Agency was abolished, VOA today is an integral part of the US Department of State.

Here is the OFFICER MAGAZINE April, 2008 Internet site to look at the direct article, which you can comment on via the MOAA feedback website if a MOAA Member, or by an e-mail letter to the editor of the OFFICER MAGAZINE if not yet (I want you to join us!) a MOAA Member.

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/moaa/mo0408/

GENERAL PETRAEUS IS ON THE COVER OF THE APRIL 2008 OFFICER MAG.

Once you copy and paste onto your search site on your computer you will find the MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE website. The magazine cover is a photo of General Petraeus. Then at the top of your screen go to and click on Search and enter Singleton which will get you to page 28 for a national article about me. There is an on-line discussion website you may want to read and post to, as well, provided you are MOAA members to have posting rights. You can read postings in any event.

The Military Officers Association of America is one of the top 5 veterans organizations in the United States, as recognized by and advisory to both the U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the US Department of Defense, and the U.S. State Department. The others of the top 5 veterans organizations nationally are the American Legion, Disabled American Veterans, Purple Heart Association, and Veterans of Foreign Wars.

The focus of this article as far as I am concerned is getting more Congressional funding for VOICE OF AMERICA radio and TV broadcasts in the native dialects into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, in particular, in their native dialects, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week vs. the lies daily being put out by Al Jazeera radio and TV daily.

Wartime success in all US history is practically accomplished by a very strong propaganda program.

VOICE OF AMERICA since 1998 is a part of the US Department of State. Some of you will recall the success of VOA under the late Edward R. Morrow when it was a part of the United States Information Agency before the 1998 merger into the State Department.

You can comment on the website at end of the magazine article if you want to give your opinion on uses of Voice of America (VOA) to better help fight the war on terrorism.

George Singleton
Hoover, Alabama

[William F. Owen]

The focus of this article as far as I am concerned is getting more Congressional funding for VOICE OF AMERICA radio and TV broadcasts in the native dialects into Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, and Iraq, in particular, in their native dialects, twenty four hours a day, seven days a week vs. the lies daily being put out by Al Jazeera radio and TV daily.

You may well be funding a completely futile exercise. The folks you are trying to influence are unlikely to be swayed by an alternative view point, however true or rational it might be.

A great many 3rd world folks have their own narrative that it is completely isolated from reality. Telling them another story just does not work unless it supports a belief system they have already brought into. basically, the illiterate, do not do "duality."

In fact my direct experience of Pakistan, Kuwait, Algeria, West Africa and a few other spots is that you basic non-secular thinker simply alters his reality to suit his story, regardless of facts. Facts are irrelevant. There is the story the majority want to hear, and then all else is lies. Mere words and images cannot do little.

[George L. Singleton]

Thanks for your feedback. I assume your read the interview with me in OFFICER MAGAZINE to know I have been there, both in the military, later as an international banker, and then in 1991 "dust up."

Al Jazeera TV, in particular, is eating our lunch, using ex-BBC broadcasters in fact on air who speak Arabic.

But, I do agree with you that most of the grassroots people over there are chronic liars to our understanding, and yes, they do change the facts to suit their purposes, but those doing such are above average not illiterate bumpkins.

What today, and yesterday, works is direct source information. TV broadcasts by Voice of America will be most effective. The illiterate watcher identifies over time with the face, or talking head, on the screne, if that personality repeats on air over time.

Your views of boots on ground only are historically sound but only in the winning sense when accompanied, based on history, not your or my opinion,s by effective propaganda program.

Thanks for your input,
George Singleton

[tequila]

You may well be funding a completely futile exercise. The folks you are trying to influence are unlikely to be swayed by an alternative view point, however true or rational it might be.

A great many 3rd world folks have their own narrative that it is completely isolated from reality. Telling them another story just does not work unless it supports a belief system they have already brought into. basically, the illiterate, do not do "duality."

This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

[Rex Brynen]

This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

[Ken White]

and no one pays much attention to me either...

You said:

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

I'd suggest that the pathetic US Media is so very bad that they deserve little attention being paid them -- and that long pre-dates al-Hirra / al-Sawa. It will also unfortunately be true long after no one recalls those two failed efforts

Our numerous errors in the ME over the last 60 years have come home to roost. Lick upon us. The fascinating thing to me is that the Arabists in academia and the government who should have kept us out of most of these messes are in fact those that contributed the most to us being where we are today.

[George L. Singleton]

Absolutely.

I would also add that al-Jazeera and the other satellite TV stations in the Middle East are not the "enemy." Certainly, they play to their audience, and their audience is deeply suspicious and bitterly critical of US foreign policy. In this sense, they in the Arab context Arabs what Fox New's ultra patriotism is on the US media scene. But al-Jazeera and others are also a free media, and provide voice for reformers and democrats who were long stifled by authoritarian regimes.

Frankly, it is hard for a US-branded media to make many inroads--the brand has been discredited, the policy is unpopular, and propaganda efforts look like, well, propaganda efforts. The dismal performance of (American) al-Hurra TV and Radio al-Sawa is a case in point.

In my own view the US can do far better by engaging the Middle East media as it exists, and articulating different views on and through it, than trying to compete with it.

While I respect your different opinion, we need our own Voice of America TV and radio broadcasts into Afghanistan and Paksitan, now, not some muddle of untrusthworthy Middle East Arab broadcasts.

Al Jazeera is owned and funded by a UAE Shiek, hardly a "democratic" fellow.
[COLOR="red"]Since 1995, Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani has ruled Qatar, seizing control of the country from his father Khalifa bin Hamad Al Thani while the latter vacationed in Switzerland. Qatar ranks as the ninth richest country in the world per capita.

Qatar served as the headquarters and one of the main launching sites of the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. This is noted to be objective in disagreeing with you.

In 2005, a suicide-bombing killed a British teacher at the Doha Players Theatre, shocking a country that had not previously experienced few acts of terrorism.

Afghanistan and the NWFP area of Paksitan, where I served for two years both speak Pashto. The rest of Pakistan depending on the Province involved speak: Urdu, Punjabi, Sindhi, Saraiki, and Balochi.

The key reason we disagree here is that VOA must be our propaganda arm for the next 100 years in the context of the long term ideological war with radical Islam. VOA is an within the US State Department, our official propaganda organ, VOA, which is why we cannot use local Arab media in lieu of VOA. In this war on terrorism we are mainly fighting an ideological war, extremist, terrorist, to my understanding heretical Islamic jiihadists, but many other Muslims without the balance of VOA in their native dialects are being brought into the terrorist thinking Muslim camp thanks in part to the pro-radical Islam Al Jazeera interviews, coverage, and release of terrorists messages to the world using Al Jazeera as their communications medium.

Too, please note that Paks, Afghans, and Iranians, in the main, are not Arabs and few speak Arabic. Al Jazeera is just now expanding their pro-terrorist broadcasts, TV and radio, into Pakistani dialects and the in common Afghan-NWFP Pashto dialect. We must compete to deal in the long term, 100 years horizon, if not longer, in this religiously based ideological debate.

Here are some illiteracy data on non-Arabic speaking poorest of the poor Muslims of both Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Quote: Of 166 million Pakistanis, 46 million are illiterate and depend solely on TV or radio for news, which Al Jazeera, the terrorist network out of the UAE currently provides to them.

Out of a total Afghan population of 37 million, 26.3 million are illiterate. They, too depend on Al Jazeera for news.

Voice of America needs to get correct dialect speaking on 24/7 TV and radio programming into Pakistan and Afghanistan, yesterday.

Here is a bit of the 9/11 Commission Report which due to it's July, 2004 issue date and focus misses the point of non-Arabic speaking hot spots which are belatedly, now, to be fair, identified as Pakistan and Afghanistan, all over again.

PARTIAL QUOTE FROM JULY 2004 9/11 COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS:

Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney

And here are some facts about Al Jazeera which on balance do not agree with your postive view that Al Jazeera "isn't all bad." It is against us, against the War on Terrorism, and is the "Voice" of al Qaida and the Taliban to the rest of the world, which I for one don't find either friendly or democratic.

Al Jazeera is a television network headquartered in Doha, Qatar, UAE. The UAE and Pakistan prior to 9/11 were the only two nations in the world to recognize the Taliban governed, al Qaida infested old Afghanistan, lets be clear on these facts.

Initially launched as an Arabic news and current affairs satellite TV channel with the same name, Al Jazeera has since expanded into a network with several outlets, including the Internet and specialty TV channels in multiple languages, and in several regions of the world.

The original Al Jazeera channel's willingness to broadcast dissenting views, including on call-in shows, created controversies in Persian Gulf States. The station gained worldwide attention following the September 11, 2001 attacks, when it broadcast video statements by Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders.[/COLOR]

History

The original Al Jazeera channel was started in 1996 with a US$150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa.

In April 1996, the BBC World Service's Saudi-co-owned Arabic language TV station, faced with censorship demands by the Saudi Arabian government, shut down after two years of operation. Many former BBC World Service staff members joined Al Jazeera, which at the time was not yet on air. The channel began broadcasting in late 1996.

Al Jazeera's availability (via satellite) throughout the Middle East changed the television landscape of the region. Prior to the arrival of Al Jazeera, many Middle Eastern citizens were unable to watch TV channels other than state-censored national TV stations. Al Jazeera introduced a level of freedom of speech on TV that was previously unheard of in many of these countries. Al Jazeera presented controversial views regarding the governments of many Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar; it also presented controversial views about Syria's relationship with Lebanon, and the Egyptian judiciary. Critics accused Al Jazeera of sensationalism in order to increase its audience share.

It wasn't until late 2001 that Al Jazeera achieved worldwide recognition, when it broadcast video statements by al-Qaeda leaders. The original Al Jazeera and today's Al Jazeera are quite different. Today Al Jazeera is clearly pro-terrorist in terms of public relations and communcations as the enabler of recordings, video tapings, and such of key al Qaida terrorists used to broadcast to and threaten the rest of the non-radical Muslim and all other faith systems world.

Funding

Further to the initial US$ 150 million grant from the Emir of Qatar, Al Jazeera had aimed to become self-sufficient through advertising by 2001, but when this failed to occur, the Emir agreed to continue subsidizing it on a year-by-year basis (US$30 million in 2004,according to Arnaud de Borchgrave). Other major sources of income include advertising, cable subscription fees, broadcasting deals with other companies, and sale of footage. In 2000, advertising accounted for 40% of the station's revenue.

Remember the Emir is a potentate for life, hardly a democratic form of government for Qatar.

Thanks for you views and for allowing me mine. Voice of America helped win the Cold War and we need a greatly expanded, better funded VOA in all the right linguistic dialects not in just the short run but for the next 100 years if not longer in our long term ideological war against terroristm and radical Islam.

[William F. Owen]

This sort of thinking is hardly exclusive to the Third World. Many supposedly well-educated people in the First World have similarly fixed viewpoints, often about the Third World.

Agreed but the target audience we are discussing are the ones in the developing world.

If you want a parallel, then I see no clear blue water between the bigotry and racism present in Hezbollah, than in the Klu-Klux-Klan. Same sides of the same coin.

[George L. Singleton]

A former Marine who is now a TV news journalist for one of our major TV stations in the Greater Birmingham, Alabama market did two interviews yesterday in support of increased in proper native dialects and better funded Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera TV and radio broadcasting as per the 9/11 Commission report, which reads in part from July, 2004:

Recognizing that Arab and Muslim audiences rely on satellite television and radio, the government has begun some promising initiatives in television and radio broadcasting to the Arab world, Iran, and Afghanistan. These efforts are beginning to reach large audiences. The Broadcasting Board of Governors has asked for much larger resources. It should get them. (Page 377) The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) was established under the United States International Broadcasting Act of 1994 (22 U.S.C. 6201). The BBG provides oversight and guidance to U.S. non-military international broadcast services, including Voice of America, Radio and TV Marti, WORLDNET Television and Film Service, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, Radio Sawa, and the Middle East Television Network (METN). Radio Sawa is a region-wide Arabic language radio station that combines western and Arabic popular music with news broadcasts and specialized programming. METN is an Arabic language television station designed to bolster U.S. public diplomacy efforts in the Middle East. See GAO, State Department and Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Post-9/11 Efforts but Challenges Remain , GAO-04-1061T, Aug. 23, 2004. The pending Commerce, Justice, and State Department Appropriations bill, H.R. 4754, FY 2005, provides 65 million for broadcasting in Arabic ($20 million increase over President's request). Contacts: Mark Speight, Assistant General Counsel, IAT; Ernie Jackson, Senior Attorney

Hope this background info is helpful.

Here is my feeble attempt to attach the 4/7/08 CBS-42 news clip, interview with Congressman Spencer Bachus, R-AL and me as the focus of the MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE article in April, 2008 issue regarding Voice of America revival and increased funding/proper linguists:

http://www.cbs42.com/news/local/17377219.html

Then on this CBS42 local TV news sight go to box on right hand side of web page and click on "A war of words" to see the interviews regarding Voice of America's critical propaganda role as recommended by the 9/11 Commission Report with interviews with Colonel George Singleton (me) and US Congressman Spencer Bachus, R-AL who has made improved use and funding of VOA a plank in his re-election to Congress platform as of 4/7/08.

[MountainRunner]

Earlier this evening I put up a post that's relevant to the discussion here. I won't subject you to my blog, the entirety of the post is below.

Sixty-two years ago, Congress was so troubled by the operations of the Voice of America that it slashed the appropriation for the State Department's Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs, known as OIC, in half. At the time, not only were broadcasts of dubious quality hitting the airwaves (including many from private media contractors), but to a lack of accountability of the personnel and content producers. Congress was not questioning the act or need to propagandize, it was responding to the extremely poor quality and haphazard nature of U.S. efforts in light of communist inroads into Western public opinion.

Some Congressional Republicans feared a peacetime VOA would be bias towards a Democratic Administration. Others thought the "whispers" from State in the war of contemporary war of ideas at the beginning of the Cold War were symptomatic of a larger problem of communist sympathizers within State, a problem made worse by a rash of spy scandals. America's information systems were ill and the cure was the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948, formally known as Public Law 402: The United States Information and Educations Exchange Act of 1948.

In 2008, there is again trouble at VOA. Four days ago, Senator Tom Coburn, MD, sent a five-page letter to Stephen Hadley, the National Security Advisor, detailing significant issues with the content of VOA's Farsi broadcasts. The Senator is troubled by not just the VOA but its oversight organization, the Broadcasting Board of Governors. His three major concerns are:

1. A lack of transparency in both VOA and BBG
2. A lack of accountability in both VOA and BBG
3. Absence of guidance and coordination from Key Policy-Making Agencies (State, Defense, Homeland Security, National Security Council, etc)

The letter is factual and puts forward a strong case for significant change at VOA and at the BBG. Many of the complaints are, ironically, rooted in modern interpretations of Smith-Mundt. The lack of transparency, for example, can be traced to amendments to the Act in 1972 and 1985.

For example, the Senator highlights the VOA's "terrorists are freedom fighters" policy posted on VOA's blog (Did you know VOA has a blog? and why is it hosted by Google?). The discussion of the use of the "t-word" is, well, interesting. See for yourself.

However, while I agree with the Senator's criticism of VOA, the cure from the doctor from Kentucky is not holding up Jim Glassman's nomination. The position of Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy (and, by the way, Public Affairs) should not be empty any longer.

Instead, I urge the good Senator to instead convince his House colleagues (I understand from discussions last year that his colleagues in the Senate are already open to the idea) to revisit Smith-Mundt, especially the distorted modern perception that pervades not just our civilian information agencies but our military services as well. This Act, the fix for similar complaints nearly exactly sixty years ago, is the root of most of his complaints. Any promises the Senator extracts from the White House to satisfy his valid concerns laid out in his letter will be met, under current conditions, by artificial and false firewalls of modern interpretations of Smith-Mundt.

[JJackson]

I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.

[William F. Owen]

I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output?

The inability to speak or read Arabic is pretty much the issue. I have a lot of Arabic literate friends (one of whom is an Arab), and my father-in-law speaks it to a fair degree.

Simple test: Get someone who can read Arabic well, to pick up a few local newspapers in any Arab city and search for the word Jew (Jehudi). Then read how Jews are portrayed. Out of X number of stories, how many are positive? Then find the English language translation of the same piece. If you can, then you've done better than me over the past 30 years.

You could type "anti-semitism" and "Arab media" into google, but you would get mostly stuff from Jewish/Israeli organisations, and as some Arab Media will tell you, these people cannot be trusted - because they are Jews.

If you live in the UK, you can go to any of the big Jewish communities in London, Leeds, or Manchester, and they can probably point you at the same stuff.

[Rex Brynen]

Which satellite TV station do you watch most?

54.2% al-Jazeera
18.3% al-Aqsa (Hamas)
11.2% Palestine TV (Fateh/PA)
6.1% al-Arabiyya
3.6% al-Manar (Hizbullah)
0.3% al-Hurra (US)

.. which reinforces my earlier point about the market dominance of al-Jazeera, and the complete failure of US-branded IO (al-Hurra) in the Arab world--which I don't think VoA can do much better.

The data doesn't reflect the extent to which Israeli TV is also watched, since it asks about DBS TV only.

Oh, and note that over half the population has a news and current affairs channel as its most-watched TV. If only that were true in the west...

Data from the ever-excellent Palestine Center for Policy and Survey Research (March 2008 survey).

[George L. Singleton]

I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.

I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

[Rex Brynen]

I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

I know that al-Jazeera announced an Urdu language network in conjunction with ARY, but I didn't know that it was broadcasting yet (certainly, the website is still only under construction). I'm not aware that it is (or will be) broadcasting other than in Urdu, nor on radio--do you have sources for this?

Finally, as I noted before, the main Arabic al-Jazeera network can hardly be described as the "mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida." For its part, ARY also runs (in additional to its news and entertainment networks) the Pakistani versions of HBO and Nickelodeon, plus a music video and home shopping channel. Do you have any concrete data showing that the Urdu-language version will somehow be so dramatically different from the products that these networks already broadcast?

[JJackson]

I guess you are not aware of the so-called "new" Al Jazeera, the mouthpiece of the Taliban and al Qaida. Al Jazeera now has local, native dialect broadcasts in Pashto, Urdu, and numerous other unique to all areas of Pakistan dialect broadcasts. Pashto is also the major language of much of but not totally all of Afghanistan. Al Jazeera now has all dialects of both Afghanistan and Paksitan on both TV and radio, fyi.

George. Although I have only seen Al Jazeera’s English output from their TV and web sites I have not found it a mouth piece for anybody and not dissimilar to VoA or the BBC. It is not rabidly American, as Fox can be, but is not pro terrorist or pro AQ. So my question remains is there evidence that Al Jazeera’s output in other languages is diametrically opposed to their English output if not why waste money trying to counter them as their output is basically the same as VoA’s.


Contrast & Compare
To see if my gut feelings were correct I opened todays BBC front page to pick something I thought they would both carry and would show up bias. This turned out to be a bit more of a problem than I thought as I started with the “Afghan suicide attack kills eight” only to find VoA had not got it yet (evidence they need a bit more funding?), I then tried reports of al-Masri’s death but Al Jazeera had not covered it so I settled for “Gaza gunmen attack border depot” (Anything to do with Israel should be good to show up bias with the US/Israel and the Arab Nations forming the extremes of a very polarised spectrum of views).
Links to full articles “Palestinian Gunmen Kill Two Israelis in Cross-Border Attack” (VoA), “Palestinians in cross-border raid” (Al Jazeera) & “http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7338055.stm” (BBC). All covered the basic facts that 4 Palestinians attacked a boarder crossing and there was an exchange of fire in which two were killed and two Israeli civilians also died, they also report the death of additional Palestinians in a car. It is quite enlightening to read the three side by side as each one has a different take. VoA alone introduces speculation from an Israeli General to suggest the attack may have been against a civilian target and describes the car as a getaway car. Al Jazeera opens with Israel’s shelling of Gaza city in response to the attack and the civilian casualties; it also plays up the Israel laying the blame on Hamas for not controlling the attack – which seems to have been by Islamic Jihad - and "there are reports of a state of emergency being declared along the Gaza border" not mentioned by the others.
The BBC decouple the helicopter strike on the car (getaway car) from the attack “Later, Israeli aircraft hit a vehicle in Gaza City which the military said had been carrying Islamic Jihad militants had taken part in the attack.” They also covered Islamic Jihad’s statement that the attack was to capture Israel soldiers and breaking the Israel blockade of the Gaza strip and Israel’s assertion “Israeli officials from the army and the government say the militants targeted this point along the border because they wanted to disrupt fuel supplies into Gaza and thereby create a civilian crisis.”

Putting all three together it appears four Islamic Jihad fighters attacked Nahal Oz crossing with a view to capturing Israeli soldiers using light arms, in the process they killed two Israel civilians, who worked at the crossings fuel depot. Israeli returned fire with a tank killing two and causing the others to flee. Israel then used artillery and a missile from a helicopter to attack those it felt responsible. Much beyond that seems to be speculation and not even this much is certain.

A P.S.
Fox also covered this but, unlike the others, used an AP reporter rather than in house. The piece linked Islamic Jihad to Iran, described the Israel civilian dead as riddled with bullets and had an interesting take on Hamas winning the elections in Gaza "But tensions have been increasing in Gaza, whose 1.4 million people have been confined to the territory since Hamas wrested control last June from security forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas." but all in all a reasonable piece.

[George L. Singleton]

I have been following this thread and have found it a little confusing which may be due to my inability to speak, or read, Arabic. How different is Al Jazeera’s English output from their Arabic output? I have a TV package that gives me Fox news, BBC news and Al Jazeera but not VoA. I tend to get my news online, so do not watch any regularly, but have found the BBC and Al Jazeera similar and reasonably balanced (I tend to watch more Al Jazeera as they have more – and more in-depth - Africa & ME coverage). I occasionally watch Fox to see how a story is being packaged for a US audience but – having been brought up on BBC journalism – find it hard to stomach. I am used to seeing the moderator, in a discussion with politicians from opposing parties, trying to crack the weaknesses in both spokesman’s arguments not feeding soft questions to one and helping the other attack his opponent. Having no experience with VoA I have been reading, and watching, some of their output from their site over the last few days and find it much closer to BBC/Al Jazeera than Fox. In one discussion, on recent events in Basra, I thought they had a well balanced discussion including showing President Bush’s comments, which were criticised by all for showing a lack of understanding of what was going on.
If the complaint about VoA is that it is not overtly biased enough then those making that case must realise that a BBC like position will already viewed as ‘Western biased’ and trying to broadcast raw propaganda will just leave the VoA preaching to the converted. Might it not be more productive to look at the other sides arguments – which are being used to radicalise Muslims – and if they are false counter them. Better still adjust US foreign policy to make it harder for your opposition by giving them fewer easy targets and shooting yourself in the foot less often.

MountainRunner:
I read the Terrorist vs Freedom Fighter stuff and thought the explanation by the editors was unsurprising and the norm. I am not sure what other position they could possibly take unless their mandate changed to just re-broadcast White House press releases without any pretence at being a general news source. You are never going to win an Arabic audience by just saying Hamas & Hezbollah are beyond the pail because the US has put them on a terrorist list but the IDF (or even Abbas) are the good guys because we give them guns and money.
P.S. I loved the video very funny – and probably a fair reflection of how the rest of the world see the US’s attempts at democratising them – but I see that the VoA may not be happy if some of their staff were involved in its making.

1. Thank you note from a Marine lst Lt. Platoon Leader in Afghanistan about Voice of America, etc. His Dad and I grew up together in TN and he was a classmate with one of my three daughters at Vanderbilt. This Marine and his platoon had just finished a tour in Iraq were on ship enroute to USA and ship was turned around and they were taken back to be airlifted into Afghanistan, a new tour, with no home leave. Good spirits and dedicated young Marines! George Singleton

Colonel SIngleton,

Thank you so much for your letter and kind words and for including me on your emails. I read your article in 'Military Officer' and am extremely thankful for your work overseas through writing and media. I agree with you that we must convince all peoples around the world what we are here to do - not to conquer, but to rid the world of dangerous terrorists who use intimidation and exploitation as their means of spreading their cause. I am hoping and praying that they will catch on.

I hope all is well with you and your family in Alabama. Where in Alabama do you live? My little sister lives in Birmingham (attending UAB graduate school) and I have numerous friends living throughout the state. All is well out here in Afghanistan. We just got our first rain today. Again, thank you and God bless.

Semper Fidelis,

2. This is response from PhD director of a major Pakistani university think tank in Lahore, Paksitan to Voice of America article I copied to him:

Thank you!

---=

Khalil Ahmad

3. From a friend who works out of Dubai, a video clip of interest:

I think this is the English version

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7d9_1206624103

4. From a friend now serving inside Afghanistan who is here from Bham...Spencer Bachus is our local US Congressman (Republican). He is referring to the VOA clip by CBS42 TV newman here in Bham of Monday which interviewed both me and Congressman Bachus about the article I am in pushing for VOA expanded funding, more, varied linguists, etc. Our Congressional delegation here in Alabama is lining up behind it 100%, to remind, in part because it is in the 9/11 Commission Report Recommendations, and they bipartisanly then and today say it is long ago overdue and needed.
George,
I had no problems opening it. Excellent tv news piece. Good luck to you and Spencer in trying to fund this critical weapon in the “War on Terror”.

Jack



5. In response to reading the MOAA OFFICER MAG April 2008 article which I focused on Voice of America here is my friend, the retired Chief of Staff and Chief of all Navy SEALS response in part (named edited, but not rank):

Way to go George!!!, But the article doesn't do your letter writing campaign justice.... Great PHOTO though, just as I pictured you !! Thanx for your continued service...
Keep Charging ! XXXXX , Rear Admiral, US NAVY (Ret)

6. From another friend now serving in Afghanistan on Voice of America MOAA OFFICER MAGAZINE article focus on VOA, I have omitted his name to protect him, too.

George,

Good article. I have read with interest your letters to the Peshawar FRONTIER POST and agree that we need to do a much better job in the propaganda war that we really are losing over here. The Afghans that I work with appear to truly appreciate the work that we have jointly accomplished over here. However, the senior leadership of both the Afghan Army and the Afghan Police are for the most part corrupt and incompetent. Hopefully, the next generation will break the cycle of ignorance and intolerance that pervades this country, but I have my doubts.

_______________________



I am tired, and need to hit the sack, was on the road all day. But, let me summarize by saying I hear all the time from both those who know me and those who have only read what I write or what others have written about me.

One regular correspondent to me since 9/11, saw my letters in Peshawar FRONTIER POST and Karachi DAWN as I started my singular propaganda campaign, is the European Treasurer for the JKLF/UK. That is the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front, which is peaceful, rather uniquely. He is ethnically I think a Pakhtun himself, but born in UK. His Dad was born in Kashmir.

The range and variety of people I hear from are from Muslim academia, business, military, you name it, out of Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Russia (yes, Russia), Iran, UAE, and from Europe as well as overseas Muslims here in the US and Canada. I am very weary from the free work I do workload that has built up since 9/11 and want VOA to hire the right linguists, and do their job of the best anti-terrorist propaganda program in the world.

For those who say what would or will VOA talk about, go read on the Internet what VOA talked to the Communists about from 1945 until the Soviet Union and old East European Communist nations collapse. Themes are going to be similar, but VOA will have to delve into religious ideology to be effective.

My life has been threatened numerous times from the NWFP "zone" where I am the only non-Muslim writer on Hujra Online, which part of the Khyber Watch.com website. Only mention this cause the truth, I use facts and data that can be verified on/from the Internet, angers the enemy who are into all our sites, likely including this one, Small Wars Journal. But I hope SWJ is enemy free, but you never know today.

[George L. Singleton]

Thank you for your detailed analysis of Republican US Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma views on the future of the Voice of America.

Senator Coburn was a supporter of former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson's bid for the presidential nominaiton, where here in my state I was a candidate to have been, past tense, a Thompson pledged delegate to the Republican National Convention this Sept.

While I disagree with and hated to see two term US Senator Bill Frist leave the Senate recently, he, like Coburn, like Thompson, advocated and practiced self imposed term limits.

I disagree with the term limits ideology as it thins out what I most want in Congress, depth of experience and committee senority.

Back to Voice of America.

Along with your good review of Senator Tom Coburn's views and suggestions on how to improve the operation(s) of Voice of America and the Broadcasting Board of Governors there is another track or set of ideas on how to improve the media image and process during our war on terror in a Feb. 2008 article in the SMALL WARS JOURNAL, which I cite and quote in part here:

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/200...zational-cu-1/

"The enemy video tapes operations and then distorts and twists the information and images to misinform the world. What if we had documented video footage of the same operations which refuted what our enemies say? By the way, that is not enough, we have to get our images out FIRST! The first images broadcast become reality to viewers. If we wait until we see the enemy’s images, we are being reactive and we have already squandered the opportunity.

Frontier 6 is Lieutenant General William B. Caldwell, IV, Commanding General of the Combined Arms Center at Ft. Leavenworth, Kansas, the command that oversees the Command and General Staff College and 17 other schools, centers, and training programs located throughout the United States. The Combined Arms Center is also responsible for: development of the Army's doctrinal manuals, training of the Army's commissioned and noncommissioned officers, oversight of major collective training exercises, integration of battle command systems and concepts, and supervision of the Army's Center for the collection and dissemination of lessons learned."

For further discussion here is where I come from on Voice of America:

1. It is easy to find fault with anybody or anything in life.

2. Constructive criticism, which Senator Tom Coburn offers, per your good posting, is good and helpful.

3. However, I am unsure that just as on this site many readers and responders within the US seem less familiar with PSYOPS and public relations vs. spin. Others on this site seem upset by OPSEC constraints which I for one generally agree with in war time.

4. This said, to me the war on terrorism is an ideological, long term, 100 years or more war where a radicalized version of Islam is being pushed on the rest of Islam and the rest of the entire world right now. This is a propaganda war, which is the long term war we have to fight and win.

5. Current military operations and suggestions such as Lt. General Caldwell make above (as noted) are battlefield point in time suggestions which should not be confused with policy making. In fact I think Lt. General Caldwell is asking for sheer disaster in his suggestions of his third point involving use of on the battleground soldiers to be "photo journalist" whose job and purpose is to fight, not be cinematographers.

6. Policy making is done by those elected to make public policy at the Presidential level, with the advice and consent where appropriate of the US Senate along with appropriate House oversight.

7. There always has been and will always be a need for secrecy in matters of national security. Do you see Al Qaida or the Taliban handing out outlines weekly to the media on what their next military moves will be?

Another comment: I have in the past 24 hours found an overseas website which has members both in the NWFP/FATA/Afghanistan/as well as Islamic members in Canada reading and commenting on their webiste about SWJ discussions from last weekend on this site. All people on the Islamic site (KhyberWatch/Hujra Online) are not our enemies, but some definitely are. A fyi item to think about when writing on this SWJ site in a time of war.

[George L. Singleton]

http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008...s-and-why.html

The above is not an official site of the Voice of America, but is basically a blog site for views and opinions about and on VOA and related topics. Some, but not all, of the comments on this blog (few are visible) are of the character of: "A neighbor's son's friend who served in Iraq told me, so it must be so."

A background writer on Smith-Mundt has his own site, listing his long term acquired international law credentials (he comments in articles on various blogs about Smith-Mundt) found at:

http://new.stjohns.edu/academics/gra...rofiles/Borgen

Finally, an article by Mr. Borgen giving his overview and opinions of Smith-Mundt is found at:

http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1196450664.shtml

These sites are found from Mountain Runner's posting "When history repeats itself" dealing with those aspects of the Voice of America as governed under Smith-Mundt which prohibits VOA broadcasts overseas to international audiences being broadcast back into the US, translated back into English.

Smith-Mundt and the Battle for Hearts and Minds
by Chris Borgen

Matt Armstrong, who blogs at MountainRunner, has a thought-provoking guest-post over at Small Wars Journal on the Smith-Mundt Act, which is commonly understood as having intended to prevent blowback of propaganda intended for foreign audiences back into the U.S. Here’s an example from the act concerning the Voice of America (VOA). Section 501(a) of the Act provides that nformation produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States ... but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.

I in part replied to some of Matt Armstrong's earlier last week comments, which are edifying to me for one, on more detailed history of Voice of America's historic operating legislative governance or guidance under law.

I do wonder what double standards Al Jazeera may be using since 9/11, as the Internet general references every few years, now just in the last less than 12 months, keep noting that Al Jazeera is reinventing itself.

VOA being publicly funded with a long history out there for all to see at:

http://www.voanews.com/english/about/VOAHistory.cfm

VOA a 9/11 Commission Report list of recommendations to pursue which involves more and better funding and I throw in, again, my two cents, use of more specific language broadcasts which I for one prefer be on TV into Afghanistan, Iran, Paksitan, to include the NWFP and FATA in particular.

If Matt Armstrongand others have been concerned at Smith-Mundt interpretations, use of more TV Voice of America broadcasts should just "step over" those issues as TV broacasts can in general be picked up from satellites and viewed simultaneously anywhere in the world, simultaneous to the TV broadcasts in native languages/dialects intended and the primary receipients of same.

Mountain Runner is much better than I am at formatting his postings here and merely clicking on several of his key words gets you most of the above Internet references I have decided to spell out in hopes of getting less interested readers on this top in SWJ to consider looking at the good background researched sites made possible not by me but by Mountain Runner, Matt Armstrong. Thanks, Matt, for your hard work and good research.

[George L. Singleton]

I was a bit surprised about an hour ago to find the SWJ discussion of Voice of America vs. Al Jazeera being posted almost moment by moment as we dialgoue herein.

That said, I have between business events (I still work for a living) found several Internet open to everyone sites that amplify this discussion.

Understand my premise is that we need to better fund and utilize Voice of America, especially at the current time into the NWFP of Pakistan and into Afghanistan as a part of what is loosely meant by the 100 year war, which to me means a propaganda war revolving around religious extremist terrorist Islamics vs. the rest of Islam and the rest of the world's all other faiths.

1. Here is the best discussion I can find for now on why VOA needs to be done better, all this of course building from the 9/11 Bipartisan Commission Report recommendation to build up and use more effectively Voice of America:

http://www.defenddemocracy.org/usr_d...fAmerica_2.pdf

2. Here are a series of stories on the open Internet related to Al Jazeera, but pay special attention to the one about Al Jazeera being blatantly rascist, as a response to it was erased [by someone who controls these Internet entries] as I started open and read it:

http://www.truveo.com/aljazeera-chan.../id/2460008808

3. One of many examples where Al Jazeera has developed information on film useful to our enemies, the Taliban and al Qaida, which Al Jazeera and this very liberal website [source is copied below of this article] have tried to deny. "Loose lips sink ships" still applies today. This story is dated in 2006:

http://www.internews.org/pubs/afghan...12_jfr_09.shtm

Al-Jazeera TV reporter arrested by CFC-A:

According to Mohamad Sediq, administrator of Al-Jazeera TV network in Kabul, one Al-Jazeera reporter (Waliullah Shaheen), his cameraman (Saeed Naser) and their driver (Mohammad Agha) were arrested by the CFC-A (Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan) in Wazir Mohammad Akbar Khan while filming in the vicinity of Camp Eggers in Kabul. They were interrogated in cold weather under snow falling for almost an hour, their equipment was confiscated and the individuals were then taken to the 10th department of police in Kabul.

The Media Relation officer of the CFC-A, Lt. Mike Cody, told Media Watch: “Combined Forces Command-Afghanistan personnel reported to the scene saw evidence that security features had been filmed. As a result of the incident, CFC-A withdrew the credentials of the reporters involved.”

Ground rules for credentialed reporters specify that photography showing levels of security at military installations may not be published. Likewise, signs at the gate nearest to the incident warn, in three languages (English, Dari and Pashto) that photography is not allowed. He rejected the allegation of the Al-Jazeera TV production crew who said they were investigated in cold weather under snow falling for a long time. Mohammad Sediq denied having filmed prohibited areas and he added: “our reporters were 50 meters away from the signs saying “photography is not allowed.""

The 10th department of police released Waliullah Shaheen and his colleagues after four hours detention.

It is worth mentioning that their equipment was returned to them after one week, and their credentials (identification documents) have still not been returned to them.

4. Another 2008 Al Zazeera internet news site very unfriendly and many alleged facts being untrue as regards the US and her allies regarding the war on terrorism:

http://www.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F...7EA9DAD30F.htm

5. A December, 2007 Internet site story/allegation of a break between al Qaida and Al Jazeera. You had to first have Al Jazeera as the primary propaganda promotion system of al Qaida to then have had a break.

http://www.stratfor.com/memberships/107762

6. This is the sort of untrue junk, lies, we get from the NEW YORK TIMES. Story dateline is 2001. Here is what Public Law says about Voice of America and I ask you to note in particular #3 in it's three part charter:

"The VOA Charter (Public Law 94-350) requires that broadcasts (1) be accurate, objective, and comprehensive; (2) represent all segments of American society and present a balanced and comprehensive view of significant American thought and institutions; and (3) clearly present the policies of the United States."

For VOA Charter story see: http://www.bbg.gov/bbg_aboutus.cfm

For NEW YORK TIMES warped and misrepresented story about Voice of America from 2001 article see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...53C1A9679C8B63

In summary, the US needs a pro-active 100 years ideological war Voice of America in all releveant and related dialects and languges as laid out in the above charter. We cannot rely on surrogates who have ideological sharp differences of a religious nature which is what the entire ideological differences of a terrorist and extremist nature are all about.

Now, watch the Internet at large, look for a new posting very fast, separate and apart from the posting(s) I have created this one posting to break away from. Interesting?