From today’s Al Kamen “In The Loop”:

An odd job posting floated by recently from “a leading international organization” looking for a director of communications in Washington. Sounds like a pretty good opportunity. You’d “lead and conduct public affairs and outreach programs in the U.S. and worldwide.” One part of your job would be “providing expert advice to senior officials on public affairs, communications, and outreach strategy.”

Curiously, the organization isn’t identified. Neither, much more important, is the pay range. Is it one of the spook folks? The CIA? DIA? NSA?

No, it’s just the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which oversees the government’s radio and television outlets, such as Voice of America and Radio Marti.

Why the secrecy? We’re told this is increasingly done these days in government to cast a wider net for applicants. Really, really, wide. (This job, if you want it, is a Senior Executive Service, Level I, max pay about $172,000 a year.)

Meanwhile, the agency is also minus a chairman because the current one, James K. Glassman, who took over just a year ago, was sworn in yesterday as public diplomacy czar at the State Department. Glassman will be on the BBG board, but only as delegated by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. There are two other vacancies on the eight-member board.

Having once held a similar position at the BBG, I can tell you that $172,000 is, well, quite a lot of money.  The price of “expert advice” keeps going up.

Fascinating tidbit in Roll Call’s “Heard on the Hill” column.  The topic: Al-Jazeera covering the State of the Union address (we wrote about it previously here).  Here’s “Heard on the Hill”:

But a few Members did take a turn in front of Al-Jazeera’s lens. HOH spotted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) doing an interview, and the producer says Reps. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) also appeared before the network’s cameras Monday night.

Sanders tells HOH he’s willing to talk to any news outlet, including Al-Jazeera and even - gasp - Fox News. “They might have their own point of view, but I am free to speak my mind,” he tells HOH. “I think it’s appropriate to talk to any news organization.”

Another reason Sanders might have been willing to appear on the network: It’s available via satellite all over the country but via cable in only a few areas - including on his home turf in Burlington, Vt., and in the cities of Sandusky and Toledo in Ohio.

Small presence indeed.  And with this tidbit in MediaGuardian …

Al-Jazeera’s troubled English language news channel is facing a “serious staffing crisis” after scores of journalists left or have not had contracts renewed amid claims of a revolt over working conditions.

… it’s worth pondering how much those members of Congress are helping prop up the struggling network.

We’re a bit puzzled today by this fascinating report in Red State:

How would you like to get the terrorists’ perspective on tonight’s State of the Union address?

Want Osama’s direct rebuttal? No, he won’t actually be giving the Democrats’ response to the State of the Union, but the Democrats have given his propaganda arm a prime seat for tonight’s State of the Union.

Check out the picture below. As you’ll see, Al-Jazeera gets not just any place, but their spot is just three to four steps away from the House Democratic Whip’s Office.

Here’s the picture Red State provides:

Quite a striking image.  The puzzle is, how could this happen?

The secret is pretty much out on Al Jazeera.  There are abundant “issues” with the network.  Having worked in international broadcasting — on America’s side — I’m quite familiar with them.  The one that always gets me is this: How did Al Jazeera observe the fourth anniversary of 9/11?  By showing the Michael Moore film “Fahrenheit 9/11.”
Let’s be clear: This is not a free speech issue.  Heck, they should be allowed to set up shop in the heart and center of our democratic institutions.  The best thing about allowing Al Jazeera into the Capitol Dome is the symbolism that we treasure freedom of speech in America — a value not widely shared among Al Jazeera’s target Middle East audience.  Who knows — one day maybe free speech will even make it big in the Arabic-speaking Middle East.  That’s what dreaming big is all about.
No, the issue — as Red State’s evidence shows — is Al Jazeera’s prominence.  So close to House leadership.  That’s the puzzling part.  Why the honored spot?  Were American-sponsored international broadcast outlets, like Voice of America or Al Hurra, allowed such access?  Was it staff oversight or staff intention?  A few answers, some sunlight, might alleviate our fears.

Ken Tomlinson, my old boss at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, gained more than a little notoriety in Washington thanks to the New York Times and Congressional Democrats and his small stable of Thoroughbred race horses. But I always think of him this time of year, and maybe enough time has passed that I can tell why.

Shortly before Christmas, 2003, I got a call a friend, a veterans activist from his time as an American POW in Vietnam. There was a shortage of telephone long-distance calling cards for military patients at the Walter Reed Army Hospital. This was a real crisis. He asked me to spread the word.

It was a Friday afternoon, and on my way out of the office I told Tomlinson about the call.

“Where’s the best place to buy telephone calling cards?” asked Tomlinson. We went in search an of office assistant who could find the answer to his question.

Tomlinson has a farm near Middleburg. He’s a big preservationist. He’s more contemptuous of the Republican politicians who he says enabled the permanent defacing of beautiful Loudon County than he is of the liberals who he says dominate public broadcasting.

But the next morning at 8 a.m. he was finding his way through a sprawling shopping complex near Dulles Airport looking for Sam’s Club. Inside, he asked a surprised clerk for a thousand dollars worth of telephone calling cards.

On Sunday he drove to Walter Reed where he located the small office that received donations. “I have some calling cards for your patients,” he told a young enlisted woman.

Not used to handling such a donation, she explained he would have to wait for a receipt.

“Don’t worry,” he said. “Just say anonymous.”

Tomlinson walked around the hospital for the next hour, thanking patients for their service.

Having worked in the area of public diplomacy and international broadcasting at the U.S. Broadcasting Board of Governors, we were intrigued this morning to read this Walter Pincus item in the Washington Post:

The State Department, departing from traditional public diplomacy techniques, has what it calls a three-person, “digital outreach team” posting entries in Arabic on “influential” Arabic blogs to challenge misrepresentations of the United States and promote moderate views among Islamic youths in the hopes of steering them from terrorism.

The department’s bloggers “speak the language and idiom of the region, know the culture reference points and are often able to converse informally and frankly, rather than adopt the usually more formal persona of a U.S. government spokesperson,” Duncan MacInnes, of State’s Bureau of International Information Programs, told the House Armed Services subcommittee on terrorism and unconventional threats on Thursday.

MacInnes’ entire testimony, which you can find here, is worth the read.  But this excerpt in particular stands out for exhibiting strategic and tactical appreciation for how the Web 2.0 world works:

The Digital Outreach Team was launched just one year ago as a pilot initiative to counter ideological support for terrorism. It employs Arabic speakers to post entries on influential Arabic-language blogs, challenging misrepresentations and providing accurate information about U.S. policy and American society. These bloggers speak the language and idiom of the region, know the cultural reference points and are often able to converse informally and frankly rather than adopt the usually more formal persona of a U.S. government spokesperson. This is a major departure from our previous ways of conducting public diplomacy. It requires both creativity and a new set of skills.

The cultural sensitivity that this approach affords has been very successful, but it is labor-intensive. We are currently in the process of expanding the original team of two Arabic bloggers to six, while also adding one Urdu and two Farsi (Persian) linguists. The team does not engage hardcore militant sites, but concentrates on mainstream sites with heavy traffic that discuss U.S. policy, such as BBC Arabic, Al-Jazeera Talk, and Elaph On-Line News. We are also exploring how we can use the applicability to our mission of new cyber-technologies such as Second Life and cell phone games to further advance our mission.

Second Life embraced by the State Department?  Bravo.

We’ve been skeptics of the old-school, traditional approach to public diplomacy, which essentially relegates the communications and information revolution to second-class citizen.  This testimony and this approach gives us — finally — some hope that the State Department will get it right.

Instapundit recently alerted us to a piece in the New York Sun about an alarming disruption in America’s pro-democracy efforts for Iran:

The former director of President Bush’s flagship democracy program for the Middle East is saying that the State Department has “effectively killed” a program to disburse millions of dollars to Iran’s liberal opposition.
In an interview yesterday, Scott Carpenter said a recent decision to move the $75 million annual aid program for Iranian democrats to the State Department’s Office of Iranian Affairs would effectively neuter an initiative the president had intended to spur democracy inside the Islamic Republic.

Near the bottom of the article, we read this:

The money for Iranian democrats increased significantly in 2006 to $75 million after Iran announced that it had begun to enrich uranium at its Natanz facility. But most of that money, $49 million, was designated for Voice of America’s Persian service and Radio Farda, an American funded Persian radio station that mixes news and popular music.

“If the program is just going to be expanding Voice of America and Radio Farda,” Mr. Carpenter said, “don’t brand it as the Iran democracy program.”

Actually, it does. The fact is, America’s international broadcasting efforts, for which I used to work, is a democracy program. It can be stand-alone, or it can work with other campaigns. Carpenter unecessarily separates international broadcasting from other pro-democracy efforts. All efforts work hand-in-hand. These aren’t isolated initiatives.

That point is made a bit differently but far more eloquently and subtly in today’s Washington Post in a piece by Robert Satloff, executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Satloff writes an intelligent and compelling critique of Karen Hughes’ tenure as the Bush Administration’s public diplomacy director.

Satloff suggests that with Hughes now out of the way, we can “focus on identifying, nurturing and supporting anti-Islamist Muslims, from secular liberals to pious believers, who fear the encroachment of radical Islamists and are willing to make a stand.” One element of his strategy? International broadcasting:

marshaling government resources — our embassies, aid bureaucracies, international broadcasting units and intelligence agencies, as well as our commercial, educational and civic relationships — to give anti-Islamists the moral, political, financial, technological and material support they need.

That’s the correct approach for supporting freedom around the world. A broad strategy, of which international broadcasting is one solid element.

Some intriguing logic going on in Wesley Clark’s e-mail letter campaign urging Congress to remove Rush Limbaugh from Armed Forces Radio Network.  Quite a daunting standard he’s suggesting we impose on taxpayer-funded speech.
Here’s Gen. Clark’s language:

Rush Limbaugh’s show is aired on Armed Forces Radio, which is funded by taxpayers’ dollars.

Fair enough.  But if the involvement of taxpayers’ money is the standard by which we block the broadcasting of differing and disagreeable opinion, wouldn’t Congress have long ago blocked funding of Voice of America?   In fact, in fulfilling its statutory mission, VOA broadcasts disagreeable content to other countries and other populations, not our own folks.

Clark also writes:

As a member of Congress, you can prevent Limbaugh from further disrespecting and censoring the voices of our soldiers on the military airwaves.

OK.  But if Congress is going to get in the middle of a content debate, might they also be urged to see that balance is  restored — heck, established — in public broadcasting, also a taxpayers’ expense?

When Karl Rove announced his departure, it rekindled memories I had with my former boss Ken Tomlinson’s relationship with Rove.  I asked Tomlinson to write about Rove’s interest in international broadcasting.  This is the result.

By Ken Tomlinson

Of all the subjects that Karl Rove really understands it will surprise many that international broadcasting is on the list.

“Is it surrogate broadcasting?”  That’s the question Rove always asks when assessing international broadcasting — and in the end that question should provide the standard for what we do.

The concept of surrogate broadcasting is deceptively simple.  Through solid research and reporting, surrogate broadcasting provides totalitarian and authoritarian societies information they would enjoy if their countries had a free press.

It’s not propaganda, dear to the hearts of so many émigré activists.  It’s not a call to arms to resist tyranny associated with Radio Free Europe’s broadcasts that may have played a role in sparking the ‘56 Hungarian Revolution.

Nor is it public diplomacy promoting the policies of the United States government, though this is an absolutely valid responsibility of a vital State Department component.  We don’t need to spend the resources required for surrogate broadcasting for societies that already enjoy a free press.

Surrogate broadcasting gives the people of Iran, for example, what they would enjoy if they could have the Iranian equivalent of the best of Fox News and MSNBC and CNN with the Weekly Standard and the New Republic thrown in.  Vital to its effectiveness is that the broadcasts must retain the ring of freedom associated with the kind of journalism that conveys information so that the people can make their own decisions.

Critics might find it difficult to associate a political master like Rove with such a idealistic concept of truth, but his roots are pure.   Rove’s knowledge is drawn from his service on the old U.S. Board for International Broadcasting where in the 1980s Steve Forbes and Lane Kirkland worked like brothers for a revitalized Radio Free Europe — an exercise that leaders like Poland’s Lech Walesa and Czechoslovakia’s Vaclav Havel believe was critical to winning the Cold War.   (I too served on this board.)

Forbes, the quintessential advocate of unfettered capitalism, and Kirkland, whose AFL-CIO stood for working men and women, were absolutely joined at the hip when it came to what Cold War broadcasting should be doing.

The key was not advocacy of U.S. policies.   It was providing the forbidden fruit of truth to information-deprived societies.  We couldn’t resemble the dogma of Soviet state radio.   The forbidden fruit was free and open debate and reporting events in such a way that truth, not advocacy, was the bottom line.

It may be hard for Washington to conceive of Rove, the political master, being dedicated to truth above determinism.   But just as Truman and Vandenburg found unity at the water’s edge, Forbes and Kirkland forged a partnership that freed RFE/RL of the traditional partisan conflicts that so often had interfered with the quality of its work in the past —- and would haunt its successors at the Broadcasting Board of Governors in the future.

But Rove understood that the RFE/RL of the 1980s worked because it reflected the standards of surrogate broadcasting.   Maybe one day this concept of international broadcasting might work again.

There is a personal footnote to all of this, When Rove informed me that I would be the new chairman of the BBG, he advised that I should best leave the board of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.   The BBG work, he understood, was too important to be intertwined with the natural political conflicts of domestic public broadcasting.

I felt I could not turn my back on those responsible for President Clinton appointing me to the CPB board.   I ignored Rove’s advice.

That would turn out to be the worst mistake of my life.

Tomlinson, the former editor-in-chief of Reader’s Digest, recently left the chairmanship of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

In our zeal to reduce the size and reach of government, we need to remember that some programs have worthy purposes.  International broadcasting is an example.  We pride ourselves on winning the cold war without firing a shot.  U.S. broadcasts spreading truth to the communist world was part of the winning strategy.  Now, U.S. international broadcasting plays a critical role in the war on terror.

One of the heroes of our broadcasting efforts — George Moore, deputy director of the International Broadcasting Bureau and a civil servant — just passed away.  Kenneth Tomlinson, my former boss and former chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which runs America’s international broadcasters such as Voice of America and Radio and TV Marti to Cuba, remembers George this way:

George Moore died yesterday.  He collapsed while working in his yard.

George had a remarkable ability to make things happen.  Surely one of the
finest managers we will ever know.  But more than that, he was a wonderful man.

I remember once when everyone in government woke up one day and realized we had done not enough to get the Marti signal into Cuba, and somewhere (surely not at the State Department) people decided the problem had to be the BBG.  The story is more complex than I am telling it, but I more or less convinced key people to put George in charge, really in charge, and that also meant inside the BBG front office.  Within months even people at State were saying BBG was leading the way.

Same could be said about Afghanistan and Iran and any of a number of places he touched.

I am convinced that he did not retire because he realized his strengths and recognized that only he could accomplish what needed to be done there.  His willingness and ability to close the antiquated shortwave stations to find resources for television and Internet literally paved the way for the most important international broadcasting developments of our time.  (If only he had been in charge of programming to the Arab world!)

In recent months, we nominated George for the highest award that can be given a government manger.  We will want to be sure he receives this recognition posthumously.

We were blessed to have known him.  International broadcasting will miss him
more than we can even contemplate.

Today’s Washington Post reports this:

A Rand Corp. report commissioned by the U.S. Joint Forces Command provides examples of how misinterpreted images have damaged the U.S. government’s credibility in Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations.

Shocking evidence of how American customs infuriate the rest of the world, and presumably instigate terror attacks against us, include this shameful episode in American history:

Let’s focus on the top image — the hook ‘em horns public diplomacy fiasco.  You know, old timers might remember the glory days of American history when obscene hand gestures actually produced good results for the rest of the world, such as the spread of freedom and democracy and truth.  I’m thinking specifically of that moment in 1983 when I attended a University of Maryland football game, got so disgusted at their inept play, mustered up the courage to yell “You Suck!,” then took the ultimate act: I displayed my middle finger.  Little did I realize then the proud freedom movement that one simple, elegant and quite bold act would spark: The next day, America invaded Grenada.