Where's the media when they are needed?

While Voice of America struggles with a discussion about whether it is still relevant, the answer seems to be staring them in the face.

VOA has always claimed to understand the information needs of African audiences?  So where are the special extended broadcasts WITH their partner stations to explain in as many languages as relevant why Ebola is so dangerous and what is being done to stop its spread. Al Jazeera has done some of the best reporting so far, but remember that TV in English doesn't reach those affected in West Africa. Radio is by far the most accessed medium in this area.



The specialists in this AJ documentary all conclude that information is as important as medical assistance in this case. But WHO is not a storyteller. And it doesn't speak local African languages.

To me, this could have been international broadcasting's finest hour. Instead VOA is just relaying Obama speeches and playing music. No context when it is needed.

People will remember the station that saved their life or those of love-ones. It is news you can use. And we keep forgetting that rumours kill. 

The audience numbers mystery

Twenty years ago, while leading the strategic reorganisation of content at Radio Netherlands, we were faced with the challenge of trying to set a list of priorities. Everyone could see the arrival of the Internet was already changing the way listeners communicated with the station. We had no WWW, but emails via MCI mail were flooding in. We were running bulletin boards like FIDO as part of experiments to understand our audience better. Unlike fan letters, listeners were giving us a clear insight into the topics that interested them and discussions that couldn't or were not happening on their local media.

We could also see the growth of satellite television, delivering a crystal clear picture into the living room using equipment priced similar to a good shortwave receiver. Could the existing station pivot in time to find new audiences?

We estimated that changes would take at least three years to implement. And we knew that any changes would be very painful to the whole organisation. because the station was operating in 9 languages. At that time, the station transmitted daily programmes in 7 languages (English, Spanish, Indonesian, Arabic, Brazilian Portuguese, French for Africa, and Dutch (World & a separate Caribbean service). There was also an extensive transcription service with excellent quality classical music, jazz as well as drama productions for Latin America and Africa.

Although it seems incredible today, measuring the audience feedback in 1994 was extremely hard. And how on earth could you begin a discussion about what audiences were expecting from a broadcaster in Western Europe if you didn't have accurate audience data? 

Annual reports from international broadcasters always quoted "Audience figures" - the cursed "weekly reach" used by larger broadcasters like BBC, Voice of America, and Radio Free Europe. We didn't dispute their figures. But we saw glaring mistakes when these colleagues tried to compare what they were doing with us. They were pushing radio programmes out via their own facilities in competition to local broadcasters. We were building partnerships WITH stations. Something completely different. But many of these local broadcasters didn't have any audience data, nor were they planning to start collecting it. They got huge reactions to live call-in shows though, which indicated that someone was listening. But for the most part, it was guesswork. Remember that the Internet in 1994 was in its infancy.

International broadcast colleagues were also focussed on building a brand name for their network. The name of the station was as important to get in the minds of listeners as the programme content. Why? Because if audience didn't remember the name of the station, you wouldn't show up in surveys. We were more interested in getting ideas across, so programme brands were more important than the network name - just as people remembered the names of compelling TV soap operas but never knew who produced it.

Once local/regional radio took off in Francophone Africa and Latin America, shortwave audiences plummeted. Brazil led the way, with television taking away almost all the international radio audiences. No-one really knew what was happening in the Amazon rain forest, but they weren't waiting for a daily hour broadcast from across the Atlantic. And in the Middle East or North Africa, we could see that unless you were on a powerful mediumwave sender (like the BBC had in Cyprus) there wasn't much hope of building measurable audiences if shortwave was all you had. We were working in markets where FM radio was already stealing audiences away from AM (medium and shortwave). FM sounded better and there were few car radios with reliable shortwave reception.

Big Numbers Today

Fast forward to the 2013 annual report of the US BBG, the body that coordinated US International government funded broadcasting. The BBG broadcasters claim that together they reached an estimated 206 million people each week in 2013, up from 175 million in 2012. Providing news and information in 61 languages across more than 100 countries, the audience estimate is an all time high — and represents a more than doubling of the 100 million people the broadcasters reached in 2000. 

The year-over-year increase of 31 million was fueled largely by increases in Latin America, where Voice of America adopted a new strategy of bascially being a free Washington news bureaux for selected stations in Latin America, and in Pakistan, where VOA’s Urdu service successfully launched new programming initiatives. But the increases also came as a result of BBG broadcasters offering content on more platforms. For the first time, the BBG’s television audience outweighed its radio audience – 110 million and 109 million, respectively. Further, the BBG’s digital and mobile audience increased to 22 million, up from approximately 12 million in 2012.

These weekly reach figures sound impressive. But remember that just under 7 billion people are not being reached by any of these stations. So there is plenty to do. I am also fascinated by this upward trend at BBG when audience ratings for TV news in the US are so abysmally low. What program formula has VOA or RFE discovered?

Affiliations and syndication continue to play a major role in reaching audiences worldwide. 65% of the BBG’s television audience and 45% of it’s radio audience is reached via affiliates. Not sure what proportion of the direct audience is thanks to shortwave radio. In countries like Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria I'm sure it's still important. But elsewhere, shortwave is increasingly irrelevant. It may deliver a clear signal - but no-one's listening up on that part of the dial.



BBG Broadcasters include Voice of America, Middle East Broadcasting Networks’ Alhurra and Radio Sawa, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

In terms of regional composition, 28% of the BBG’s audience comes from sub-Saharan Africa, with Europe/South-Central Asia next at 24%, South East Asia at 19%, Middle East/North Africa at 15% and Latin America at 14%.

Each estimate features year-over-year gains and losses in various countries as conditions change in the local market. For example, audiences have slid somewhat in Afghanistan and throughout much of the Middle East as the media market has become more crowded and competitive. Elsewhere, political turmoil can result in the loss of BBG affiliates or the ability to measure audiences altogether. It is, for example, not possible to research in Cuba, and some Central and South East Asia countries at the level needed to provide statistically sound audience estimates.

Largest Audiences by Country

Largest Audiences as a Percentage of Population

The data for the 2013 audience estimate come from surveys of adult (age 15+) populations in more than 90 countries conducted around the world over the past 5 years. More than 80% of these surveys were conducted with the previous two years. Additional information available at BBG.gov.

At Last, a vision for a way forward for US Global Media

In the current tide of vitriolic personal and very public battles that seem to have engulfed the US Broadcasting Board of Governors, it is refreshing to discover a new discussion paper with a different approach. In fact, it's a 24 page road-map which is a considered contribution to the discussion of where-to-next.  

While the content and methods of delivering America’s 24/7 conversation with the world have kept abreast with the 21st century, Wilson Center Senior Scholar A. Ross Johnson and retired Director of Audience Research and Program Evaluation at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty R. Eugene Parta argue in their new HAPP Occasional Paper, "A 21st  Century Vision for U.S. Global Media," the organization of U.S. International Broadcasting has not. It doesn't take long to read, especially if you know something about the history of US International broadcasting. 

What's Inside the Report?

In summary the report suggests:

United States International Broadcasting (USIB) is at a critical juncture as it faces new, 21st century challenges. This paper proposes a new vision for U.S. International Broadcasting in the 21st century: a single, non-federal, congressionally-funded broadcasting organization that unites the current six entities into one with a revitalized mission employing the latest technologies in an “audiences-centric” communications strategy. This reform will be essential to maintain an effective U.S. presence in an often hostile international media milieu to project American and Western values in support of freedom and democracy.
● New challenges facing USIB include transformed geopolitics in an increasingly multi-polar world, a highly complex international media environment with heightened competition from countries that do not share U.S. democratic values, and new technologies that have transformed the way nations and peoples communicate with each other.
● USIB’s Cold War role as a highly effective tool of U.S. “soft power” in the national interest has been widely acknowledged. Voice of America (VOA), Radio Free Europe (RFE) and Radio Liberty (RL) all made important contributions to the political, economic and social transformation of Eastern Europe and the USSR away from communist authoritarianism.
● The two-pronged Cold War communications strategy of “telling America’s story” (VOA) and providing a “surrogate free press focused on domestic issues” (RFE and RL) is no longer relevant in the new international media environment. Moreover, two USIB organizations, VOA and RFE/RL, have now grown to six (adding the International Broadcasting Bureau, Radio Free Asia, Radio and TV Marti, and the Middle East Broadcasting Network) with overlapping language services, duplicative management and support structures, and largely uncoordinated missions and operations. This hodge-podge of U.S. broadcast organizations, often competing among themselves, can no longer be defended on either mission-related or budgetary grounds and hampers a rational allocation of resources in line with American strategic priorities.
● The audiences-centric mission of the proposed new broadcasting organization is distinct from public diplomacy and from strategic communications. Those useful instruments of American soft power cannot be directly coordinated with USIB if the latter is to be viewed by intended audiences as a credible, objective source of news and analysis and thus justify taxpayer support as enhancing American national security.

That sign in the window in Bush House March 2012

I believe an audience-centric approach is the only way forward for international media of any kind. It's not new. That strategy was in the window on one corner of Bush House until the BBC moved out last year. It's a secret lost on government broadcasters, many of whom are focussed on who is paying the bills, and therefore calling the tune. As if the paymasters knew anything about audience needs.

The consistent comparison between Cold War and present is very useful. As a producer of a media show for Radio Netherlands, when it existed, I was always struck at how long Cold War mentalities have persisted in this branch of the business....often decades too long, until it's too late to change.

If you listen to Media Network report below that I produced in 1998 (it starts 3'21 seconds in to the Cutty Sark show) you hear all the same arguments and fears back then, that I heard resurface just a few weeks ago.

As successful as the Cold War Broadcasting model may have been, it is not readily applicable to the
current international media milieu.

There are important differences between the Cold War situation then and the present:

●1. Cold War: Closed target societies, with total regime control of domestic media.

●Present: Both government and private media now co-exist in most countries. Total gov-
ernmental control is rare; even North Korea is becoming exposed to outside information.11
Private media are widespread, although they often focus on entertainment and steer clear of
politics. Digital technologies have created information tunnels to other repressive societies,
including Iran, China, and much of the Arab world.

●2. Cold War: TV, radio, and press were the only media platforms, and of these usually only
radio—delivered by shortwave—could be directed from the outside.

● Present: Multiple media platforms are the new norm—the Internet, mobile telephones,
and satellite TV and radio have joined the traditional platforms.

●3. Cold War: Word of mouth was linked to Western radio listening, amplifying broadcast
content through limited personal networks.

●Present: Word of mouth is now electronic and has the potential to become “viral.” Email,
social media such as Twitter and Facebook, SMS messaging, ubiquitous mobile phone use,
and extensive use of blogs provide new opportunities for lightning-fast content amplification.

●4. Cold War: A general mistrust of domestic media on many sensitive topics was widespread
with somewhat more trust given to foreign media on some key issues, often involving a cri-
tique of official policies.

●Present: Widespread mistrust of most official media from any source, contrasts with greater
trust in peer-to-peer communication and crowd-sourcing using new social media technologies.

●Cold War: Strong motivations of publics to turn to outside media sources, usually to avail-
able shortwave radio, to be informed on both domestic and international news.

●Present: Less clear motivations in making media choices, with many available options,
both domestic and foreign. Radio is a less important platform than during the Cold War
in many countries. Internet and satellite technology have now largely supplanted shortwave
radio and the special receivers and antennas and listener patience it required.

●5. Cold War: Frequent heavy jamming hampered shortwave reception but also contributed
to a “forbidden fruit” attraction of the broadcasts, strengthening listeners’ motivation to hear
information their governments went to great lengths to deny them.

●Present: Most, but not all, broadcast target areas are un-jammed, with China, Cuba,
Ethiopia, Iran and North Korea being exceptions. These are the only areas where some inter-
national broadcasting still carries a “forbidden fruit” attraction. Little wholesale blockage of
the Internet takes place anywhere. Selective filtering is more common, but circumvention
technologies and techniques make this increasingly difficult. Regimes that choose to shut
down or filter the Internet often have to contend with the costs of collateral damage to other
vital systems—e.g., banking, business, security.

●6. Cold War: No access was possible to domestic media outlets, such as FM radio, for inter-
national broadcasters. Short wave (and limited medium wave, AM) transmission from abroad
was the only viable platform.

●Present: Growing access worldwide to domestic media outlets, though this access is
sometimes unreliable in practice. The best example is the former Soviet Union where the
number of VOA and RFE/RL FM affiliates has dropped under government regulatory pres-
sure from 97 to 0. The greater the need for local FM broadcasting affiliates, the less likely
they are to be available.

●7. Cold War: Western radio had a clearly defined niche in a restricted media environment in the
broadcast target countries, making it easier to differentiate it from other media to assess impact.

●Present: It is considerably more difficult to gauge the impact of a single medium in a
highly complex media environment. Nearly all audiences, including many inside repressive
countries, have media choices. A single dish, legal or illegal, can routinely bring in hundreds of TV channels and even Internet connections. New methods for determining audience preferences and assessing media impacts will need to be developed to determine the effectiveness of USIB.

What do I think about all this?

• USIB as a single independent entity could make much more use of access to other resources which broadcasters are often blind to. I would argue that the goal should be to set up US International Media, a trusted independent foundation. It does anything that is necessary to ensure that citizens of the world have access to intelligent thoughts, ideas and discussions.
• Governments talk with other governments, people share ideas with people. Government broadcasters are notorious for being boring, partial and putting the information needs of audiences at the bottom of the list of priorities. For many in the industry, the goal has become a pension not a Pulitzer.
• Isolated communities are the most dangerous communities of all, because we all need conversations and discussion to survive. That's why solitary confinement is the biggest punishment for a living individual. And why communities that are isolated become very subject to influence from extremist views. I believe it is instructive to apply the lessons learned in other sectors.
• I find it incredible that if you look at Thomas Barnett's discussion of the Pentagon's New Map from 2004,  how this applies to the role of international media in 2013 - Connecting the disconnected through dialogue, because isolated communities are becoming disillusioned and dangerous.
• There are areas of the world where access is blocked by local government, for whatever reason. These are the targets where the US needs to focus on its broadcast strategy - using any relevant mix of media that the audience is already using.

Dr Kim Andrew Elliott has added his comments to the paper on his site. I would add a fifth conclusion on page 13.

Commercial media does indeed have an agenda - Its job it to deliver audiences to advertisers. Nothing wrong in that. But there is so much that it doesn't cover.

But there are also public/NFP institutions who are curating extensive knowledge collections relevant to foreign audiences. Rather than trying to do everything themselves, USIB/USIM should be tapping in to these resources through partnering. Especially as a lot of the material is in the public domain. It needs to be professional curated and made accessible. If USIM thought broader than broadcasting, then resources such as FORA TV, Ted.com, MIT, Udacity, Public Library of Science, Smithsonian, Archive.org, Library of Congress, etc suddenly become part of the equation.

USIM would focus on its role in news, analysis and explanation. But it could also be the curated gateway in which people of other cultures get a greater understanding of America's knowledge and cultural role in the world. Whereas a lot of this material is accessible in English, USIM would focus on providing access for selected communities in relevant, local languages. It could put important global issues into context, acting as a catalyst for conversation.

And reasoned conversation inside their societies seems to be what failed governments and extremists fear the most.

US Elections - Romney still Rich

Clever parody. Dipped in to several alternative bits of coverage. Thought the New York Times had a rather poor vodcast service - basically a camera in the newsroom. No expense was spared - it didn't seem to be much of priority with people yapping in the background as though the podcast was a distraction.

Washington Post faired better. Volkskrant, a national newspaper here in the Netherlands was really awful - not sure why they bothered. When it comes to making video, they clearly have no clue whatsoever.





No labels on the Volkskrant pieces, so apparently we're not supposed to find it. Found some of the material on the Voice of America site to be of value, explaining how the system works - Never understood how complex it all is. But the No Agenda Show predicted the outcome more than a month ago. A close shave? Rubbish. 

Remembering Greenville as Grimesland

I note that the US Broadcasting Board of Governors has been quick to point out that they continued to operate despite the ferocious storm that hit the East Coast this week.

The only active shortwave site remaining is in North Carolina. We used to call it Greenville. Because, at one time, they would sign off by identifying the transmitter site as such. Now, with the rededication of the site, back in May 2012, Greenville has become Grimesland.

Africa's Mobile Radio Conundrum

This is an interesting new report and useful resource, but I still think there is a confusion surrounding listening to audio on phones. Voice of America audio, referred to in the article is obviously coming to the user in rural Africa over the phone network because phones don't have AM/SW receivers built in to them. 

One line in the Nigeria media survey by Gallup commissioned by the US BBG (that Clayton Powell also refers to) particularly caught my eye.

Additionally, a growing number of mobile phone users (39%) in the north of Nigeria have used phones to listen to radio in the last week.

That prompts my question.

Are they listening to local radio programming via analogue FM using the radio module that in installed in about 30% of all the feature/smart phones that you find across West Africa? This would incur no cost.

Or are they listening to audio by dialling a (toll-free) number and listening to audio material distributed over the GSM network. This is similar to what Deutsche Welle is doing with its Learning by Ear program. Although this doesn't require a local partner, the listener does have to pay something towards the cost of the call, the audio quality is limited (sounds like AM to me) and it is not a shared experience. You are not hearing it at the same time as others are hearing it, so rather useless for sports and live events coverage.


When it comes to general listening to local and national radio, I believe many people are still listening to the FM radio in their mobile because it doesn't use any costly bandwidth and it provides entertainment in local languages. Why carry around a separate device, when the phone does the job perfectly?. The mobile is also an instrument for doing business. You can't do mobile payments or talk to customers over your FM radio. 

This trend is concerning international broadcasters like VOA though because they don't have direct access to the local FM radio waves for factual programming. That's why they have traditionally used AM radio (either medium or shortwave) because that can be beamed in directly to listeners from another country. But the AM bands aren't used by local broadcasters and increasingly listeners are not searching these parts of the dial for something interesting to listen to.

So all this talk about mobile phone replacing radio is confusing the device with the medium. And that's leading to confusion amongst content makers as to what formats are the most effective. Is the market for long form debate and discussion disappearing from major urban markets in Africa because listeners are being asked to pay for content in the form of mobile phone data charges? I don't think so - although I would agree that the format of the radio show needs to include listeners far more than in the past. Audiences want to participate at a much higher level than ever before. Those who ignore this input will simply see their audiences dwindle. 



So what am I missing here?

Forgotten Post - the BBG?

The US Bureau of Broadcast Governors which overseas all federal and private international broadcasting like VOA, Radio Marti,  Radio Free Asia and RFE/RL. There are actually some interesting sessions to be found of the BBG Strategy Site, but I don't think anyone knows, judging by the number of views on YouTube.

Also the BBG has commissioned extensive studies in Burma, discovering a rapid rise in the popularity of FM Radio. This follows the same pattern as in other countries (like most of Eastern Europe). VOA seems to have gotten some stations in Burma to carry English language lessons presented in Burmese. But news and current affairs programmes are still some way off. Again that video doesn't seem to have been discovered. The problem is that it's not in context on YouTube.

Dial a News Bulletin - is it working I wonder?

So what happens if you're a radio station broadcasting to a country and your local FM relays get yanked for political reasons or because you can't afford the carriage fees. You respond by offering a news bulletin service via the phone. Everyone has a phone right? True. There are more phones than radios out there. But what doesn't work is putting radio on the phone. Mali1 is a case in point.

Screen capture of the Mali 1 site

It's a phone service set up by the French for Africa service of US government broadcaster Voice of America because it can't get an FM signal into Mali at the moment. They tell people to go to the website where they can stream or download the news bulletin. That means you need a phone with web access to find it.

To be fair, they have recently changed the website to make it much easier to navigate on a small screen than a couple of weeks back. I don't understand why they tell people to listen to Mali 1 at 1530 UTC. They mean the bulletin is refreshed at 1530 daily. Mali is on UTC, so I'd just say Mali time.

My beef is with the audio. Listeners are paying for the call in some way (either bandwidth or time) so why bother to put a jingle in the bulletin? And the correspondents reports from Mali by mobile phone need to be revoiced. Once they have been compressed again down to such a small bandwidth they are often unintelligible. And I'd normalise the audio file, rather like putting Optimod on an FM signal. The examples I listened to were difficult to understand under my ideal listening conditions,  let alone in troubled Mali.

This kind of service is clearly a medium of last resort. So how does that explain Radio France Internationale's phone service in the USA? I'm sure that nobody needs to call that number to pay to hear someone reading news over the phone. Reminds me of Dial-a-Disc in the UK in the 1960's. You dialled 160 and a song would play repeatedly. Was more useful later when the music was replaced with cricket scores.

Hilary Clinton Cuts some new jingles for Russia Today & Al Jazeera

Hilary Clinton had some interesting remarks when she testified on funding for US State Departent programs and foreign policy priorities March 2nd. The most telling comments came when she appeared to be off script. Note her remarks about how the US has basically one main competitor in the world - China, almost exactly 41 minutes into the session.



For those of us following international broadcasting affairs, the remarks that start 50 minutes into the session are one of several remarkable comments during this long session.




It looks to me like the State Department and US International Broadcasting are doing all kinds of uncoordinated activities all connected with "new media". You don't want to sit through 2 hrs 40" of testimony, but there are some interesting highlights if you can manoeuvre through the rather erratic  C-SPAN player.


(45'54") We hear about websites for entrepreneurs running in Egypt.


(50'52") We learn that the US is engaged in an information war.


“In fact viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news. You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners,” she added.


Clinton said that the US has dropped the ball since the Cold War, when VOA and others US broadcasts were influential. “We have not really kept up with the times,” Clinton argued.


“We are in information war and we cannot assume that this youth bulge that exists not just in the Middle East but in so many parts of the world really knows much about us. I mean we think they know us and reject us, I would argue the really don’t know very much about who we are,” she said, noting that America’s legacy of the Cold War, World War Two, and President Kennedy are lost on newer generations.


Clinton’s State Department has tried to keep up, especially on social media, where this year they have started Tweeting in Arabic, Farsi, and other languages.  “Al Jazeera is winning. The Chinese have opened up a global English language and multi-language television network, the Russians have opened up an English language network (Russia Today, or RT which they call themselves now). I’ve seen it in a couple of countries and it’s quite instructive.”


They must have been "high fiving" it in Doha and Moscow with endorsements like that!  Even though Clinton didn’t name names, she was placing the blame for “ceding what we are most expert in to somebody else” on every administration since Reagan, including that of her husband. But what really struck me were the offhand comments much later in the testimony, when she revealed that the competition is really with the Chinese. That struck home bearing in mind the 36000 Chinese that were in Libya until the uprisings compared to Westerners. I'm wonder who's responsible for the destruction of a Chinese oil installation in Libya? 


According to the LA Times, and several other sources, China has evacuated an estimated 36,000 of its workers from war-torn Libya, chartering buses, sending jetliners, even dispatching its navy to escort civilian rescue vessels. Beijing state-controlled media have trumpeted the effort as a sign of China's strength. But China's deep involvement with the North African dictatorship has also exposed a vulnerability in the world's second-largest economy. China is now the third-largest buyer of Libyan crude behind Italy and France. European and American oil firms have worked in Libya for years, but their governments have long sought to punish Kadafi for terrorist ties. Meanwhile, China has stuck to a hands-off policy it has dubbed "non-interventionism."