The World Service at 80: The Ambivalence of International Broadcasting

The BBC World Service is celebrating its 80th anniversary today.  I was wondering what to say about this when I heard the Director of the Service, Peter Horrocks being interviewed on the domestic service Radio 4.

In commenting on the continuing relevance of the service he pointed to the Iranian government’s jamming of the service and harassment of the families of Persian service staff

 ’…it’s because the Iranian government sees it as such a threat.  And in a report from the Iranian government, it described it as so dangerous because it’s impartial not because it’s propagandist or oppositionist but because it tells the truth as it is.’

This is simultaneously an impeccable statement of a liberal theory of journalism and  a state funded  broadcaster boasting about upsetting a foreign government that he’s been pointed towards  by the Foreign Office.

This sums up the history of the World Service in a couple of lines.

Happy Birthday!

You can listen to the whole interview here

Press TV and the Regulation of International Broadcasting

A quick comment on the decision of OFCOM the UK communications regulator to revoke the license of the Iranian international  broadcaster Press TV  A lot of  contemporary international broadcasting depends on platforms  (VHF radio, cable TV, national satellite TV) that are under the control of the country they are broadcasting to.

This creates a double problem. The international broadcaster is subject to a regulatory regime that is primarily designed to enforce national broadcasting priorities. This creates the risk that the international broadcaster will fall foul of their license terms.  On the other hand an effort by the regulator to enforce license terms will like be perceived as a political action not as a regulatory.  Press TV has pointed to British and American government concerns about its operations in the Cablegate files which record a meeting between the US Embassy and the Foreign Office

¶4. (S) While lodging complaints at the ITU has symbolic value, Turner said her government recognizes the body has no enforcement authority. Therefore, HMG is looking at other ways to address the issue. HMG is exploring ways to limit the operations of the IRIB’s Press TV service, which operates a large bureau (over 80 staff) in London. However, UK law sets a very high standard for denying licenses to broadcasters. Licenses can only be denied in cases where national security is threatened, or if granting a license would be contrary to Britain’s obligations under international law. Currently, neither of these standards can be met with respect to Press TV, but if further sanctions are imposed on Iran in the coming months, a case may be able to be made on the second criterion.

¶5. (S) In the immediate term, HMG plans to lobby the French government to approach Eutelsat and press it to drop IRIB broadcasts from the Hotbird satellite. The IRIB broadcasts several channels from the satellite, both domestically (even most terrestrial TV channels in Iran are dependent on a satellite and repeaters) and internationally, so it is an important source of income for Eutelsat. While it would be unlikely for the company to agree to drop the IRIB broadcasts spontaneously, Turner believes it would be susceptible to an approach by the French government because of the cover it would gain from complying with an official government request. HMG would appreciate USG engagement with the government of France on this issue.

It could be argued that the operations of Press TV should be treated in political terms for instance by insisting on reciprocity in the treatment of international broadcasters. Press TV should be restricted in its operations as long as Western broadcasters to Iran are jammed.  Of course Iran is more bothered by the operation of Western broadcasters than the other way round and presumably wouldn’t agree to such a deal.

There’s an interesting mismatch between the international politics of the issue and the efforts of Western countries to depoliticize communications policy.  In the wake of the UK action there voices are being raised in the US about the actions of Press TV and other Iranian state funded broadcasters in the US.

Hu Jintao and Cultural Construction in China

The journal of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party recently published a speech by Hu Jintao on the development of China’s socialist culture, its cultural industries and its ‘cultural soft power’.  There’s a translation here – whatever the changes in China Communist Party rhetoric hasn’t changed: ‘we must implement the Party’s mass line’ etc.   Stephen Walt characterizes this as the party’s war on Harry Potter.  Part of this is the apparent internal threat implied by foreign culture but also the damage to China’s international position by its own lack of cultural industries that can compete.  Reading Hu’s speech the biggest problem seems to be the mismatch between the economic development of contemporary China and its cultural development (read legitimation of rule by the Party.

This emphasis on socialist culture is seen to be of the factors behind the current clampdown on  entertainment culture to accompany the assault on political dissent.  The government has ordered TV stations to reduce the amount of entertainment programming that they show and to encourage socialist values.  Getting rid of programmes like Super Girl is equivalent to banning X Factor in the UK (insert name of mega popular programme where you live.)

I think that notwithstanding its controls on media and the ‘great firewall of China’ the Communist Party is overestimating its ability to shape Chinese culture.  The history of  20th century ideologically driven regimes (and propaganda more broadly) shows that entertainment is a persistent problem because in general  people would prefer to be entertained than educated.  The Nazis, The Soviets, The Saudis (and Lord Reith of the BBC) were all forced to modify their cultural offerings by the fact of competition with foreign broadcasters.  In each case the direction of movement was towards more entertainment in an effort to hold on to their audiences regardless of restrictions on reception of foreign broadcasts.

The point has sometimes been made that the ‘great firewall of China’ is not a massive obstacle to determined netizens but relatively few people are motivated to overcome the obstacle.  You wonder whether taking away entertainment programming will provide a stronger incentive to look for foreign material or for Chinese citizens to make their own.  It will be interesting to see how long it is before Super Girl’s younger sister returns to the screen.

Karen Hughes in Cairo September 2005

The Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten has its own set of the Cablegate files and has released some cables that Wikileaks hasn’t put out yet.  In this I spotted this account of a meeting in September 2005 between then Under Secretary of State for Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy Karen Hughes and the Egyptian Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif.

Some interesting points – first advice on what the US should do to improve its image.

Nazif said that concrete action was needed to improve America´s image. Post-disengagement Gaza offered a real opportunity for such action. Positive change in Gaza would go a long way toward improving America´s image. He noted three things the U.S. could do: 1) support Abu Mazen as he tried to consolidate power; 2) build Gaza´s infrastructure, focusing on projects with quick results; and 3) assure the Palestinians that Gaza disengagement was not the end, but the beginning. The Palestinians needed to see a path for continued progress toward a Palestinian state. Currently the message to the Palestinians was “prove yourself in Gaza first,” which was not going over well. A better message would be that disengagement was a good first step and Gaza could form the nucleus of a Palestinian state.

Hughes pressed Nazif to remove Hizbollah’s Al Manar TV channel from the Nilesat TV satellite service – Nazif declined to respond.

Hughes pressed Nazif to allow Radio Sawa to be broadcast in Egypt and pointed to Congressional pressure to link aid to Egypt to this matter.  Nazif responded that Hughes was asking Egypt to break its own laws.

Nazif complained that it had become more difficult for Egyptians to get US visas and that the US should fund additional exchange places – particularly as he’d benefitted from the International Visitor Programme.

It’s an interesting exchange that contains some familiar arguments about public diplomacy. – the US pushing for action on broadcasting, Egypt suggesting that actions might be more helpful and at the same time fending off suggestions about political reforms.

Foreign Affairs Committee Report on BBC World Service Cuts

The Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee have just issued their report on the cuts to the BBC World Service Budget.  I haven’t had a chance to look at it in any detail but the conclusions won’t come as a surprise to anyone who’s been following the discussion.

• Global changes are making the World Service more important
• The cuts were  financially driven,
• The decision to switch funding to the BBC license fee from the FCO was taken at short notice and not properly considered,
• The Committee suspects that the switch in funding will lead to long term pressure on the World Service budget,
• They make the point that relatively little additional funding would have avoided the biggest cuts.
• They criticise the decision to protect the Department for International Development budget from cuts whens a tiny fraction of that budget would have avoided the cuts to the World Service.
• They argue that the cuts to the Hindi and Mandarin services should be restored.

The last point brings me back to the discussion of resources.  Why restore the cuts – why not do more?  So how can we work out how much international broadcasting we should be doing?

The report is here and some additional evidence submitted to the Committee is here.

 

BBC asks for US funding – not quite

There’s a certain amount of excitement about the news that the BBC has applied for funding from the State Department:  how can state be giving money to foreigners when funding for US broadcasting is under pressure.

It’s not actually the BBC it’s the BBC World Service Trust which is a separate charity.

The BBC World Service Trust is the BBC’s international charity. We use media and communications to reduce poverty and promote human rights, thereby enabling people to build better lives.

Independently funded

We are funded by external grants and voluntary contributions, mainly from the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), the European Union, UN agencies and charitable foundations. We receive a small amount of core support from the BBC (both in kind and cash).

Vision

We believe that independent and vibrant media are critical to the development of free and just societies.

We share the BBC’s ambition to provide accurate, impartial and reliable information to enable people to make informed decisions.

We aspire to a world where individuals and civil society use media and communications to become effective participants in their own political, economic, social and cultural development.

More about the World Service Trust and what it does here