Don't Kick VOA When It's Down

Thursday, May 18th 2017

Guo Wengui on VOA Mandarin service

VOA’s alleged mishandling of a Chinese insider’s interview shouldn’t overshadow the important work done by it and the other U.S. government-sponsored broadcasters. See my latest commentary in The American Interest:

The Voice of America (VOA) celebrated its 75th anniversary in March, but it didn’t have much time to savor its diamond jubilee. Just a month later, the U.S. government-supported news and information agency was engulfed in controversy over the abrupt termination of a live television interview with exiled Chinese businessman Guo Wengui. The target of a PRC-initiated “red notice” on Interpol, Guo is no dissident or conscience-stricken whistleblower; on the contrary, he was a player in the Chinese system who, having decamped to New York in 2015 after a failed acquisition deal, is now waging a one-man campaign against a long list of his former partners in cronyism.

Guo’s alleged shady business dealings, however, don’t make him any less newsworthy. In April the New York Times and the Economist reported on his claims, treating them, appropriately, not as facts but as unsubstantiated allegations. Two Chinese-language television channels, Mirror Media in Long Island and the VOA Mandarin service, hosted live interviews. And on May 6 the Australian stated, “Guo has a massive Twitter following and threatens to trigger a political earthquake.”

Should that earthquake occur, VOA will be part of the story—but not in a good way. VOA deserves kudos for being one of the first U.S. news organizations to pay serious attention to Guo. But because of missteps in the planning and execution of the interview, the agency’s many critics at home and abroad are now accusing it of having yielded to pressure from the Chinese government. Here’s what happened. In early April, the VOA Mandarin service contacted Guo, who insisted that the interview be live and held in his Manhattan penthouse.

As seasoned journalists, the VOA team members were not happy with these terms, but, judging the interview important, they agreed—while also setting their own terms, which included examining Guo’s documents in advance, conducting a lengthy pre-interview, and warning him that they were going to challenge his claims and cut off any unfounded accusations against named individuals.

On Friday, April 14 (five days before the scheduled date), VOA began promoting the interview as a three-hour program, the first hour broadcast live on VOA’s satellite television channel, and the second two hours live-streamed on VOA’s Facebook page. The following Monday, April 17, the Chinese Foreign Ministry invited the chief of the VOA Beijing bureau to “tea,” meaning a friendly chat that just happened to include a subtle hint that, if the interview went ahead as scheduled, VOA staff might lose their visas and other “conveniences” provided by the Chinese authorities.

That same Monday (12 hours later on the east coast of United States), the VOA team members were driving to New York when they received a call from upper management expressing concern about the interview. Accounts differ, but everyone I spoke to agreed that no decision was taken at that time, either to shorten the interview or to record it in lieu of doing it live.

That decision was short-lived. The next day, Tuesday, April 18, the VOA team received more calls from Washington, as well as an email from VOA director Amanda Bennett, who was visiting VOA outposts in East Africa. Here again, accounts differ. But the gist seems to be that VOA’s leaders were worried about possible blowback from the interview, while the journalists were upset at having their professionalism impugned.

On Wednesday, April 19 (the day of the interview), the Chinese Foreign Ministry admitted ordering an Interpol red notice against Guo. The United States rarely acts on such notices, especially when initiated by authoritarian regimes. There was a time when Interpol itself refused to issue notices that were political in nature. But that seems to be changing, especially now that the new Interpol President (elected in November) is Meng Hongwei, a former Deputy Minister of Public Security in China.

In the end, the VOA interview proceeded as planned for the first hour, but twenty minutes into the Facebook part, it was shut down—not by the censors in Beijing, but by the higher-ups in Washington. Chronology is not causality, but let’s not kid ourselves. Amid a domestic political climate that is, at best, indifferent to the kind of work that VOA does, the optics here are bad.

That’s why I want to end with a defense of VOA. As the largest of five networks in a $778 million media organization providing news and information in 61 languages to 100 countries around the world, VOA is hardly the Cold War relic some believe it to be. On the contrary, both it and its sister networks (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and others) are highly adept at using every existing media platform, from radio to television to digital to mobile, to reach audiences in some of the poorest and most closed societies on earth.

Indeed, these networks may be more skilled in this respect than their commercial counterparts, which do not even try to reach such audiences, they do not constitute lucrative markets for advertisers. That’s why VOA needs government support. But that doesn’t make it a “government mouthpiece.” Along with fellow public broadcasters PBS and NPR, not to mention the hallowed BBC, VOA strives to reconcile editorial independence with a mission that extends beyond the commercial incentives of most private-sector media, as well as the political priorities of most state-owned media.

Simply put, that mission is to further the nation’s agenda as forcefully as possible without engaging in propaganda. This is nothing to apologize for. Despite the occasional mistake, VOA has always sought to uphold the American tradition of truth-based persuasion, rooted in constitutionally protected freedoms of speech, press, and debate. That tradition is now imperiled in every corner of the world, including the United States. So by all means, let’s investigate what went wrong with the Guo Wengui interview. But please, not in a spirit of recrimination.

One person has commented on this article so far

Martha Bayles writes and lectures frequently about the arts, music, media, and public diplomacy. Her latest book, Through a Screen Darkly: Popular Culture, Public Diplomacy, and America’s Image Abroad (Yale 2014) was described by American Diplomacy as “the freshest and most original treatment of U.S. Public Diplomacy in many years.”

...click authors name for more info

Author: Martha Bayles

We welcome comments from our readers that advocate and shed light on the subject of public diplomacy. We avoid discussion that is politically partisan, commercial in nature or offensive. To prevent inappropriate comments and spam we screen each comment before publishing it, so please excuse us if you do not see your remark right away.

VOA's problem is its senior management and BBG leaders

I applaud Martha Bayles for posting an honest and accurate chronology of events surrounding the shortening of the Voice of America Mandarin Service Guo Wengui interview. As BBG Watch reported earlier, it was VOA director Amanda Bennett who had ordered the live interview to be shortened, despite previously aired VOA promos that the live interview would last three hours. Her decision was resisted by VOA Mandarin Service journalists who knew that it would lead to damaging VOA's reputation and credibility in China. They were forced to carry out her decision but did so under protest. Judging by thousands of angry and sarcastic social media comments, VOA's reputation in China's was indeed seriously damaged. What happened next, however, is even more disturbing. The VOA director ordered five Mandarin Service journalists to be put on administrative leave with pay "pending full investigation." It was a humiliating and profoundly unfair move designed to protect the senior management from accepting responsibility for the negative consequences of their initial inaction and later overreaction. In her order for placing journalists on administrative leave, Ms. Bennett did not include herself or other senior staffers who together with her had made the critically wrong decision to shorten the interview. The official VOA explanation produced even more sarcastic comments from the audience and protests by Chinese Americans who staged a mock funeral in front of the VOA building in Washington, DC. The official VOA statement was both confusing and misleading. It said that no one had ordered the live interview to be cut short while it was being aired. Technically, it was true. The order to shorten the live interview was issued by the VOA director before it was started. It was a bureaucratic explanation that could have originated from any government trying to cover up its mistakes. Ms. Bennett, her deputy and Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) CEO John F. Lansing happen, however, to be Obama administration holdover appointees. Shame on them for communicating with Americans and foreign audiences in such a way. I expected something better from them. The bottom line is this. While Ms. Bayles is right on the facts of the incident and on the importance of VOA's mission if it were to be carried out right by a competent mangement team, her conclusion as to what should be done to reform the agency is someowhat vague. If she is suggesting that the VOA director, her deputies, and their boss, BBG CEO John F. Lansing, should not be held accountable for this and many other previous management failures, it would be an argument for maintaining the untenable status quo. Perhaps that is not what Ms. Bayles is suggesting, but her analysis seems to avoid stating what remedies should be used to save VOA and its important mission. Senior leaders currently in charge of BBG and VOA may be well meaning individuals, but they have shown themselves to be lacking requisite experience and skills to manage the agency. They should resign. Individuals with substantive experience in government operations, international news media outreach, intercultural communications, public diplomacy and foreign policy should be put in charge of BBG and VOA and immediately carry out major management and programming reforms. One of the lasting but unfortunate legacies of the Lansing-Bennett agency tenure has been the unprecedented politicization and partisanship of Voice of America programs, which urgently needs to be reversed. The Guo Wengui interview scandal was yet another proof that the senior agency leaders lack proper experience and skills to run a U.S. international communications agency and media outreach according to the VOA Charter and the BBG mission of supporting freedom and democracy. They should step down.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <h2><h3><h4><h5><h6><a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <u> <span> <p class=""><img>

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Stay Connected

Follow the Public Diplomacy Council on Facebook and YouTube and share your opinion about up-to-date issues with us. 

For more public diplomacy events, check out PDAA's website.