Andy Pryce

« Exchange, exchange,... | Main | The Listening Projec... »

Tuesday 14 October, 2008

The BBC world service attracts a weekly global audience of 233 million people. Thirteen million unique users visit its website every week. Its budget is about $470 million a year.

The World Service has garnered a global reputation as THE source of news. From Mandela on Robben Island to the 16 million who listen to its Arabic service today, the world's public have heard unbiased news from impeccable sources. Credibility is the one of the key reasons for the World Service's reputation remaining impeccable.

The British Government does not commission stories or sway the BBC's line. Governments of different political stripes have, from time to time, found themselves on the wrong side of the World Service's independent reporting. This independence and reporting of the facts has ensured continued credibility for the organisation. Public Affairs Officers or Diplomats like myself can no more tell the World Service what to report than we could tell Al Jazeera to spike a story on civilian casualties. The Arab "street" or Soweto slums have become more and more media savvy. It would be a waste of money for the UK to pay for and serve up lukewarm propaganda.

It is always interesting to compare and contrast how different governments go about their business. The UK devotes significant resource to both the BBC World Service (which is managerially and editorially independent) and British Council (which is operationally independent from government).

There is a wide ranging debate underway in Washington on how the US Government should go about influencing overseas. There seems to be a wide range of suggested approaches. Some in Congress had expressed concern about the reporting of Voice of America. Some seem to want more independent public diplomacy initiatives, others do not. The Department of Defence recently signed a $300 million a year contract for the production of supportive media in Iraq. What do readers think that the UK and US can learn from each other approach and ideas?

Posted at 16:10 14 October 2008 by Andy Pryce | Comments[6]

Share this with:

Comments:

Hi Andy, I think this is quite a risky business. I worry that 'supportive media' may actually be or verge on propaganda. like you said, if anyone is going to be unimpressed by media promoting America, it will be the Iraqis. After years of propaganda from Saddam, they may be quite wise to what the US is doing. However, I can see why they want to do it, it must be very frustrating to spend lots of money and sacrifice mens lives and then have a lot of people still hate them and not respect them. Personally I think they should use media to spread the message about what their doing and put a positive light on things around the world. However, it should never exaggerate or lie and it should be used as a way to get closer to the population, rather than just showing how great the US is or the UK. The BBC world is great for the British image worldwide. It shows the world how free our society is. There are ofcourse certain programmes or radio stations in the UK which will be slightly biased, but I have to say that Fox news is very harmful for the US image worldwide. It can be extremely Biased and right wing. In a free society this channel must be allowed to be there. But when I speak to anyone from different countries around the world, everyone jokes about Fox news. In fact, I saw a Russian TV presenter on 'hard talk', a BBC world programme, make the point that its hypocritical of the US to say that Russian media should be free and unbiased, when Fox news is the opposite. whether you agree with me about Fox news, this is still the image around the world and it makes it harder for the US to take a moral high ground in diplomacy. this leads to an interesting question about what the limits on freedom should be if your free speech is disproportionately influencing people.

Posted by Seb on October 15, 2008 at 05:08 AM EDT #

Andy, I agree with you as do many others. I spotted this analysis and citiation for the 'British model' from the Institute for Middle East Studies at George Washington University, in a debate titled, "Public Diplomacy and the War of Ideas: Agendas for the Next Administration," http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2008/10/public-diplomac.html Hady Amr, Director of Brookings Doha, then spoke. Drawing on his own work in the field of public diplomacy as well as his perspective spending half his time in the Gulf, Amr focused upon the specific challenge of "engaging the world" in the current international environment. He offered the following principles: 1. We need to confront who we are. In a world where Arab teenagers ask about the latest controversy on the U.S. election campaign trail posted on YouTube, it's crazy for public diplomacy to try to shape or control America's image from the top down. We can't hide who we are. 2. We need to be broad based in our engagement and messaging. The maxim that we should engage moderate or like-minded Arab allies is too limited - engaging the 1 of Arab liberals who already agree with us will not address our problems. While we should never be sitting down with or legitimizing those who use or promote violence, there is a broad range of religious conservatives and traditionalists who we can not afford to ignore. They are the 'swing vote' that we need to win. 3. Think about two-way communication. Too much of what we do is one-way: broadcasting, psychological operations, etc. That's important, but not enough: we need to think in terms of jointness, partnering through real dialogues and engagement with local partners at every step of the way. 4. We need to organize ourselves as a government to promote a more integrated, smarter approach. But there are many activities which should not be directly done by the government. We should think about the British Council model, a largely independent entity which can build relationships and promote exchanges without being tasked with advancing specific U.S. policy objectives.

Posted by John Worne on October 15, 2008 at 06:29 AM EDT #

Andy, Allow me to commend you on your excellent blog. While some have been skeptical of blogging as a diplomatic activity, your blog shows that it indeed can be informative and can lead to greater dialogue. Congratulations. You and your readers might be interested in my "Public Diplomacy Press and Blog Review http://publicdiplomacypressandblogreview.blogspot.com/", where I've had the pleasure of citing your site. Best, John

Posted by john brown on October 18, 2008 at 06:26 AM EDT #

British public diplomacy has enjoyed the great advantage that parliament generally tolerates the editorial independence of the BBC World Service and creative independence of the British Council. In the United States Congress has historically expected more 'freight' for its dollars. Big mistake. Credibility is everything and the pay-masters need to trust that the honest example of open news and cultural activities are a better example to the world than exhortations and spin. The other problem with the expectations of Capitol Hill is their obsession with measurable results. Public Diplomacy bears out Einstein's contention that 'not everything measurable is significant and not everything significant can be measured'. We know that exchanges and cultural diplomacy work across decades, but legislatures think in annual political cycles. The pressure for measurable results might actually lead to the neglect of the most effective tools of public diplomacy. The head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors - Ken Tomlinson - compared the questions from Congress to driving a car with toddlers chirping 'Are we there yet' the whole way. The US could do a lot worse than take a long look at the British structure of PD.

Posted by Nick Cull on October 18, 2008 at 12:54 PM EDT #

Andy. During the Cold War, beginning in 1952, I was for many years an executive of U.S.-sponsored Radio Liberty broadcasting from Munich to the Soviet Union, therefore a "competitor" of the BBC. In actual fact, we had very cordial collegial relations and learnt a great deal from the BBC, especially the importance of objectivity and restraint in addressing our audiences. I'd just like to take this opportunity to make public acknowledgement of that debt. I still listen to the World Service daily via FM relay.

Posted by James CritchlowS on October 18, 2008 at 04:30 PM EDT #

All interesting comments. Thank you all for participating. It will be instructive to watch the success or otherwise of different public diplomacy programmes over the next few years. As more and more varied resources go into strategic communication, measurement and honest lessons learnt exercises become increasingly relevant. Thanks for the links to Abu Aardvark and John Brown's own blog. Both are very useful sites for me as I try to implement good practice in my work. It is great to see another comment from Nick Cull - on of the leading thinkers on the past and future of public diplomacy.

Posted by Andy Pryce on October 23, 2008 at 04:30 PM EDT #

Andy Pryce

First Secretary Public Affairs Washington

Search

Feeds

Tag cloud

Blogroll

Evaluation