Andy Pryce

The Listening Project

The Listening Project is a documentary film that examines what a range of people around the world think of America.

I suspect a similar project on the UK would produce a range of results (I am tempted to conduct one around DC some time soon). The question for diplomats like myself is whether a mixed opinion of my country amongst the public at large overseas makes it more difficult to project soft power. It is tempting to say yes, of course. But the public at large in a number of countries are either disassociated or not interested in all but the most crucial foreign policy decisions. Simon Anholt gave his thoughts in the Foreign Office's recent publication on public diplomacy.

Posted at 09:58 21 October 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[5]

Credibility and the World Service

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]

The importance of being credible

A recent FCO publication on public diplomacy included a chapter by USC professor Nick Cull. The chapter suggested seven lessons for public diplomacy practitioners:

1. Public diplomacy begins with listening.

2. Public diplomacy must be connected to policy.

3. Public diplomacy is not a performance for domestic consumption.

4. Effective public diplomacy requires credibility, but that has implications for the bureaucratic structure around the activity.

5. Sometimes the most credible voice in public diplomacy is not one's own.

6. Public diplomacy is not always 'about you'.

7. Public diplomacy is everyone's business.

I see these lessons as sound and sensible. Behaving this way could help us develop better influencing programmes around the world. I would be interested in the thoughts of my readers.

I wonder what the Russians think of Cull's advice. Did anyone notice their recent supplement in The Washington Post? The Weekly Standard Blog covered it. 

Posted at 13:35 24 September 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[0]

Footie, 15 years and cultural convergence

I arrived back in Washington with my family last October after a 15 year gap. The US and the DC region have changed in immeasurable ways since the early nineties. Many of our previous cultural references are now invalid. Seinfeld was THE comedy when we left, everyone knew what you were referring to when you mentioned "The Soup Nazi". Downtown DC was still recovering from the riots in the late 60s - there is now a vibrant, thriving downtown area around the Verizon center. Northern Virginia was pretty homogenous - it is now a lot more diverse and interesting. Perhaps more importantly to me though - you can now get footie (soccer) on cable TV.
 
I am an avant Liverpool fan. If I was living at home I would have a season pass like my brother. I read fansites and forums such as The Rattle every day.  

This weekend we play that lot from Manchester in England's biggest domestic soccer game. Fox Soccer Channel tells me their audience for British Football is continually growing - so much so that they are soon to be listed on the Nielsen ratings. This brings up the question of cultural convergence. Is the UK becoming more like the US (as many academic, I suppose pundits, say) and the US a little bit more like the UK? It's a difficult question for me to answer. My family is trans-atlantic in nature. I am equally at home at a baseball game over here as I am at a footie (soccer) game in the UK. Has our partially shared culture, sporting or otherwise impacted US and UK values? I grew up watching the A Team and Charlie's Angels in the UK - my predecessors' were do doubt partially moulded by Hemingway and Arthur Miller, their US counterparts by Olivier's Henry V. Can we measure the relationship between the degree of convergence in values and maybe policy against cultural penetration? Will our unique relationship with the US deepen if Liverpool put four past that lot tomorrow?

Posted at 07:30 15 September 2008 by Andy Pryce  |  Comments[1]