Shawn Powers
Last week, Gallup released its findings from a 2008 survey of 4349 adults around the world and reported that there was an inverse relationship between the level of access people have to communications infrastructures and their approval of U.S. leadership. Put simply: the more access people have to information, the less likely they were to be supportive of U.S. leadership.
These findings are terrible news for American PD practitioners that have been working tirelessly to get America’s message out into the global info-sphere. Indeed, many PD initiatives today, like the State Department’s efforts to reach out and engage Arab bloggers, Colleen Graffy’s Tweetfest, DipNote, the Rapid Reaction Communications Unit and, of course, Alhurra each operate with the fundamental premise that once we get our message out there in its entirety, people will come around to our point of view. As it turns out, this premise is simply not true. Indeed, the more connected a global citizen was, i.e. the more likely they were to have access to the communiqué of American policies, the less likely they were to support American leadership.
Importantly, Gallup’s findings call into question whether the Department of State’s recent surge in “Public Diplomacy 2.0”—at least in terms of how it is currently conceptualized—may not be the most effective way to proceed. For instance, the study found that those with home access to the internet were more likely to disapprove of U.S. leadership (55%) when compared to those without home access to the internet (31%). Moreover, these numbers demonstrate that there may even be some tension between U.S. development goals and foreign policies abroad. If helping underdeveloped communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America get better access to the global communication infrastructure results in a decrease in support for American leadership abroad, then it seems like we’re shooting ourselves in the foot. Alternatively, China may be on to something: by helping Africa leapfrog into the 21st century ICT network, it may be effectively countering U.S. hegemony without ever having to deploy a single soldier.
March 17th, 2009at 12:55 pm(#)
In his blog, Mr. Powers states that Alhurra’s mission is to get America’s message out, and then people will come around to America’s point of view. Actually, Alhurra’s mission, by law, is to broadcast news accurately and objectively. U.S. international broadcasting, since its beginnings in 1942, has never been in the propaganda business. Alhurra provides context and analysis, and lets the audience form its own opinions. Accurate information is the foundation of freedom and democracy, and it is the reason we have built a loyal audience in a Middle East where bias and sensationalism have been too prevalent.
In the five short years that Alhurra has been on the air, it continues to attract a growing audience. According to international firms such as ACNielsen, Alhurra has a weekly reach of 26 million people, a majority of whom finds the news to be credible. It does a disservice to Alhurra’s audience to believe that tens of millions of people would tune into a propagandistic broadcast. It is true that Alhurra covers America better than any other Arabic-language television network, but Alhurra’s role is accuracy, not advocacy.
Regards,
Deirdre Kline
Communications Director
Middle East Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
March 17th, 2009at 7:17 pm(#)
Hello and thank you for your comment, Ms. Kline,
In this post, I wasn’t trying to suggest that Alhurra was an advocate for the U.S. government, and I hope that the post wasn’t taken that way. My point was that the, “if we get the right, accurate info out into the open, then they will not hate us so much” mentality behind many American PD programs was flawed, and I think the Gallup poll provides some evidence of this. If Alhurra and the Middle East Broadcasting Network do not subscribe to this mentality, then I applaud their efforts. Best,
Shawn Powers