Journalists for the Voice of America (VOA) broadcasting service who are fighting to maintain what they say is their editorial independence are now at odds not only with the US Congress, but also with their own union.
The union, the American Federation of Government Employees Local 1812, recently endorsed a bill that would change language in the charter for the 72-year-old news agency and require it to actively support US policy. That came as a surprise to some Voice of America employees, who said the legislation would make them mouthpieces for government policy. They want the union to withdraw its letter of support.
“A lot of us would welcome change and reform, but not at the cost of undermining VOA’s journalistic credibility,” said Jim Malone, a senior national correspondent at the government-financed news agency who is not a member of the union.
Illustration: Kevin Sheu
In its letter, union leaders said the agency’s managers had lost sight of their mission and were trying to turn the “VOA into something they envisioned as a global variant of CNN.”
“In the end, some of the currently entrenched senior management represent a far greater threat to VOA’s journalistic independence, indeed to the very existence of the VOA,” the union wrote.
The danger, American Federation of Government Employees Local 1812 president Tim Shamble said, is that the government could withdraw its financial support if the agency continued its course. The federation represents about 40 percent of all Voice of America workers and 11 percent of the journalists in the central news division.
Even journalists who are not members of the union, like Malone, are lining up against it.
“Union leaders blundered by ignoring legitimate concerns that the bill would turn journalists into policy promoters,” he said.
The bill was approved in April by the US House of Representatives’ Foreign Affairs Committee and is sponsored by the panel’s chairman, Ed Royce, a Republican, and its ranking member, Eliot Engel, a Democrat. The full House is scheduled to vote on it after the Fourth of July recess. The Senate is working on a similar bill to overhaul the VOA and four other government-financed broadcasters like Radio Free Europe.
The House bill would revise the language of the Voice of America charter to state explicitly that the agency has a role in supporting US “public diplomacy” and countering propaganda from countries like Russia and China. The charter, signed in 1976, now states that the “VOA will serve as a consistently reliable and authoritative source of news. VOA news will be accurate, objective and comprehensive.” However, it adds, “VOA will present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively, and will also present responsible discussions and opinions on these policies.”
Voice of America programs — more than 70 for TV and 200 for radio — are broadcast in 45 languages and the broadcaster has affiliates around the world.
The issue has been building for some time and the changes included in the bill are supported by some prominent journalists like Walter Isaacson, a former chairman of CNN and editor of Time magazine who once led the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Former US secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton has said the board — which has jurisdiction over Voice of America and the other government-financed agencies — was dysfunctional. A recent audit found numerous problems with the board’s use of contractors, along with US$3.5 million in questionable costs. The agency’s budget is about US$200 million annually.
The House of Representatives’ bill would turn the board into an advisory body and create a position for a fulltime chief executive to run the agency day to day.
Dozens of journalists at the news agency said the legislation represented a threat to its existence and that they were angry union leaders issued the endorsement without consulting members.
“I didn’t see anything that went out to members telling us that they were doing this,” said one union member, who asked not to be quoted by name in criticizing the legislation, because she did not have permission to speak on the record. “It gives the impression that we as journalists support this bill and we do not.”
She said she did not find out about the union’s support until the Foreign Affairs Committee posted the letter of support on its Web site.
Shamble denied that account. He said the decision to support the bill was made by the union’s executive committee after consulting members. The union also presented its positions at meetings, he said.
“Is it possible that people still didn’t know our position after all that?” Shamble asked. “I suppose, but I don’t know what else we could do.”
Shamble said he declined an invitation to address the matter before journalists in the newsroom because he did not want to discuss union business in front of the agency’s management. He said the union had fought to protect jobs and against efforts to rescind financing for the agency, adding that he shared concerns about some of the language in the bill.
“But I think we can work with Congress to tweak the language to fix this stuff,” he said. “The larger issue is reforming the VOA.”
Many journalists at the agency agree that changes are called for and they share frustrations about the Broadcasting Board of Governors’ lack of direction. However, they disagree with the union that legislation is the way to fix the problems.
Washington correspondent Carolyn Presutti, who is not a union member, said the fight was obscuring the larger issue: keeping Voice of America journalists from becoming agents of US policy.
“I didn’t come here to be a public relations person,” Presutti said. “The idea that I have to support the positions of whoever is in the White House is not journalism. This is bigger than the union. We are fighting for our existence.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with