1200 1UI4USFFU/8t8BTIJOHUPO
%$ttGBY

SPECIAL REPORT 226 JUNE 2009

41&$*"- REPORT

aCZUIF6OJUFE4UBUFT*OTUJUVUFPG1FBDF

"MMSJHIUTSFTFSWFE

CONTENTS 

Introduction 2

Key Themes 3

Conclusions 7

Findings 8

ABOUT THE REPORT

More than 250 influential media professionals, diplomats, 

policymakers, scholars, and NGO leaders gathered at the 

Newseum in Washington, D.C., on February 3, 2009, for the 

Ted Koppel–moderated “Media as Global Diplomat Leadership 

Summit” sponsored by the United States Institute of 

Peace (USIP) Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict and 

Peacebuilding and the Independent Television Service (ITVS). 

Recognizing the current disruptive period in media, the 

summit asked public and private sector leaders how the United 

States can best use media to reinvigorate its public diplomacy 

strategy and international influence in order to strengthen 

efforts to build a more peaceful world. Streamed live on the 

Internet, the summit approached the topic in a global dialogue 

through interactive panels, videoconferencing, a documentary 

screening, and the participation of bloggers from 

around the world. This report summarizes the findings and 

recommendations of the summit for a new administration to 

reengage the world with a public diplomacy strategy adapted 

to the digital age.

This is a joint publication of USIP and ITVS (www.itvs.org) 

Support for ITVS Global Perspectives Project provided 

by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 

the Ford Foundation, and The John D. and 

Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.

* With contributions by Christopher Neu

Sheldon Himelfarb, Tamara Gould, Eric Martin, 

and Tara Sonenshine

.FEJBBT(MPCBM%JQMPNBU

4VNNBSZ

t Over the last decade, America’s image abroad has declined, and public diplomacy is 

often cited as the reason for that decline. According to the BBC World Service Poll in 

2008 and the University of Maryland’s Program for International Policy Attitudes, publics in twenty-three countries view America’s influence in the world more negatively 

than the influence of North Korea. Citizens in a NATO ally, Turkey, view the United 

States (64 percent) as the greatest threat to their country in the future.1

t Digital media have fundamentally changed the way Americans learn about life overseas and how foreign audiences learn about America. According to the Pew Project 

for Excellence in Journalism, in 2008 the Web became a regular and even primary 

destination for most Americans. The number of Americans who said they got most of 

their national and international news online grew 67 percent in the last two years.2

t As citizens talk to each other throughout the world, public diplomacy needs to adapt 

to a multidirectional media model in which there is an exchange of views between 

Americans and overseas audiences that promotes a democratic, global conversation.

t A new U.S. administration that understands information technologies and the power 

of the Internet creates new opportunities to leverage that technology to improve 

America’s image abroad. The United States must catalyze public-private partnerships 

that invite foreign perspectives through interactive and social networking media.

t Public diplomacy in today’s media climate favors a decentralized approach that 

reflects the fragmentation of information and builds on local partnerships that go 

beyond U.S. governmental broadcasting to foreign audiences. Media companies, 

NGOs, and third-party news outlets can reach certain communities that the U.S. 

government media cannot.

t Citizen-to-citizen exchanges and citizen journalism allow for more access and participation in the “grand conversation” that takes place outside government channels. 

The United States needs to tap the potential of citizen media and citizen networks 

to enhance U.S. understanding of foreign cultures and overseas understanding 

of America.

6/*5&%45"5&4 */45*565&0'1&"$& XXXVTJQPSH
2

*OUSPEVDUJPO

It would be tempting to pronounce American public diplomacy dead in the 21st century. 

Where government once served as a powerful middleman for information and access, 

shaping prevailing messages about the United States, now the Internet connects two 

billion people directly. The result is a brave new world for multilateral international 

communication, with unprecedented power to connect and divide, spread truth and 

rumor, and organize dispersed individuals for good, evil, and everything in between. 

The American voices that influence foreign publics belong to singers and students, 

expats and citizens, not the cultural attachés and media specialists who once crafted 

the American brand abroad. 

Yet even as the old models of public diplomacy collapse, the U.S. government must 

find new ways to participate effectively in the new chaotic conversation. It is a conversation that famously soured after 2002, as world opinion steadily turned against the 

United States but has had new life breathed into it by the election of Barack Obama 

and the enthusiasm of citizens, NGOs, and journalists around the world. This conversation not only increasingly determines how the world sees and treats Americans—as 

citizens, as individuals, as potential enemies or partners in any kind of endeavor, be it 

commerce, conflict, or conservation—but also determines how Americans see and treat 

the world. 

In this era of communications and globalization, public diplomacy is far from dead, but 

today it truly belongs to the public. A single organizer like Colombia’s Oscar Morales can 

mobilize two million people in forty cities worldwide through Facebook to protest against 

the actions of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) in a way that governments could not. The handheld footage of underground Burmese journalists connects the 

closed country to world audiences and its own. Companies such as MTV shape dialogue 

about sexuality and AIDS for African youth, NGOs such as One World deliver antiparasitic 

drugs to Indian villagers, and YouTube players such as Video Volunteers or iJustine connect the world with voices of the poor or global efforts on drinking water. Millions of bloggers in the United States and abroad debate the issues of the day in direct and indirect 

conversations in a communication cycle with speeds that outstrip any known previously. 

Public diplomacy, then, is no longer simply a matter of state, but of any business, 

organization, or individual that connects with the world beyond U.S. borders. U.S. 

public media organizations such as the Independent Television Service have started 

working with independent media makers to promote an open, international exchange of 

perspectives. The United States Institute of Peace partners with media nonprofits such 

as Global Voices Online to engage bloggers around the world for audiences in seventeen 

languages. Even business consortiums such as the Discover America Partnership explore 

economic impact strategies for improving global perceptions to stimulate tourism. 

Despite different end goals, the model that consistently emerges is one of aggregation, 

proxies, and ground-up partnerships that draw on existing voices and resources to catalyze rather than control conversations that benefit the United States. 

This report is based on a program conducted in early 2009 with leading thinkers and 

practitioners of public diplomacy from government, business, journalism, nonprofits, 

academia, and beyond. In the summarization lies a roadmap for understanding the governmental and nongovernmental challenges and opportunities regarding the following 

key questions:

t What is the role of the U.S. government in using media to shape America’s image, 

inform citizens, and help manage conflicts abroad?

t What is the role of the free market and commercial media in promoting better international understanding, communications, and relations?

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, 

nonpartisan institution established and funded by 

Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve 

violent conflicts, promote post-conflict peacebuilding, 

and increase conflict management tools, capacity, and 

intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by 

empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, 

as well as by its direct involvement in conflict zones 

around the globe.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, 

%$ t (FPSHF&.PPTF(Vice Chairman), Adjunct Professor 

of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, 

%$ t "OOF)$BIO, Former Scholar in Residence, American 

6OJWFSTJUZ
 8BTIJOHUPO
 %$ t $IFTUFS"$SPDLFS, James R. 

Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign 

4FSWJDF
 (FPSHFUPXO 6OJWFSTJUZ
 8BTIJOHUPO
 %$ t *LSBN6

,IBO, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, 

/FW t ,FSSZ,FOOFEZ
 )VNBO 3JHIUT "DUJWJTU t 4UFQIFO%

,SBTOFS
Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations 

BU 4UBOGPSE 6OJWFSTJUZ t ,BUIMFFO.BSUJOF[, Executive Director, 

8PSME *OTUJUVUF PO %JTBCJMJUZ t +FSFNZ"3BCLJO, Professor of 

-BX
 (FPSHF .BTPO 6OJWFSTJUZ
 "SMJOHUPO
 7B t +VEZ7BO3FTU, 

Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute, 

8BTIJOHUPO
 %$ t /BODZ;JSLJO, Executive Vice President, 

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights 

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO

3PCFSU.(BUFT
 %FQBSUNFOU PG %FGFOTF t )JMMBSZ3PEIBN

$MJOUPO
 4FDSFUBSZ PG 4UBUF t 3JDIBSE)4PMPNPO, President, 

6OJUFE 4UBUFT *OTUJUVUF PG 1FBDF 	OPOWPUJOH
 t 'SBODFT$

8JMTPO, Lieutenant General, U.S. Marine Corps; President, 

National Defense University

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

To request permission to photocopy or reprint materials, 

e-mail: permissions@usip.org


t What new ideas for working models exist for content or distribution strategies that 

effectively promote American public diplomacy interests?

Citizens from around the world joined the program via online media, providing further insight into the new trends and energy fueling today’s public diplomacy. 

,FZ5IFNFT

Ted Koppel opened the program by raising doubts about the term “public diplomacy” 

and its capacity to define the untidy story of global communications and public opinion. “When the public gets involved in whatever fashion, it can be helpful, it can be 

damaging, but it is rarely diplomacy,” he said. Koppel reminded the audience of how in 

1991 BBC images of starving Somalis drove public demands for humanitarian intervention by the U.S. government. Popular sentiment swung the other way in the following 

months, as U.S. forces became involved in the internecine fighting in Somalia, resulting in the Black Hawk Down incident, which produced iconic images of a dead Ranger 

being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu by an angry mob. As U.S. forces were 

withdrawn from Somalia, an indirect consequence of the global anti-interventionist 

sentiment was that nothing prevented the loss of 800,000 lives in Rwanda. And from a 

public diplomacy standpoint, America’s image was tarnished.

The Decentralization of Information and Public Diplomacy

In the 1990s, with the advent of CNN and the proliferation of cable news outlets, 

traditional forms of information gathering and distribution such as newspapers and 

television networks were challenged by the arrival of 24-hour news cycles in the United 

States that became accessible to viewers around the world. Those traditional forms 

of information dissemination were further challenged by digital distribution, social 

networking, and user-generated content, which usurped the role of the “gatekeeper” 

and eroded the sense of top-down control of media. In short, the public became the 

gatekeepers. According to a Brookings report, “Voices of America,” more than one billion people use the Internet. YouTube—a citizen-generated online content provider— 

offers more than 100 million videos per day. Globally, there are approximately 184 

million bloggers posting opinions daily without any network or news editor control.

The panelists debated the role of these decentralized systems of information versus 

the more traditional role of U.S. government-funded media such as Voice of America; 

Alhurra, a U.S. government funded Middle East broadcasting service; and Radio Free 

Liberty/Radio Free Europe. Kathy Bushkin Calvin, executive vice president and chief 

operating officer of The United Nations Foundation, reflected on the competition the 

U.S. government faces in getting America’s story out. “The notion that we [the U.S. 

government] have control over communications that change the rest of the world is an 

outdated concept.” Bushkin and others argued that, because globalization and digital 

technology have a decentralized form of power and communications, much of what 

develops as news is generated at the community level. “The government can no longer 

be the sole player or even the dominant player it once was,“ said Calvin.

Ambassador Edward Djerejian, who has written widely about public diplomacy, discussed the problem that U.S. government–funded news outlets face in countries and 

regions where there is growing skepticism about America and anything generated by 

governments. “Traditional one-way strategies like Alhurra, the U.S.–government created Middle East media outlet, have a credibility problem” because of their association 

with unpopular U.S. policies, argued Djerejian. Abderrahim Foukara, the Washington, 

D.C., bureau chief for Al Jazeera International, underscored the point. “It’s the policy, 

stupid...that forms the opinions other have of us.”


“The Grand Conversation”

Panelists agreed that effective public diplomacy must create what former undersecretary of state for public diplomacy James Glassman called a “grand conversation” at the 

international level in which multiple stakeholders are exchanging ideas. “The essence of 

public diplomacy, is understanding, engaging, and influencing foreign publics, and the 

model of conversation is ultimately very good for us [America],” said Glassman. His view 

was supported by James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, 

who argued that “even in the Middle East, where America faces an acute image problem, 

a conversation is possible.” Zogby explained that people in the Middle East like America, 

“they just don’t like our policies, which can sometimes be equated with what the U.S.-

government media has to say. There’s no need or use in trying to ‘brand America’. It’s 

already branded, through the values we export.”

Within this grand conversation, panelists explained, there is still room for the U.S. 

government to give speeches and talk to other publics. “Words, as Homer said, do 

have wings,” offered Foukara, noting that President Obama effectively uses rhetoric in 

speaking to other countries, particularly in the Muslim world. “He touches people in 

all sorts of unpredictable, yet positive ways,” added Foukara. Yet the panelists agreed 

that the Internet means that individuals all around the world are having conversations 

amongst themselves that can erode not only the power of official messages but the 

power of traditional media itself.

Andrew McLaughlin, director of global public policy and government affairs at 

Google, spoke of the two-way conversation that the Internet provides. “The one-tomany model of traditional television is going down,” McLaughlin explained. “The average 16-year-old with an off-the-shelf laptop has a staggering amount of power to create 

video, write text, and speak.” Online communication is growing as more people have 

access to phone lines and wireless forms of communications. According to the International Telecommunications Union, fifty years ago, 3 percent of the world’s population 

were telephone subscribers. Today the number is 68 percent.3 Mobile phones, which did 

not exist a half century ago, are common in many parts of the developing world today, 

including Afghanistan. The Internet has created virtually free distribution of content, 

resulting in what McLaughlin calls a “democratization” of information that cannot be 

controlled and makes a grand conversation not only possible but inevitable.

For public diplomacy to succeed, it must take into account this notion of a grand 

conversation, which, in essence, said the panel, is a conversation that relies upon 

participation, respect, and some form of equality. To approach this grand conversation, they argued, public diplomacy must be redefined from traditional conceptions of 

“explaining and conducting official outreach to countries and peoples abroad,” said 

Djerejian, into “first, as listening and learning about other cultures and, then, beginning to inform, engage, and influence.” 

Glassman explained how the U.S. Department of State is utilizing social networks 

such as Facebook and the State Department Web site to interact with citizens abroad. 

“People don’t want to be preached at,” offered Zogby. “People don’t want to sit there 

and listen to a megaphone.” The advantage of the Internet, explained Glassman, is 

that, “as a democratic and chaotic and uncontrolled medium, it is really an American 

medium. It does define us. One of the reasons we [the U.S. government] use this tool 

now is because we are not the loudspeaker. The image of America as a place that brings 

people together to talk and debate and argue...that’s a great image.”

“Connectivity is good for the United States,” argued McLaughlin of Google and 

should be a high priority in public diplomacy. Calvin stated that “when we listen, we 

empower the voices that tell the story of countries, values, and issues.” Calvin believes 

that through the training of more local journalists in other countries, the United States 


can engage them in telling their own stories and interacting with America, thereby 

creating effective public diplomacy that focuses on two-way flow of information.

Citizen-to-Citizen Communications and Public Diplomacy

As discussed earlier, the proliferation of Web sites, Internet access, and digital media 

has enabled ordinary citizens to play the role of producers rather than simply consumers 

of content. As Sally Jo Fifer, the president and CEO of Independent Television Service, 

noted, ten years ago independent and citizen media played a much smaller role in 

domestic and international affairs. Today, in the United States and around the world, 

independent citizens’ voices are viewed as the most credible and compelling voices on 

the media landscape because they are considered genuine and free of government or 

institutional bias. Public diplomacy, in order to be viable, must tap into this citizento-citizen dialogue to bring these voices together. To this end, the State Department 

tapped into the ITVS Global Perspectives Project, an exchange program of independently produced, award-wining documentaries by American and international filmmakers supported by The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Ford Foundation, 

and The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. The State Department is also 

experimenting with Twitter and other forms of social networking to open up the process 

so that communications can flow to foreign audiences in ways they use. 

The Case of Oscar Morales

The power of citizen-to-citizen communications is evident in the story of Colombian 

Oscar Morales, an engineer, who mobilized people via the Internet to protest the actions 

of FARC, an insurgent group in Colombia. Through Facebook, a citizen-driven, interactive Web site, Morales used Internet activism to galvanize two million people in forty 

cities worldwide to protest against the actions of FARC in a way that public diplomacy, 

in the traditional form of government-funded broadcasting, could not. Morales spoke 

via satellite at the program about the power of the Internet. Bloggers from around the 

world were able to hear Morales and to participate in the program through Global Voices, 

an international blog aggregator site for citizen journalists. 

Of course, communications is a double-edged sword. The Internet and Facebook-type 

social networking sites can be used to open dialogue, activate citizens, reconstruct 

relationships in a positive way—or harness negative energy such as using the Web 

to recruit terrorists, spread propaganda, undermine public confidence, and even to 

coordinate terrorist operations. A recent United States Instiute of Peace publication, 

Terror on the Internet by former senior fellow Gabriel Weimann, examined how the same 

technology that can create moderate voices can also incite undemocratic values and 

behavior.4 In the end, it is not the technology, but those who use the technology who 

participate in the information revolution. 

Public-Private Partnerships and the Economics of Public Diplomacy

Free market/commercial media play an important role in the export of images and ideas 

from America to the rest of the world, but their role in public diplomacy has received 

less attention than the role of government-funded media. Edward Borgerding, chief 

executive officer of Abu Dhabi Media Company, spoke about the importance of bringing stories from the Arab and Muslim world to American audiences to bridge cultural 

understanding. “The Internet and digital media have created a fundamental shift in 

the market, casting into doubt existing business models for content and creating a 

period of uncertainty about what the new models will be,” said Borgerding. Changes in 

advertising on traditional media, and now Internet media, are creating confusion and 


dislocation in terms of revenues that support content generators. “The days of network 

news and news magazines turning a profit are largely behind us, “ argued Koppel. “And 

there are more cutbacks in foreign bureaus and international coverage.” That means 

that Americans know less about the rest of the world, which can create disinterest or 

misunderstanding—making the job of public diplomacy harder. Borgerding explained 

how decentralization of media is tied to the narrow targeting of individual groups for 

advertising dollars—an obsessive focus on products that target the 18–35 age group. 

“In this paradigm, content faces more commercial pressures than ever before to produce 

measurable results—pressure that does not necessarily promote content that serves the 

interests of public diplomacy,” said Borgerding.

Carol Giacomo of The New York Times conceded that financial pressures on the news 

industry can affect how content reaches audiences. The newspaper continues to produce robust international coverage, but it is not clear how future financial models will 

evolve given the advertising pressures and the power of the Internet, where content is 

still largely available for free. Borgerding explained how, in places like the Middle East, 

the challenge of financing news is even more acute. “The television advertising market 

earns 25 cents on the dollar compared to the U.S. market, and all the hundreds of freeto-air satellite channels lose money. As ‘advertising 4.0’ comes of age and more dollars 

move online, there may be new opportunities for niche content that both serves public 

diplomacy and is commercially viable. At the same time, commercial-public partnerships 

that improve the image of the United States brand may be particularly effective at the 

street and community level,” said Borgerding.

The Public Good

In a commercially competitive media age, observers of digital media are concerned 

about whether news and content providers are willing to offer content that serves the 

“public good.” Mika Salmi, president of global digital media for MTV Networks, addressed 

the issue of positive social programming. There are opportunities, said Salmi, citing 

MTV’s role in raising awareness about AIDS in the United States, Africa, and around 

the world to promote a positive image of America abroad, even while building profitable global business platforms. Sydney Suissa, executive vice president of content for 

National Geographic Channels International, explained the company’s editorial interest 

in environmentalism, which has resonance in both the commercial and public spheres. 

“One of the strongest voices in the world of television is public television, “ said Suissa. 

“Even in the commercial media, it is important to have public broadcasting as a countervailing power between the public system and the private system.” Smita Singh, director 

of the global development program at The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, added 

that the balance is between government funding and private funding. “There are things 

the government can fund—at arm’s length.” Foundations can catalyze content to create 

partnerships between the public and private sectors.

Independent film is a good example of the power of public and private partnerships. ITVS’s Global Perspective Project brings international documentaries made by 

independent filmmakers to U.S. public television, cable, and online audiences and also 

gets documentaries by U.S. independent filmmakers to national television audiences 

in places such as Bahrain, Malawi, Peru, Colombia, Hong Kong, India, Afghanistan, and 

Indonesia. Films enable citizens to grapple with difficult cross-cultural issues in ways 

that traditional public diplomacy cannot, explained Tamara Gould, vice president of 

distribution for ITVS. “From a public diplomacy standpoint, these artistic storytellers 

have incredible value and credibility and a deep commitment to their stories and communities” that registers with audiences. “With support from foundations and through 

partnerships, ITVS has brought eighty-two international documentaries to America from 

sixty-two countries, half of which have already been broadcast and seen by fifty million 

viewers.” Gould offered this as an example of how a relatively modest investment of 
7

a few million dollars per year could be leveraged into a project with major impact on 

helping Americans better understand the world. “Strategic investment has the power to 

build the marketplace of these films.” In the international marketplace of ideas, American independent media makers become valuable, unofficial ambassadors with documentaries that tell personal, diverse, and complex stories about the United States, and 

foreign filmmakers can make difficult stories about complex situations come to life.

During the daylong program, the audience watched the film, Waltz with Bashir, an 

animated documentary about the role of Israelis in the 1982 massacre of Palestinians 

in Beirut, Lebanon.5 The Sony Pictures Classic film was supported by the ITVS Global 

Perspectives Project. Calvin Sims, a program officer at the Ford Foundation, which 

provided funding for the film, explained the power of film to contextualize situations 

and create understanding in ways that resonate with viewers, reflecting again on the 

two-way street. 

Yvette Alberdingk Thijm, executive director of a project called Witness, focused on 

how films can change behavior and policy in ways that governments sometimes cannot. 

“What is important is not necessarily wide distribution but that these kinds of films get 

seen by the kinds of people who can actually make a difference, such as a film about 

war crimes that is shown to the International Criminal Court.” Thijm’s point relates back 

to the role of the citizens who produce films and the citizens who watch them and how 

those decentralized models can create change. Witness enables citizens to produce videos about human rights abuses. This project creates a catalyst for interest and action 

in ways that traditional one-way public diplomacy cannot. The challenge for initiatives 

such as the Global Perspectives Project, Witness, and others is the lack of a systematic 

approach to capitalize on what independent producers and citizens can bring to the 

work of public diplomacy. While the State Department provides some start-up funding 

for these kinds of projects, the need for an articulated strategy that helps turn private 

citizens into public diplomacy assets still exists.

$PODMVTJPOT

Based on the day’s panels, the conference conveners recommended five strategies that 

should be included in any new public diplomacy efforts that the Obama administration 

may consider:

1. Promote credible voices over perceived propaganda. The United States must enlist 

commercial and independent content providers to bring their own credible and diverse 

perspectives on America to increasingly sophisticated and skeptical audiences. The 

summit recommends designated funding for third-party content that serves the interests of public diplomacy.

2. Increase investment in educating the American public about international affairs.

Cutbacks in American news coverage of international affairs undermine the vital need 

for a well-informed citizenry. The summit recommends U.S. funding to seed publicprivate partnerships that bring foreign perspectives and greater coverage of international affairs to American audiences.

3. Recognize the value of local partners over official outlets. The full-service studio/

station model of official broadcasting needs to be reevaluated in strategic parts of 

the world. The summit recommends pursuing local partnerships with existing media 

companies, channels, and brands to bring credible public diplomacy media to their 

hard-to-reach audiences.

4. Adapt to the new media landscape and enlist citizens in creating and disseminating content. The summit recommends that the U.S. government invest in 

Internet media strategies that tap the public diplomacy potential of citizen-tocitizen connections.
5. $SFBUFBUXPXBZQVCMJDEJQMPNBDZNFEJBTUSBUFHZ Better strategies for listening 

are an essential part of better international communication. The summit recommends 

that the U.S. government help international media makers reach domestic audiences 

to ensure that America is listening—and worth listening to.

'JOEJOHT

t Expand public-private partnerships that use independent and citizen media to tell 

America’s story abroad and bring the world’s stories to America.

t Invest in new media infrastructure and online spaces that increase connectivity and 

support international exchange and interaction.

t Favor third-party partnerships with international partners, both public and private, 

over centralized efforts generated and executed from Washington.

t Pursue targeted efforts to influence the U.S. distribution marketplace for content 

that promotes public diplomacy while enlisting private sector U.S. companies in joint 

public diplomacy efforts abroad. 

8
"QQFOEJY"-JTUPG1BSUJDJQBOUT

Hosts: Sally Jo Fifer (President and CEO, ITVS) and Richard Solomon (President, USIP)

Moderators: Sheldon Himelfarb (USIP Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict and 

Peacebuilding), Ted Koppel (Broadcast Journalist)

Panel 1: “Public Diplomacy 2.0: Rethinking Official Media”

Kathy Bushkin Calvin, Executive Vice President and COO, The United Nations Foundation 

Edward Djerejian, Founding Director, the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy 

Abderrahim Foukara, Washington, D.C., Bureau Chief, Al Jazeera International 

James Glassman, former Under Secretary of State Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs

Andrew McLaughlin, Director of Global Public Policy and Government Affairs, Google

James Zogby, Founder and President, Arab American Institute 

Panel 2: “The Global Media Marketplace”

Edward Borgerding, Chief Executive Officer, Abu Dhabi Media Company 

Carol Giacomo, Editorial Board Member, The New York Times

Mika Salmi, President of Global Digital Media, MTV Networks 

Smita Singh, Director, Global Development Program, The William and Flora Hewlett 

Foundation

Sydney Suissa, Executive Vice President of Content, National Geographic Channels International

Panel 3: “Independent Documentary and Participatory Media”

Tamara Gould, Vice President of Distribution, Independent Television Service

Calvin Sims, Program Officer, Media Arts & Culture, Ford Foundation

Yvette Alberdingk Thijm, Executive Director, Witness

Bloggers and Online Participants: 

Rebecca MacKinnon, co-founder, Global Voices Online

Oscar Morales (through video Skype), founder, One Million Voices Against the FARC

Ivan Sigal, Executive Director, Global Voices Online

Joel Whitaker, Senior Adviser, USIP Center of Innovation for Science, Technology and 

Peacebuilding


10

/PUFT

1. “The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other,” Pew Global Attitudes Project, June 22, 

2006. Available online at http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=253.

2. “Internet Overtakes Newspapers as News Outlet,” Pew Center for the People & the Press, December 23, 

2008, as cited in “The State of the News Media (2009).” Available online at http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.com/2009/narrative_online_audience.php?cat=2&media=5#.

3. For more information, see International Telecommunication Union Web site at http://www.itu.int/net/

home/index.aspx.

4. Gabriel Weimann, Terror on the Internet: The New Arena, the New Challenges (Washington, D.C.: USIP Press, 

2006).

5. Waltz with Bashir (2008), directed by Ari Folman. Running time: 87 minutes. 

6OJUFE4UBUFT

*OTUJUVUFPG1FBDF

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

XXXVTJQPSH

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.

0G3FMBUFE*OUFSFTU

t )PX 8F .JTTFE UIF 4UPSZ 0TBNB CJO -BEFO
 UIF 5BMJCBO
 BOE UIF )JKBDLJOH PG

"GHIBOJTUBO
 by Roy Gutman (United States Institute of Peace Press, 2008).

t .FEJB BOE $POnJDU "GHIBOJTUBO BT B 3FMBUJWF 4VDDFTT 4UPSZ
 by Yll Bajraktari and Christina Parajon (Special Report, July 2008)

t %FWFMPQJOH .FEJB JO 4UBCJMJ[BUJPO BOE 3FDPOTUSVDUJPO 0QFSBUJPOT by Yll Bajraktari and 

Emily Hsu (Special Report, October 2007).

t 5FSSPS PO UIF *OUFSOFU 5IF /FX "SFOB
 UIF /FX $IBMMFOHFT by Gabriel Weimann (United 

States Institute of Peace Press, 2006).

t "SBC .FEJB 5PPMT PG UIF (PWFSONFOUT 5PPMT GPS UIF 1FPQMF (Virtual Diplomacy Series, 

July 2005)

t -BUF#SFBLJOH 'PSFJHO 1PMJDZ 5IF /FXT .FEJBT *OnVFODF PO 1FBDF 0QFSBUJPOT by 

Warren P. Strobel (United States Institute of Peace Press, 1997)