U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–841 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–607

THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

FINDING THE RIGHT MEDIA FOR THE MESSAGE

IN THE MIDDLE EAST

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 29, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire, Chairman

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Ford, Mr. Jess T., Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. General

Accounting Office, Washington, DC .................................................................... 57

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59

Ghareeb, Dr. Edmund, Adjunct Professor of Middle East History and Politics,

School of International Service, American University, Washington, DC, ....... 68

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71

Harb, Mr. Mouafac, News Director, Alhurra, Middle East Television Network,

Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, DC ......................................... 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Florida, opening statement ...................... 24

Pattiz, Hon. Norman J., Governor, Broadcasting Board of Governors, Washington, DC ............................................................................................................. 24

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29

Rugh, Hon. William A., Associate, Institute for the Study of Diplomacy,

Georgetown University, Washington, DC .......................................................... 46

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Sununu, Hon. John E., U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, opening statement ...................................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3

Telhami, Professor Shibley, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace, University of

Maryland, College Park, MD ............................................................................... 52

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55

Tomlinson, Hon. Kenneth Y., Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors,

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 4

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6

Alhurra and Radio Sawa Progress Report ..................................................... 9

Letter to Senator Sununu, dated June 3, 2004, from Kenneth Tomlinson,

transmitting additional information for the record .................................... 35

(III)

(1)

THE BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS:

FINDING THE RIGHT MEDIA FOR THE MESSAGE IN THE MIDDLE EAST

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS

AND TERRORISM,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., in room SD–419, Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Hon. John E. Sununu (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Present: Senators Sununu, Biden, and Bill Nelson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Senator SUNUNU. Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing

of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism.

Today we will examine the Broadcasting Board of Governors

[BBG] and evaluate whether we have found the right media mix

and media message in the Middle East, a region whose importance

to our country we all know well.

We will have two panels of distinguished witnesses. Panel one includes Mr. Tomlinson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Mr. Pattiz, Governor of the Broadcasting Board and Director of the Middle East Service; and Mr. Harb, News Director of

Alhurra, the Middle East Television Network. Panel two includes

Mr. Ford, Director of the International Affairs and Trade at the

General Accounting Office; Dr. Telhami, the Anwar Sadat Professor

of Peace at the University of Maryland; and former Ambassador

Rugh of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy at Georgetown

University. We also have Dr. Ghareeb, Adjunct Professor of Mideast History and Politics at American University.

I want to thank all the panelists for being here today to talk

about the new Government-funded Alhurra TV network, Radio

Sawa, and all of the challenges of matching the media to the audience in the Middle East.

To win the war on terrorism, we need to not only defeat terrorists in the field, we need to defeat their ideas, their anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and the anti-American message that they

espouse around the world, and most particularly in the Middle

East. Today we will examine a key tool in the war on terrorist attempts to spread hatred and intolerance, the Broadcasting Board

2

of Governors and the Middle Eastern services, Alhurra satellite TV

and Radio Sawa in particular.

A free, open, and fair media is vital to a free nation and a lasting

democratic process. The dissemination of facts and open discussion

of ideas are essential to the functioning of free institutions. The

Broadcasting Board of Governors plays a vital role in the promotion of our foreign policy because it promotes and sustains freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news

and information about the United States and the world to audiences overseas.

The BBG supervises all U.S. Government-funded, non-military

international broadcasting, in 54 languages to more than 100 markets worldwide. Its services include Voice of America, Radio Free

Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the Office of Cuba

Broadcasting as well. In 2002, the BBG began broadcasting Radio

Sawa to the Middle East, and in 2004, just 2 months ago, the BBG

started its Alhurra satellite television broadcasts.

The board’s total 2004 budget for all activities is $590 million

and for 2005 the request is just shy of $570 million.

The BBG transmits news, information, and accurate reports of

U.S. Government policy, as well as thoughtful criticism, giving citizens of countries throughout the region the ability to judge for

themselves, which is obviously an essential foundation for freedom

and free thinking.

Last week here in the Foreign Relations committee, we held a series of hearings on the June 30 transition date in Iraq that were

a fine example of the democratic process at work. Administration

witnesses and non-governmental experts testified and Senators

from both sides grappled with the tough issues we and the Iraqi

people face during very challenging times.

BBG seeks to set a standard of solid journalism in a region

where a history of government-controlled media has left the public

cynical and journalists too often seem to equate strident criticism

of the United States with independent reporting.

The BBG describes ‘‘marrying the mission to the market’’ as the

fundamental strategy of U.S. international broadcasting today. But

they must determine how to best reach large audiences in very

complex, competitive media environments with news, as well as

perspectives on American culture and information on official U.S.

Government positions and policies. This task is further complicated

by what is becoming an increasingly varied Middle Eastern broadcasting scene. While government-owned media still dominate national land-based TV and radio, satellite technology has created

new stations that are competing vigorously for different segments

of the market.

We will ask our panelists a number of questions. In our first

panel, we will examine Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa as examples

of innovation at the BBG. What media are most influential in the

Middle East now? Is it TV? Is it radio? Is it newspapers or is it

the Internet? How does the BBG identify its audience? How is the

audience segmented? How does the BBG select the media and the

programming to reach different audiences? And of course, how do

we measure success?

3

On the second panel, we will see an overview of the GAO’s recent

work evaluating the performance of the BBG. Our panelists are

uniquely qualified to further our understanding of the political environment and the media marketplace in which Alhurra and Radio

Sawa operate. All three panelists on our second panel are distinguished authors with great personal experience in the region.

We want to better understand what journalists in the region see

as their role and their responsibilities, ask what attitudes are

among different countries and different people in the Middle East

toward the United States. What do people think of these new

broadcasting groups, Alhurra and Radio Sawa? And how can the

United States most effectively promote the development of free,

fair, and open media throughout the region?

As our members of the subcommittee appear, I will interrupt the

proceedings to give them an opportunity to at least offer opening

remarks and submit remarks for the record. But I do want to move

along very quickly today, and as such, I will turn immediately to

our panelists and ask you to summarize any written testimony that

you have. Rest assured, we do have a fair number of questions.

Again, thank you all for participating and we will begin with Mr.

Kenneth Tomlinson.

[The prepared statement of Senator Sununu follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN E. SUNUNU

Good afternoon and welcome to today’s hearing of the Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Today we will examine the Broadcasting Board of Governors and evaluate whether

we have found the right media for the message in the Middle East, a region whose

importance to our country we all know well.

We will have two panels of distinguished witnesses. Panel one includes Mr. Tomlinson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors; Mr. Pattiz, Governor of

the Broadcasting Board and Director of the Middle East Service; and Mr. Harb,

News Director of Alhurra, the Middle East Television Network (METN). Panel two

includes Mr. Ford, Director, International Affairs and Trade of the General Accounting Office; Dr. Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor of Peace at the University of Maryland; former Ambassador Rugh of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, Georgetown University; and Dr. Ghareeb, Adjunct Professor of Middle East History and

Politics, School of International Service, American University. Thank you for coming

today to discuss the new U.S. Government-funded Alhurra, Radio Sawa, and the

critical challenge of matching the media to the audience in the Middle East.

To win the war on terrorism we must not only defeat the terrorists in the field;

we must also defeat their ideas, and the anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and antiAmerican message they espouse around the world—and most particularly in the

Middle East. Today we will examine a key tool in our war on the terrorists’ attempts to spread hate and intolerance: the Broadcasting Board of Governors and its

Middle Eastern services—Alhurra satellite TV and Radio Sawa.

A free, open and fair media is vital to a free nation and a lasting democratic process. Dissemination of the facts and open discussion of ideas are essential to the

functioning of free institutions. The BBG plays a vital role in the promotion of our

foreign policy because it promotes and sustains ‘‘freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and information about the United States and

the world to audiences overseas.’’

The BBG supervises all U.S. Government-funded non-military international

broadcasting—in 54 languages to more than 100 markets worldwide. Its services include: Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and the

Office of Cuba Broadcasting (Radio and TV Marti). In 2002, the BBG also began

broadcasting Radio Sawa to the Middle East, and in 2004, the BBG started its

Alhurra satellite television broadcasts.

The Board’s total FY 2004 budget for all its activities is $592 million, and the FY

2005 request is $569.3 million. The BBG has requested $42.7 million for FY 2005

for METN. The Congressional Budget Office and the BBG estimate METN will cost

between $37 and $42 million annually from 2004-2008.

4

The BBG transmits news, information, and accurate reports of U.S. Government

policy, as well as thoughtful criticism, giving citizens of countries throughout the region the ability to judge for themselves, an essential foundation of freedom. Last

week, here in the Foreign Relations Committee we held a series of hearings on the

June 30 transition date in Iraq that were a terrific example of the democratic process at work. Administration witnesses and nongovernment experts of distinction testified, and Senators from both sides of the aisle grappled with the tough issues we

and the Iraqi people face in a dynamic discussion. BBG seeks to set a standard of

solid journalism in a region where a history of government controlled media has left

the public cynical and journalists too often seem to equate strident criticism of the

United States with ‘‘independent’’ reporting.

The BBG describes ‘‘marrying the mission to the market’’ as ‘‘the fundamental

strategy of U.S. international broadcasting today.’’ The BBG must determine how

it can best reach large audiences in complex, competitive media environments with

news as well as ‘‘perspectives on American culture and information on official U.S.

Government positions and policies.’’ The task is complicated by what is becoming

an increasingly varied Middle Eastern broadcasting scene. While government-owned

media still dominate national land-based TV and radio, satellite technology has created new stations that are competing vigorously.

We will ask a number of questions. In our first panel discussion with Mr. Tomlinson, Mr. Pattiz and Mr. Harb, we will examine Alhurra TV and Radio Sawa as examples of innovation at the BBG. What media are most influential in the Middle

East now: TV, radio, newspapers, the Internet? How does the BBG identify its audience? How is the audience segmented? How does BBG select the media and programming to reach the various audiences? How does BBG measure success? Might

BBG’s success in certain markets slow the growth of free, fair, open and privately

owned local stations?

On the second panel, Mr. Ford will give us an overview of GAO’s recent work on

the BBG. Dr. Telhami, Ambassador Rugh and Dr. Ghareeb are uniquely qualified

to further our understanding of the political environment and media marketplace

in which Alhurra and Radio Sawa operate. All three are distinguished authors with

long experience in the region. What are the political as well as commercial dynamics

of broadcasting companies in the Middle East now? What do journalists in the region see as their role and responsibilities? What are attitudes toward the U.S.?

What do people think of Alhurra and Radio Sawa? How can the U.S. most effectively promote the development of free, fair and open media in the Middle East?

How might Alhurra and Radio Sawa contribute to those goals?

I would like to offer Senators Biden and Nelson a chance to make opening remarks, and then let us begin with Mr. Tomlinson. To ensure as much time as possible for discussion, I would ask witnesses to confine their remarks to about five

minutes. Their testimony can be entered in the record in full.

STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON, CHAIRMAN,

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Mr. TOMLINSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. You

have the statement for the record.

I will point out that Norm Pattiz has both a film which is going

to be fascinating insight into Alhurra, our new television voice, but

we also have preliminary survey data from the region to show the

kind of quick impact we have had in the region, as well as definitive survey data from Nielsen demonstrating the extraordinary success of Radio Sawa.

I will also point out that last night for the first time in 19 years,

Norm Pattiz was not court side for a Lakers playoff game, which

is an indication of the seriousness that he has brought to the table

here. Because I assure you that in past years, he never would have

missed a playoff game for such a hearing.

To my left is Mouafac Harb, who is News Director of Radio Sawa

and News Director of Alhurra. I was walking down the hallway of

VOA today and someone stopped me and said, you know, I think

Mouafac Harb might be the most important single person involved

5

in broadcasting public diplomacy, and I really could not disagree

with that. I am honored to be with both of these gentlemen.

On February 14 of this year, with the enthusiastic support of

President Bush and key leaders of the administration and the Congress, BBG launched its new Arabic language television network

called Alhurra. Alhurra was created out in northern Virginia in a

little more than 4 months, a state-of-the-art studio that we would

be proud for anyone to see. But on that day that as we opened with

the magnificent sets that Norm Pattiz was responsible for putting

together, the extraordinary thing to me was the sea of Middle Eastern faces—news men, news women enthusiastically working to

make this network a successful model of journalistic standards in

this world.

President Bush spoke of open debate and truth when he described what this network can mean to the people of the Middle

East. The network will challenge the voices of hate and repression

with truth and the voices of tolerance and moderation. Viewers will

witness free and open discussions not just about the conflict in the

Middle East, but also about subjects critical to that region’s future—economic development, human rights, respect for minorities.

Our competitive edge in the Middle East is our dedication to

truth and free and open debate. People have asked from the beginning how in the world will you guys be able to compete with Al

Jazeera and others out there. I contend that time and again Radio

Sawa is demonstrating that it is first-rate. If you give accurate

news, if people come to depend on the news, if they hear free and

open debate, they will come to such a station.

We are also proud of what we have done in other aspects of

international broadcasting. Voice of America has been active in a

number of different areas, which we will mention as we go along

today. Especially important at Voice of America is a new daily

news program to Iran, obviously, in Persian. It has been a terrific

success and we are proud of it.

Now, Radio Sawa has been a phenomenal success, and Norm will

have a lot to say about that in terms of the Nielsen survey.

We were asked repeatedly on Alhurra how are you going to know

anyone is listening to you. I have never been involved in a project

that I had more faith was going to be a success than the Alhurra

project, but I am glad that we have some quick survey data indicating the initial impact. We will have more data in the summer.

I am an old print journalist and my attitude, Mr. Chairman, toward some of this is the attitude of Mark Twain who said, ‘‘figures

lie and liars figure.’’ But we do need the statistical indication of our

presence there, and that we will give you today.

The board also has been involved, in addition to our Persian initiative, in expansions at VOA in Indonesia. We have an important

new service to Pakistan in Urdu language broadcasting that our

colleague Steve Simmons of the Board of Governors has been a

great force behind.

We have a lot to tell you about and we look forward to your questions.

I will end on just one quick note. We are frequently asked about

coordination. We are frequently asked about the way we work with

other aspects of the administration. Of course, Senator Biden,

6

being the father of this broadcast board, put together a force that

would, in fact, be a firewall and serve a unique role in communications around the world. But I have served four administrations in

Washington, as the Director of the Voice of America, a member of

the BIB board and the like, and I have never seen a better working

relationship between the White House and international broadcasting than we have now. We have the White House Office of

Global Communications to thank for that. They were enormously

supportive and helpful in developing what we are doing at Alhurra.

Let me close on this. We need to understand the importance of

maintaining the strength of public diplomacy and the traditions of

international broadcasting. I am convinced we will not be successful in our overall mission of delivering our message to the world

if we fail to grasp that these are two different spheres and that

they operate according to two different sets of rules.

It is very important that government spokesmen take America’s

message to the world passionately and relentlessly. We should not

be ashamed of public advocacy on behalf of freedom and democracy

and the United States of America. International broadcasting, on

a parallel and complementary track, is called upon to reflect the

highest standards of independent journalism as the best means of

demonstrating to international audiences that truth is on the side

of democratic values.

We in America are fortunate that telling the truth works to our

long-term advantage. That is why international broadcasting, I believe, is so important in this country.

We thank you for the invitation. We look forward to answering

your questions, and I look forward to Norm’s presentation because

he usually does a pretty good job.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tomlinson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to talk about the efforts of the Broadcasting

Board of Governors to communicate with the people in the Islamic world. I am

joined by fellow board member Norman Pattiz, the father of Radio Sawa and an irrepressible force for international broadcasting, and by Mouafac Harb, the News Director for the Middle East Television Network. Together we hope to give you a full

picture of the BBG’s efforts to assist the war on terrorism, and become a continuously available source of news for the people of the Middle East.

As this committee well knows, the BBG has greatly expanded its reach and broadcast hours to the Islamic world in the past three years. There has been literally an

enormous increase in the availability of U.S.-sponsored news and information on

radio and television to this region. Radio Sawa, Radio Farda, VOA-TV’s Persian programming, and now the Middle East Television Network (MTN) are relative newcomers on the scene, but are making a big impact.

On February 14 of this year, with the enthusiastic support of President Bush and

key leaders of the Administration and Congress, the BBG launched its new Arabiclanguage television network called ‘‘Alhurra’’ (‘‘The Free One’’ in Arabic). Even before this station went on the air, it was heavily criticized in the Arab world as a

propaganda arm of the U.S. Government. It has been called a ‘‘voice of the CIA’’ whose aim is to ‘‘brainwash Arabs’’ and described as part of ‘‘a long-term plan to

dominate the minds and ideas of Iraqis and Arabs.’’ But Alhurra is none of these

things. Its mission is that of all U.S. international broadcasting—to promote and

sustain freedom and democracy by broadcasting accurate and objective news and information about the United States and the world.

Through its adherence to Western journalistic standards, through its objective, accurate reporting, Alhurra can gain the credibility we need to build an audience and

offer Middle Eastern audiences a new balanced view of world events. While criticism

in the Arab press continues, we are connecting with the people—our target audiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
7

ence—and they are sending us hundreds of e-mails to welcome us. ‘‘You are much

needed to balance biased news controlled by those full of hatred to western world,’’

reads one. ‘‘This is the first step to fight the ‘hate culture’ that feeds terrorism,’’ says

another. ‘‘I hope your channel [will help] our Arab brothers . . . to tell the truth

from all that is going on.’’

In a little more than four months, the BBG established a state-of-the-art broadcast facility in Northern Virginia to house Alhurra. Since October some 900,000 feet

of cable have been installed in this facility. But what is truly extraordinary is the

sea of Middle Eastern faces—newsmen and newswomen—enthusiastically working

to make this network a successful model of journalistic standards. Many of these

individuals are well known media figures in the Middle East and gave up promising

careers overseas to practice journalism with MTN.

President Bush spoke of ‘‘open debate’’ and ‘‘truth’’ when he described what this

network can mean to the people of the Middle East. The network will challenge the

voices of hate and repression with truth and the voices of tolerance and moderation.

Viewers will witness free and open discussions, not just about conflict in the Middle

East, but also about subjects critical to that region’s future—economic development,

human rights and respect for minorities.

Our competitive edge in the Middle East is our dedication to truth and free and

open debate. We will provide an example of democracy and a free press in a media

market dominated by sensationalism and distortion. That is also the basis for the

success of the Voice of America’s new Persian-language satellite television program

‘‘News and Views’’ to the people of Iran. Less than three months after that program

was launched last summer, one independent survey showed ‘‘News and Views’’ was

reaching a remarkable 12 percent of the country’s over-18 population.

Typical of what creative broadcasting can do is the new segment launched by

‘‘News and Views’’ called ‘‘Your Voice.’’ Iranian viewers were invited to submit emails on the controversy surrounding the February 20th parliamentary elections—

from the banning of candidates to calls for an election boycott. We opened a dialogue

that is allowing Iranians to share their views with other Iranians—and the response

has been extraordinary.

My predecessors likewise brought innovation to our radio broadcasts that proved

to be vital to the success of our Afghan Radio Network which broadcasts in Dari

and Pashto, our youth-oriented Radio Farda to Iran, and Radio Sawa to the Arab

world. When Norm Pattiz was in the process of creating Radio Sawa, he traveled

throughout the Middle East to negotiate heretofore unattainable agreements for

American AM and FM transmitters in Middle Eastern countries so that we could

be heard on the radios of choice in the region.

Radio Sawa has been a phenomenal success. A survey by ACNielsen research last

fall demonstrated that Sawa has achieved market dominance—an average

listenership of 42 percent in the important age group between 15 and 29—in key

Middle Eastern countries.

Radio Sawa faced the same skepticism as Alhurra before it was launched. Critics

conceded Arabs might listen to our music, but not our news. Yet this same

ACNielsen survey found that, in a region where skepticism towards the U.S. is high

and boycotts of U.S. products are common, Radio Sawa was found to be a reliable

source of news and information by 73 percent of its weekly listenership.

In a matter of months, Sawa built the largest radio news-gathering operation in

the Middle East presenting up-to-the minute news 24 hours a day and over 325

newscasts per week. It was the very reliability of our Sawa news that made us the

leading source for news in Iraq even as we went to war there.

News also accounts for the surprising audience that ACNielsen documented for

Sawa among older listeners in target countries in the Middle East—better than 20

percent among the general population over 30. Mr. Chairman, I will submit for the

record highlights of this survey.

Under the leadership of Mouafac Harb, Sawa’s outstanding News Director who

also assumes that post for Alhurra, the station also is the source of a host of shows

that explore freedom and democracy.

In Indonesia, the Voice of America has enhanced its radio and TV offerings to

reach this large Islamic population. ‘‘Jurnal VOA,’’ a 25-minute live, interactive

news program, appears on Indonesia’s ‘‘Metro TV.’’ Another TV offering, ‘‘Doing

Business,’’ airs every Monday on TVRI. ‘‘VOA Direct Connection,’’ a half-hour weekly radio program, airs each Friday evening on more than 40 satellite affiliates

around Indonesia.

This month, we launched a new one-hour interactive talk show, ‘‘Salam VOA,’’

that will air on JTV in Surabaya. In addition, VOA will supply Trans TV with a

weekly 5-minute U.S. election wrap-up, to air on its morning news program. We anVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
8

ticipate doubling our radio broadcasts to five hours a day and increasing TV from

one to five hours a week.

The Board’s latest initiative is a new youth-oriented Urdu broadcast to Pakistan

where listeners would be served contemporary Pakistani and western music along

with news and current affairs features and subjects ranging from education to business to health. We hope to increase our hours of broadcast as well as the power of

our broadcasts to this key country in the war on terrorism.

Just this week we began broadcasting to Iraq over channel 12 in Baghdad, available through terrestrial transmission. Iraqis also have access to Alhurra’s programming delivered via Arabsat. In the weeks ahead, we will be phasing in special programming for Iraq, including newscasts, talk shows and roundtables. Additional terrestrial transmitters in Basra and three other cities should be on-line in the near

future.

Much of criticism of Alhurra—again before we even launched—was that we would

be the mouthpiece of the U.S. Government, sending cleared messages and propaganda to taint Arab minds. None of our programming in any part of the world seeks

to do this. VOA’s long-standing Charter, and more recently the U.S. International

Broadcasting Act, guard against this. But we must demonstrate this every day to

our audiences and earn their trust and loyalty over time. This does not mean that

we ignore our mission to promote and sustain freedom and democracy. Our programming frequently features U.S. policymakers and programming that accurately

explains the U.S. policy measures that so often are maligned in the Middle East.

In continuing all of our broadcast initiatives, we will strive to give our listeners

the same tool we have always provided through international broadcasting: the information they need to compare their political, economic, and social systems to those

that exist elsewhere in the world, and to assess their own leadership.

In creating a broadcast environment that also reflects the foreign policy priorities

of the United States, we look to the Department of State for guidance, expertise,

and participation in our programs. I have served four Administrations in Washington—all of them connected with international broadcasting. Never have I seen

a better working relationship between the White House, the State Department; and

international broadcasting.

The White House Office of Global Communications has been extraordinarily supportive in helping us assess priorities and expand what we are doing as in Middle

East Television. This office also has been a major enabler in helping the BBG to

gain access to policy makers for interviews on major world events.

Under Secretary Margaret Tutwiler, who represents the Secretary at Board meetings, has been deeply interested in broadcasting’s strategic goals and priorities and

is a full participant in Board decision-making. Our diplomats overseas also have

helped-us gain valuable transmission resources in countries to which we broadcast.

We need to understand the importance of maintaining the strength of public diplomacy and the traditions of international broadcasting. I am convinced that we

will not be successful in our overall mission of delivering our message to the world

if we fail to grasp that these are two different spheres and that they operate according to two different sets of rules.

It is very important that government spokesmen take America’s message to the

world—passionately and relentlessly. We should not be ashamed of public advocacy

on behalf of freedom and democracy and the United States of America. International

broadcasting, on a parallel and complementary track, is called upon to reflect the

highest standards of independent journalism as the best means of demonstrating to

international audiences that truth is on the side of democratic values.

Thirty years ago, RFE/RL and VOA began broadcasting the Watergate hearings.

Those broadcasts caused heartburn for many in Washington, but looking back we

see they constituted a veritable civics lesson on the importance of separation of powers and rule of law. Over the years I have heard so many citizens of post-communist

countries tell how those broadcasts helped them understand the real meaning of

freedom and democracy. Alhurra is fortunate to make its debut in a Presidential

election year. It will cover the U.S. race from one end to the other, showing day by

day how our election process works.

We in America are fortunate that telling the truth works to our long-term advantage. That is why international broadcasting is so important to this country.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement. I will be happy to answer any

questions that your subcommittee might have.

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson.

At this time, I would like to call on the subcommittee’s ranking

member, Senator Nelson, for his opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL NELSON

Senator NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A large scale international television and the Internet, I think,

is essential in winning the war on terrorism. When we hear the

commentary in the last few days of what is, in fact, happening on

the ground being, to be charitable, misconstrued by some of the

Arab television networks, it becomes all the more important that

the interests of the free world have an ability to communicate with

people of different civilizations.

So in the course of this hearing, which I am going to have to be

in and out of, Mr. Chairman, we are going to be examining whether investment and recapitalization of the transmission capabilities

are needed and increasing our television programming and broadening our outreach to the Muslim world. This is most timely that

you are having this subcommittee hearing.

We have already expanded our services to the region in Arabic

and Persian. This committee is one which voted to increase the

President’s budget for broadcasting when we moved the Foreign

Assistance Authorization Act earlier this year.

So thank you for the opportunity and I thank the witnesses for

coming and testifying to us.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Nelson.

At this time, we are pleased to take the testimony from Norman

Pattiz. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN J. PATTIZ, GOVERNOR,

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Mr. PATTIZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members

of the subcommittee, Senator Nelson. It is a pleasure to be here.

I will just expand on what Chairman Tomlinson said about my

missing the first Lakers playoff game in 18 years in order to be

here. That is true, but I am a broadcaster by trade and I considered this an honor and a privilege to have been appointed by two

Presidents of different parties to do something that is arguably

more important than it has ever been, or as important as it has

ever been certainly in our history, that takes advantage of what I

have done for a living all my life in a country that has been very,

very good to me. So go Lakers, but priorities are priorities, and this

is where I need to be and this where I am.

I got involved in the Broadcasting Board of Governors about 3

years ago. I was sworn-in in November of 2000, and at the time,

I was the only broadcaster on the board. I am happy to say that

we now have a number of people with broadcast and journalism experience, but I was the only broadcaster. As such, I was asked to

serve as the co-chair of the Language Review Committee, which is

the committee that is mandated by Congress to, on an annual

basis, look at how we deploy our resources across the 60-plus language services that we broadcast in every year.

One area stood out when I was taking a look at the various areas

that we were funding, not because of what we were doing, but beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
25

cause of what we were not doing. That area was the Middle East.

At the time, our total commitment to the Middle East was 7 hours

a day of Arabic language programming from the Voice of America

Arabic Service, transmitted on short wave which practically nobody

listened to, on a very weak medium wave signal out of the Island

of Rhodes. That was our commitment to Middle East broadcasting.

I reported that to the board and the board in so many words

said, congratulations, Norm, good job. We are now forming a Middle East committee. You will be the chairman of it. Go fix it.

So within a month, I was on my way to the Middle East with

some staffers to assess what was possible in the region, and a lot

was possible. But first, impressions of what was going on in the region. Taking a look at the media environment in the region—and

I am not saying this is what takes place in every aspect of the

media environment—it is not uncommon at all to hear hate-speak

on radio and television, incitement to violence, disinformation, government censorship, and journalistic self-censorship. It is within

that environment that the Arab street gets its impressions not only

of U.S. policy, which they despise, but of our culture, our society,

our people, our values. We thought we needed to do a much better

job of presenting accurately what our policies are so that our audiences could make more informed decisions. And we need to reach

the largest possible audience that we could reach.

There was a tremendous opportunity with Radio Sawa, which at

the time we did not know was going to be ‘‘Radio Sawa.’’ We knew

it was going to be something in Arabic on the radio.

I met with heads of state, ministers of information, academics,

journalists. We did some focus groups in several countries. And it

was obvious that there was an opportunity to reach a very large

percentage of the population, the largest percentage of the population actually, which is the 30 and under segment that is underserved by the media and is incredibly important to the long-term

interests of the United States. By putting something on the air

that was contemporary; that took advantage of the best in Western

broadcasting techniques and technology; that utilized AM, FM, digital audio, satellite technology; and that fulfills the role of

‘‘marrying the mission to the market;’’ we attracted an audience for

our primary mission, which is a journalistic mission.

So we put Radio Sawa on the air, which was a mix of Western

and Arabic music, heavily researched. Let me just say that Radio

Sawa and Alhurra are the most researched projects in the history

of international broadcasting. The fact of the matter is I cannot do

a project if I do not have the research with which to determine

what the opportunities are within the marketplace, who it is we

are trying to reach, who it is we are trying to communicate with,

and what those messages ought to be. If you do not have that, then

you are shooting blanks.

So we got a lot of information to find out what it would take to

resonate with our audience because radio, unlike television, is a

very different medium. Radio is a medium of formats, and people

tend to listen to their favorite radio stations to the exclusion of

other radio stations. Television is very different. It is a medium of

programs, and consequently, people tune into various programs at

various times because they want to see those programs. But they

26

are not intrinsically loyal to a particular television station. It does

not define who they are. It is different with radio. A lot of people

define who they are by the radio station they listen to. I dare say

if I stepped into any one of your automobiles today and checked the

settings on your radios, I would know something about who it was

who was driving that car.

So radio has a very unique way of connecting primarily with the

30 and under audience, and Radio Sawa has used all of that knowledge that we have to deliver a very, very large audience to news

and information that is second to none. We broadcast over 5 hours

of original news and informational programming every single day.

We break for special events when events on the ground warrant it.

We will go for 4, 5, 6 hours continuously in order to fulfill our journalistic mission. And from the very beginning, we knew that Sawa

was going to be successful based upon the original research that we

were doing and the tracking research that we do on a regular

basis.

We have had a lot of negative information passed around in the

press in the Middle East and some over here about the chances for

success of Alhurra. I have not been too terribly concerned about

that, nor do I think the chairman or Mouafac have been terribly

concerned about that, because frankly it is everything we heard

about Radio Sawa. The difference is when we started Radio Sawa,

we did it market by market, and when we started Alhurra, we did

it via satellite throughout the whole region. So the entire media

world knew we were coming and had their thoughts, and they were

giving us their thoughts well in advance of us even being on the

air.

Having said that, knowing that these are supposed to be brief remarks—and I have probably worn out my welcome and there is a

short video we want to show you—I want to give you some information that has just been completed on Radio Sawa and on Alhurra.

We have been doing research on Sawa for a number of years now.

Well, for 2 years. We have been on the air for 2 years. And Sawa

has shown that it can generate a significant audience, and we have

the research result—and I believe we have supplied it to the committee—of the latest Nielsen study showing that Sawa, in terms of

15-plus numbers, has a very large share across the region. In terms

of its target audience numbers, it has an even larger share across

the region. In terms of reliability and credibility, it is viewed very

highly by its listeners for the reliability and credibility of the news,

coming from an obviously American radio station.

I will just say this. Shortly after going on the air in Amman, Jordan, we did a research study that showed that within 30 days

Sawa was the favorite radio station of over 50 percent of our target

audience and was listened to weekly by 90 percent of our target audience. But in terms of news credibility, only 1 percent of our audience, a month after it went on the air, thought we were reliable

and credible. Six months later, we still had those large numbers for

‘‘favorite radio station’’ and those large numbers of people who

were listening every week, but in terms of news and information

reliability and credibility, the number had gone up to 40 percent.

So the point is to those people who will say if you cannot trust

the messenger, do not trust the message—our mission is to walk

27

the walk. Our mission is to give them an example of what a free

press is in the American tradition, and we have demonstrated with

Radio Sawa that they will listen and they will be affected. As a

matter of fact, that same Nielsen research shows that, by a margin

of about 2 to 1, slightly under 2 to 1, Radio Sawa listeners have

a more positive view of the United States of America than do nonRadio Sawa listeners.

This is a long-term project. We are late in the game. Nothing is

going to get changed overnight, but I think we are definitely having an effect with Sawa.

As far as Alhurra is concerned, since we have demonstrated the

fact that a U.S.-sponsored radio station can be viewed as reliable

and credible and very popular amongst its audience, then we ought

to engage in television where the real game is taking place and

where 90 percent of the Arab population gets its news and information.

So we have put together a 21st century news and informationdriven television station. It is news and information-driven but it

is not all news and information. We also have magazine shows. We

have travel shows, shows on health and fitness, shows on fashion,

shows on food, a number of different kinds of programming to attract a wider body of viewers so that we can affect them with our

news and information programming.

Every hour at the top of the hour and at the bottom of the hour,

we do news even when we are doing the programming that is not

primarily news and information. In prime time, we do two 1-hour

live newscasts. Obviously, we break for breaking stories, as we

have done on many occasions over the last few weeks, to cover the

breaking stories that are going on within the region.

But the question that we get asked over and over again, even

though we have only been on the air for 2 months and we have

only been 24 hours for about 3 weeks, is who is listening, who is

watching. Well, it is early. We have research in the field right now

that will ask many, many, many questions. But in order to get a

feel for where we are, we contracted with Ipsos-Stat, which is the

French company that does research in the Middle East and provides much of the audience research for television throughout the

Middle East. We contracted with them to do a telephone survey in

several cities throughout the region to get a sense of whether or

not people had even heard of us, whether people were watching us,

and what they felt about us.

This is very preliminary stuff, and it is really the information

that we would normally just use internally to let us know how we

are doing and what we need to focus on. But it came back a few

days ago, and I wanted to share it with you because, quite frankly,

it is very impressive. It is more impressive than we anticipated.

This is a telephone survey, so it is people who have telephones

and it is also people who have access to satellite television. Now,

you have 300 million people in the region. And 170 million of them

are over the age of 15, and about 40 percent of those people have

satellite access. So you are talking about in excess of 70 million

people here. So this is a big chunk of people.

In taking a look at individual cities, let me just tell you which

cities we looked at because I am going to mention them by country.

28

But I want you to know which cities we actually looked at because

these are more city numbers than country numbers. In Egypt, we

surveyed Cairo and Alexandria. In Jordan, we surveyed Amman,

Irbid, and Zarka. In the Emirates, we surveyed Abu Dhabi and

Dubai. In Lebanon, Beirut. Kuwait, Kuwait City. Saudi Arabia,

Jeddah and Riyadh. Syria, Damascus and Aleppo.

The information is as follows. In terms of weekly listening, persons 15-plus, in Egypt, 18 percent; in Jordan, 37 percent; in Lebanon, 40 percent; in the Emirates, 19 percent; in Kuwait, 44 percent; in Syria, 29 percent; and in Saudi Arabia, 19 percent. These

are significant numbers for a station that has been on the air for

a very, very short time, and has only been on the air 24 hours a

day for a very, very short period of time.

The fact that we got all that negative publicity was probably a

blessing in disguise. I think it is very interesting that they issued

a fatwah against us in Saudi Arabia, yet in spite of that, we can

show that 19 percent answered affirmatively.

Let me give you a sense of news reliability because we asked

those same people how reliable do you feel the news on Alhurra is.

In the categories of ‘‘very reliable’’ and ‘‘somewhat reliable,’’ in

Egypt, 40 percent said reliable; in Jordan, 44 percent; in Lebanon,

54 percent; in the United Arab Emirates, 65 percent; in Kuwait, 61

percent; in Syria, 37 percent; and in Saudi Arabia, 70 percent.

So this is real, real preliminary stuff, but it is an indicator and

it is a good indicator. We are there, and we are a player in this

marketplace right now. We will have full and complete research

within the next 45 to 60 days which is being done right now, and

then we will have another Nielsen survey which we will be doing

in June and July.

With your indulgence, what I would like to do is direct your attention to that monitor over there and give you a sense of what

this station looks like. We have taken a short promotional video

and edited it down to an even shorter promotional video with some

English narration, and added some recent coverage in the American media—a piece that was done on the News Hour that shows

you how the American media has covered what we are doing—and

then some very quick cuts of our people in the field doing the various types of programming, the live news, the roundtable discussions, the interviews, and so forth. This piece runs just a little bit

over 3 minutes, so with your indulgence, Mr. Chairman, I would

like to play that for you.

Senator NELSON. Was that fatwah issued with the approval of

the Government of Saudi Arabia?

Mr. HARB. I do not think it was, but the person who issued the

fatwah is a government employee.

Senator NELSON. It was.

Mr. HARB. Yes, sir.

Mr. PATTIZ. He is a government employee. I do not know that

you could get the Saudi Arabian Government to say it issued a

fatwah, but this is a religious leader who is in the employ of the

Saudi Government.

Senator NELSON. And did that fatwah get issued before the most

recent bombing in Saudi Arabia?

29

Mr. PATTIZ. I think it was issued before we ever hit the air. Do

not watch, do not participate, do not buy commercials, which I

thought was interesting since we are non-commercial. If memory

serves me, that was something that was issued before we had even

started broadcasting on February 14, or at least shortly thereafter.

Senator NELSON. Maybe they are changing their tune, Mr. Chairman, after the most recent bombing.

[Video shown.]

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pattiz follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN J. PATTIZ

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss our most recent programs in the Middle East and

to give you a quick video glimpse of some of the stories covered by Alhurra as well

as the quality of its production.

As Mr. Tomlinson mentioned, Alhurra has been on the air for just over two

months. We have plunged into a Middle East media environment that is rich in satellite programming and critical, breaking news. But it is not an environment that

is steeped in same traditions of journalism and objective news analysis that we are

familiar with. Television and radio broadcasters in the region are, for the most part,

government owned, and reflect a particular point of view that can be destructive to

opinion about the United States. We hope to make a difference by filling the gap

in accurate, objective news coverage.

Before I play the short video clip on Alhurra, I would like to emphasize that the

products the BBG has initiated over the past three years were heavily researched

before we invested in them. We believe we can be most successful when we tailor

our program mix to the audience we are trying to reach, using music and other nonnews feature programming when appropriate. We must also broadcast in a manner

that is sensitive to the culture and traditions of our audiences. Our formats must

be appealing, and our programs compelling and technologically state-of-the-art in

order to compete. In the Middle East, while audiences lack objective information

about the United States and our leadership in the world, there is no lack of satellite

stations that are competing with us for the same audience. We must set ourselves

apart, and I believe that Radio Sawa and Alhurra television are doing that.

For the development of Radio Sawa, we traveled to the region and identified a

target audience of the large portion of the population that is under the age of 35.

We researched what programming would draw them to an AM or FM station, and

when we found they would be attracted by modern music, we researched their music

preferences. This music-based format, along with features designed to appeal to

young audiences, provides the foundation for our news and information programming. So far, it has worked. As Chairman Tomlinson mentioned in his statement,

the audience listens, and they listen for the news.

Let me add another survey result to what you have already heard about Sawa

listening. In a survey conducted in Morocco—Radio Sawa’s newest market in the

Middle East—in February 2004, Nielsen found that 72 percent of the general population over the age of 15 listened to Radio Sawa. Sawa is even stronger in its 15

to 29 core age group. Among this market segment, Sawa showed a listening rate

of 87.5 percent. The rate of listening among audiences over the age of 30 is 63.5

percent, and 77 percent of weekly listeners found Sawa’s news reliable.

The success of Radio Sawa helped fuel the creation of Alhurra, our television

broadcast to the Middle East. After funding first became available in April 2003,

we assembled a highly skilled team of professionals to take on the daunting task

of getting a 24 hour a day station on the air by the beginning of 2004. After months

of overcoming the many daily challenges that came our way, we launched the program on February 14. We believe we have a sophisticated product that will compete

favorably with the well-established, and well-funded, satellite stations that exist in

the region.

The BBG’s use of research also applies to program delivery, which can also pose

major diplomatic and engineering challenges. As you know, we are navigating a

world where all transmission options are not uniformly available or utilized in every

region. Not only do we ‘‘marry the mission to the market’’ when we develop our program content, but we also do so when we choose transmission options. Some markets still require shortwave delivery. Other markets, as in the Middle East and surrounding regions, are much like the U.S. market: they listen to AM and FM radio,

and get much of their news from television. Gaining access to AM and FM freVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
30

quencies requires permission from foreign governments to install or lease transmission within their boundaries. Intense effort from the BBG, together with committed assistance from the State Department, has provided a network of about 20

AM and FM transmitters from Morocco to Kuwait to support Radio Sawa, and is

working to establish terrestrial transmission in Iraq.

I’d now like to play a short video which will give you a clear idea of the substance

and flavor of Alhurra.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Harb, welcome.

STATEMENT OF MOUAFAC HARB, NEWS DIRECTOR, ALHURRA,

MIDDLE EAST TELEVISION NETWORK, BROADCASTING

BOARD OF GOVERNORS

Mr. HARB. On behalf of my colleagues at Radio Sawa and

Alhurra, I thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am honored

to have been given a role in establishing both Radio Sawa and

Alhurra television. We have been fortunate in the leadership and

support we have received from the administration, Congress, and

the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

It has been deeply satisfying to see Sawa and Alhurra develop

from inspiration to reality with staff, stations, and a steadily growing audience.

The mission of this new Middle East television network is to

broadcast accurate, timely, and relevant news and information

about the region, the world, and the United States to a broad Arabspeaking audience. By doing this, we seek to foster freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

That is a tall order. I am proud to tell you that we are beginning

to fill it. All of us who work in these operations can feel it, and the

data we have gathered—and Governor Pattiz just mentioned a little bit about it—although early, appear to back that up.

It will take time, but I am confident we will succeed.

Until Sawa and Alhurra began broadcasting, people in the Arabic-speaking world got a steady diet of variations of just one story:

Arab humiliation. The actual events are different from story to

story and day to day. But they all carry this one message. It tells

them that the Americans and the Israelis are the source of all the

trouble in their lives. They bear no responsibility themselves.

News outlets in the Middle East, especially television news outlets, see themselves as mirrors of public opinion and their audience’s emotions. So they come at their reporting with a point of

view already in place, and as a result, they broadcast material that

inflames viewers against America.

In the past few years, the Middle East has been a two-channel

television market when it comes to news and information. The ratings for these two channels have been largely determined by one

person and not by good journalism, and that person is Osama bin

Laden. He knows neither channel wants to be frozen out and he

plays that for all it is worth, rewarding one or the other with an

exclusive tape of his latest threats. It is not about going out to find

a scoop and go after a story. You wait in your newsroom praying

for a tape to show up from al-Zarqawi or Osama bin Laden and

then all American networks and Western networks will carry the

message.

31

Well, it is not a two-channel market anymore, and the new player does not need to please bin Laden. Since February 14, Alhurra

has brought a new idea to journalism in the Middle East—telling

the truth. We do our work the way it is supposed to be done. We

play it straight and we behave like news professionals because that

is what we are.

As Mr. Pattiz mentioned, we were businesslike in our approach.

We are heavily researched and we studied our market from Morocco to the Persian Gulf. We used what we learned to shape our

product. What came out was the region’s first news and information channel dedicated to telling the story completely and accurately. That means going beyond just reporting what happened. We

provide background and context to explain why something happened and what the ramifications might be.

An example of this happened a couple of weeks ago in our coverage of the assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi.

Alhurra was ending one of its hour-long newscasts when the story

broke. We immediately reported it on the newscast. Then we followed up the initial report with 5 hours of live coverage, including

reaction and analysis from around the world and a look at what

this would mean for the future of Hamas, the Palestinian people,

and Israeli/Palestinian relations.

You cannot do that kind of work with amateurs. We have been

able to recruit the best and the brightest, real pros from inside and

outside the Middle East, from the United States as well. On the

editorial side, most of the people are from the region and were

hand-picked to be representative of the wide territory we serve.

Everyone we have hired shares our sense of journalistic values.

In fact, during the first round of interviews that I have conducted

myself, many of them asked me if Alhurra would be pure propaganda and if it could really be free, especially if it was funded by

the government. My answer, of course, was it will be free. The fact

that they were asking this question and they were concerned about

this, they had just passed a major step for getting the job.

For some of my colleagues, joining the staff of Alhurra involved

personal sacrifice, moving half a world away from family and

friends to work for an organization that some people back home

have been taught to believe is their enemy. I work with courageous

people.

Alhurra has been on the air only 21⁄2 months. In that time, the

Middle East has endured some of the toughest news stories of the

decade. Alhurra has been there to cover them. We were the first

to report on a number of stories, and we have garnered exclusive

interviews. We created a program schedule for Alhurra that is

flexible enough that we can break into regularly scheduled programming to cover breaking news if it is warranted.

Also in that short period of time, we have been on the receiving

end of a lot of unfocused criticism from our competitors and their

keepers. That tells us that we have their attention. It is very important to mention here that most of the vicious articles that were

directed at Alhurra came before we launched Alhurra and they

came from media outlets funded by so-called friendly Arab governments. I think Alhurra and Radio Sawa were the first attempt by

the United States to reach out directly to the Arab audience.

32

Television is a real ‘‘me too’’ industry. If a program succeeds on

one network, you are likely to see copies start popping up on the

other ones. This is true everywhere.

We are working to establish the gold standard that the other

guys will want to rip off: the best technology, the finest professionals, the most innovative programming, the most eye-catching

sets that you saw on the video, and the most compelling visuals.

Our brand is freedom and democracy. We want them to follow us

there.

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today. I

will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MOUAFAC HARB

Let me first thank you for inviting me to testify today. I am honored to have been

given a role in establishing both Radio Sawa and Alhurra television. We have been

fortunate in the leadership and support we have received from the Administration,

the Congress, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.

It has been deeply satisfying to see Sawa and Alhurra develop from inspiration

to reality with staff, stations, and a steadily growing audience.

The mission of this new Middle East Television Network is to broadcast accurate,

timely and relevant news and information about the region, the world, and the

United States to a broad, Arabic-speaking audience. By doing this, we seek to foster

freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

That’s a tall order. And I’m proud to tell you that we are beginning to fill it. All

of us who work in these operations can feel it, and the data we’ve gathered—although early—appear to back that up.

It will take time, but I am confident we will succeed.

Until Sawa and Alhurra began broadcasting, people in the Arabic-speaking world

got a steady diet of variations of just one story: Arab humiliation. The actual events

are different from story to story and day to day. But they all carry this one message.

It tells them that the Americans and Israelis are the source of all the trouble in

their lives. They bear no responsibility themselves.

News outlets in the Middle East, especially television news outlets, see themselves as mirrors of public opinion and their audience’s emotions. So they come at

their reporting with a point of view already in place, and as a result they broadcast

material that inflames viewers against America.

In the past few years, the Middle East has been a two-channel television market

when it comes to news and information. The ratings for these two channels have

been largely determined by one person and not by good journalism: Osama bin

Laden. He knows neither channel wants to be frozen out, and he plays that for all

it’s worth, rewarding one or the other with an ‘‘exclusive’’ tape of his latest threats.

Well, it’s not a two-channel market anymore, and the new player doesn’t need to

please bin Laden. Since February 14, Alhurra has brought a new idea to journalism

in the Middle East—telling the truth. We do our work the way it’s supposed to be

done. We play it straight, and we behave like news professionals because that’s

what we are.

As Mr. Pattiz mentioned, we were business-like in our approach, and we studied

our market from the Strait of Gibraltar to the Persian Gulf. We used what we

learned to shape our product. What came out was the region’s first news and information channel dedicated to telling the story completely and accurately. That means

going beyond just reporting what happened. We provide background and context to

explain why something happened and what the ramifications might be.

An example of this happened a couple of weeks ago in our coverage of the assassination of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantissi. Alhurra was ending one of its hourlong newscasts when the story broke. We immediately reported it on the newscast.

Then we followed up the initial report with five hours of live coverage, including

reaction and analysis from around the world, and a look at what this would mean

for the future of Hamas and Israeli/Palestinian relations.

You can’t do that kind of work with amateurs. We’ve been able to recruit the best

and the brightest—real pros from inside and outside the Middle East. On the editorial side, most of the people are from the region and were hand-picked to be representative of the wide territory we serve.

33

Everyone we’ve hired shares our sense of journalistic values. In fact, during the

first round of interviews, many of them asked me if Alhurra could really be free if

it was funded by the government. My answer, of course, was yes. And if they were

astute enough to be concerned about this, they had just passed a major test for getting the job.

For some of my colleagues, joining the staff of Alhurra involved personal sacrifice—moving half a world away from family and friends to work for an organization that some people back home have been taught to believe is their enemy. I work

with courageous people.

Alhurra has been on the air only two and a half months. In that time, the Middle

East has endured some of the toughest news stories of the decade. Alhurra has been

there to cover them. We were the first to report on a number of stories and we’ve

garnered exclusive interviews. We created a program schedule for Alhurra that is

flexible enough that we can break into regularly scheduled programming to cover

breaking news if it is warranted.

Also in that short period of time, we’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of

unfocused criticism from our competitors and their keepers. That tells us that we

have their attention.

Good. We want that.

Television is a real ‘‘me too’’ industry. If a program succeeds on one network,

you’re likely to see copies start popping up on the other ones. This is true everywhere.

We’re working to establish the gold standard that the ‘‘other guys’’ will want to

rip off—the best technology, the finest professionals, the most innovative programming, the most eye-catching sets, the most compelling visuals. Our brand is freedom

and democracy. We want them to follow us there.

As I said earlier, this will take time, but we will succeed.

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today. I will be happy to

answer any questions you may have.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Harb.

Let me begin the questioning with Mr. Tomlinson. Even here in

the United States we have disagreement and discussion domestically about our policies overseas, whether it is the peace process or

the current situation in Iraq or any other issue that affects the

Middle East. Does that make it more difficult for the Board of Governors to carry out their mission in the region, the fact that we

have policy disagreements here at home?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I do not think so, Mr. Chairman. Twenty-some

years ago, I came to town as the Director of the Voice of America

in the early days of the Reagan administration at the height of the

cold war. My first observation about what we were doing was people were trying to get the Voice of America to speak with one voice.

And I said you cannot understand American democracy, you cannot

understand what this country is all about if you try to speak with

one voice, because we have to reflect the voices of America across

the political spectrum. We can do so in such a way as to emphasize

majority opinion. We do not have to be a slave to making sure we

put forward divisions in American society.

But we have a very strong administration. We have very strong

feelings about some of the things the administration is doing. I

think by enabling people to see how we operate that they will see

how democracy could operate in their own countries.

I often go back to the fact that in the early 1970s or mid-1970s,

Radio Free Europe and Voice of America made the decision to

broadcast the Watergate hearings live. There was a lot of consternation about that because people were saying why are we exposing to the Communist world divisions in American society. The

fact of the matter is, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, I had so

many people in Eastern Europe, so many from the former Soviet

34

Union say to me, you know, broadcasting those hearings was absolutely essential to demonstrating to us what democracy is really all

about because, after all, democracy is about the rule of law. Democracy is about the separation of powers. Democracy is about concepts that you can only understand sometimes when you see it in

action. That is why, as I was saying earlier, I am so happy we are

launching Alhurra in the year of a Presidential election.

Senator SUNUNU. Is there a danger that the BBG’s Governmentsupported broadcasting will ultimately make it more difficult for

private, independent stations to develop in the Middle East?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I do not think so because I think we establish

a model. We are very proud of the competence of our news operation. I was so proud seeing that film because it reflected what I

have seen out there in northern Virginia. I am so proud of this colleague here and the many people who serve with him.

We set a standard and I think the standard is going to come to

be seen as what broadcast journalism should be, as opposed to false

reporting and sensationalism for the sake of stirring people up.

What we do is real journalism. In putting forth this standard, I

hope that when local entities begin broadcasting, that they will go

with our standard as opposed to the Al Jazeera standard.

Mr. PATTIZ. Can I get a piece of that?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Why certainly.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Pattiz, please.

Mr. PATTIZ. Thank you.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Just so long as you agree with me.

Mr. PATTIZ. I never disagree with you, Mr. Chairman, never publicly anyway.

I cannot see any instance where the success of projects like Radio

Sawa or Alhurra or any of the other projects that we do around the

world would have any kind of a chilling effect on local media. The

fact of the matter is it should have quite the opposite effect. As a

businessman, when I go out and put a radio program or a format

or a new station or what have you out on a market, I take a look

at that market and I see what is working and I see how many people are watching it. I see what chunk of those people I can wind

up getting. I think it creates a more vibrant and exciting marketplace that creates more opportunities.

We already have, in the case of Sawa, lots of imitators that have

sprung up because of the success of Radio Sawa.

Senator SUNUNU. If I could ask both you and Mr. Harb to speak

to that point, provide a couple of specific examples of the changes

that you have seen in other broadcasters as a result of the product

that is being produced by either Radio Sawa or Alhurra.

Mr. PATTIZ. Is that to me?

Senator SUNUNU. Yes. I assume each of you may know of one or

two examples.

Mr. PATTIZ. Oh, sure. I can talk about Jordan and Egypt, as it

relates to Radio Sawa. It has only been a matter of weeks with

Alhurra. Even though we have seen some adjustments. Maybe you

would like to talk about Alhurra, Mouafac, and I will talk about

Sawa.

We have already seen in many places where Sawa broadcasts

music-driven radio stations that are basically following our play

35

lists to attract audience. We originally started talking to the Egyptians about trying to get transmission within Egypt, which we have

not secured. When I went to Qatar and met with Sheikh Hamad

bin Jaber Al Thani who runs Al Jazeera radio and television in the

Government of Qatar and asked him for an FM frequency, his response was ‘‘what took you so long’’ and they gave it to us. But in

Egypt, we have been asking very aggressively for the last 3 years,

and we still cannot get transmission within Egypt. We cover Egypt,

but we cover Egypt from Cyprus.

But in Egypt, they have now put FM radio stations on the air

with formats very similar to Sawa. So we are seeing this happening

all over the place.

[The following letter containing additional information for the

record was subsequently forwarded by Mr. Tomlinson.]

BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS,

330 INDEPENDENCE AVE., S.W.,

Washington, DC, June 3, 2004.

The Honorable JOHN E. SUNUNU, Chairman,

Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism,

Committee on Foreign Relations,

United States Senate,

Washington, DC 20510.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you for your interest in the establishment of a viable frequency for Radio

Sawa audiences in Egypt. We heartily agree that reaching Egyptian audiences is a

high priority for U.S. international broadcasting, given the largely anti-American

tone of Egyptian media.

As you know, the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) has been working with

the Government of Egypt for nearly three years to find an agreeable in-country

broadcast presence that would allow Radio Sawa to be heard clearly and regularly

in Cairo and other major cities. As the Egyptian Ambassador’s letter to you attests,

it has been difficult to find a solution that satisfies the legal and technical demands

of both parties. However, in recent weeks, representatives of our two governments

have had a number of productive exchanges which, we believe, can lead to the establishment of a quality radio signal into Cairo.

In previous discussions regarding transmission sites for Radio Sawa, the Egyptian

Government has pointed us toward Egypt’s ‘‘Media City’’ outside of Cairo, where it

houses a number of government and commercial broadcast entities. The BBG’s earlier proposal to establish an AM transmitter at this site met with technical problems, potentially interfering with other, already established, broadcast entities at

the site. We have scaled-back our proposal to provide for the installation of an FM

transmitter in Media City that would not pose similar interference problems. The

location of an FM transmitter 32 miles outside of the city of Cairo is perhaps not

our preferred option. However, we believe this proposal resolves the objectives of all

parties in the current environment, and we are hopeful that this proposal will fit

more satisfactorily within the parameters the Egyptian Government has set.

Radio Sawa is an important link in our effort to reach out to young people in the

Arab world. We believe that its music programming, together with its accurate, objective news, will help to renew our relationship of trust and dialogue in the region.

We are hopeful that we can reach an agreement that allows us to reach out more

effectively in Cairo.

We greatly appreciate your interest in this important project. We will be happy

to keep you informed as we make progress on our transmission capabilities in

Egypt.

Sincerely,

KENNETH Y. TOMLINSON, Chairman.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Harb.

36

Mr. HARB. Yes. Since Governor Pattiz mentioned and talked

about Sawa and our affect on the radio industry in the Middle

East, I will focus more on the television industry.

I would like to start by saying Arab independent media is a

myth. There is not today an independent Arab media. They are all

funded by governments or ruling families or, in some cases, intelligence agencies in the Middle East. So there is not an independent

media that we are preventing. However, we are trying to affect indigenous media by trying to raise their professional standards.

It is still a bit early to see that effect, but I have noticed a few

things in the production values. More channels right now, including Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya and other television channels are

imitating the way we present the news. I am not trying to simplify

the question, but even Al Jazeera anchors smile now at the end of

the newscast. One of the important things as a news director I

would love to see—and I am starting to witness some of it—is to

set the agenda of those media outlets in the morning, even if they

do not imitate or carry what we say. Based on the editorial decisions that we make in the morning, we could influence some director of news on another channel on what stories to carry that day.

And you see more American stories coming from the U.S. because

they are trying to compete with us.

Senator SUNUNU. A final question before we go to Senator Nelson.

Mr. Pattiz, you mentioned Egypt not cooperating in helping to

provide broadcast channels for, I think, Radio Sawa in particular.

What other countries have shown that kind of resistance to being

supportive of these kinds of open media outlets?

Mr. PATTIZ. Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Lebanon.

Senator SUNUNU. And what countries have been most accepting?

Mr. PATTIZ. Well, almost every place else in the region. We have

FM stations throughout the region, all throughout North Africa.

We just launched a few months ago—I think it was 5 or 6 months

ago—in Morocco. We are getting stunning results, and we are up

to about 8 FM stations there now.

In Amman, Jordan, a place where you would not think that a

station like Radio Sawa would be accepted quite that easily—it is

60 percent Palestinian by birth or by heritage—we are an instantaneous hit. Sawa has maintained its popularity, though its news

credibility has gone down a bit—which you would expect from there

because of some of the things that have gone on in the region.

I think we are doing a really good job in Iraq now that we have

FM frequencies rather than just broadcasting on AM frequencies

from outside the area.

The Persian Gulf countries have been very, very cooperative. I

think we have nearly two dozen FM stations on the air right now

with the permission of the host governments.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Mr. Chairman, may I make one parallel point?

Senator SUNUNU. Yes.

Mr. TOMLINSON. The important thing about satellite broadcasting

is that satellite television is going to be to our future what short

wave was in the past because satellite television goes over local

censors of FM frequencies and enables us to go directly to the people. In the same sense, we are looking at many regions in the world

37

where we want to expand satellite broadcasting, and we have had

great success in recent months and recent years in terms of support from the administration and from Congress. There is a great

line from The Right Stuff, ‘‘no bucks, no Buck Rogers.’’ In the 10

years following the end of the cold war, our budgets for international broadcasting were cut a very real 40 percent, and we have

reversed that. I think it is important to get this satellite broadcasting going in this region and others, and we thank you for your

attention because I think with your attention will come greater

support for all we do.

Senator SUNUNU. Senator Nelson.

Senator NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a number of things that

I want to cover here, but first of all, I want to tell you a story.

When I was a kid 17 years old, I was selected to represent America to be taken with a group of adults to speak over Radio Free Europe to the kids behind the Iron Curtain. For a 17-year-old kid,

that was quite an experience. Radio Free Europe was broadcasting

out of Munich at the time and then after the broadcast, which in

itself was a tremendous experience for a 17-year-old, they then

took me to the German-Czechoslovakian border at a little village

called Tillyschanz where I saw for the first time the attempts to

enslave by seeing the strands of barbed wire and the machine gun

nest and the watchtower, the guard tower, and the dogs and the

perfectly raked soil and the dragon’s teeth, which are the concrete

pyramids to keep a vehicle from crashing the fence and so forth.

I became, at that early age and that experience and then ultimately years later seeing the fall of the Berlin Wall, absolutely convinced it was the right position that our government was taking at

that time. Radio Free Europe was considered separate so that it

was not an arm of the U.S. Government.

So you know I am on your side on this.

Now, I want to ask you a little more delicate question. With the

success that you are having with the new television station and the

radio station, which I hope is true and I hope it is going to get better and better, other than Castro’s jamming, why have we not had

the success with Radio and TV Marti? I was an original sponsor

of that back in the 1980s when I was in the House. Can you contrast the two?

Mr. TOMLINSON. I think, Senator Nelson, we cannot underplay

the impact of that jamming. That jamming has been as intense in

Cuba as any place on the face of this Earth in the history of international broadcasting.

But we have responded to that situation by, in the first place,

trying to get into Cuba cassettes of Television Marti. We have tried

to add satellite broadcasting so that if people can develop receivers,

they can get it without regard to the jamming. We are seeking additional ways to get into Cuba. It is very difficult because, as you

well know, we cannot interfere. We do not want to do anything to

interfere with U.S. broadcasting. So it means we have to find a

means of getting extra broadcasting into Cuba that does not send

signals into the United States.

Having said that, we also have been engaged in a great deal of

program reform of Marti in recent months. We got a new director

of Marti, Pedro Roig. He set about increasing the relevance of proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
38

gramming. He set about making the program, by the way, more

news oriented because people are after information.

We are focused now on upgrading Marti because we think that

Marti can give the same results that we have seen elsewhere if our

broadcasting is as professional as it was in Eastern Europe. I was

on the broadcasting board that ran Radio Free Europe for better

than 8 years, and I came to respect the professionalism of that

place. I came to respect, as Senator Biden did, that there was a

mission orientation and there was a scholarship level that was

brought to that operation. That was professional, professional, professional. That is what we have tried to do in recent months at

Marti, and that is what we are going to demand of Marti.

So we cannot stop the jamming. But we can reform programming, make sure the programming is relevant to the people of

Cuba, and making sure it is relevant to information-deprived people. So often those information-deprived people in Cuba are not interested in what is going on in south Florida. They are interested

in what is going on on their own island or what is going on in

terms of Cuba and its relations with other countries.

Senator NELSON. Is there any reason to believe that now that

you are broadcasting on TV Marti off of a satellite geostationary

over the eastern Atlantic, that you are getting more into Cuba despite the jamming now that you are going off the satellite?

Mr. TOMLINSON. Now that we are on satellite?

Senator NELSON. Yes.

Mr. TOMLINSON. No hard evidence yet, but I believe we are going

to see that evidence in the coming months as we find ways to get

receivers into Cuba because the great thing about the satellite signals is they cannot be jammed if you have a receiver. Now, granted, as soon as we went up with that satellite, there was a big

crackdown on little dishes throughout Cuba. This will remain a

problem because the local community operations will be looking for

those dishes. The dishes of today are very small and, if we can get

receivers in, we will be able to get the truth in.

Senator NELSON. All right. Back to the Middle East and Central

Asia. Has your television station considered broadcasting last

week’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings—there were

a series on Iraq—and broadcasting them with Arabic subtitles? I

would commend it for your consideration because between Chairman Lugar and Senator Biden, they had—and you talked about

scholarship—they had a series of witnesses that came forth that

were respected scholars and presented a good demonstration of a

democracy discussing different ideas. I think it would offer Iraqis

a better understanding of the United States and our motives if they

were seeing it through the eyes of a hearing instead of just the diet

of what they are getting on Arab television. I wish you would. That

is something to commend. You do not need to answer.

Mr. HARB. We did.

Senator NELSON. You already have?

Mr. HARB. We covered last week the confirmation hearing for

Ambassador Negroponte and we also covered the Armed Forces

hearings where Secretary Wolfowitz was speaking and he was

asked questions. So we do cover those hearings, live with simultaneous translation in Arabic.

39

Senator NELSON. Did you cover these hearings that I am talking

about?

Mr. HARB. The Armed Forces one we did.

Senator NELSON. Foreign Relations.

Mr. TOMLINSON. We will check, but you are exactly right.

Mr. HARB. But we do cover those hearings.

Senator NELSON. I think the substance was in those hearings

that Chairman Lugar held, and was different than the substance

that was in the Negroponte hearing.

Mr. TOMLINSON. We catch you.

Senator NELSON. OK.

Now, I would conclude with this. We have been told both publicly

and privately of what Al Jazeera is doing with the truth. Obviously, what you all are doing is one way to try to counter that. Do

you have any reason to believe that Al Jazeera is going to become

more balanced in its approach as contrasted with what we are

being told Al Jazeera is just totally biased?

Mr. TOMLINSON. It is almost worse than that, Senator. They are

willing to go with false information, willing to distort for the purposes of stirring up the people in that region.

Senator NELSON. So what can we do?

Mr. PATTIZ. Well, I think we do what we are doing. I think we

provide a different perspective that has not existed in the region.

Obviously, the very quick preliminary numbers that we have

shown you indicate that we are attracting an audience, and I think

we work to continue to build that audience and to put on information that is different.

This is a big problem. I have had this conversation with Senator

Biden. We are 8 to 9 years late.

When the satellite revolution started taking place in the Middle

East, you had a confluence of two major events: first of all, the

availability of satellite technology which would make it available to

anybody who had a satellite dish without the necessity of the host

government giving you permission. Second, is the population boom

that is taking place where you have large numbers of people under

the age of 20 who have absolutely no historical memory of anything

that took place because they are certainly not getting it from their

media.

So we have an opportunity to provide the kind of information

that is not readily being supplied in the region, and we have to do

that. Obviously, we are going to be doing it. Potentially between

Radio Sawa and Alhurra, I think there is just no doubt that we are

going to be available to tens of millions, and that is a tremendous

opportunity for us.

Just to illustrate what it is you were talking about, I was at

Alhurra a couple of weeks ago. Mouafac and I were standing by the

monitors. We, like every other television network in the world, are

monitoring what everybody else is doing. So we have got all the

Arab TV satellite stations up on monitors. I watched a promo for

Al Jazeera news, and here is what that promo looked like. It

showed the Sheikh Yassin funeral. It showed a Hamas demonstration having to do with the Sheikh Yassin funeral. It showed American flags and Israeli flags being stomped on and burned. It immediately cut to a scene of several Hasidic Jews praying at the WestVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
40

ern Wall, and then it immediately cut to a scene of Israeli soldiers

in conflict with Palestinian youth. And that is the promo that they

were using for their news, which they had run over and over again

probably for several days.

So what we are doing is providing Alhurra. We are the free one.

The way we position our station is very different from the way they

position their stations. This is not going to be easy. It is not going

to be quick, but it is absolutely necessary. I cannot think of a more

cost efficient way to reach the region, and to reach the number of

people that we can reach in the region, and have the kind of effect

that we are showing with Radio Sawa where, by a margin of 2 to

1, Sawa listeners say they have a more positive view of the United

States of America than do non-Sawa listeners.

Mr. TOMLINSON. Senator Nelson, if I could add one more thing.

I think American democracy is based on the premise that the people are not stupid. I think that applies in societies other than the

United States. When we came out with Sawa, people said, oh, the

people of the Arab world will never accept news from Sawa. They

boycott American products. Why would they pay any attention to

the news on an American-sponsored radio station? And maybe in

those early weeks, they did not. Norm talked about the initial impact in Jordan. When only 1 percent of the people said they took

Sawa news as credible, even though they were listening to the station in huge numbers.

But then as they came to understand that the news was accurate

and they could turn on Sawa to find out what was really happening

in the world and they could get what was really happening in the

world quickly—if you do not have censorship, if you do not have

spin, you can get that news out quicker—and then the figures

started to grow.

Now in the latest survey, you will see that 70 percent of the people who listen to us in Jordan say that our news is credible and

believable. I believe this is another manifestation of the fact that,

whether it is here or in the Arab world, in the long run the people

are not stupid. And if you give them the truth, give them accurate

news, in the end we will have an impact.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Nelson.

Senator Biden, welcome.

Senator BIDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe you all should broadcast in the United States. Seventy

percent of the people think the news is credible. I do not want to

offend my news folks back here, but I do not think there is any

newspaper in America—at any rate, having said that—you would

be violating Federal law, if you did, obviously. You are not allowed

to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing. I apologize

for coming late.

As all three of the witnesses know, particularly the chairman

and Norm, this is sort of a hobby horse of mine, and I want to start

off by complimenting you. You guys are doing a great job. You have

gone out and hired a serious person. I am serious. A big deal.

The thing I hope and I know that my friend, Senator Nelson, understood, Ken, from what you said about Radio Marti and, for example, the comparison to Radio Free Europe. There were 4 decades

41

of institutional memory, genuine scholarship. As a matter fact, the

library at Radio Free Europe was the place where Ph.D. candidates

from Harvard and Yale and Stanford and Penn and Georgetown

and Delaware went to write their theses to get information because

it was hard.

We had a hard fight here relative to the Board of International

Broadcasters when a lot of people thought, when the wall came

down, that we only needed the Voice of America, which is very

positive. But there was this gigantic fight. It is the only time in my

entire career I ever threatened to filibuster if, in fact, it did not

allow for journalistic independence and to keep Radio Free Europe

and extend it to Radio Free Asia and so on.

Now, you guys are a logical extension of all that, but with almost

an illogical conclusion. Norm, even I was skeptical when I sought

you out to be on the board. What made me realize it was riding

literally on a flight to Los Angeles hearing Westwood One again

and the interviews with the rock stars. I am not joking. I really

mean it. That package you came up with and sold is essentially a

less sophisticated version of what you are doing now. As you said

to me, why is the nation which basically invented radio and how

to use it and to market it, why the heck were we behind the 8-ball?

You have exceeded, I must tell you, my expectations in terms of the

rapidity with which all of you have done this.

But I suggest to the chairman—and I know how busy we all are,

but if you get a chance, Mr. Chairman, to go out to Alhurra to the

studio in Springfield, Virginia, and spend, as I did and others

have—I guess I was only there a couple hours. It is breathtaking.

It is breathtaking. First of all, because of your leadership and the

leadership of this committee and the Senate and the House, we

were able to give them enough money, though most people did not

think it was enough—and not enough time. But it amazed me how

quickly you got that studio up and running. Guys like me spend

a fair amount of time in studios doing interviews around this town

and around this country. I have not seen anything like it. NBC,

CBS, CNN. I guess, in part, it is because everything is brand new,

but the way you set it up, it is absolutely the state-of-the-art, No.

1.

No. 2, what everybody should know is you went out and hired

serious people like your colleague from other endeavors. Is there

anybody from Al Jazeera you hired?

Mr. HARB. Yes.

Senator BIDEN. How many people do you have roughly?

Mr. HARB. Four or five.

Senator BIDEN. How about any other Arab television network?

Mr. HARB. We have managed to recruit from most leading satellite channels.

Senator BIDEN. And you see their anchors. I mean it. They have

every vestige of what has caused American television stations to

succeed. They are very attractive anchors, men and women. You

guys did it as if you were setting up a new CBS, if it was CBK

or something, a new network here. It is amazing.

But the most important thing I think is you did what was the

key to success in the independent radio stations in the 1950s. You

hired indigenous people. Did you all go into this in your testimony

42

about not only indigenous people, you hired here at the ‘‘network

headquarters’’? My phrase. I know it is not a network headquarters

but at headquarters. Tell me about what is in the field. Do you

have reporters in the field?

Mr. HARB. Yes, we do.

Senator BIDEN. By field I mean, Baghdad, Damascus, wherever.

Mr. HARB. Yes, sir, we do have reports based from northern Iraq

to even someone on the outskirts of Fallujah right now reporting

for us. We have people from Najaf, Iraqi reporters. We have people

in——

Senator BIDEN. And they have cameras?

Mr. HARB. They have cameras. They report via camera, via satellite link, or sometimes if it is breaking news, they call us over

the phone all from the Middle East.

Mr. PATTIZ. When you put the news staff of Radio Sawa and the

news staff of Alhurra together, we have one of the largest, if not

the largest, Arabic language news gathering organizations in the

world.

Senator BIDEN. Tell me when my time is up, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SUNUNU. Oh, you are not even close.

Senator BIDEN. Let us talk about radio for a second. Surveys in

Morocco said 88 percent of the people in Casablanca and Rabat listen to Radio Sawa. Is there any American radio station with any

numbers like that? And do not tell me Westwood One.

Mr. PATTIZ. Maybe if you included every single Westwood One

program that we have on NBC, CBS, and CNN, all of which are

our networks. But no.

Senator BIDEN. All kidding aside.

Mr. PATTIZ. No, it is not possible.

Senator BIDEN. It is not, is it?

Mr. PATTIZ. No, it really is not.

Senator BIDEN. Why is it not possible? It is important, I think,

for people to understand and for me to understand why it is possible there and not here. When I say this, Norm, people look at me

and they do not believe. They know American radio. I say it to

American broadcasters, American news people, and I say 88 percent, and they say, now, wait a minute. That is not possible. There

is not a single TV or radio station that has 88 percent and few

have even 88 percent in their own little market. But why?

Mr. PATTIZ. Well, first of all, there are 10,000 commercial radio

stations here in the United States. I mean when I went over there,

I could feel it. I could just smell it. There was a hole big enough

to drive a fleet of Mack trucks through. The nature of radio over

there is different than the case with television. They have a very

vibrant television market over there, but in radio it is a vast wasteland. It is government-controlled. It is mostly news and information. It is boring. It is government radio.

Senator BIDEN. That is the point I want you to make. That is an

important point for the credibility of what we are doing and why

this was a good idea.

The second question about radio. Is there an ability to expand

the market? Is there another Sawa in the making or is Sawa sufficient? In other words, does it make sense for us to think about

multiplying the radio piece or is that sufficient like Radio Free EuVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
43

rope was sufficient with Radio Liberty. Do you understand what I

am trying to say?

Mr. PATTIZ. Yes, absolutely, Senator. My personal opinion?

Senator BIDEN. Yes.

Mr. PATTIZ. I think now with the launch of Alhurra television,

that what we have is a vehicle that is youth oriented, that reaches

very effectively on radio an audience that is 30 and under and does

it very effectively. And now we have a television outlet that is mass

appeal that does not have a particular target audience by formats

because television is not a medium of formats. It is a medium of

programs. So in television we can target particular audiences based

upon the individual programs that we put on the air. I think, considering the resources that we have and the needs that we have,

that those services in the Middle East will get the job done.

As we become more successful and create more imitators and

broaden the market and create competition and create more successful indigenous broadcasters and our audience share as a function of that goes down, that is when we will have to become more

like the narrowcasters that exist in America today because there

are no broadcasters in America. Everybody is a narrowcaster and

everybody talks about Fox News and CNN.

Senator BIDEN. Explain what you mean by narrowcaster because

people listening will not know what that means.

Mr. PATTIZ. The use of the word ‘‘broad,’’ refers to reaching a

huge percentage of people. It was not unusual for a television network to have a 30 share. Well, it is very unusual for a television

network to have a 30 share today. When you talk about the raw

numbers for somebody like a Fox or an CNN or an MSNBC, in

prime time Fox reaches an average audience of about 2.5 million

people. CNN reaches an average audience of about 1.5 million people.

Senator BIDEN. Out of a total of 300 million people.

Mr. PATTIZ. Yes, the population of the United States.

So can you have impact without having to reach those kinds of

numbers? Yes, you can. But when we become more successful and

create bigger and more robust markets, then we may have to look

at, in order to maintain our effectiveness, putting on different formats.

When I started in the radio business, there were a half a dozen

formats. That was 30 years ago. I think I had just had a conversation with Marconi at the time. But there were five or six different

formats. There was classical music and there was news radio and

there were talk radio stations. There was country music. There was

rock and roll music. Well, today there are probably 12 different incarnations of rock and roll or contemporary music. So everything

continues to get narrower and narrower and narrower.

And as a function of it getting narrower, Senator, rather than try

to form public opinion, we tend more to find out what that opinion

is and pander to it. That is what is going on in the Middle East.

Senator BIDEN. Two quick questions. I would have assumed that

as a consequence of the success of either Sawa or the television station, if the result was that we generated a lot of imitators, I would

have thought that that in and of itself would be a measure of success. In other words, I am assuming that to the extent that you

44

generate imitators, it must mean there is something that the guard

has been let down a little bit in these countries in terms of censorship. I may be wrong about this. I really do not know the answer.

Is that likely to be the way things develop, or is it likely that there

will be a development that there are more Al Jazeeras with narrower focus that are virtually or vehemently anti-American?

Mr. HARB. Yes, I agree with you, Senator, that it is one of the

ways to measure success when people start imitating what we do.

As I said in my presentation before, television is a ‘‘me too’’ medium, whereby if you have a success story, other channels will start

to imitate you. If we do what we intend to do, to be a source of

accurate information, lively debate, and people start to realize that

this is something that is missing from other channels, the other

channels will begin to compete with us.

Senator BIDEN. I am hoping that because I watched, when I was

out at Alhurra, a debate with four leading Arab voices. One was

I think the guy who does the program. It was not onsite. The guy

who does the program was an Egyptian and then there were three

other people from the region arguing current affairs. It was kind

of like a multiple Meet the Press but it was all with major people

that other people knew and discussing issues. I thought to myself

that must be pretty unique in the region.

There was one show you showed me that there is a well-known—

I think he was Egyptian—commentator who ran a show that was

really quite provocative, as it was translated to me, about things

like whether or not democracy in Egypt was preferable.

Mr. HARB. The concept of debate shows has reached the Arab

world today, but the parameters and the topics allowed to be discussed on these debate shows is what we are trying to expand.

Right now the freedom of speech is defined in the Arab media by

attacking the United States and Israel. Outside these two parameters people are not venturing yet to talk about unemployment and

education in the Middle East. These are some of the issues that we

at Alhurra try to expand and make sure our audiences are not only

aware of what is going on in the region, but we want them to be

part of the global debate.

Senator BIDEN. Last question. The numbers with Sawa, as well

as the numbers at Alhurra, are different from country to country.

For example, I gave you the 88 percent figure for Sawa in Morocco,

but that figure is 11 percent in Egypt and that figure is 42 percent

in Kuwait. I assume if we had time—and we do not—to go through

the numbers of the listenership and the early judgments about

Alhurra, you would see that kind of fluctuation among countries.

Or would you? Because they have a satellite, you do not have that

fluctuation?

Mr. PATTIZ. You are absolutely right on that, Senator. Because

the satellite covers all 22 countries of the region, it is really dependent upon the distribution of satellite dishes and their availability to pull down that signal. In the case of Radio Sawa, for instance, the reason why the number in Egypt is much lower than

the number in other places is because we have no distribution inside Egypt. We are broadcasting to Egypt from Cyprus on an AM

frequency, where in the other places we are predominantly on the

45

FM band, and that is because of the inability to get the Egyptians

to give us distribution within the country.

Senator BIDEN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am glad that you have

taken on this hearing. Quite frankly, I think this public diplomacy—I really mean this—is the sort of uncharted, untested element of our foreign policy that has the potential for the greatest

bang for the buck. It is like that phrase attributed to G.K.

Chesterton. He said it is not that, ‘‘The Christian idea has not been

tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried.’’ Well, I think that is where we are here. It is not that we

have tried this and it is found wanting. I think it has been found

difficult and left untried.

I would like to come back and try to convince you, Mr. Chairman.

I had put together with the help of the board, at the request of the

President of the United States actually, a fairly comprehensive

strategy for this that would cost us about a half a billion dollars

over 5 years, $250 million in infrastructure over 5 years and $250

million in operating costs. I would really like to talk with you and

others about it.

But I really do think it has been found difficult and left untried.

You guys made a great start. Thank you and thank you for your

indulgence, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Senator Biden. I certainly look forward to taking a look at that proposal and to working with you on

incorporating some of its ideas to the BBG in our public diplomacy

effort.

I have just a couple questions before we move to our second

panel. To followup on one of Senator Biden’s questions, Mr. Harb,

where are you having the most difficulty in attracting viewers? Are

there any countries where the viewership, the uptake rate just is

not what you would expect, and why would that be?

Mr. HARB. You are referring to radio or television, Mr. Chairman?

Senator SUNUNU. Alhurra.

Mr. HARB. Because we are delivered via satellite, it is not about

difficulty. It is just about the penetration of satellite television in

a given country. In places like Sudan or probably Yemen and upper

Egypt, people do not have satellite channels.

Senator SUNUNU. But for an area of a given penetration, are you

suggesting that the viewership rates are similar? My question was,

are there particular countries where perhaps the incumbent or indigenous station is so strong or so powerful that you are not attracting viewers or where there are cultural issues?

Mr. HARB. I see a trend that everywhere satellite is very common

in a country, that we have similar numbers. We expected that in

Lebanon we would not have good numbers because indigenous

channels are very advanced, but it happens to be it is one of the

top markets that we have right now.

I believe in Egypt there may be fewer viewers because people do

not have a lot of satellite dishes and there is some sort of, I would

call, cultural bias. So if you rate the audience in Egypt, most of

them would say to you they watch the Egyptian channels. One of

the areas that we need to do more research on is Egypt and North

Africa.

46

Senator SUNUNU. Well, thank you. I want to wish you continued

success. I look forward to revisiting some of the questions and

issues that we touched on with our first panel. I hope you will be

available for any followup information that we want to have you

submit for the record.

At this time I will call the next panel up, but I do want to take

a 5-minute recess before we begin promptly with the second panel

at 4:05.

[Recess.]

Senator SUNUNU. The subcommittee will come to order with our

second panel.

Welcome to each of you. I ask that as we move across the panel,

we will provide testimony—we will just go across the panel from

left to right—that you, as briefly as possible, summarize your written testimony so that we can leave as much time as possible for

questions.

On our second panel is Jess Ford from the General Accounting

Office; Dr. Shibley Telhami of the University of Maryland; the Honorable William Rugh of Georgetown University; and Dr. Edmund

Ghareeb of American University here in Washington. We will begin

with Mr. Rugh. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. RUGH, ASSOCIATE, INSTITUTE FOR THE STUDY OF DIPLOMACY, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Ambassador RUGH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I

am honored to be invited to testify on this very important subject.

I was a public diplomacy official with the U.S. Information Agency

for 30 years and I have followed public diplomacy ever since. This

is a vital issue, especially today in light of the tension between

America and the Arab world.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to report on some Arab reaction that

I have heard to the broadcasts by Radio Sawa and Alhurra television, but first, if I may, I would like to put that in context by

talking about the competitive marketplace that currently exists in

Arab broadcasting. The context is this in my view briefly.

A revolution in Arab television has taken place over the past decade. Prior to 1991, nearly all Arab radio and television was owned

and controlled by Arab governments in each country. The content

of the broadcast was supportive of the government completely. It

was unimaginative and boring. Media laws prohibited any criticism

of the head of state, of religion, or of anything undermining public

order, and self-censorship added to that.

But during the 1990s, several private Arab satellite channels

were established based in Europe and they broadcast all over the

Arab world. They brought a new approach to Arab television. Their

news coverage was much broader, bringing live reports from Israel,

Afghanistan, and elsewhere for the first time. They introduced lively discussion programs that broke taboos. Their talk shows brought

together religious fundamentalists and extremists, discussed the

role of women, criticized governments. For example, I watched Al

Jazeera with a call-in show that featured a Saudi prince who was

asked by a person on the other end of the phone line in Riyadh

about Saudi corruption. That was on Al Jazeera. It was getting into

47

a political discussion by Al Jazeera which had never been done before by Arab television. Al Jazeera broke so many taboos that virtually every Arab government protested and took action against it.

But others followed. Hizbollah’s Al Manar television was stridently anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, but it was very popular.

Americans tend to regard Al Jazeera as anti-American, as you

have heard in the previous panel, and to some extent that is true.

But some of the anti-American content that we see as Americans

in Al Jazeera is really following the street. It is a market-driven

medium, as are most of the new satellite stations, and Al Jazeera

is not the only one. And also we have to be aware that there is a

cultural bias that is found in every country. For example, American

television will give priority in its news broadcasts to Americans

dying in Iraq while Arab television will give priority to Arabs dying

in Iraq.

Today Arab audiences, Mr. Chairman, can choose from dozens of

television channels. Typically viewers in any country only watch

about six or seven of them regularly. And so Arab viewers today

might typically watch Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya, for example, for all

news. They might turn to Middle East Broadcasting and Orbit for

entertainment, and I might emphasize that the entertainment includes a lot of American content. They buy Hollywood films. They

buy American television serials and programs. They might watch

Al Manar if they want to watch a strongly pro-Palestinian reporting. And they probably watch their own government television

channel for local news. So the market in the Arab world for television is very tight and the choices are broad for every Arab television viewer.

Let me now turn briefly, Mr. Chairman, to Radio Sawa and

Alhurra, and what I want to report to you is not a scientific, quantitative survey but reaction that I have heard from many Arabs

that I have talked to who watch Alhurra regularly and who listen

to Radio Sawa regularly. I am not going to quote any of the commentary from Arabs who are normally hostile to America. The comments that I will give you are all from Arabs who are basically

friendly to America and want the United States to do well.

First of all, Radio Sawa. I have to emphasize in the beginning

of this analysis that Radio Sawa and Alhurra are considered U.S.

Government broadcasting stations. The so-called firewall that the

Broadcasting Board of Governors talks about is not recognized and

not appreciated. So that is the basis from which we operate.

Now, Radio Sawa’s selection of news reinforces this impression

that it is a U.S. Government station. I must say I was a skeptic

at the beginning of its launch last year, but it seems to be popular

with many young people, though young people who can hear it.

They like its music. But the Arab adults that I have spoken with—

and I have just recently returned from two trips to the Middle

East—tell me that they prefer to listen to BBC Arabic and that

they miss the Voice of America’s Arabic program because it was

better news, better coverage, and a broader program.

Another issue for Radio Sawa is audibility. The Voice of America

had a problem with its signal. It had a problem of audibility because it was primarily on short wave and on medium wave from

Rhodes, and Radio Sawa has done a bit better because it is more

48

audible in more places, but it is still not being heard in many parts

of the Arab world.

In conclusion, Radio Sawa has had some impact, but its impact

with important policymaker audiences, that is, adults, is very limited.

Alhurra television, however, has had a much more difficult time

penetrating the Arab broadcast market because it is so highly saturated with Arab satellite television channels that Arab viewers find

very interesting. Like Radio Sawa, it is considered a government

broadcaster. First impressions are important and the inaugural

interview with President Bush on Alhurra made it look from the

start like any of the old-time, old-style Arab government-owned

channels because that is what they do. Moreover, the choice of

news and features seem to Arab viewers to be dictated by U.S.

Government preferences. Viewers see a great deal of emphasis on

Israel, on terrorism, rather than on the plight of the Palestinians

and the Iraqi people. The promo that Mr. Pattiz mentioned in the

previous panel focusing on other issues are exactly what the market wants, and this is what they are seeing from Alhurra. Therefore, it is not appealing.

Moreover, regular viewers have told me that the channel seems

to lack a pan-Arab character because most of the presenters—and

this is impressions again—seem to viewers to be Lebanese Christians. They would like to see more presenters from the gulf and

elsewhere.

Arab viewers, Mr. Chairman, who are pro-American tell me they

have been disappointed in the programming because they expected

a lot more. They say it is not as effective in news gathering in the

Middle East as they thought it would be. For example, Al Jazeera

is reporting from inside Fallujah and Alhurra is not even though

the United States is the occupying power in Iraq and they expected

Alhurra to have an advantage. That may be unfair but that was

the expectation.

They say Alhurra is disappointing because it is not aggressively

reporting on Arab corruption and lack of democracy which they expected it to do because President Bush has focused publicly on

these issues and he has named specific Arab countries and shortcomings in those countries in public statements. But Arab viewers

of Alhurra say that when Alhurra, for example, interviewed the

Tunisian Foreign Minister recently, the Alhurra reporter complied

with the Tunisian demand that human rights violations in Tunisia

not be raised. So they understand and the word is getting out that

Alhurra is just like any other government broadcasting station in

the Middle East. It stays away from internal Arab problems.

They also say they are disappointed that Alhurra—and this is

surprising—has not done better than Al Jazeera and other Arab

channels in reporting news about the United States. For example,

in one case Al Jazeera reported on President Bush live while

Alhurra did not. So with the friends of ours in the Arab world,

Alhurra has been a disappointment, has not met their expectations.

Mr. Chairman, I will conclude by making some recommendations

if I may.

I would say that Radio Sawa needs to improve its reach and its

audibility, and it needs to focus more on what important adult auVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
49

diences want to hear from a U.S. Government radio station. If we

want to support American public diplomacy, we need to reach movers and shakers. We need to reach policymakers, not just youth. It

would do well to broaden its offerings along the lines of the old

VOA Arabic Service which had a good program, but unfortunately

had signal problems.

As for Alhurra, quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, because the market

is already full of channels that Arab audiences like, I do not expect

that it will succeed in reaching important audiences. It is, of

course, too early to be sure about that, but the beginning is not at

all promising. Since money for public diplomacy is scarce, I would

prefer to spend the money we spend on Alhurra in increasing our

cadre of professionals who have Arabic language skills who can explain America and its policies on the existing Arab television channels, and this is possible. I have appeared many times on Al

Jazeera myself in Arabic explaining America and its policies, and

it is possible to continue to do that. We need to do much more of

that.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that since the 9/11 terrorists used

American planes to kill Americans, we should be able to use Arab

media to inform and educate Arab audiences.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Rugh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM A. RUGH

I would like to make some comments on Radio Sawa and al Hurra television as

seen by Arab audiences. These comments are based on recent conversations and observations and a study of the history of Arab broadcasting. First I will describe the

Arab broadcasting context into which Radio al Sawa and al Hurra television were

introduced, and then I will cite some Arab reactions to both of them.

THE ARAB BROADCASTING CONTEXT

Almost all radio and television systems in the Arab world developed under the

direct ownership and control of Arab governments. While there were some private

Arab newspapers, radio and TV were government operations. Most Arab broadcasting laws prohibited criticism of the head of state, defamation of religion, or undermining public order. Additional taboos were observed by broadcast editors based

on local custom and political circumstances. Arab broadcast audiences therefore had

access only to news and commentary officially approved by their respective governments, unless they could tune in to the Voice of America, BBC, Radio Monte Carlo

or CNN. The content of Arab radio and television broadcasts was generally pretty

unimaginative and boring because there was no real competition in Arabic. This situation prevailed throughout the Arab world until the early 1990s.

Then a revolution in television broadcasting occurred, as private Arab satellite television channels were established in Europe that transmitted programs in Arabic

to all Arab countries. Why did this happen? In 1991, when CNN provided 24/7 coverage of Desert Storm, Arabs saw the possibility of instantaneous live coverage of

dramatic regional events, that satellite technology and cheaper satellite receiving

dishes had made possible. But they regarded the CNN broadcasts as American in

news selection and commentary, and Arab entrepreneurs began to think about the

possibility of satellite television in Arabic and edited from an Arab point of view.

Wealthy private investors from Saudi Arabia, and then others, started Arab satellite

television stations whose programs were intended for a pan-Arab market.

The new satellite television channels broadcast news, public affairs programs and

commentary, along with other content including entertainment, much of it Hollywood movies or programs purchased from American commercial television. But

there were two aspects of these new channels that made their impact on Arab

broadcasting revolutionary. One was that they began to cover important regional

news events more professionally and more effectively, having correspondents on the

scene reporting live, and even entering previously off-limits areas like Israel to get

50

the news. The second innovation was to present discussions of sensitive topics from

different points of view that broke previous taboos.

The pioneer in these innovations was al Jazeera Television, based in Qatar. Al

Jazeera was and is financed by the government of Qatar, but it is radically different

from the traditional government-controlled television channels that dominated the

Arab world until 1991. The government of Qatar allowed al Jazeera to cover news

in Israel and Afghanistan that had never before been covered by Arab TV channels,

and it allowed al Jazeera to broadcast talk shows in which views were expressed

that had never before been heard on Arab television, because the channels had been

so tightly controlled by their respective governments. Al Jazeera carried talk shows

on which Islamic fundamentalists debated with secularists, feminists argued for

more women’s rights, and opposition political spokesmen criticized specific governments by name. These talk shows pleased audiences but they angered officials in

other Arab countries, and at one time or another, virtually every Arab government

has protested al Jazeera and taken action against it, including expelling its correspondents. Some taboos still existed but many were broken. The Government of

Qatar seems to have taken pride in allowing al Jazeera to poke other Arab governments in the eye, perhaps to attract attention to this tiny country. Whatever the

reason, other Arab satellite channels, even the ones developed by other governments

such as Abu Dhabi, have to some extent imitated al Jazeera by improving their regional news coverage and making their public affairs programming more lively and

interesting.

The news and public affairs programs on these channels seem to many Westerners to have a strong anti-American bias. Criticism of American policy is frequently expressed on talk shows in al Jazeera and other channels, and news reports

are edited differently from news reports on American TV, often showing American

actions in a negative light. Some of this is deliberately anti-American editing, especially for example on Hizbollah’s al Manar channel. But much of what appears to

Americans as anti-American is primarily motivated by the desire of editors at al

Jazeera and other channels to satisfy the Arab market. There is today widespread

criticism in the Arab world of American policy in the Middle East, and Arab television reflects that. Moreover, there is a cultural bias in Arab television, just as

there is a cultural bias for example in American television, or British television.

Thus when one American is killed in Iraq, that is priority news in U.S. television

but not necessarily on Arab television. Conversely, when a Palestinian civilian is

killed in the West Bank, that usually is priority news on Arab television but not

necessarily here.

Today the Arab television viewer with a satellite dish has a choice of dozens of

channels. But like most TV viewers around the world, the Arab television viewer

tends to watch, at most, only six or seven of them in a given week. Typically an

avid television viewer might watch al Jazeera, al Arabiya or Arab News Network

for round-the clock coverage of news and public affairs; Middle East Broadcasting,

Orbit, Arab Radio and Television or Lebanese Broadcasting Company International

for entertainment including Western and Arab programs; the Hizbollah channel al

Manar for aggressive pro-Palestinian commentary and news; plus the local TV channel for local news. There are many choices.

RADIO SAWA AND AL HURRA TELEVISION

This is the environment into which Radio Sawa and al Hurra television have been

introduced. What has been the impact? I will report some Arab perceptions, since

in the world of ideas, perceptions are often as important as reality. These comments

are based on anecdotal information, not a formal survey.

Radio Sawa

Young audiences who are able to hear Radio Sawa seem to like its mix of Arabic

and Western music, and it has achieved some popularity just as Radio Monte Carlo

had decades earlier. But Arab adults I have spoken with told me that they much

prefer BBC Arabic Radio, because BBC carries much more interesting and useful

news about the region and the world, and they regard BBC as relatively objective.

Some of the people who used to listen to the Voice of America in Arabic now listen

to BBC instead of Radio Sawa.

Secondly, audibility is important. The Voice of America Arabic Service, which has

been replaced by Radio Sawa, was limited in its effectiveness because it was not

audible on medium wave throughout the area. BBC and Radio Monte Carlo had

stronger medium wave signals so they were more successful. Now Radio Sawa has

some new transmitter access and this has helped it considerably. But in important

countries where it is not audible, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Radio Sawa too

is ineffective.

51

Third, and importantly, Radio Sawa is regarded as a U.S. Government sponsored

station. Arab listeners are experienced in detecting who is behind a given broadcaster, and they sensed that the news and public affairs programs were sponsored

by the American government. The ‘‘firewall’’ that the Broadcasting Board of Governors speaks of, separating Radio Sawa from State Department policy, was not

seen or appreciated by Arab listeners. They simply accepted Radio Sawa as another

government radio station.

Radio Sawa has some potential, but rather than focusing on entertainment that

Arab audiences can get elsewhere, I believe it should focus on providing the kind

of news and public affairs programs that Arab audiences, including adults, want.

Audience surveys should not only measure audience share but compare Radio Sawa

against other radio stations at moments in which there is an important news event,

such as the finding of Saddam Hussain or a Presidential news conference. If Radio

Sawa can increase its coverage of the listening area, and take advantage of the fact

that it is regarded as a U.S. Government station by broadcasting more about American policies in the region and the American public’s views of those policies, it

should have a greater impact.

Al Hurra Television

Al Hurra Television has had a much more difficult time penetrating the Arab

market than Radio Sawa, because the radio market was not very competitive, while

the Arab television market was highly saturated with channels that Arab audiences

found interesting.

First, like Radio Sawa, al Hurra was assumed to be a U.S. Government broadcaster. The ‘‘firewall’’ was not recognized. This assumption was confirmed by Arab

viewers in several ways. The content and style of the news gave the impression that

it was not an Arab channel but American. Subjects that were chosen, and the time

devoted to them in newscasts, seemed determined from an American point of view

rather than an Arab perspective. More attention was paid to Americans in the news

than to Arabs in the news. Language also did not match that of most Arab television stations; for example Palestinian suicide bombers were not referred to as

‘‘martyrs.’’ Most importantly, the first impression viewers got of al Hurra—and first

impressions are important—was the inaugural interview with President Bush. Arab

government-owned television stations have always given prominence to statements

by their heads of state, and the Bush interview seemed to stamp al Hurra as just

one more government-owned channel.

Secondly, and relatedly, a common Arab reaction that I have heard is disappointment that al Hurra is not effective as a newsgathering agency in the Middle East.

Arab viewers seeking news about what is happening inside Falluja today turn to

al Jazeera and al Arabiya, because al Hurra is not providing reporting as good as

theirs. Arab viewers assumed that since the United States is the occupying power

in Iraq, and al Hurra is the American government’s television channel, al Hurra

should be in the best position of any broadcaster to have the best and quickest access to news events in Iraq, but it does not. Al Hurra’s potential advantage in this

competitive market has been lost.

More generally, Arab viewers tell me they are surprised that al Hurra does not

cover in more depth stories related to the Middle East that are important to Arab

viewers. They say that often al Hurra gives a story on the Middle East short shrift

and turns to a cooking show while the other Arab channels continue detailed coverage.

Third, another common reaction that I have heard from Arab viewers of al Hurra

was disappointment that it has been weak in its coverage of the American domestic

scene. Arab viewers have become accustomed to watching the U.S.-based correspondents of al Jazeera, al Arabiya, Abu Dhabi and other Arab television channels

covering developments in the United States, often with live reports, in Arabic. Arab

viewers who understand English also have access to ABC, CBS and NBC news and

current events. They expected al Hurra to cover the U.S. domestic scene much better, more comprehensively and more professionally than anything they had seen before, but al Hurra seemed weak by comparison. For example, they turned to al

Jazeera for a recent live broadcast by President Bush because al Hurra did not

cover it live.

Fourth, another disappointment expressed by Arab viewers is that they expected

al Hurra to be aggressively supporting democracy and human rights, but they say

it has failed to live up to that expectation. The context is important here. Many

Arab viewers have been critical of their own governments for failure to move in the

direction of democratization, an end to corruption, or to protect the human rights

of their citizens. The revolution that has taken place in Arab television broadcasting

has opened up debate on many issues that were previously taboo, but there are still

52

some taboos relating to internal domestic politics that remain. For example, when

Saad al Din Ibrahim went to jail in Egypt, Egyptian media did not rally to his defense. Other human rights activists in other Arab countries are in jail or being mistreated but the Arab media are not raising their cases. Since President Bush has

been calling for democratization and an end to corruption in the Arab world and

he has specifically mentioned Arab governments that should undertake reforms,

Arab audiences hoped and expected that al Hurra would amplify this policy and

focus on domestic reforms that are needed in Arab countries.

Some Arab viewers believe that al Hurra avoids taking up Arab domestic reform

cases out of deference to Arab governments, and refuses to raise sensitive domestic

issues. For example, when Tunisian President Ben Au was in Washington recently,

it is widely believed that al Hurra accepted the Tunisian demand that in an interview with the Tunisian Foreign Minister, the question of Tunisia’s human rights

abuses not be included. Al Hurra therefore looks like any other government-owned

channel that respects Arab taboos.

Finally, Arab regular viewers of al Hurra tell me that the tone and style of the

broadcasts lack pan-Arab balance. They assume from the names and accents of the

presenters that most of them are Lebanese Christians, and they wonder about the

absence of broadcast professionals from the Gulf, for example. Arab viewers are always sensitive to identification of the individuals by nationality, tribe and religion,

so this is an important factor in creating the al Hurra image.

In conclusion, Radio Sawa may have some potential if it improves its content, and

tries some of the effective programming that VOA Arabic used over the years. However, as for al Hurra, it has entered a very competitive market and the first impression that it has made has disappointed many viewers. It was to be expected that

those implacably hostile to America would criticize al Hurra no matter what it did,

but it is telling that the specific comments mentioned here have come essentially

from America’s friends in the region who want us to succeed and be understood. My

conclusion is that while it is still too early to be sure, early indications are that al

Hurra cannot succeed in this very competitive market.

Something urgently needs to be done to help bridge the great gap between American and Arab perceptions. We are in a serious war of ideas. My recommendation

is that it would be more cost-effective to devote the funds used for television broadcasting to other badly needed public diplomacy programs. The most effective public

diplomacy for Arab audiences involves dialogue by Americans willing to listen and

able to explain the United States and its policies. Instead of trying to manage our

own television channel, we should do more to gain access to the existing Arab channels, and we should increase the number of trained professional officers with Arabic

language capabilities who can explain America and its policies using Arab media.

The 9/11 terrorists used our planes to kill our people. We should be able to use Arab

media to inform and educate Arab audiences.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Rugh.

Dr. Telhami, welcome.

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR SHIBLEY TELHAMI, ANWAR

SADAT PROFESSOR OF PEACE, UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND

Dr. TELHAMI. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I am honored to testify before this committee again.

I will focus only on satellite television in my testimony. I will

make five short points. What I hope to do with these points is really put this in a broader perspective. I think we have focused so

much on Alhurra and what it can do and we are sort of losing sight

of the bigger picture.

The first point that I want to make is that the prevalent resentment of American foreign policy, whether it is in the Middle East

or elsewhere around the world, is of course influenced by the

media. The media plays a role, but by and large, it is not shaped

by this media. Frankly, there is no Al Jazeera television in Europe

and Latin America and Africa and Asia. We have strong anti-Americanism. There are many people in the Middle East that do not

53

have satellite television. They express just as much anti-Americanism as those who do.

We have seen resentment toward America go down very rapidly

in 4 or 5 years, and frankly even before this administration came

to office, largely in relation to events on the Arab-Israeli issue, not

to media coverage. Just in the spring of 2000, when people were

optimistic about peace in the Middle East, over 60 percent of

Saudis, according to the State Department, expressed confidence in

the United States of America. That dropped rapidly in the fall before our elections, as soon as the negotiations collapsed, and continued to drop into the spring and certainly accelerated after 9/11 and

the war on terrorism, reaching the single digits in the past year.

So I think we have to put this, first of all, in perspective. This

is not a media-driven phenomenon. The media certainly is a player

that we have to take seriously, but at the heart of it, it is something bigger that we have got to address and we cannot ignore that

and sort of pin the responsibility on the media as if that is the answer to all our problems in the region and around the world.

Second, I think what Ambassador Rugh pointed out very eloquently is that to the extent that there is a change in the Middle

Eastern media in the past decade, it is that we have this marketdriven phenomenon. By market-driven phenomenon, we do not

mean necessarily that these stations are not owned by a government, as in the case of Al Jazeera, but that they have a different

logic because of the technological reach. Because of the commonality of Arabic as a language across the Arab world, the market now is defined as the 300 million Arabs. The prototype for

these stations is the Arab, not the Qatari or the Yemeni or the Algerian. But they are trying to reach the largest possible market

share among all Arabs, and therefore, the prototype consumer is

the Arab. Therefore, by definition, they are trying to appeal to the

tastes and fashions of that consumer.

We see that actually very interestingly in the case of Al Jazeera

and how it is reporting change. People forget, for example, that in

the late 1990s, only 5 years ago, Al Jazeera was being accused in

the Arab world of being pro-American, pro-Israeli. Even some accused it, ‘‘of being a Zionist agent.’’ The reason why they were

doing that was that Al Jazeera was a pioneer in putting on the

screen Israeli representatives on a regular basis, the Israeli point

of view, somebody in the Knesset, sometimes even putting live the

debate in the Knesset. And Arabs were watching and the reason

they were watching is they believed Arab-Israeli peace was coming.

It was around the corner. Most of them knew little about Israel.

They did not know what the Israelis were like. Al Jazeera was

bringing Israel to the homes of Riyadh and Rabat in ways that no

one else there could do, and for that reason they were accused of

being pro-Israeli.

Well, what happened is, the negotiations collapsed. You have a

lot of bloodshed. The story was blood and war, and people wanted

to see it. In fact, when Al Jazeera came under pressure before the

war last year to tone down its coverage of the Palestinian areas,

my surveys in the Middle East show that Al Manar gained on it

and became No. 1 news on the Arab-Israeli issue. Al Manar is

Hizbollah’s television in places like Jordan. So, clearly, it is a marVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
54

ket-driven phenomenon. We have to understand that they are trying to cater to the market.

Third, I am an observer of this media as a scholar. I have been

watching it for a long time. I also appear on it. If I look at it in

historical perspective, I do not think we have ever seen, frankly, a

foreign media that has given more direct and live coverage of

American officials than the Arab satellite media. And Mr. Rugh, I

think you certainly played a role in the media before historically.

You probably could put a perspective on it, but I have never seen

it on this scale, in part because people are obsessed certainly with

the United States. There are always policies related to Iraq, the

Arab-Israeli issue, news conferences live, translated live in Arabic,

by the President, by the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,

news conferences by generals in the region. Clearly, there is that

coverage. Now, you can say the commentary is not that good, and

that is probably true, but the coverage is there.

But the coverage itself is undermined less by the discussion

afterwards and more by the fact that appearance by American officials often reinforces people’s biases because American officials

speak with our own paradigm, our own world view and often in the

back of our minds, we are speaking to our own constituency at

home, to Congress, to our media, how we are going to be covered,

and in that sense, in a way reinforces the fears of people in the region rather than alter the perception. And I think we have to become aware of that more often.

Fourth, I think it is fair to say in times of tragedy and war, in

times of pain, people listen and watch with their hearts much more

than they do with their minds. Certainly if you look at our own

coverage in our own media and own public attention to the media,

immediately after the tragedy of 9/11 or throughout the war, it is

clear that we watch with our hearts. Certainly the media responds

to that. Our public, when we are in pain, is not neutral. It cannot

be. You are in the middle of pain, you are not going to make an

objective assessment, and the media is not neutral because its audience is not neutral.

In that sense, we have to put in perspective that in the Middle

East this is a time of pain. There has been a time of pain over the

past few years. The war, the bloodshed in Iraq and the PalestinianIsraeli conflict, the terrorism in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, everywhere, it is a continuous time of pain, and in those times of pain,

people are watching with their hearts and those stations that

speak to the heart are the ones that get the market share.

Frankly, I think Alhurra’s biggest problem, biggest challenge I

should say—and I think it has been done professionally, but I see

it as a major challenge—is that the notion of neutrality—Ambassador Rugh spoke about the criticism, it does not speak with an

pan-Arab voice. Well, I think what they are saying is it is not

speaking to the heart. And the question is, when people want to

hear through the heart, can it reach them? Well, it is an interesting experiment.

Let me make my final point which goes to another issue. I served

recently on the Advisory Committee on Public Diplomacy that Congress mandated. It was a bipartisan committee that presented a report to the administration. Clearly, we understood that public diVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
55

plomacy is important, but in that report we also said that most of

the anti-Americanism probably is related to policies that cannot be

addressed through public diplomacy. We put it in perspective. Still,

we thought there are many things that public diplomacy could address and we believe that the media plays a modest role within

public diplomacy but not even a central role. In fact, we addressed

largely the sort of issues on educational exchanges, media exchanges, civil society exchanges, communication through language

and culture, as well as the media.

In that sense, I think we have to ask the question about the bang

for dollar that we are going to get out Alhurra. I happen to think

that in absolute terms, the budget is not huge, and when you take

into account that Alhurra’s annual budget is only one-third of what

we spent daily in the war in Iraq, and when you consider that it

is an important part of the fight, I think it is not a huge budget.

But when you compare it to the rest of the public diplomacy budget, which many of us think is extremely important, I think then

you have to ask questions about the rest of the budget because

there we found that only $150 million is allocated to the entire

public diplomacy program toward 1.2 billion Muslims around the

world, of which only $25 million a year is allocated to public diplomacy outreach programs. I think that is the question. I think as

long as we do not increase the public diplomacy budget on those

other programs that really, really badly need it, the proportion of

allocation will look less justified. I think in absolute terms, the

budget is small.

I think Alhurra should be there. I think there should be an

American voice. That American voice may not succeed in the short

term, but there is no reason why you cannot build trust over time

and wait until such time when you experiment and in fact can

reach a broad audience. In the short term, I think it is an uphill

battle.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Professor Telhami follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR SHIBLEY TELHAMI

Mr. Chairman, before addressing the role that Al-Hurra television station and

other American media can play in influencing the hearts and minds in the Arab

world, it is important to put the task in perspective.

First, the prevalent resentment of American foreign policy in the region and

around the world is certainly influenced by the media coverage, but ultimately is

not shaped by it. Europeans, Africans, Latin Americans, Asians do not watch AlJazeera or other Arab satellites, and yet we know from surveys that resentment of

American foreign policy is pervasive in these places as well. Moreover, in the Middle

East, even those many who have no access to satellite television express deep resentment of the United States. In fact, we know that the rapid decline in confidence

in the United States is not a function of the media in the Middle East as such. In

a public opinion survey conducted by the State Department in the spring of 2000,

for example, over 60% of Saudis expressed confidence in the United States. The

level of confidence began rapidly declining after the collapse of the PalestinianIsraeli negotiations in the fall of 2000 and continued to decline in the spring. This

decline accelerated after the tragedy of 9/11 and the war on terrorism, reaching the

single digits in the past year. In short, much of the resentment toward the United

States is the consequence of events and policies, not the media coverage as such.

Second, to the extent that there is a profound change in the Arab media that has

taken place over the decade, it is this: the media is far more market-driven than

ever before. In the past, governments in the region nearly monopolized the media,

especially television, and they catered largely to their own domestic constituencies.

They generally had captive audiences. Today most Arabs who have access to satVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
56

ellite television have dozens of choices, mostly from outside their own boundaries.

They watch what they want to and turn off what they don’t. Successful media outlets such as Al-Jazeera prevail in getting a large market share by understanding

their consumer. Because the Arabic language is common in all Arab states, language defines the potential size of the market. As such, the target consumer is no

longer ‘‘the Qatari’’ or ‘‘the Kuwaiti’’ but ‘‘the Arab.’’ In that regard, a station succeeds in getting the largest share of the market by understanding what is most in

common among Arabs and catering to it. In that regard, the media more often than

not reflects public opinion more than it shapes it. That is not to say that it does

not often reinforce opinions or incite passions, but in the end people watch it because it resonates with their preexisting passions and opinions.

Two examples are especially helpful in this regard. Al-Jazeera television, which

is now being accused of inciting anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiment in the

Arab world, was accused by many Arabs in the late 1990s of being ‘‘pro-Israeli’’ or

even ‘‘a Zionist agent.’’ The reason for this attitude of many Arabs was that AlJazeera was especially bold in putting on the air Israeli voices on a regular basis,

including coverage from the Israeli parliament (the Knesset). When they discussed

Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, they not only hosted Palestinian representatives

but also Israeli representatives (which incidentally they still often do). Still, despite

that accusation by some Arabs, Al-Jazeera gained a huge share of the market for

a simple reason: at the time, most Arabs assumed that peace between Israel and

the Arabs was on its way, and most knew little about Israel and were interested

in learning. Al-Jazeera brought Israel to homes in Riyadh and Rabat that had not

seen Israel before.

As soon as the negotiations collapsed and Israeli-Palestinian violence escalated,

the public had less hope for an agreement and was more focused on the bloodshed.

Al-Jazeera was there to cover it live. It kept its market share. Last year, just before

the Iraq war, when Al-Jazeera came under pressure to lessen coverage of Palestinian-Israeli bloodshed, something else happened. In Jordan, where Al-Jazeera has

been number one for news on the Arab-Israeli conflict, its share of the market

dropped to number two. Taking its place was a station that focused on the violence

even more: Al-Manar Television, run by the Lebanese Hezbollah. In short, while we

must understand that each station, including Al-Jazeera, certainly has its own

agenda, the degree to which it succeeds in gaining the widest viewership is largely

a function of market demand.

Third, today’s satellite Arab stations, especially Al-Jazeera, give more direct voice

to American officials than ever in the Arab world. Most of these stations give live

coverage with verbatim translations of major news conferences by top American officials and military commanders related to Middle Eastern matters. In general, these

views are presented without editing, although there are discussions that follow with

people who are often critical of American officials but also those who are not. While

such coverage gives the U.S. more direct airing of its voice than ever, this is not

always a good thing. This is in part because American official views often reinforce

the fears and biases of the Arab viewers rather than alleviating them. In addition,

American officials, even when they are addressing a Middle Eastern audience, speak

with the knowledge that their words are going to be ultimately judged by the American media, Congress, and American public opinion, which therefore incline them to

formulate their message in a manner that again reinforces the fears and biases in

the region.

Fourth, in times of pain, tragedy, and war, people everywhere, and certainly

Arabs, listen and watch with their hearts more than with their minds. We have witnessed this first-hand in the weeks after the 9/11 horror and certainly during the

war with Iraq. To some extent we continue to experience this, although to a lesser

extent. In the Middle East, the last few years have been times of continued pain,

war, and tragedy, including in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, in Iraq, in major terrorist attacks in several Arab countries. The public is not neutral, especially in

these times. The media, even the professionally-run media, is also not fully neutral:

they reflect the passions of the pubic. If they don’t, few would watch. Certainly some

reporters and media outlets exploit this deliberately to gain viewership, which is unfortunate but not surprising. But even those who are not deliberately exploitative

cannot escape sometimes speaking with and catering to the heart. This is in fact

one of the biggest obstacles facing a station like Al-Hurra, which seeks to have a

detached, objective analysis of the news during times of pain. Its aim is to be precisely dispassionate while facing a passionate audience. A recent example of this is

when Israel assassinated Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Al-Hurra ran a short

story as the news broke, then went back to its normal programming, which focused

on an episode in American history. Other Arab satellites stayed with the story live

57

and brought coverage with different perspectives, including live shots, which was

bound to gain a far larger share of the market.

Fifth, I have already suggested at the beginning of this statement that the media’s role in shaping anti-Americanism is modest, and that the most important factors are policies and events on the ground, not strategies pursued by the media as

such. In a recent report by an advisory committee on public diplomacy, which was

mandated by Congress, and on which I had the honor of serving, we recognized that

the role of public diplomacy itself is relatively small in shaping attitudes, compared

with policies, even though this role is still important.

The media plays a relatively modest role even within public diplomacy as such.

The report emphasized, especially educational and other civil society exchanges between the U.S. and Arab and Muslim countries, as the best method of reaching the

hearts and minds in the long term. Still, the U.S. should have a voice in the region

and cannot be absent from the media market, as this market is evolving and will

continue to evolve as a consequence of technological change and increasing competition. In that sense it is certainly useful to begin experimenting with television and

radio programming that may ultimately have an effect. But two things must be kept

in mind in this regard. First, expectations must be put in perspective here. AlHurra, no matter how professionally run (and I believe it is professionally run) will

not succeed in any foreseeable future in either gaining a significant share of the

news market in the region, nor be able to significantly affect public opinion on its

own. It must be conceived for now as having an American voice that essentially will

gain enough trust overtime to have a positive, even if small, impact. Second, one

has to assess its desirability in terms of the bang for the dollar: In the end it comes

down to resources. In absolute terms, the funds spent on Al-Hurra are not large if

one considers that we’re spending nearly three times as much as its entire annual

budget in a single day in the Iraq war. But that same amount brings to mind the

extraordinarily low amount of money and the low budget that the U.S. government

expends on its entire public diplomacy program in the Muslim world of 1.2 billion

people. (The estimated budget is $150 million annually, of which only $25 million

are specifically allocated to public diplomacy outreach programs.) Until that budget

expands significantly, as I believe it should, the allocation to Al-Hurra will seem disproportionate.

Thank you Mr. Chairman

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Doctor.

Mr. Ford.

STATEMENT OF JESS T. FORD, DIRECTOR, INTERNATIONAL

AFFAIRS AND TRADE, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate being invited

here today.

I am going to focus a little bit more on management issues with

U.S. international broadcasting which is based on several reports

we recently issued on international broadcasting and public diplomacy.

Our reports over the last several years have examined a number

of organizational, marketing, resource, and performance management challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting overall. Our

two most recent reports have addressed the board’s principal response to these challenges, the development of a new 5-year strategic approach to international broadcasting, which emphasizes the

reach of large audiences and applying modern broadcast techniques

and strategically allocating resources to high-priority broadcast

markets. Early implementation of this strategy has focused on

markets relevant to the war on terrorism and, in particular, the

Middle East and Central Asia.

The Broadcasting Board of Governors faces a number of challenges. Key among them is how to achieve large audiences in priority markets while dealing with the disparate organizational

structure consisting of five broadcast entities and a mix of Federal

58

and grantee organizations managed by a part-time board and a collection of outdated and noncompetitive language services that have

failed to respond to current market conditions. The disparate structure of U.S. international broadcasting has led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant news

gathering and support services, and difficulties in coordinating

broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include the use of the outmoded program formats and styles, the general lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, poor signal delivery in many

areas, and low audience awareness in several major markets.

The board’s new strategic approach is designed to address these

problems. The board has developed a so-called single system which

it hopes to use to consolidate and modernize its broadcast operations. Recent board initiatives such as Radio Sawa broadcast to

the Middle East and Radio Farda broadcast to Iran illustrate the

board’s willingness to serve as a content manager for U.S. international broadcasting and to adopt market-based approaches designed to attract large listening audiences.

Triggered by a desire to better manage its limited resources, the

board has used its annual language service review process to identify and reallocate cost savings to higher-priority needs. The process is used to address such complex resource issues as how funds

should be allocated among the language services based on their priority and impact, how major broadcast services should be carried

in total, what degree of overlap and content duplication should

exist among the services, and whether services should be eliminated because they fulfill their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the board has identified more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through this process. For example, its language review process from 1999 to 2000 resulted in about $20 million being reallocated from low-priority impact services to help fund

Radio Sawa and Radio Farda. Most recently the board has used the

language service process as a vehicle for identifying language services that should be eliminated. For example, based on its review

process, the board’s fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress

recommended the elimination of 17 Central and Eastern European

language services managed by the Voice of America, Radio Free

Europe, saving approximately $21 million. These decisions will be

critical to the board’s ability to channel resources to the higher-priority markets such as broadcast in the Middle East and Central

Asia.

In response to a number of our recommendations, the board has

revised its strategic planning approach with a goal of reaching

large markets as a centerpiece for performance reporting and has

identified broadcast credibility and audience awareness as key performance measures. These steps will help the board answer questions about the effectiveness of such efforts as Radio Sawa and TV

Alhurra in reaching mass audiences and elites in the Middle East,

whether foreign publics perceive U.S. broadcast as being independent of American foreign policy, and whether VOA is effectively

promoting the image of the United States and educating foreign

audiences about U.S. practices and policies.

In conclusion, our work shows that the board has taken a number of important steps over the last several years to improve straVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
59

1 U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: Strategic Planning and

Performance Management System Could Be Improved, GAO/NSIAD-00-222 (Washington, D.C.:

Sept. 27, 2000). 2 U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. International Broadcasting: New Strategic Approach

Focuses on Reaching Large Audiences but Lacks Measurable Program Objectives, GAO-03-772

(Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003). 3 U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Internatiownal Broadcasting: Enhanced Measure of

Local Media Conditions Would Facilitate Decisions to Terminate Language Services, GAO-04-374

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 2004). 4 U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Public Diplomacy: State Department and the Broadcasting Board of Governors Expand Efforts in the Middle East but Face Significant Challenges,

GAO-04-435T (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2004). 5Overlap exists when a VOA and a surrogate service, such as RFE/RL, broadcast in the same

language to the same target audience. Some degree of overlap is appropriate given the varying

missions of U.S. broadcast entities. However, In its new strategic plan, the Board identified a

40 percent overlap in its language services as excessive.

tegic planning and develop a review process to allocate funds to the

highest priority needs. The board must continue to look for ways

to streamline and modernize broadcasting operations and ensure

that resources it receives are effectively meeting the goals, especially in priority markets.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JESS T. FORD

U.S. INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING

Challenges Facing the Broadcasting Board of Governors

WHAT GAO FOUND

The Broadcasting Board of Governors has responded to a disparate organizational

structure and marketing challenges by developing a new strategic approach to

broadcasting which, among other things, emphasizes reaching large audiences

through modern broadcasting techniques. Organizationally, the existence of five separate broadcast entities has led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant newsgathering and support services, and difficulties coordinating broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include outmoded program formats, poor signal delivery, and low audience awareness in many markets. Alhurra

television broadcasts to the Middle East and Radio Farda broadcasts to Iran illustrate the Board’s efforts to better manage program content and meet the needs of

its target audiences. Although we have not validated available research data, the

Board claims that the application of its new approach has led to dramatic increases

in listening rates in key Middle East markets.

To streamline its operations, the Board has used its annual language service review process to address such issues as how resources should be allocated among language services on the basis of their priority and impact, what degree of overlap

should exist among services, and whether services should be eliminated because

they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the Board has identified

more than $50 million in actual or potential savings through this process.

In response to our recommendations on the Board’s strategic planning and performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to make reaching

large audiences in strategic markets the centerpiece of its performance reporting

system. The Board also added broadcaster credibility and audience awareness to its

array of performance measures and plans to add a measure of whether VOA is

meeting its mandated mission.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to provide an overview of the three reports we have

issued over the past 4 years on the operations of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.123 These reports have examined a number of organizational, marketing, resource, and performance management challenges facing U.S. international broadcasting. Our two most recent reports have addressed the Board’s principal response

to these challenges—a new 5-year strategic approach to international broadcasting

known as ‘‘Marrying the Mission to the Market,’’ which emphasizes the need to

reach large audiences by applying modern broadcast techniques and strategically allocating resources to focus on high-priority broadcast markets. Early implementaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
60

6With passage of the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, House and Senate

conferees adopted the Board’s proposal to terminate service to those Central and Eastern European nations that have been invited to become new member states of the European Union or

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and have received a Freedom House (a nonprofit group reporting on economic, political, and press freedom issues around the world) rating

equal to that of the United States. Conferees expressed the expectation that broadcast services

would continue in Romanian and Croatian. 7The U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 states that U.S. international broadcasting

efforts should, among other things, be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the

United States; provide a balanced and comprehensive projection of U.S. thought and institutions; and provide accurate and objective news and information about developments in signifition of this strategy has focused on markets relevant to the war on terrorism, in

particular the Middle East and central Asia.

Drawing from our published reports as well as recent testimony on U.S. public

diplomacy,4 I will talk today about (1) organizational and marketing obstacles and

the Board’s efforts to overcome them, (2) what the Board has done to manage its

limited resources, and (3) the status of Board efforts to develop meaningful performance goals and measures. I will also discuss our recommendations to the Board and

the status of its response to them. As part of our work to prepare for this testimony,

we met with Board staff to obtain updated program data and current information

on the steps the Board has taken to respond to our recommendations. The reports

used for this testimony were based on work conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.

SUMMARY

The Broadcasting Board of Governors faces a number of challenges, and key

among them is how to achieve large audiences in priority markets while dealing

with (1) a disparate organizational structure consisting of five broadcast entities and

a mix of federal and grantee organizations managed by a part-time Board and (2)

a collection of outdated and noncompetitive language services that have failed to respond to current market conditions. The disparate structure of U.S. international

broadcasting has led to overlapping language services, duplication of program content, redundant newsgathering and support services, and difficulties in coordinating

broadcast efforts. Marketing challenges include the use of outmoded program formats and styles, the general lack of target audiences within broadcast markets, poor

signal delivery in many areas, and low audience awareness in several major markets. The Board’s new strategic approach addresses these issues by treating broadcast entities as content providers within a ‘‘single system’’ that the Board oversees

to ensure that broadcast content meets the discrete needs of individual markets

using modern broadcasting techniques. Recent Board initiatives such as Radio Sawa

broadcasts to the Middle East and Radio Farda broadcasts to Iran illustrate the

Board’s willingness both to serve as the content manager for U.S. international

broadcasting and to adopt a market-based approach designed to attract large listening audiences in high-priority markets in support of U.S. strategic objectives in the

war on terrorism. Although we have not validated available research data, the

Board claims that the application of its new strategic approach has led to dramatic

increases in audience listening rates in markets of key strategic interest to the

United States.

Triggered by a desire to better manage its limited resources, the Board has used

its annual language service review process to identify and reallocate cost savings to

fund higher-priority needs, such as expanded initiatives in the Middle East and central Asia. The process is used to address such complex resource issues as how funds

should be allocated among services based on their priority and impact, how many

broadcast services should be carried, what degree of overlap and content duplication

should exist among services, and whether services should be eliminated because

they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. Since 1999, the Board has identified

more than $50 million in actual or potential budget savings through the language

service review process. From 1999 through 2002, the language service review process resulted in the reallocation of about $19.7 million from lower-priority or lowerimpact language services to higher-priority broadcast needs, including Radio Farda

and Radio Sawa In response to our recommendation, the Board updated its review

process to include a specific analysis of overlapping language services.5 In its 2003

review, the Board identified $12.4 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 transmission

cost and language service overlap reductions that could be reallocated to higher-priority needs, such as expanding Urdu language broadcasts to Pakistan and Persian

language television to Iran. Finally, the Board has used its language service review

process as a vehicle for identifying which language services should be eliminated.

61

6With passage of the Fiscal Year 2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act, House and Senate

conferees adopted the Board’s proposal to terminate service to those Central and Eastern European nations that have been invited to become new member states of the European Union or

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and have received a Freedom House (a nonprofit group reporting on economic, political, and press freedom issues around the world) rating

equal to that of the United States. Conferees expressed the expectation that broadcast services

would continue in Romanian and Croatian. 7The U.S. International Broadcasting Act of 1994 states that U.S. international broadcasting

efforts should, among other things, be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the

United States; provide a balanced and comprehensive projection of U.S. thought and institutions; and provide accurate and objective news and information about developments in significant regions of the world.

For example, based on its review process, the Board’s fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress recommended the elimination of 17 Central and Eastern European language services managed by Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Europe/

Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), saving a projected $20.9 million for fiscal years 2004 and

2005. While the Board is to be commended for making a difficult decision in this

case, our February 2004 report did note that the language service review process

lacks an adequate measure of whether domestic media provide accurate, balanced,

and comprehensive news and information to national audiences—a condition that

Congress expects to be met before RFE/RL language services are terminated.6

In response to our recommendations on the Board’s strategic planning and performance management efforts, the Board revised its strategic plan to make the goal

of reaching large audiences in strategic markets the centerpiece of its performance

reporting system. Also in response to our recommendations, the Board added broadcaster credibility and audience awareness to its array of performance measures and

plans to add a measure of whether VOA is meeting its mission. These steps will

help the Board answer questions about the effectiveness of initiatives such as Radio

Sawa and Alhurra (the two entities comprising the Middle East Television Network)

in reaching mass audiences and elites in the Middle East, whether foreign publics

perceive U.S. broadcast services as being independent of American foreign policy,

and whether VOA is effectively promoting the image of the United States and educating foreign audiences about U.S. practices and policies.

BACKGROUND

The Broadcasting Board of Governors oversees the efforts of all nonmilitary international broadcasting, which reaches an estimated audience of more than 100 million people each week in more than 125 markets worldwide. The Board manages

the operations of the International Broadcasting Bureau (IBB), VOA, the Middle

East Television Network (Alhurra and Radio Sawa), RFE/RL, and Radio Free Asia

(RFA). In addition to serving as a reliable source of news and information, VOA is

responsible for presenting U.S. policies through a variety of means, including officially labeled government editorials. Radio/TV Marti, RFE/RL, and RFA were created by Congress to function as ‘‘surrogate’’ broadcasters, designed to temporarily

replace the local media of countries where a free and open press does not exist. Created by the Bush administration and the Board, the Middle East Television Network draws its mission from the core purpose of U.S. international broadcasting,

which is to promote and sustain freedom by broadcasting accurate and objective

news and information about the United States and the world to audiences overseas.7

In addition to the stand-alone entities that make up U.S. international broadcasting, Congress and the Board have created other broadcast organizations to meet

specific program objectives. Congress created Radio Free Iraq, Radio Free Iran, and

Radio Free Afghanistan and incorporated these services into RFE/RL’s operations.

Under its new strategic approach to broadcasting, the Board and the Bush administration created Radio Sawa, the Afghanistan Radio Network (ARN), Radio Farda,

and Alhurra to replace poorly performing services, more effectively combine existing

services, and create new broadcast entities where needed. Figure 1 illustrates the

Board’s current organizational structure.

62

VOA, RFE/RL, and RFA are organized around a collection of language services

that produces program content. In some countries, more than one entity broadcasts

in the same language. These overlapping services are designed to meet the distinct

missions of each broadcast entity. Currently, 42 of the Board’s 74 language services

(or 57 percent) target the same audiences in the same languages. While some degree

of overlap is to be expected given the varying missions of the broadcast entities, the

Board has concluded that this level of overlap requires ongoing analysis and scrutiny.

The Board’s budget for fiscal year 2003 was approximately $552 million, with

nearly half of its resources used to cover transmission, technical support, Board and

IBB management staff salaries, and other support costs. Among the broadcast entities, funds are roughly equally divided among VOA and the four other U.S. broadcasting entities. Figure 2 provides a breakout of the Board’s fiscal year 2003 budget.

63

8Our July 2003 report discusses additional organizational issues, including the potential need

for a Chief Executive Officer or Chief Operating Officer to handle day-to-day operations for the

Board and whether VOA and Radio/TV Marti should be reconstituted as grantees to put them

on the same footing as other U.S. broadcast entities.

DISPARATE STRUCTURE AND AN OUTMODED BROADCAST APPROACH HAMPER EFFORTS TO

REACH LARGE AUDIENCES IN STRATEGIC MARKETS

Our reviews of U.S. international broadcasting reveal that the Board faces the

challenges of operating a mix of broadcast entities with varying missions and structures in an environment that provides significant marketing obstacles. As we reported in July 2003, the Board has adopted a new approach to broadcasting that

is designed to overcome several of these challenges. The Board’s key organizational

challenge is the disparate mix of broadcast entities it is tasked with managing.8 To

address this problem, the Board has adopted a ‘‘single system’’ approach to broadcasting whereby broadcast entities are viewed as content providers and the Board

assumes a central role in tailoring this content to meet the demands of individual

markets. The Board also faces marketing challenges that include the lack of a

unique reason for listeners to tune in, the general lack of target audiences within

broadcast markets, and poor-to-fair signal quality for many of the broadcast services. Recent initiatives such as Radio Sawa and Alhurra have addressed these deficiencies, and the Board has required that all broadcast services, to the extent feasible, address these issues as well.

DISPARATE STRUCTURE OF BROADCAST OPERATIONS REMAINS AN ONGOING CHALLENGE

The Board’s major organizational challenge is the need to further consolidate and

streamline its operations to better leverage existing resources and generate greater

program impact in priority markets. According to the Board’s strategic plan, ‘‘the

diversity of the Broadcasting Board of Governors—diverse organizations with different missions, different frameworks, and different constituencies—makes it a challenge to bring all the separate parts together in a more effective whole.’’ As noted

in our 2003 report, senior program managers and outside experts with whom we

spoke supported considering the option of consolidating U.S. international broadcasting efforts into a single entity.

64

The Board intends to create a unified broadcasting system by treating the component parts of U.S. international broadcasting as a single system. Under this approach, VOA and other U.S. broadcast entities are viewed as content providers, and

the Board’s role is to bring this content together to form new services or entities

as needed. The single-system approach to managing the Board’s diversity requires

that the Board actively manage resources across broadcast entities to achieve common broadcast goals. A good example of this strategy in action is Radio Farda,

which combined VOA and RFE/RL broadcast content to produce a new broadcast

product for the Iranian market. In the case of Radio Sawa, the Board replaced

VOA’s poorly performing Arabic service with a new broadcast entity. The Board’s

experience with implementing Radio Sawa suggests that it can be difficult to make

disparate broadcast entities work toward a common purpose. For example, Board

members and senior planners told us they encountered some difficulties attempting

to work with officials to launch Radio Sawa within VOA’s structure and were later

forced to constitute Radio Sawa as a separate grantee organization. While this move

was needed to achieve the Board’s strategic objectives, it contributed to the further

fragmentation of U.S. international broadcasting.

NEW INITIATIVES ADDRESS MARKETING CHALLENGES

The Board’s strategic plan comments openly on the marketing challenges facing

U.S. international broadcasters, specifically that many language services lack a

unique reason for listeners or viewers to tune in; few language services have identified their target audiences-a key first step in developing a broadcast strategy; many

language services have outmoded formats and programs with an antiquated, even

Cold War, sound and style; and three-quarters of transmitted hours have poor or

fair signal quality.

Consistent with its ‘‘Marrying the Mission to the Market’’ philosophy, the Board

has sought to address these deficiencies in key markets with new initiatives in Afghanistan, Iran, and the Middle East that support the war on terrorism. The first

project under the new approach, Radio Sawa (recently added to the new Middle

East Television Network), was launched in March 2002 using many of the modern,

market-tested broadcasting techniques and practices prescribed in its strategic plan,

including identifying a target audience, researching the best way to attract the target audience, and delivering programming to the Middle East in a contemporary

and appealing format. The Board’s other recent initiatives also have adhered to this

new approach by being tailored to the specific circumstances of each target market.

These initiatives include the Afghanistan Radio Network, Radio Farda service to

Iran, and the Alhurra satellite service to the Middle East. Table 1 describes the

Board’s recent projects that support the war on terrorism.

Table 1: The Board’s Recent Initiatives that Support the War on Terrorism

Initiative Launch date Project description

Radio Sawa1 March 2002 A modern Arabic-language network that broadcasts

music, news, and information to a target audience of

15- to 29-year olds in the Middle East via a combination of FM, medium wave, short wave, digital audio

satellite, and Internet transmission resources. Separate streams are targeted to Iraq, Jordan and the West

Bank, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and Morocco. All five

streams have a differentiated music program; however,

the news is similar on the four non-Iraq streams.

Board officials say that Radio Sawa broadcasts between 10 to 15 minutes of news each hour.

Afghanistan Radio

Network

August 2002 Afghanistan Radio Network is a coordinated stream of

VOA Dari and Pashto and RFE/RL’s Radio Free Afghanistan radio programming. The network targets the

broad Afghani population and currently broadcasts 24

hours, 7 days a week on FM and the Internet. It broadcasts 12 hours in Dari and 12 hours in Pashto daily. It

features hourly regional and global news and information coverage as well as reports on issues such as

health, education, politics, human rights, women’s

rights, and economic reconstruction.

65

9 Countries surveyed include Egypt, Jordan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and

Morocco. Research for Egypt, Qatar, UAE, and Kuwait was conducted in July and August 2003.

Research for Jordan and Morocco was conducted in February 2004. The six countries covered

by the survey represent only a portion of Radio Sawa’s target broadcast area—21 Muslim-majority countries in North Africa, the Near East, and the Persian Gulf. Notably absent from the

Board’s performance statistics are data on major target countries such as Sudan (about 21 million adults), Algeria (abut 21 million adults), and Saudi Arabia (about 14 million adults).

Table 1: The Board’s Recent Initiatives that Support the War on Terrorism—

Continued

Initiative Launch date Project description

Radio Farda December 2002 Radio Farda combines the efforts of VOA and RFE/RL

into a single service managed by RFE/RL. Radio Farda

targets its broadcasts to the under-30 youth in Iran. It

broadcasts a combination of popular Persian and Western music and a total of 8 hours of news and information content daily, focusing on regional coverage and

developments relating to Iran. News updates are given

at least twice an hour, with longer news programming

in the morning and evening. It broadcasts 24 hours a

day, 7 days a week via medium wave, digital audio satellite, and the Internet, as well as 21 hours a day via

short wave.

Alhurra2 February 2004 With a focus on attracting a broad audience in the Middle East, the Alhurra satellite television channel provides news, current affairs, and entertainment programming on a 24 hours, 7 days a week basis. Programming focuses on news and information, including

hourly news updates, daily hour-long newscasts, and

current affairs talk shows. The channel also broadcasts

information or educational shows on subjects including

health and fitness, entertainment, sports, and science

and technology.

1 Recently added to the Middle East Television Network.

2Part of the Middle East Television Network. Q02

Source: Broadcasting Board of Governors.

Although we have not validated available research data, the Board claims that

implementation of these marketing improvements has led to dramatic increases in

audience listening rates. For example, based on surveys conducted by ACNielsen,

the Board maintains that Radio Sawa is now the number one international broadcaster in six countries in the Middle East,9 reaching an average weekly audience

of about 38 percent of the general population and about 49 percent of its 15- to 29-

year-old target audience across all six countries. These levels far exceed the 1 to 2

percent audience reach of the VOA Arabic service, which Radio Sawa replaced. In

addition, the Board’s main research contractor—InterMedia—has indicated that as

of March 2004, Radio Farda is the leading international broadcaster in Iran—

achieving an average weekly listenership of 15 percent, which is 10 percent more

than the combined weekly audiences for VOA and RFE/RL’s prior services to Iran.

Board officials have told us that preliminary audience reach data for the Board’s

satellite channel Alhurra will be available by June of this year. While the audience

numbers on Radios Sawa and Farda appear to be very positive, as we reported in

July 2003, U.S. broadcasters suffer from a credibility problem. To address this issue,

we recommended that the Board adopt measures of broadcaster credibility, which

the Board has recently implemented.

In addition to these new initiatives, the Board has tasked all language services

with adopting the tenets of its new approach, such as identifying a target audience

and improving signal quality, to the maximum extent possible within existing budget constraints. They hope that these improvements will lead to significant audience

boosts for a number of higher- and lower-priority services that suffer from very low

listening rates. For example, data from the Board’s 2003 language review show that

more than one-quarter of all language services had listening rates of fewer than 2

percent at that time.

66

10 Content duplication occurs when VOA and another U.S. broadcast entity provide the same

type of information to the same audience. Board analysis shows that VOA carries more information about America than the surrogates and surrogates carry more local news than VOA. However, there are areas of overlap in content because each broadcast entity carries news about

America, as well as international, regional, and local events. 11The Board’s current press freedom measure index relies heavily on Freedom House’s press

freedom index, which focuses on free speech issues, the plurality of news sources, whether media

are economically independent from the government, and whether supporting institutions and

laws function in the professional interest of the press. The Freedom House index is used and

respected by media groups around the world. However, it does not assess whether domestic

media provide accurate, balanced, and comprehensive news and information. 12See Title III of P.L 103–236, as amended by P.L. 106–113, Appendix G, Section 503.

LANGUAGE SERVICE REVIEW USED TO REALLOCATE MILLIONS TO HIGHER-PRIORITY

BROADCAST NEEDS

The Board manages its limited resources through its annual language service review process, which is used to address such issues as how resources should be allocated among services based on their priority and impact, how many broadcast services should be carried, what degree of overlap and content duplication 10 should exist

among services, and whether services should be eliminated because they have fulfilled their broadcast mission. This process responds to the congressional mandate

that the Board periodically review the need to add and delete language services. The

Board has interpreted this mandate to include the expansion and reduction of language services. Since 1999, the Board has identified more than $50 million in actual

or potential savings through the language service review process by moving resources from lower- to higher-priority services, by eliminating language services,

and by reducing language service overlap and transmission costs.

REVIEW PROCESS USED TO ADDRESS COMPLEX RESOURCE ISSUES

As noted in our July 2003 report, the Board’s strategic plan concludes that if U.S.

international broadcasting is to become a vital component of U.S. foreign policy, it

must focus on a clear set of broadcast priorities. The plan notes that trying to do

too much at the same time fractures this focus, extends the span of control beyond

management capabilities, and siphons off precious resources. As discussed in our report, the Board determined that current efforts to support its broadcast languages

are ‘‘unsustainable’’ with current resources, given its desire to increase impact in

high-priority markets. Our survey of senior program managers revealed that a majority supported significantly reducing the total number of language services and the

overlap in services between VOA and the surrogate broadcasters. We found that 18

of 24 respondents said that too many language services are offered. When asked

how many countries should have more than one U.S. international broadcaster providing service in the same language, 23 of 28 respondents said this should occur in

only a few countries or no countries at all.

The Board’s annual language service review process serves as the Board’s principal tool for managing these complex resource questions. This process has evolved

into an intensive program and budget review that culminates with ranked priority

and impact listings for each of the Board’s 74 language services. These ranked lists

become the basis for proposed language service reductions or eliminations and provide the Board with an analytical basis for making such determinations using measures of U.S. strategic interests, audience size, press freedom, and a host of other

factors. Since the first language service review process began in 1999 and up

through 2002, the Board has reduced the scope of operations of over 25 language

services based on their priority and impact rankings and reallocated about $19.7

million to help fund higher-priority broadcast needs such as Radio Sawa and Radio

Farda.

As discussed in our February 2004 report, a clear example of the language service

review process in action was the Board’s recent proposal to eliminate 17 Central and

Eastern European language services which served to reduce the overall number of

language services and eliminate several overlapping services where the Board believed each broadcast entity’s mission had been completed. This decision resulted in

nonrecurring budget savings of about $8.8 million for fiscal year 2004 and recurring

annual savings of about $12.1 million. Our only criticism of this decision was that

the Board’s language service review process did not include a measure of press freedom that gauges whether the press acts responsibly and professionally.11 This is a

significant omission in the Board’s current measure, given the congressional concern

that RFE/RL’s broadcast operations not be terminated until a country’s domestic

media meet this condition.12 Board officials acknowledged that their existing press

freedom measure could be updated to include information on media responsibility

67

13The Board also identified an estimated $7.5 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 savings

from transmission reductions during its 2003 language service review. 14This Board’s strategic planning and performance management system includes its 5-year

strategic plan, Results Act reporting (annual performance plans and reports), the Office of Management and Budget’s new Program Assessment Rating Tool, the annual language service review process, and annual program reviews of individual language services. 15We also reported that efforts to assess the effectiveness of the Board’s new approach to

broadcasting may be hampered by the lack of details on how the Board intends to implement

each of its program objectives. Our September 2000 and July 2003 reports both noted that the

Board’s performance plans lacked specifics on implementation strategies, resource requirements,

and project time frames. The Board acknowledged these deficiencies and said that major

changes are slated for future planning efforts.

and professional quality, and work is under way to develop a more comprehensive

measure for the Board’s 2004 language service review.

REVIEW OF OVERLAPPING LANGUAGE SERVICES IMPLEMENTED

In our September 2000 report, we cited the Board’s concerns about overlapping

language services and its plans to address this issue in subsequent iterations of the

language service review process. In our July 2003 report we again raised the issue

of language service overlap and content duplication between VOA and the surrogates. We also noted that while the Board’s strategic plan identified overlap as a

challenge, it failed to answer questions about when it is appropriate to broadcast

VOA and surrogate programming in the same language.

The Board has responded to our observations and recommendations by incorporating a review of overlapping services in its language service review process for

2003. The Board developed several approaches to dealing with overlap. For example,

services can be ‘‘merged’’ by having one service subsume another (as was the case

with Radio Farda). A second approach is to run alternating services, as is the case

with the Afghanistan Radio Network, which runs VOA and RFE?RL programming

on a single broadcast stream. Another approach is to simply terminate one or both

overlapping services. All of the Board’s overlapping services were assessed with

these different approaches in mind. As a result of this analysis, the Board identified

an estimated $4.9 million in fiscal year 2004 and 2005 savings from overlap services

that could be redirected to higher-priority broadcasting needs, such as expanded

Persian language television for Iran and expanded Urdu language radio for Pakistan.13

STRATEGIC PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM REVISED TO PLACE A

GREATER FOCUS ON RESULTS

Mr. Chairman, the Board has revised its strategic planning and performance

management system to respond to the recommendations in our July 2003 report

aimed at improving the measurement of its results. In that report, we recommended

that the Board’s new strategic plan include a goal designed to gauge progress toward reaching significant audiences in markets of strategic interest to the United

States. Our report also recommended that the Board establish key performance indicators relating to the perceived credibility of U.S. broadcasters, whether audiences

are aware of U.S. broadcast offerings in their area, and whether VOA is achieving

its mission of effectively explaining U.S. policies and practices to overseas audiences.14

REACHING LARGE AUDIENCES IN KEY MARKETS

In response to our recommendation for a goal that would measure progress in

reaching large audiences in markets of strategic interest to the United States, the

Board replaced the seven strategic goals in its plan with a single goal focused on

this core objective.15 The goal is supported by a number of performance indicators

(at the entity and language service level) that are designed to measure the reach

of U.S. international broadcasting efforts and whether programming is delivered in

the most effective manner possible. Weekly listening rates at the entity level and

target audience numbers by language service provide key measures of the Board’s

reach. Other program effectiveness measures include program quality, the number

of broadcast affiliates, signal strength, Internet usage, and cost per listener.

BROADCASTER CREDIBILITY

In response to our recommendation for a measure of broadcaster credibility to

identify whether target audiences believe what they hear, the Board added such a

measure to its performance management system. Reaching a large listening or viewVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
68

ing audience is of little use if audiences largely discount the news and information

portions of broadcasts. Our survey of senior program managers and discussions with

Board staff and outside groups all suggest the possibility that U.S. broadcasters

(VOA in particular) suffer from a credibility problem with foreign audiences, who

may view VOA and other broadcasters as biased sources of information. InterMedia,

the Board’s audience research contractor, told us that it was working on a credibility index for another customer that could be adapted to meet the Board’s needs

and, when segmented by language service, would reveal whether there are significant perception problems among key target audiences. However, to develop a similar

measure, InterMedia told us that the Board would need to add several questions

to its national survey instruments.

AUDIENCE AWARENESS

In response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of audience awareness, the Board has added such a measure to its performance management system.

We determined this measure would help the Board answer a key question of effectiveness: whether target audiences are even aware of U.S. international broadcasting programming available in their area. Board officials have stated that this

measure would help the Board understand a key factor in audience share rates and

what could be done to address audience share deficiencies. We found that the Board

could develop this measure because it already collects information on language service awareness levels in its audience research and in national surveys for internal

use.

VOA MISSION EFFECTIVENESS

Finally, in response to our finding that the Board lacked a measure of whether

target audiences hear, understand, and retain information broadcast by VOA on

American thought, institutions, and policies, Board officials we spoke with told us

that they are currently developing this measure for inclusion in the Board’s performance management system. The unique value-added component of VOA’s broadcasting mission is its focus on issues and information concerning the United States,

our system of government, and the rationale behind U.S. policy decisions. Tracking

and reporting these data are important in determining whether VOA is accomplishing its mission. Officials from the Board’s research firm noted that developing

a measure of this sort is feasible and requires developing appropriate quantitative

and qualitative questions to include in the Board’s ongoing survey activities.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at this

time.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you, Mr. Ford.

Dr. Ghareeb.

STATEMENT OF DR. EDMUND GHAREEB, ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF MIDDLE EAST HISTORY AND POLITICS, SCHOOL

OF INTERNATIONAL SERVICE, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

Dr. GHAREEB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here.

Let me say right now that there is a credibility gap between the

United States and the Middle East, and we have heard about this

quite a bit today and in the media. Due to recent events, this disparity is increasing at a startling pace. Many in the region judge,

as we have heard, the United States mainly on its foreign policy

and how it affects the people in the region. The United States

needs to reach out to the people of the area and to try to close that

widening gap.

There have been many outreach projects in the past. The USIA

and the Voice of America have been there. Alhurra and Radio Sawa

are the latest media endeavors by Congress and the Broadcasting

Board of Governors, and they are the most comprehensive initiatives so far to try to reach the people of the area. While radio and

69

satellite ownership has exploded in recent years, reaching people is

by no means an easy task.

Even before Alhurra was on the air, many people in the area and

in the region said that it would be a mouthpiece for the U.S. Government. In the months ahead, Alhurra will have to prove itself

over and over again by providing credible and objective news coverage and analysis, by interviewing people who do not always agree

with the current administration and its policies.

Effective communication also requires taking your audience’s

views, values, feelings, and sense of identity into account. It is not

enough to tell people what is on your mind. You have to listen to

them. You have to find out what is on their minds.

If Alhurra and Radio Sawa are able to prove that their news is

reliable and free of government influence, they will have a unique

opportunity to cover stories that put U.S. policies in context and

debate them freely. It bears repeating, however, that there should

be no interference from the U.S. Government. As you know, most

Arab media outlets are state run. Governments influence what is

covered and how to cover it. Consequently, people in the region are

quite suspicious of all official media.

Furthermore, there is a great deal of competition, as you have

heard today from Ambassador Rugh and Professor Telhami. There

is saturation of the media environment in the Middle East. The information technology revolution, the CNN factor, dissatisfaction

with their own media and dissatisfaction with the way the Western

media covered the Gulf War of 1991 contributed to the rise of a

new and more independent Arab print and TV media. Today, in addition to the BBC and Radio Monte Carlo, many people are getting

their news and entertainment from Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al

Hayat-LBC, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, ANN, Future, Radio Orient, NBC,

Al Manar, and many others.

There have been several references in the news recently to the

allegation that media outlets such as Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya

are sparking the recent uprisings and encouraging people to take

a stand against the coalition forces. I think it is important to remember that the media in the region mirror the feelings and the

attitudes of their audiences. They place as much emphasis on reflecting the emotions and the attitudes in the region as they do on

the events of the day. They may influence people, but the sentiment is already there. They are not creating the problem. That is

where Alhurra and Radio Sawa have the opportunity, the potential

to play a big role. They have the opportunity to provide the region

with a straightforward approach to the news free of emotional coloration and innuendo.

When Alhurra started, an American journalist interviewed a Jordanian about what he thought of a program he had just watched,

and the man said that was all right, that he had heard different

people who represented a spectrum of views on the program. But

when told that Alhurra was financed by the U.S. Government, he

decided the program was terrible. The change in attitude was perceptible.

A serious problem likely to face media coverage is that the same

events mean different things to different audiences. Presenting

events only as they are seen through American eyes may alienate

70

Arabs and Muslims. To many Americans, the fighters in Fallujah

or in Najaf are insurgents and terrorists. For many Iraqis and

Muslims, they are resistance fighters.

When American forces in Iraq attack the insurgents in Fallujah,

it is perceived by many Arabs and Muslims because of collateral

damage, the death of innocent bystanders, as though the U.S. is attacking the city and its inhabitants. When mosques in the city

broadcast prayers appealing to God under fire, it looks like the

U.S. is attacking Islam. These are emotionally charged situations,

and emotions differ depending on one’s identity. The challenge facing the U.S. officials and the U.S. media today is that messages are

being broadcast from one side to the other not just through the

media, but by the unspoken messages conveyed by symbols and

pictures.

Iraq and the Palestinian question, as we have also heard earlier,

are very important issues for many Arabs and Muslims. Public diplomacy, accompanied by a very credible media performance by

Radio Sawa and Alhurra, will not by themselves sway the majority

of Arab and Muslim public opinion unless the Muslims and Arabs

come to believe that U.S. policies are taking their concerns and aspirations into account.

I also think it is important to point out that, yes, the sentiments

against American policies is very strong right now. However, feelings toward the U.S. and the American people are not all negative.

When you talk to people in the Middle East about personal freedom, about democracy, about values that Americans enjoy and advocate, it is something they admire and are intrigued by. American

technological, scientific and educational achievements, as well as

American products are widely admired.

Another thing, of course, is American culture, music, movies, television, and books, you name it, people in the region are watching,

listening and reading. And from the popularity of Radio Sawa, I

think the same can be said for music. Several young people that

I talked to in the Middle East said that Radio Sawa has really neat

songs and music, so they turn the volume up when the songs are

on, but some of them turn it down when the news comes on because they think the news is slanted, although many continue to

listen.

Overall, the United States needs to foster positive images of

itself and of its motives abroad and use them to help rebuild relations with the people of the Middle East. Right now positive American values and images are not getting exported nearly enough.

The airwaves and newspapers in the Middle East are full of stories

of the United States trying to dominate the region and to dictate

its views upon the people of the Middle East. They look at Iraq and

ask if this is a war of freedom and democracy or a fight for oil and

hegemony. They wonder about American commitment to freedom of

speech when the CPA closes a very small newspaper or seeks to

constrain popular satellite channels.

The United States needs a voice. They need many voices, voices

of moderation, voices that speak clearly and objectively about the

events in the Middle East and around the world. There is not a

panacea or a quick fix that will change sentiments all at once. It

71

will be a long process. I am not saying that you will be able to

reach everyone.

However, I would like to applaud your efforts, whether it is

through Alhurra and Radio Sawa or by reaching out to speak to

Middle East media or through other fora, to begin to bridge the gap

between the people of the region and the American people.

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Ghareeb follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. EDMUND GHAREEB

Thank you for inviting me to testify today. Let me start by saying that right now

there is a credibility gap between the United States and the Middle East and due

to recent events; this disparity is increasing at a startling pace. Many times people

in the Middle East will judge the U.S. based solely on its foreign policy and how

it affects them. Now is the time the U.S. needs to reach out and try and close this

expanding gap. Through government officials, like you, the U.S. reaches out to leaders in the Middle East. However, there is a constituency that is much more important and we need to make every effort to reach out to them—the people who live

in the Middle East.

In the past, there have been different outreach projects to connect with Middle

Easterners, but they were specialized and could only reach a specific segment of the

population. Some excellent programs were also undertaken by the USIA. Alhurra

and Radio Sawa, the latest media endeavors by Congress and the Broadcasting

Board of Governors are the most comprehensive initiative to reach the people of the

Middle East, without going through a government channel. Radio and satellite television ownership has exploded in recent years and is quickly becoming commonplace

in many households in the Middle East. But, still reaching people in the Middle

East in their homes is by no means an easy task.

Even before Alhurra was on the air, many newspapers and people in the region

said it would be a mouthpiece for the United States government. In the months

ahead Alhurra will have to prove itself over and over again, by providing credible

and objective news coverage and analysis and by interviewing people who do not always agree with the current administration and its policies.

Effective communication, however, requires taking your audience’s values, feelings

and sense of identity into account. It is also not enough to tell people what is on

your mind. We have to also listen to what is on their minds.

If Alhurra and Radio Sawa are able to prove that their news is reliable and free

of government influence, they will have a unique opportunity to cover stories that

put U.S. policies in context and debate them freely. It bears repeating, however,

there should be no interference from the U.S. government. As you know, most Arab

media outlets are state run. They influence what is covered and how to cover it.

Consequently, people in the region are quite suspicious of their official media. Furthermore, the Middle East is becoming saturated with radio and TV channels as

well as the growing influence of the Internet. The information technology revolution,

the CNN factor, and general unhappiness with their own official media contributed

to the rise of the new Arab print and TV media. Today, in addition to the BBC and

Radio Monte Carlo, many Arabs are getting their news and entertainment from

channels such as Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya, Al Hayat-LBC, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, ANN,

Future as well as Radio Orient, Orbit and Dream in addition to their own government channels and to channels beamed from the outside.

There have been several references in the news recently to the allegation that

media outlets such as Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya are sparking the recent uprisings

and encouraging people to take a stand against Coalition forces. I want to take issue

with that point. The media that are in the region, like the U.S. media, mirror the

feelings and attitudes of their audiences. They place as much emphasis on reflecting

the emotions and the attitudes in the region, as they do the events of the day. Yes,

they may influence people, but the sentiment is already there, they are not creating

something out of nothing. That is where Alhurra and Radio Sawa can have the biggest impact. They have the opportunity to provide the region with a straightforward

approach to the news free of emotional coloration and innuendo.

When Alhurra started, an American journalist asked a Jordanian man what he

thought of the program he had just watched, and the man said it was alright, that

he had heard different people who represented a spectrum of views on the program;

but when told that Alhurra was financed by the U.S. government, he decided the

program was terrible; the change in attitude was noticeable.

72

A serious problem likely to face media coverage is that, sometimes, the same

events mean different things to different audiences. Presenting events only as they

are seen through American eyes may alienate Arabs and Muslims. To many Americans the fighters in Falluja or Najaf are insurgents and terrorists. For many Iraqis

and Muslims they are resistance fighters and if they are killed they are martyrs.

When American forces in Iraq attack the insurgents in Falluja, it is perceived by

many Arabs and Muslims (because of collateral damage, the death of women and

children, innocent bystanders) as though the U.S. is attacking Falluja, the city, and

its inhabitants. When mosques in the city broadcast prayers, appealing to God,

under fire, it looks like the U.S. is attacking Islam. These are emotionally charged

situations, and the emotions differ depending on whether one is an Iraqi or an

American. The challenge facing U.S. officials and U.S. media today is that message

are being broadcast from one side to the other not just through the media but by

the unspoken messages conveyed by symbols and by pictures.

It is also important to remember that strong opposition exists in the region to

U.S. policies. Public diplomacy accompanied by a very credible media performance

by Radio Sawa and Alhurra will not, by themselves, sway the majority of Arab and

Muslim public opinion unless they come to believe that U.S. policies are reflecting

their own concerns and aspirations for fairness, justice, a better way of life and increased political participation.

I also think it is important to point out that, yes, the sentiment against American

policies is very strong right now, and our foreign policy, particularly in Iraq and in

the Israeli-Palestinian arena, is at the heart of that. However, feelings towards the

U.S. and the American people are not all negative. When you talk to people in the

Middle East about personal freedom, democracy and values that Americans enjoy

it is something they admire and are intrigued by.

Another thing that is almost universally liked about America is our pop culture.

Music, movies, television and books—you name it and they are watching, listening

and reading it. A quick glance at any television channel lineup or movie marquee

and you are bound to find ‘‘Friends’’ or the latest blockbuster hit. And from the popularity of Radio Sawa, I think the same can be said for music. Several young people

that I spoke to in the Middle East say that Radio Sawa has really neat songs and

music, so they turn the volume up when the songs are on, but some turn it down

when the news comes on because they feel that the news is slanted.

The U.S. needs to foster positive images of itself and its motives abroad and use

them to help rebuild relations with the people of the Middle East. Right now, positive American values and images are not getting exported nearly enough. The airwaves and newspapers in the Middle East are full of examples of the United States

trying to dominate the region and to dictate its views upon the people of the Middle

East. They look at Iraq and ask if this is a war for freedom and democracy, or a

fight for oil and hegemony? They wonder about American commitment to the freedom of speech when the CPA closes a small newspaper or seeks to constrain popular

satellite channels.

The U.S. needs a voice out there that is a voice of moderation—to speak clearly

and objectively about the events in the Middle East and around the world. There

is not a panacea or quick fix that will change sentiment all at once; it will be a

long process. I am also not saying that you will be able to reach everyone.

However, I would like to applaud your efforts, whether it is through Alhurra and

Radio Sawa, or by reaching out to speak to Middle East media, to bridge the gap

between the U.S. and the Middle East, and to begin to narrow the gap between the

people of the region and the American people.

Thank you again for allowing me to appear before you today. I will be happy to

answer any questions you may have.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you. Unfortunately, the length of today’s presentations have not left us with a great deal of time for

questions, but I would like to ask just a few.

First, Ambassador Rugh, you talk about your perception of the

difficulty in penetrating Arab markets with Alhurra. The previous

panel presented information, a recent survey as to the number of

satellite viewers that had watched Alhurra programming in the

past week, and at least in a number of countries, Jordan, Lebanon,

Kuwait, it was over 35 percent, and in several other countries,

Syria, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, it was 20 percent or even a little

higher.

73

Are those good numbers? We would, obviously, like those to be

better. Is that a pleasant surprise to you after only 2 months of

broadcasting and what do you think we should be hoping for in this

point in the process?

Ambassador RUGH. Mr. Chairman, I think those are good numbers as far as they go. It is early in the history of Alhurra. We do

not know what the long term will be. The numbers may be high

possibly because of curiosity for a new medium. As I tried to emphasize, it is considered a U.S. Government broadcasting instrument, and American policy is the focus of everybody’s attention in

the Middle East now. They want to know what it is. They want to

understand it. They are puzzled. Everybody I talked to in the region says explain to me why our policy is what it is. So there is

interest and there is enormous potential, but the potential has to

be capitalized on if we are going to maintain the market. We have

to do quality programming. We have to meet the expectations of

the audience or it is going to disappear.

Dr. TELHAMI. May I followup on this briefly?

Senator SUNUNU. Yes, you may. But I would like actually each

of our panelists to address the following question, and doctor, you

are welcome to talk about the perception as well.

The second question is to what extent have those of you who

have watched satellite TV broadcasts, especially those broadcasts

of government-owned stations in the region, how have you seen or

noticed those stations changing over the last several years, first,

with the advent of Al Jazeera, which was certainly a different format, even though it was government-funded, and second, with

Alhurra? We will certainly begin with you, Dr. Telhami.

Dr. TELHAMI. Thank you. Let me just say on the previous question, because I am doing surveys actually about people watching

media. I have done one a year ago. I am doing that now, and I will

probably have some very good data on Alhurra compared with others.

Mr. Pattiz was extremely careful to say these are preliminary

numbers because they were not systematic yet. For example, the

question may have been, have you ever watched Alhurra? Which

is a very different question from, do you consistently watch it for

the news? My suspicion is the numbers of Al Jazeera and Al

Arabiya probably are 80 to 90 percent, and the question that we

usually ask, when we do a survey, to get at whether a station has

an impact or not, is we say, which is your first choice for news,

which is your second choice, which is your third choice. We look at

three choices. And then we have, do you watch it once a week,

twice a week, five times a week? And we find the intensity, of

course, is all that matters. So it is too early to tell, obviously. It

is strong, but these numbers really cannot tell you yet the story.

Now, if you look at Al Jazeera—and I have been watching it for

a long time and I participate in some of these debates—in my judgment, by and large, if you compare the media now, the satellite

phenomenon, with what existed in the Arab world a decade ago,

there is no question that it is far better than it was and you get

far more varieties of views than you did before and it is far more

accurate than it was a decade ago. It is flawed and there are a lot

of problems, and they are learning through it, but there is no quesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:28 Sep 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 95841 SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
74

tion in my mind that it is far better than it was. There are some

programs that are absolutely superior. There are some programs

that we would be proud to put on our own television, including

news programs. Al Arabiya has an excellent discussion show with

one of the leading journalists here that has a variety of views that

is a high-quality discussion that we would be impressed with on

our own television. And they have others that we would not want

to put on our high-quality television. So overall, I think it has been

better, but it is certainly not perfect.

Senator SUNUNU. Ambassador Rugh.

Ambassador RUGH. Mr. Chairman, if I could add something on

the polls because you asked a very good question. I have not seen

the polls that have been referred to, but I think the best poll that

would give us good information about the effectiveness of Alhurra

and Radio Sawa as well would be to take a poll at the time of a

major event, for example, the capture of Saddam Hussein or a

speech by President Bush, and see what channel the audiences select. It is not enough to say, did you watch Alhurra this week, as

Professor Telhami says. You want to know what their choice was

on a crucial issue like a major political event, particularly in the

Middle East. Are they watching Alhurra for coverage of Fallujah?

Are they watching it for coverage of the West Bank and Gaza?

On the question of change over time, I agree completely with

Professor Telhami. It has been a dramatic change. The pioneering

role of Al Jazeera, which is way out ahead of the others, has forced

other broadcasting stations, even directly government-controlled

ones like Abu Dhabi television, to improve the quality of their programming, the quality of their reporting. We often in America focus

on the discussion programs and the commentaries, but the news reporting of Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya is outstanding. Unless

Alhurra can match that, nobody is going to watch.

Senator SUNUNU. Ambassador Rugh, I think in some previous

testimony, you talk about producing programs for placement on

other stations, local stations throughout the Arab world. If that approach were pursued, do you think it likely that the governments

would give us access on stations for the kind of programming, either balanced programming or even programming that might be

critical of these governments? Is it realistic to expect that we would

get placement?

Ambassador RUGH. I think yes, Mr. Chairman. I think particularly those satellite stations that are competing for market share

like Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. We can get access to them. Professor Telhami has been on them. Professor Ghareeb has been on

them. I have been on them. They do not ban American comments,

and the more Americans to participate, the better, and they welcome them. I know that for a fact. American officials ought to

speak more on television.

As far as placement goes, as a public affairs officer in Egypt in

Saudi Arabia and other places, I found it fairly easy to place good

material on local programs. Now, if it was a program that directly

criticized the host government for corruption, they might not take

it, but if it is a well-produced program, yes, they will take it. This

is a hungry medium that needs material and they will take our

material too.

75

Senator SUNUNU. Dr. Ghareeb, what do you think about the

value or the efficacy of taking privately produced media broadcasts,

whether it is on a major station like CNN or MSNBC, Fox, et

cetera, and translating that? Are Arab translations of American

programming of value or interest in the channels or the outlets we

have been speaking of?

Dr. GHAREEB. First, let me comment briefly on the role of the

new media in the Arab world. I think it has revolutionized the way

people receive their information and their news. They have forced

government media to lift the ceiling on debate and discussion. We

are seeing discussion of issues that have been taboo, as Ambassador Rugh said earlier, issues that have to do with the ArabIsraeli conflict, that have to do with sex, that have to do with religion, secularism, Kurdish nationalism, and numerous other issues.

There is no doubt that the record is mixed. On the one hand,

they have raised this debate. On the other hand, they have not

brought about the changes that a lot of people thought that they

were going to do, that they were going to increase democratization

and political participation because the government still owns some

of these channels and we do not see a real demand for accountability when it comes to issues dealing with domestic problems, domestic corruption, questions of the budget, for example. These are

not focused on enough. In fact, some people think that the media

have transformed the audiences where there is now an audience

lethargy. People sort of participate vicariously through the media

instead of trying to bring about changes of the government.

As to the types of American programs which could be translated,

if they could be translated well, some of them could perhaps find

an audience in the Arab world. For example, I think something like

the Lehrer News Hour might be an excellent program. I think that

program would also have an audience in the Arab world. But at the

same time, I do not think you can use all programs because the

values here are very important. The way you communicate with

people in the Middle East is a little different from communicating

with people in the United States.

And this is in part the problem of U.S. officials because if you

take a look at Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya and many others, you will

find that American officials often appear on these channels regularly. Sometimes I have seen President Bush speaking on Al

Jazeera or on Al Arabiya. They were airing a speech live while it

was not being aired on American television. But the problem sometimes is that the message is not well understood over there. The

values are different and that is something that has to be taken into

account.

Senator SUNUNU. Mr. Ford, from your testimony, I get the impression that the BBG has been somewhat responsive in dealing

with recommendations having to do with overlap and revisiting the

format or the structure of its language services. Are there any

areas or any recommendations that the GAO has made where the

BBG response has been lacking or has been slower than you would

hope?

Mr. FORD. I would not say that they responded negatively to our

recommendations. I think some of them are issues related to

whether they have resources to implement more surveys, to have

76

a better understanding of whether they are actually meeting their

goals, whether the audience they are trying to meet is actually getting the message. Some of that is a resource issue. Some of it is

because, as I mentioned earlier, they are trying to manage many

other broadcast operations, it is a challenge for them to try to come

up with an efficient approach to optimize their resources. So those

kinds of issues are the ones where they generally agree that they

need to do that, but the process of them implementing those things

is taking some time.

Senator SUNUNU. Thank you.

I want to thank each of the panelists. You have been very patient

with your time, and I look forward to revisiting this issue as

Alhurra and the BBG continue their mission.

This hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:54 p.m., the subcommittee adjourned, to reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]

Æ