The AM Forum

 The Voice of America (VOA) is implementing plans to outsource eight news writing jobs to Hong Kong. The move has members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee up in arms.

The Chicago Tribune reports that VOA, a government-funded broadcast operation chartered by Congress to present the policies of the United States clearly and effectively while providing a consistently reliable authoritative source of news is planning to shift its overnight news service to Hong Kong. VOA management concedes that it will save $300,000 from the move, mostly in health care costs.

According to the Tribune, VOA hopes to have its Hong Kong staff in place within the next few months.

Interesting tidbit Bill, thanks!

Talk about outsourcing lunacy, Hong Kong to write VOA content?
Sometimes I wonder what our country is thinking. Closing down military bases in the middle of two wars, and allowing the VOA to almost “go dark” sure don’t seem like a recipe for success.

I know that I am not a “smart” politician, but it seems to me that the VOA, which was one of the better tools in our country’s Cold War toolkit, has been left to languish. Now more than ever, especially since we are fighting a "Hot War" against radial Islam, you would think that it is important to get America's message of hope and freedom to the rest of the world.
Yes, I know about the internet, but frankly shortwave still seems to be the cheapest, simplest, and most low tech medium to do the job. You don’t need a computer, phone line, cable connection or stable power supply to listen to the radio. In fact many of the very countries which need to hear the VOA’s message do not allow their citizens to use the internet, or block access to large parts of it.

The funding to keep the VOA strong and going has to be a drop in the proverbial bucket in comparison to all the other “Golden Fleece” programs.

Think a letter to my congresswoman is in order.

It's amazing to me how many Europeans I talk to, particularly Eastern Europeans, who lament the changes at VOA.  Many still regard it as a voice they can trust.  I wonder if they'll run a disclaimer...something to the effect of, "Made in Hong Kong?"

...DONT FORGET,HONG KONG WAS RETURNED TO MAINLAND CHINA,IN 1997....SK..

PG beat me to it.  The news for the free side of the cold war is going to be written by the not-so-free side.  That should prove very interesting.  I can't imagine Radio Moscow having used American reporters back in the day.  Can you?

Only in America.

Let's wait for one more State to be United... ;)

That's saying a lot about the state of medical care in the US and in China.  Not only are many private businesses dropping medical coverage for their employees because of the drastic increase in cost, now an agency of the federal government is outsourcing to avoid having to provide medical coverage to its employees.

In China, once touted as a communist paradise, for a large part of the population, medical care is non-existent.  No private or government-run medical plans at all.  Those who cannot pay receive no medical care.

Here is the letter I wrote to my Congressional Representative, Don Sherwood:

Dear Representative Sherwood, It is with much disdain that I contact you about a recent rumor/fact concerning our country's flagship radio station, Voice of America. The concern is that during the weekends and evenings, the news writing will be taking place in Hong Kong!? I feel that this is a national disgrace, and is going to harbour more discontent amoung the American people. It is bad enough when good paying jobs are leaving the country but when our government is leading the way? Imagine what this says to the rest of the world? Especially those who get their information about America from the VOA! I pray that you will stop this crazy notion and help restore the "VOA" back to its place of honor and dignity. Your humble constituent, Mike Sawyer Danville, PA

I have something I wrote as well.  I'll be sending it today.

This is ridiculous.  A bad joke, but it's real.  Unbelievable!  What next?

Bacon, it's like the BBC hiring Joseph Goebbels as a consultant.

Click the link below for the Washington Post story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55134-2005Apr14.html

That's a good one, Comrade Chester. I wonder if any of the experienced journalists they're hiring covered the Tianemen Square story for The People's Daily?

"Bacon, it's like the BBC hiring Joseph Goebbels as a consultant."

That's a bit of a stretch - comparing expat Chinese to a core member of the Nazi party. Wow!

Calling it outsourcing is a stretch too. According to the article, no US person will lose their job.

The Wash Post story is full of a lot of questionable editorializing and glaring omissions. For example.

"Then there's the notion, he said, of American taxpayer dollars providing jobs for noncitizens overseas."

This obtuse comment is laughable in that the State Department has been hiring Foreign Service Nationals (30,000 of them presently) in embassies and consulates around the world for years. These FSNs even get a retirement plan. Some of the FSNs might even be, oh no, Chinese. Oh my gosh!

Further, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty also hire foreigners. Why this is not mentioned in the article is puzzling. The reporter was either lazy or had an agenda. Then again, sensationalism and claims of outsourcing probably get more readers.

Here's another. "There's also the question of making sure everyone in Hong Kong has the requisite security clearances." Of course the reporter does not claim security clearances are needed, nor does he bother to check. Lazy! The positions very well may be Public Trust positions, which require a background check (usually a criminal database check), but these are not considered clearances in the formal sense since these people do not have access to classified information. So once again, using the wrong term - clearance - makes the story more sensation, but also more inaccurate.

The people being hired don't sound like raving Commies to me. Even the slanted article claims they are "expatriate English-speakers", meaning expatriate from mainland China, presumably. They will still be supervised by an American in Washington, so it's not like they can just start broadcasting Chicom propaganda on VOA.

It would be interesting to know if VOA transmitters and other tech equipment is installed and maintained only by US government employees (not a contractor) and exclusively US citizens.

Bottom line, the USG hiring foreigners, old news. VOA hiring foreigners, old news. The article seems like a hype job to me.

OK, Steve, I did forget about Godwin's Law!
Let me put it another way:

What if 25 years ago the VOA had replaced their overnight Washington newsdesk staff with Moscow-based Tass News correspondents to produce their broadcast material? What has changed?

In my book, it raises issues of credibility. And even the appearance of possible impropriety or lack of credibility can be greatly harmful to a respected news organization.  You know that. So does CBS.

.

I'm with ya on your example. But your example is not comparable to what has happened with VOA. No where in the story is it stated the Chinese being hired have previously or currently work for a Beijing-based, government controlled news entity. Secondly, the entire news desk staff is not being replaced. The editor is still an American based in Washington. Third, comparing the relationship between the US and China today, with that of the US and the USSR of twenty-five years ago is apples and oranges, at best.

As to credibility, with whom? Maybe this hiring makes VOA less credible in your eyes, but you are not the target audience. The question is whether mainland Chinese find expatriates credible (or any other target countries). I can't answer this question, but this is really the issue.

One final question, I wonder if any expat Russians worked at RFE or RL twenty-five years ago?

It would be one thing if it was the VOA East Asian news bureau that was going to be in Hong Kong.  But it's quite something else when it is the VOA night news department that is going to be in Hong Kong.  This is ridiculous.

Why Hong Kong?  Why not Saipan?  At least it's an American possession of some sort.

It's ridiculous because......?

Why not Hong Kong? Why not the moon? There's an American flag there.

...I DONT GET THIS EXPAT THING..THEY ARE STILL CHINESE.MAINLAND CHINESE.BEIJING  IS THE OWNER/OPERATOR.CALL IT WHAT YOU WANT,BUT HONG KONG IS AS MUCH PART OF CHINA AS ALASKA,OR HAWAII  IS TO THE  U.S. ...SK..

Yes, but Beijing is not the owner/operator of VOA or its employees.

So, you are saying, someone who left China (ostensibly to get away from Communism) and is now living in Hong Kong (which was not part of mainland China during the bulk of their lifetime), are the same as the Communists living in Beijing for the past 50 years? Do I have that right?

Bush is behind all this. Follow the money trail. Halliberton is making money on no-bid contracts somehow too. Pull the finals out of those VOA rigs and check the serial numbers.  Herman Munster would have never allowed this.

Bacon:

You really have no objection then. I've already pointed out this is not outsourcing. No one has lost their job. The VOA has long employed personnel overseas (as has the rest of the USG). Just because they are not US citizens does not mean they will not get health benefits. Some of those employed in Hong Kong may, in fact, be VOA/USG employees. Others may be contractors, who's parent company very well may indeed include health benefits.

I'm not sure what is political about this. These are clear facts, no politics involved. Unless, of course, there's more to your objections than you are admitting.

Actually, people in the USA lost work hours, which is pretty much the same thing.  And those hours are now being worked by employees in the PRC.  I'd call that outsourcing.  And I object!  For a number of reasons.

Come on Steve, we all know that outsourcing is a political subject.

Sorry Bacon, but this subject is political to you because it fits your template. Such a template, however, is not a universal truth, and I will have no part of it.

I see no evidence of any VOA employee losing hours. Further attempts to politicize will be countered with facts.

Hmmm, that's amazing.  VOA moves their night news operation from the USA to China, saving $300,000 a year, paying people in the PRC, and no VOA employee lost hours?  By all means let's hear those facts.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4603928

Eight jobs were eliminated and moved overseas.  OK, I see that the workers were reassigned and didn't lose their jobs.  I really not sure about their hours, though, or whether they got promoted to dumpster supervisors or bottle washers.  But for VOA to push the $300,000 savings and to expand with "expatriate" workers (what do they mean by that?) smacks of... what shall I call it?  Outsourcing.  And it seems... how shall I say?  Inappropriate.  They should call it the Voice of ... The Pacific Rim?

I can't believe I didn't catch this back in mid-April when it happened.  April first would have been appropriate for something like this.


Yes, but you'll have to admit that there is the important consideration of the high cost of housing and transportation.  I doubt that the $300,000 savings would be realized with VOA night news facilities on the moon.

At the same time I'd be interested to know how much the American workers got paid, what the prevailing payscale for thier old jobs is in the USA, and what the new workers in Hong Kong get paid, and what their benefits are.  And what exactly does VOA mean by "expatriate English-speakers?"  Expatriate from where?  US workers in Hong Kong?  Also I'd like to know what jobs the displaced workers are doing at VOA now, how their hours and payscale were affected, etc.  Did they lose overtime or night differential?  Etc.

You are the one making the charge. Provide some facts to back it up. I already showed no one lost hours, no one lost a job. You claim eight jobs were eliminated Please show any evidence, you know, facts and such.

You act as though personnel working in Hong Kong are non-VOA/USG personnel per se. Yet you provide nothing to prove this. Show the facts of this claim.

You claim you are not sure about the VOA employees losing hours, yet in the previous paragraph you question my claim they did not. You appear to be contradicting yourself.

You seem to claim that moving jobs to Hong Kong is inappropriate, yet provide no logical reason.

You seem to claim that moving jobs to Hong Kong will somehow change, modify or otherwise dilute the 'message' (whatever that is) of VOA (your "you should call it the Voice of ... The Pacific Rim?" comment). Yet you provide no tangible evidence that your claim is true. Please show evidence foreign, or US citizens working overseas will not conform to VOA's Journalistic Code. I've already shown VOA, RFE, RL and others have employed foreigners, even in overseas locations. If this recent hiring is a problem, then it must have been a problem for a long time, April first not withstanding.

You ask about expatriate. I wondered about that too. I suppose they could be from anywhere, excepting Hong Kong. But a clue lies here.

"He [Iliff] suggested that a network of British, American and Australian expatriates in China would comprise a likely hiring pool, and he added the agency has already spoken to one of its regular freelance reporters who is interested in working for VOA in Hong Kong."

 -- http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0405/041305h1.htm


Anyway, I agree to disagree on this one. You call it outsourcing and I don't. Sorry if we bored others. ;D

Maybe CRI will outsource to the U.S. ;)

And there is no crime in the Soviet Union.

The VOA staff move to communist-held Hong Kong may look benign, but there's a subtle loss of U.S. editorial control likely.

Freelance or local hires do not enjoy the same status as U.S. nationals assigned in a foreign bureau, in this case VOA Hong Kong.  One example is credentialling. The controlling government agency in Beijing can revoke more easily the operating permits that allow access for newsgathering.

W3JN may have a better take on this, but China could consider the issuance and ongoing status of such credentials an "internal matter" for ex-patriate, third-party English speakers, and not a "diplomatic matter" were the person a U.S. citizen on assignment.

This consequently exerts pressure on that journalist to avoid hard-hitting or controversial coverage of China affairs, lest they risk their credentials and ability to work in that socialist country.

------
An interesting story on the state of government-run news outlets in China.

Xinhua : the world's biggest propaganda agency
http://www.rsf.org/IMG/pdf/Report_Xinhua_Eng.pdf

On the eve of the 56th anniversary of the People's Republic of China, Reporters Without Borders releases a report of an investigation into the role of the news agency Xinhua News Agency in the system of propaganda and censorship put in place by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

With less than three years to go before the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, the worldwide press freedom organisation calls on the Chinese government to reform the state-run media.

Although it is more and more regularly cited as a credible source - nearly one third of the news reports on China selected by Google News originate from the agency - Xinhua, the head of which has the rank of minister, is the linchpin of control of the Chinese media.

Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news agency has been completely subordinate to the CCP.

The Reporters Without Borders' report includes accounts from several Xinhua journalists who agreed, on condition of anonymity, to explain how the control imposed by the CCP's Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis.

With the help of former French journalist on Xinhua, Reporters Without Borders exposes the distortion of facts, hatred for its enemies (particularly the United States and Japan) and its support, through the treatment of international news, for the world's worst regimes.

Despite a certain economic liberalisation of the media sector, Xinhua remains the voice of the sole party. Hand-picked journalists, who are regularly indoctrinated, produce reports for the Chinese media that give the official point of view and others - classified "internal reference" for the country's leaders.

After being criticised for its lack of transparency, particularly during the Sars epidemic, Xinhua has for last few months been putting out news reports embarrassing to the government, but they are designed to fool the international community, since they are not published in Chinese.

I suspect your question's rhetorical, Steve, but in fact such was the case.  We had a family friend in England who was an Eastern European refugee.   He worked as a presenter/commentator for one of the examples you mentioned that was beaming into Eastern Europe.  His language facilities and political orientation made him ideal for the job. 

Additional: The friend worked in the UK and did not -- could not -- perform news gathering chores in the countries to which his voice was directed.  His trips abroad were limited to destinations west of the Iron Curtain. In these places he maintained a network of expatriates and refugees with contacts further east who were carefully used sources.  It was the stuff of thrillers set during the Cold War in Europe in the 1960s  and I intentionally am keeping things vague. 

I missed where it was proven that there were no lost hours, and yes we disagree, I think it is insanity to have a core news operation of the VOA operating out of the PRC.  A regional bureau, OK, but the core of night news, with some editor in the States supervising?  Incredible.

On the other hand, it probably won't make much difference now.  It's just one more ironic bit of cognitive dissonance at this point, like US Flags made in China and Japan, US bank phone centers and help lines operating from India, and "Made in America" stitched on in Saipan.

This is nothing new at all.  The VOA has used foreign nationals, many posted overseas, some working in the US, for years.  They've been used as on-air talent, editors, stringers, reporters, technicians/engineers, in fact every instance where US citizens have been used.  I worked with several Kenyan VOA employees when I was posted to Nairobi - one a ham, Gad, 5Z4GK(?)

What is the big deal here?

I tend to avoid contentious threads like this but I see VJB has asked a very good question.  I would say *generally* the VOA prefers to use US citizen reporters who *generally* have diplomatic immunity in the country in which they are stationed.  This diplomatic immunity does *not* extend to other countries; e.g. if a VOA reporter is stationed in China and enjoys immunity there, but then travels to Korea for a job, he does *not* have diplomatic immunity in Korea.  I can't answer whether this would affect a foreign national's work or not.

I would think (althouigh I am not sure) that credentialling reporters would be a reciprocal basis.  So if the Chinese gave us grief over credentialling US reporters, Xinhua might have problems with their reporters getting visas, WH press credentials, etc.

HK is **not** the same environment as mainland CHina.  HK still enjoys many freedoms non-existent on the mainland.  Freedom from internet censorship for example.

In china a buck is a buck and they don't want to mess up the flow of bucks from HK. It serves as a model to their commie government to watch and learn.
They seem to be interested in changing their commie ways to compete with the world without losing grip on the public.

What does "communist" mean when used to describe China?  They call themselves communist, but I would say they could be better described as a plain old dictatorship.  With their worldwide manufacturing and trade, they seem more capitalist than marxist these  days.  Remember, the regime in Germany under Hitler was called National Socialism. I would say that China abandoned the principles of Marxism after Mao died,  even before international communism imploded along with the Soviet Union.

A police-state dictatorship is just that.  What difference does it make if it calls itself communist, socialist, fascist or capitalist?

This same argument could be extended to the USA.  This country long ago abandoned the principles set forth by its founders under the constitution.  Look at all the wars we have been involved in the last 50 years, yet the last time we formally declared war was in 1941.  The final straw that broke the camel's  (or constitution's?) back was two  recent supreme court rulings: one for CT regarding seizure of private property to turn it over to another private entity in order to collect more taxes, and the other was the reaffirmation of a 1940 ruling, this time regarding medical marijuana, saying that growing an agricultural product (originally corn) for your own use on your own property is still interstate commerce because of what you are NOT buying (pot or corn) via interstate markets.

There is a famous VOA QSL card where they Reversed the negative!:
http://www.jazzkeyboard.com/jill/radio/shortwave.html
The picture shows the former World Trade Center on the right (East) side of Manhattan, when in fact it was on the left (West) side. The VOA must have reversed the negative when printing the picture.
I spent most of the first 35 years of my life in NY and watched the WTC being built.

I wonder if Hong Kong could do much worse than the guys here have.

73 Warren K2ORS/WD2XGJ
http://www.w4dex.com/wd2xgj.htm

   To see how Manhattan really looked check out:
http://www.skypic.com/newyork/5-5280.jpg

73 Warren