BBG – IPDGC Smart Power

Remembering a Great Public Diplomat: David Burke and the BBG

April 23, 2014public diplomacyLeave a Comment

David Warren Burke, a man who stood for the finest in public diplomacy, journalistic integrity and the independence of media, died this past Friday. America lost a great public servant.

Just a week before his death, the Broadcasting Board of Governors announced the winners of the 2014 David Burke Distinguished Journalism Awards for exceptional integrity, bravery, and originality in reporting. David Burke was the first Chairman of the BBG’s governing board, a position he was named to by President Bill Clinton in 1995 and for which he served until 1998.

The BBG award winners of this year’s David Burke journalistic prize include reporters from VOA, RFE/RL, RFA, Al Hurra, and the Office of Cuban Broadcasting – men and women who put their lives on the line to tackle tough topics like ethnic conflict in the Central African Republic, violence in Ukraine, and security challenges in Iraq. David would be so proud of them.

The loss of David Burke is personal for me. David was my first boss, a mentor, and a friend. He attended Tufts University and always believed in giving back to your university. As Executive Vice President of ABC News, David Burke gave back to his alma mater by hiring young, aspiring journalists (who had attended Tufts) to work for him. I was fortunate to be one of those whose career he shaped.

Ironically, later in life, I became under secretary of state for public diplomacy, representing the Secretary of State on the very board that David Burke had once chaired: The BBG. Things come full circle. Today, I salute the man who brought sense and sensibility to news, government, and public service. My thoughts are with his wife, Trixie, the Burke family, and the long list of David Burke admirers.

Cover photo courtesy of ABC.go.com.

U.S. International Broadcasting: Framing the Challenge – Apples or Fruit Salad?

April 14, 2014Global Communication, in the field, public diplomacy2 Comments

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) met again last week in its ongoing efforts to manage and improve our international broadcast operations. As both a public diplomacy practitioner and as a U.S. taxpayer, I have a keen interest in seeing that our limited resources for international broadcasting are spent as effectively as possible. As such, I have followed the long and ongoing debate over where and how we should broadcast, as well as how to measure the impact and effectiveness of our efforts with considerable interest. And although I have no deep expertise, nor can I offer any magic solutions, I do nevertheless think that we might usefully focus the debate by simply reframing the broadcasting challenge.

I fear that many of us (myself included) have misunderstood and over-simplified the challenges of international broadcasting. We tend to think of the BBG and the services that it oversees as roughly equivalent to conventional, commercial television or radio broadcasters like CNN, Fox, or even Al-Jazeera or CCTV. The danger in succumbing to that simple fallacy is that we then compare overall budgets and audience reach as if we are comparing apples to apples when, in actuality, BBG offers more of an assortment of apples, oranges, bananas, and other fruit.

In some limited markets, VOA or its sister services might have the means and licenses to broadcast directly and compete head-to-head with local broadcasters. Let’s call those “apples.” In most cases, however, the U.S. broadcasters partner with local affiliates who agree to carry U.S. programming on their own airwaves, sometimes on a contract-basis and in most cases, at no charge whatsoever. In those cases, the audience share is heavily dependent on the local affiliate, as well as the particular format, program, and time slot we agree upon. Let’s call these “oranges.”

But not all markets are created equal. In many countries, local affiliates are not permitted to partner with us at all and our own signals are blocked or jammed. Here the BBG and its services have had to explore creative means by which to deliver our programs, often over the internet or through other means depending on the local circumstances. We might call these “bananas,” “kiwis,” and “mangos.”

The precise mix of programming that we offer in each of these markets, moreover, differs depending on local demand and competition. In some markets we might choose a combination heavy on popular entertainment and lighter on news in order to attract a larger and younger audience. In other markets we might rely heavily on news and high-brow entertainment to reach a more elite and, perhaps, politically-influential audience. Both of these activities also fit within the VOA Charter, for example, which speaks of the requirement to “win the attention and respect of listeners.” Now instead of individual fruits, we have a range of different fruit salads.

Finally, even as the BBG and its services pursue all of these different broadcasting models, they are also faced with a media landscape that is being transformed by digital technology before our very eyes. Mobile and even smart phones will soon be ubiquitous around the world and internet and social media access will follow shortly after. The BBG – along with every other media player out there – is trying to maintain an appropriate balance of investments in old and new media formats while studying and adjusting to the evolution of media consumption habits in different markets.

The BBG reported recently that its services now reach a global audience of over 200 million people each week, but what does that mean given the diversity of markets described above? If we persist in thinking of the BBG and its services as a single, conventional, commercial broadcaster and use such aggregate numbers, we should simply be chasing audiences in large markets like India (where we actually cut most broadcasting services a few years ago). When we know that our target markets include smaller but critical countries like Afghanistan and Iran, why do we obsess over global market shares and total audience figures? Similarly, we spill a lot of ink in arguments and discussions comparing the BBG budget of $750 million to much larger amounts that China and Russia spend on CCTV and RT. Are the numbers at all comparable given our wildly disparate missions?

The Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) is an independent federal agency of the United States government responsible for supervising all U.S. government-supported, civilian international media. Credit: Wiki Commons

Having complicated the issue sufficiently, I will offer a few suggestions for areas that we should focus our attention on instead. First, where should we be? I think we all accept the fact that our resources are limited and that, as a result, we need to focus our efforts on the countries and markets that are most significant from a foreign policy perspective. This will also take into account the BBG standards and principles, of course, but those include first and foremost to “be consistent with the broad foreign policy objectives of the United States.”

Second, we should discuss what model or fruit or fruit salad is most appropriate or even possible for given markets. We are not trying to be CNN, but shouldn’t we discuss whether we are trying to be NPR, Sean Hannity, Jon Stewart’s Daily Show, reality TV, or some combination of them all? That in turn, will give us a better indication as to appropriate measures of success and effectiveness. In other words, we may not be chasing the largest audience numbers, just particular audience segments. Measurements should be adjusted accordingly. If the requirement is to reach younger audiences, we should not measure our efforts against audiences ranging from age 15 to death.

Third, I was delighted to learn that we have begun to explore deeper cooperation with other like-minded international broadcasters, sharing, for example, the costs and results of our research efforts. Might we not explore even closer partnerships on particular programs in specific markets where our interests coincide? How about jointly producing individual programs? Additionally, are there opportunities for the BBG to purchase and adapt U.S. commercial products or even partner with U.S. news organizations in our overseas broadcasting efforts?

The BBG and its services are not – and should not be – driven by a commercial desire for profit. Nevertheless, by framing them – either consciously or unconsciously – in the model of a conventional commercial broadcaster we run the risk of adopting global audience and budget-to-audience ratios as proxy commercial measurements of effectiveness. Instead, we should uncouple BBG performance from such measurements and use that freedom as a comparative advantage as we pursue our true objectives of advancing U.S. foreign policy and promoting access to objective news and information. In the end, we may find that the most effective ways of doing that involve targeting smaller audiences in particular markets or adopting all-digital internet platforms in others.

Fortunately, many of these conversations are already taking place. Let’s just not get distracted by the global aggregate budget and audience numbers, avoid conflating fruit salads with apples, and stay focused instead on what really matters here.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the State Department or the U.S. government. The author is a State Department officer specializing in public diplomacy, currently detailed to the IPDGC to teach and work on various Institute projects.

Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources #64

March 26, 2013public diplomacy3 Comments

GW School of Media and Public Affairs and Georgetown Adjunct Assistant Professor Bruce Gregory compiles an annotated bibliography of Public Diplomacy-related readings and other resources. Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Bruce Gregory Suggestions for future updates are welcome and should be directed to Bruce Gregory at BGregory@gwu.edu.

Read the full archive for Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources.

Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome.

Christina Archetti, Understanding Terrorism in the Age of Global Media: A Communication Approach, (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). In a book that challenges conventional approaches to understanding the role of the media in terrorism studies, Archetti (University of Salford, UK) offers a new framework to explain ways “in which terrorism is socially constructed through communication.” Her book includes four areas of inquiry: (1) the role of communication, “more or less mediated by technologies,” in mobilizing terrorist groups in geographic and virtual contexts; (2) multidisciplinary perspectives on the relationship between terrorism and communication; (3) analysis of perceptions and stories that explain the way social actors mobilize and pursue political change; and (4) an understanding of the ways social networks affect scholarship and the need for greater self-awareness by researchers in the field.

G. R. Berridge, “A Weak Diplomatic Hybrid: U.S. Special Mission Benghazi, 2011-12,” January 2013. Berridge (Emeritus Professor, University of Leicester) provides a useful analysis of the history and confused character of the US Special Mission in Benghazi, reasons its “non-status” led to bureaucratic consequences that created security vulnerabilities, and insights into implications for diplomacy. His paper examines US Ambassador Chris Stevens’ role as an expeditionary diplomat and findings of the State Department’s Accountability Review Board. Berridge concludes that “diplomatic hybrids” will become a main feature of expeditionary diplomacy. Accordingly, it would be well to abandon the category of “temporary residential facility.” It sends the wrong signals to local populations and foreign ministries in both sending and receiving countries.

Edward Comer, “Digital Engagement: America’s Use (and Misuse) of Marshall McLuhan,” New Political Science, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2013, 1-18. Comer (University of Western Ontario) looks at the “use and misuse” of McLuhan’s “global village” and “the medium is the message” aphorism in the context of the Obama administration’s digital engagement and internet freedom initiatives. He argues that US use of digital technologies and strategies intended to “empower people and further inter-cultural understanding through dialogue” are dubious and “dangerously misguided.” He concludes that despite ambiguities in McLuhan’s work, it provides a useful foundation for analyzing assumptions in American policies.

Ian Hall and Frank Smith, “The Struggle for Soft Power in Asia: Public Diplomacy and Regional Competition.” Asian Security, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2013, 1-18. In this comparative analysis of investment by Asian states in public diplomacy, Hall and Smith (The Australian National University) use a mix of qualitative and quantitative evidence to suggest it has had “little or no positive effect on foreign public opinion.” Continued investment in public diplomacy absent evidence of effectiveness, they argue, turns on policymakers’ beliefs that “it is a consequential instrument of statecraft” and “an appropriate way to conduct diplomatic affairs.” They conclude public diplomacy in Asia’s competitive relationships “may deepen mistrust and increase the potential for hard-power conflict in the region.”

Jeffrey R. Halverson, Searching for a King: Muslim Nonviolence and the Future of Islam, (Potomac Books, 2012). Halverson (Arizona State University) explores narratives of nonviolence in the lives of five Muslims: Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Pashtun), Badshah Kahn (Syria), Mahmoud Muhammad Taha (Sudan), Muhammad ibn Mahdi al-Shirazi (Iraq), and Wahiduddin Khan (India). His book discusses themes of nonviolence in religion and society with extended inquiry into the possibilities for complementary approaches to microfinancing and women’s education programs. (Courtesy of Steve Corman)

Justin Hart, The Origins of Public Diplomacy and the Transformation of U.S. Foreign Policy, 1936-1953, Oxford University Press, 2012. Drawing extensively on government archives and the private papers of US officials, Hart (Texas Tech University) provides an account of the origins of American public diplomacy from the Buenos Aires Conference in 1936 to the creation of the US Information Agency in 1953. He places his narrative in the context of evolving foreign policy issues and the varying agendas and conceptual approaches of key players in the development of public diplomacy as an organized instrument of US statecraft. Hart’s book is particularly useful in its examination of the numerous tensions surrounding what was perceived by many as a “radical departure” in the conduct of foreign relations.

Falk Hartig, “Panda Diplomacy: The Cutest Part of China’s Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 8 (2013) 49-78. Hartig (Queensland University of Technology) explores the history and practice of panda diplomacy as a sub-set of a larger category of using animals as gifts in public diplomacy. His article focuses on the characteristics and objectives of China’s use of panda diplomacy in Canada, France, Taiwan, the Soviet Union and the United States.

Craig Hayden, “Envisioning a Multidisciplinary Research Agenda for Public Diplomacy,” e-International Relations, January 11, 2013. Hayden (American University) makes an informed case that larger issues underlying disparate public diplomacy concepts, goals, and modes of practice provide an array of research opportunities for students of international studies, communications, and other disciplines. His essay identifies challenges in public diplomacy research and singles out three broad areas of inquiry with particular merit: media studies and communication, diplomatic institutions, and transnational politics. “Public diplomacy as a field of study does not require a rigid theoretical template to flourish,” Hayden concludes, “but rather a broader audience for its relevance to pressing questions that scholars continue to grapple with at the borders of communication, international politics, and culture.”

Adam Hug, ed., Europe and the World: Can EU Foreign Policy Make an Impact? The Foreign Policy Centre, 2013. Scholars and practitioners look at how Europe is seen on the world stage, the effectiveness and organizational challenges facing the EU’s External Action Service (EEAS), the UK’s difficult relations with Europe, and other issues in EU diplomacy. The essay by Josef Batora (Comenius University) usefully analyzes the EEAS, not as a classic diplomatic service, but rather as an “organization spanning different fields and recombining external resources in innovative ways.” He argues that despite early difficulties, the EEAS “could soon set the standard.” The study includes contributions by Thiago de Aragão (Foreign Policy Centre), William Gumede (Foreign Policy Centre), Jacqueline Hale (Open Society Foundation), Richard Howitt MEP, Stefan Lehne (Carnegie Europe), Simon Lightfoot and Balazs Szent-Ivanyi (University of Leeds), Anand Menon (Kings College London), Rt. Hon. Sir Malcolm Rifkind KCMG, QC, MP, Edward Macmillian-Scott MEP, John Peterson (University of Edinburgh), Neil Winn (University of Leeds), and Rt. Hon. Douglas Alexander MP (Shadow Foreign Secretary).

“Inspection of the Broadcasting Board of Governors,” Office of the Inspector General, US Department of State, ISP-IB-13-07, January 2013. In a 23-page report, State Department inspectors assess and make recommendations relating to the legislative mandate, structure, and activities of the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), the independent Federal agency that oversees US Government civilian international broadcasting. They find the Board “is failing in its mandated duties” due to “a flawed legislative structure and acute internal dissension,” which render “its deliberative process ineffectual.” Recommendations include implementing a “chief executive officer position” and new policies on Board membership and activities.

Jane C. Loeffler, “Beyond the Fortress Embassy,” The Foreign Service Journal, December 2012, 20-27. Loeffler (architectural historian and author of The Architecture of Diplomacy: Building America’s Embassies, updated 2010) provides a critique of the remote and hardened US embassies built following the Inman Panel’s report on the Beirut Embassy and Marine barracks bombings in the 1980s and the “Standard Embassy Design” one-size-fits-all approach adopted by the State Department after 9/11. Look-alike fortress embassies project a negative image, isolate diplomats, and impair diplomacy. Loeffler hails the State Department’s recent turn to a “Design Excellence” initiative in the construction of embassies and consulates that are “maximally safe, secure, functional, and attractive.”

Emily T. Metzgar, Considering the “Illogical Patchwork”: The Broadcasting Board of Governors and U.S. International Broadcasting, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper 1, 2013. Metzgar (Indiana University) examines the role of US international broadcasting and issues relating to its leadership, organizational challenges, performance, and future. She concludes that difficulties in its management structure, relationships with Congress, and production of journalistic content “require meaningful action…sooner rather than later.”

Evgeny Morozov, “Not By Memes Alone: Why Social Movements Should Pay Less Attention to the Internet,” The New Republic, February 11, 2013, 47-52. In this review of Steven Johnson’s book, Future Perfect: The Case for Progress in a Networked Age,Morozov (a New Republic contributing editor) argues against the “Internet-centrism” of such thinkers as Johnson, Clay Shirky (Here Comes Everybody) and Yochai Benkler (Berkman Center for Internet and Society). Morozov makes a case for the role of hierarchies and centralizing strategies in the “long, slow, and painful” process of political reform. “Ideas on their own do not change the world,” he observes, “ideas that are coupled with smart institutions might. ‘Not by memes alone’ would be an apt slogan for any contemporary movement.”

Evgeny Morozov, To Save Everything Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism, (Public Affairs, 2013). In his earlier book,The Net Delusion, Morozov discussed the resilience of many authoritarian regimes and challenged “the means, not the ends, of the ‘Internet freedom agenda.'” His new book questions both the means and ends of Internet-centric strategies that promote “efficiency, transparency, certitude, and perfection” by seeking to eliminate “friction, opacity, ambiguity, and imperfection.” The latter are necessary to human freedom, he argues, and attempts “to root them out will root out that freedom as well.”

“Social Networking Popular Across the Globe: Arab Publics Most Likely to Express Political Views Online,” Pew Research Global Attitudes Project, December, 12, 2012. Pew’s 21-nation survey documents social networking’s rapid global spread, the “nearly ubiquitous” use of cellphones, and the popularity of these technologies among the young and well-educated. “Expressing opinions about politics, community issues and religion is particularly common in the Arab world.” Globally, pop culture and sports are popular. Fewer comment on their religious opinions.

“Sports Diplomacy,” Public Diplomacy Magazine, Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars at the University of Southern California, Winter 2012. This issue of PD Magazine includes the following:

— Stuart Murray (Bond University), “Moving Beyond the Ping Pong Table: Sports Diplomacy in the Modern Diplomatic Environment”

— Rook Campbell (University of Southern California), “Specifying the Global Character of Sports Authority”

— John Nauright (George Mason University), “Selling Nations to the World Through Sports: Mega Events and Nation Branding as Global Diplomacy”

— Andreia Soares e Castro (Technical University of Lisbon), “2014 FIFA World Cup and 2016 Olympic Games: Brazil’s Strategy ‘To Win Hearts and Minds’ Through Football”

— Guo Qing (Chengdu Sport University) et al., “A Study on Chinese National Image Under the Background of Beijing Olympic Games”

— Lee Satterfield (US Department of State), “Smart Power: Using Sports Diplomacy to Build a Global Network to Empower Women and Girls”

— “The Pacific Century: An Interview with Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Tara Sonenshine”

Deborah Lee Trent, American Diaspora Diplomacy: U.S. Foreign Policy and Lebanese Americans, Netherlands Institute of International Relations ‘Clingendael,’ Discussion Paper in Diplomacy, No. 125, November 2012. Trent examines the US government’s diaspora diplomacy with Lebanese Americans, its relevance to US policies toward Lebanon, and two key challenges to US credibility among Lebanese and America’s Lebanese diaspora: “(1) lack of Arab-Israeli peace; and (2) lack of inclusive engagement with all of Lebanese society.” Her case study argues the potential of collaborative and trans-sectarian diaspora diplomacy for practitioners seeking to strengthen the credibility of US policies. Her paper adds to the growing academic literature on diaspora diplomacy.

US Government Accountability Office, Broadcasting Board of Governors: Additional Steps Needed to Address Overlap in International Broadcasting, GAO-13-172, January 2013. In this recent report, one of many on US international broadcasting, GAO examines the extent to which US language broadcasts overlap with each other and with language broadcasts by other international broadcasters. It found 23 instances of overlap involving 43 of 69 language services. GAO recommends (1) systematic annual review of the cost and impact of internal overlap among the services, and (2) systematic annual consideration of better ways to increase impact due to similar or complementary activities of US commercial broadcasters and other government broadcasters.

Matthew Wallin, The Challenges of the Internet and Social Media in Public Diplomacy, Perspective, American Security Project, February 2013. Wallin, a Senior Policy Analyst at ASP, takes a critical look at difficulties and possibilities facing public diplomacy practitioners in their uses of social media. Key judgments in his thoughtful overview: (1) Practitioners often do not fully appreciate the limitations of online tools. (2) Effective use of social media platforms is time and labor intensive. (3) Engagement through the internet and social media works best in association with real-world diplomacy. (4) Metrics should measure effect and influence as well as quantitative indicators of use. (5) Traditional radio and television “broadcast” mediums have considerable potential to be used interactively.

Ethan Watters, “We Aren’t the World,” Pacific Standard Magazine, February 25, 2013. Watters (author of Crazy Like Us: The Globalization of the American Psyche) discusses field research by UCLA anthropologist and MacArthur Foundation grant recipient Joe Henrich among indigenous people in Machiguenga, Peru and 14 other societies from Tanzania to Indonesia. Henrich’s behavioral experiment used a game comparable to “the prisoner’s dilemma” to investigate whether isolated cultures “shared with the West the same basic instinct for fairness” and the “same evolved rational and psychological hardwiring.” His research challenges fundamental assumptions that humans share the same cognitive machinery and conventional ideas about cultural diversity and the way we think about ourselves and others. (Courtesy of Vivian Walker.)

Recent Blogs of Interest

Robert Albro, “Collaborative/Creative Diplomacy/Partnerships,” The CPD Blog, Center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California, January 24, 2

Andrew F. Cooper, et al., “Does Diplomacy Need Star Power” [Celebrity Diplomacy], Room for Debate blog, The New York Times,March 17, 2013.

Jeanette Gaida, “The Use of Social Media in Public Diplomacy: Scanning e-diplomacy by Embassies in Washington, DC,” Take Five Blog, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, February 19, 2013.

Susan Gigli, “What is ‘Disruptive Metrics’”? Disruptive Metrics Blog, InterMedia, March 20, 2013.

Kim Elliott, “Repeal of Smith-Mundt Domestic Dissemination is Good Unless it Goes Over to the Dark Side,” January 3, 2013; “With Repeal of the Smith-Mundt Domestic Dissemination Ban. De Jure Catches Up with De Facto,” January 11, 2013, Kim Andrew Elliott’s International Broadcasting Blog.

Craig Hayden, “Uncovering Logics of Technology in U.S. Public Diplomacy,” The CPD Blog, Center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California, February 11, 2013.

Lindsey Horan, “Analyzing ‘Cultural Diplomacy in Africa’ Through the IR Positioning Spectrum,” Take Five Blog, Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, George Washington University, March 20, 2013.

Kate Shriver, “Harlem Shake: Arab Spring Protest Edition,” Take Five Blog, Institution for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, March 25 2013.

R.S. Zarhana, “Culture Posts: Four Fallacies of Network Public Diplomacy,” The CPD Blog, Center on Public Diplomacy, University of Southern California, March 20, 2013.

Gem from the Past

W. Russell Neuman, The Future of the Mass Audience, (Cambridge University Press, 1991). More than two decades ago, before the worldwide web and internet browsers and well before Facebook and Twitter, Russ Neuman (University of Michigan) explored ways in which new electronic media and personal computers would lead to a “demassification” of the mass audience. Published just before he became director of the Edward R. Murrow Center at the Fletcher School, his book provided an early look at audience fragmentation, narrowcast media, the psychology of media use, and the interplay between technology and political culture. Although events have challenged some of his forecasts that economics of scale would “put natural constraints on special-interest, small-audience programming,” his book nevertheless was ahead of its time and a gem from the past.

Current compilations of Diplomacy’s Public Dimension: Books, Articles, Websites are posted at Arizona State University’s COMOPS Journal, George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy. For previous compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites, visit Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner.us website and an archive created by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy.

Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources – #63

January 4, 2013public diplomacyLeave a Comment

GW School of Media and Public Affairs Adjunct Assistant Professor Bruce Gregory compiles an annotated bibliography of Public Diplomacy-related readings and other resources. Intended for teachers of public diplomacy and related courses, here is an update on resources that may be of general interest. Suggestions for future updates are welcome and should be directed to Bruce Gregory at BGregory@gwu.edu.

Read the full archive for Bruce Gregory’s Public Diplomacy Resources.

“Amb. Ryan Crocker in Conversation with NPR’s Steve Inskeep,” 2012 Annual Banquet Keynote Address, Middle East Institute, November 13, 2012. Inskeep, the host of National Public Radio’s Morning Edition, interviews retired US Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In discussing a range of issues relating to Afghanistan and the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, Crocker offers considered views on lessons from the death of US Ambassador Chris Stevens. “One of the lessons I hope we don’t think we learned is let’s retrench, let’s have fewer engagements, let’s go out less, let’s do less, let’s know less. . . we have to be prepared to go to dangerous places, do difficult things. That’s what Chris Stevens was doing to understand and influence the new ascendancy in Libya. If you don’t deal with them, you’re not going to affect their behavior or even know what their agenda is.” Visit link for a six minute NPR audio feed on diplomacy risk issues.

American Academy of Diplomacy and The Stimson Center, Diplomacy in a Time of Scarcity,October 2012. This report, written from a Foreign Service perspective, evaluates “important, if uneven, progress” in staffing the US State Department (up 17 percent) and USAID (up 30 percent) since 2008. It makes resource and personnel recommendations for the 2014-2018 State and USAID budgets based on four assumptions: a “transition trap” driven by increased requirements and reduced resources, a US that should remain “fully engaged” worldwide, equal support for key elements of military and civilian power, and cuts in programs, not people, if choices are necessary. In a brief section that ambiguously treats public diplomacy separately from “core diplomacy,” but as “a core mission of the State Department,” public diplomacy is seen to have fallen short of its goals in personnel, academic exchanges, and creation of American cultural centers.

Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), “BBG Global Audience Estimate from the FY 2012 Performance and Results Report,”November 14, 2012. Weekly unduplicated worldwide audiences for US government-funded broadcasting services totaled 175 million in 2012 — down from 187 million in 2011 — according to the government agency responsible for both managing and evaluating US international broadcasting. Audiences increased substantially in Iran and declined in Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria, and Burma as their broadcasting markets became more open.

Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, Polity, 2012. Networked society scholar Castells (University of Southern California) uses theories of power relationships developed in his book Communication Power (2009) to analyze new social movements characterized by their self-organization, distrust of political parties and traditional mass media, and reliance on the Internet and local assemblies. His research focuses on the Arab revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, the Indignadasmovement in Spain, and the Occupy Wall Street movement in the United States.

Nicholas J. Cull, The Decline and Fall of the United States Information Agency: American Public Diplomacy, 1999-2001, Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. In his comprehensive and deeply researched earlier book, The Cold War and the United States Information Agency: American Propaganda and Public Diplomacy, 1945-1989, (2008), Cull (University of Southern California) took the story of USIA from its origins to the end of the Cold War. His new book, a much slimmer volume, continues the narrative characterized as a downhill trajectory to USIA’s consolidation in the Department of State in 1999 and a crisis in public diplomacy in the months leading up to 9/11. He divides his account into three chronological chapters linked to the administrations of Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Throughout, he examines four broad themes: (1) political and structural issues in the road to consolidation, (2) the extent to which USIA continued its core work, (3) the extent to which USIA adapted to new technologies and approaches to public diplomacy, and (4) indications of the neglect of public opinion prior to 9/11.

Fergus Hanson, “Baked In and Wired: eDiplomacy@State,” Policy Paper Number 30, Brookings, October 2012. Hanson (Brookings nonresident Fellow, formerly Lowy Institute for International Policy, Australia) builds on his earlier paper Revolution@State (March 2012). Using new anecdotes and recent data, Hanson focuses on three of eight categories in the US State Department’s uses of social media: public diplomacy, Internet freedom, and knowledge management. Although brimming with enthusiasm for State’s vanguard role, his paper includes views of critics and assessments of areas for improvement in what is now “a core tool of diplomacy.”

Brian Hocking, Jan Melissen, Shaun Riordan, and Paul Sharp, “Futures for Diplomacy: Integrative Diplomacy for the 21st Century,”Clingendael, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Report No. 1, October 2012. Four leading diplomacy scholars associated with Clingendael and The Hague Journal of Diplomacy take a fresh and comprehensive look at “the puzzles surrounding, and challenges confronting, contemporary diplomacy.” Their goal is to go beyond familiar arguments regarding the state of diplomacy — e.g., multiple stakeholders, managing networks, and the centrality of public diplomacy — “to consider what kind of overall image of diplomacy in the early 21st century they present and their implications for its future development.” The paper offers a framework of “integrative diplomacy” in which foreign ministries act in national diplomatic systems and diplomats “increasingly function as facilitators and social entrepreneurs.” Scholars and practitioners will find this a useful and provocative conceptual framework for ongoing conversations.

Ellen Huijgh, ed., “The Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy,” The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, Vol. 7, No. 4, 2012. The authors in this special edition of HJD provide significant reinforcement to the view that a blended domestic and international approach to diplomacy’s public dimension is an essential element in study and practice. Their articles, grounded in analysis of evolving concepts and case studies, look at domestic publics as targets of governments, partners with governments, and independent public diplomacy actors. They usefully frame current debates and provide a platform for further research. Includes:

— Ellen Huijgh (University of Antwerp, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael), “Public Diplomacy in Flux: Introducing the Domestic Dimension”

— Steven Curtis (London Metropolitan University) and Caroline Jaine (The CAST Institute, Cambridge), “Public Diplomacy at Home in the UK: Engaging Diasporas and Preventing Terrorism”

— Ellen Huijgh and Caitlin Byrne (Bond University), “Opening the Windows on Diplomacy: A Comparison of the Domestic Dimension of Public Diplomacy in Canada and Australia”

— Kathy R. Fitzpatrick (Quinnipiac University), “Defining Strategic Publics in a Networked World: Public Diplomacy’s Challenge at Home and Abroad”

— Teresa La Porte (University of Navarra), “The Impact of ‘Intermestic’ Non-State Actors on the Conceptual Framework of Public Diplomacy”

— Yiwei Wang (Tongji University), “Domestic Constraints on the Rise of Chinese Public Diplomacy”

— Shay Attias (Ministry of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, Jerusalem), “Israel’s New Peer-to-Peer Diplomacy”

— Mladen Andrlic (Diplomatic Academy, Croatia), Iva Tarle (Embassy of Croatia, Jakarta), and Suzana Simichen Sopta (Embassy of Croatia, Kuala Lumpur), “Public Diplomacy in Croatia: Sharing NATO and EU Values with the Domestic Public”

“Innovations in Public Diplomacy,” PD Magazine, USC Center for Public Diplomacy, Issue 8, Summer 2012. Essays in this collection focus on a range of cutting edge questions and issues. Who is a diplomatic actor? European Union public diplomacy. Sub-state public diplomacy. Cultural diplomacy. Sports diplomacy. Digital technologies. And more. Includes:

— Paul Levinson (Fordham University), “Everyone is a Diplomat in the Digital Age.”

— Mia’a K. Davis Cross (University of Southern California), “Europe as a Security Actor.”

— Ellen Huijgh (University of Antwerp and Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael), “The Future of Sub-state Public Diplomacy.”

— Steffan Bay Rasmussen (University of the Basque Country), “Current Challenges to European Union Public Diplomacy.”

— Ali Fisher (InterMedia), “Everybody’s Getting Hooked Up: Building Innovative Strategies in the Age of Big Data.”

— Martha Alhassen (University of Southern California), “Remarkable Current: Music as Public Diplomacy.”

— Geoffrey Pigman (University of Pretoria), “‘Crouch, Touch, Pause, Engage,’ Moving Forward in the Scrum of International Sport and Public Diplomacy.”

Institute of International Education, Open Doors Report 2012, November 12, 2012. The lead finding in this year’s Open Doors Report is that international students in the US increased by six percent and US students studying abroad increased by one percent. This comprehensive report is published annually with funding from the US Department of State. In its press release, IIE emphasized that international exchanges contributed $22.7 billion to the US economy and that international education “creates a positive economic and social impact for communities in the United States and around the world.” Open Doors data and “fast facts” are available on IIE’s website.

Iskra Kirova, Public Diplomacy and Conflict Resolution: Russia, Georgia and the EU in Abkazia and South Ossetia, CPD Perspectives on Public Diplomacy, USC Center on Public Diplomacy, Paper No. 7, Fall 2012. Kirova (CPD Research Fellow) analyzes public diplomacy and soft power strategies used by key actors in Russia’s “near abroad.” Her study provides a descriptive overview of Russia’s hard and soft power influence in the region and offers a prescriptive analysis of the EU’s and Georgia’s public diplomacy strategies for conflict resolution. Kirova focuses on the relevance of social, cultural, linguistic affiliations and draws conclusions from her cases for a broader understanding of public diplomacy.

Frank Lavin, “Enemies at the Gates: Security Lessons from a Foiled Embassy Attack,” Foreign Affairs, November 29, 2012. In the context of the attack on the US mission in Benghazi, Libya, former US Ambassador to Singapore Lavin draws lessons from a foiled terrorist attack on the US embassy in Singapore in 2001.

George E. Little, “Communication Synchronization — A Local Coordination Process,” Memorandum for Commanders of the Combatant Commands from the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, November 28, 2012. In this one-page memorandum, the Assistant Secretary explains his decision to replace the term “strategic communication” with “communication synchronization.” For comments on the memo see P.J. Crowley, “The Pentagon Drops Strategic Communication: Behind the Name Change,” Take Five, The IPDGC Blog on Public Diplomacy and Global Communication, December 4, 2012; Rosa Brooks, “Confessions of a Strategic Communicator,”Foreign Policy National Security Blog, December 6, 2012; and Tom Vanden Brook, “Pentagon Drops ‘Strategic Communication,'” USA Today, December 3, 2012.

Michael J. Mazarr, “The Risks of Ignoring Strategic Insolvency,” The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 4, Fall 2012, 7-17. Mazarr (US National War College) argues the US strategic posture is becoming unsustainable due to a fundamental disconnect between means and ends – and “because it presumes an American relationship with friends, allies, and rivals that is the hallmark of a bygone era.” Mazarr urges a dramatic strategic shift guided by three principles: (1) strengthened economic, educational, and energy sectors at home, (2) a substantially reduced military establishment with less forward deployment and a combination of cyber and other emerging capabilities, and (3) increased investment in knowledge of complex issues and trends coupled with diplomatic efforts to share leadership burdens with others.

National Intelligence Council (NIC), Global Trends 2030: Alternative Worlds, December 2012. In its latest quadrennial report, the NIC uses a variety of analytical tools to identify “relative certainties” and “potential game changers” in its long-term projection of global trends. The report includes studies of potential scenarios. Its attractive design and online presentation make it an effective teaching tool. Public diplomacy scholars and practitioners will find useful its discussion of individual empowerment, increased power of non-state actors, new technologies, demographic trends, governance deficits, problems created by rapid urbanization and climate change, and nuanced discussion of the potential for US leadership. In addition to its full report, the NIC provides a useful online summary.

Lynne Olson, Citizens of London: The Americans Who Stood with Britain in its Darkest, Finest Hour,Random House, 2010. In this well-researched book, historian Lynne Olson chronicles the World War II relationship between Britain and the US through the eyes of CBS News London Bureau Chief Edward R. Murrow and two American diplomats, US Ambassador to Britain John Gilbert Winant and Lend Lease Administrator Averell Harriman. Part personal relationships, part public diplomacy, part biography, Olson’s story is about a fractious and ultimately successful alliance with contrasting needs and perceptions on both sides. Particularly useful is her account of Americans assuming a larger role in the world but who, in the words of one British worker, “needed to know more about the world before they could lead it.” (Courtesy of Jim Whittemore)

James Pamment, New Public Diplomacy in the 21st Century: A Comparative Study of Policy and Practice, Routledge, 2012. Pamment (Karlstad University / Uppsala University) explores the meaning of “new public diplomacy” viewed as a paradigm shift in which globalization, new media, and multiple new international actors challenge traditional foreign ministry structures and diplomacy strategies. His book combines in-depth conceptual analysis with empirical data from three country case studies (United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden). Pamment draws extensively on interviews with practitioners in each country and a growing research consensus that distinguishes between old and new public diplomacy. His goals: (1) “to explore and challenge some of the accepted boundaries of PD theory as it has developed over the past decade,” and (2) “to introduce both the scholarly debate and foreign ministry practices surrounding the new public diplomacy.”

Inderjeet Parmar, Foundations of the American Century: The Ford, Carnegie & Rockefeller Foundations in the Rise of American Power,Columbia University Press, 2012. Parmar (University of Manchester) provides a deeply researched account of ways in which philanthropic foundations created cultural and intellectual networks that supported the projection of American power from the 1920s to the 21st century. The principal achievement of American foundations, Parmar argues, has been the construction of global networks linking universities, think tanks, corporate actors and policymakers. His book contains a thorough discussion of its conceptual grounding in a Gramscian analysis of power and a number of detailed case studies. These include the Salzburg Seminar and the Cold War’s American studies network, Nigeria and the African studies network, Indonesia and the Asian studies network, and Chile and the Latin American studies network.

Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable: Trends in News Consumption: 1991-2012, September 27, 2012. Pew’s survey finds television may be losing its hold on a successor generation now getting more of its news on social networking sites, cell phones, tablets, and other mobile platforms. The report shows also digital news surpassing radio, newspapers, and magazines. Book readers show no decrease, but a growing number use electronic and audio devices.

“Soft Power, Smart Power and Public Diplomacy in Asia,” Global Asia, A Journal of the East Asia Foundation, Volume 7, Number 3, Fall 2012. Articles in this edition of Global Asia examine ways in which Asian countries and Asia as a region are “deeply engaged in the projection of soft power” — and how they are adopting and adapting soft power and public diplomacy concepts and terms. (Courtesy of Ellen Frost)

Includes:

— Nicholas J. Cull (University of Southern California), “Listening for the Hoof Beats: Implications of the Rise of Soft Power and Public Diplomacy”

— Keith Dinnie (NHTV Breda University of Applied Sciences, The Netherlands), “More Than Tourism: The Challenges of Nation Branding in Asia”

— Zhou Qingan and Mo Jinwei (Tsinghua University), “How 21st Century China Sees Public Diplomacy as a Path to Soft Power”

— Kazuo Ogoura, (Head of Tokyo’s Olympic Bid Committee, former President of the Japan Foundation), “From Ikebana to Manga and Beyond: Japan’s Cultural and Public Diplomacy is Evolving”

— Yul Sohn (Yonsei University), “‘Middle Powers’ Like South Korea Can’t Do Without Soft Power and Network Power”

— Wu-suk Cho, “Riding the Korean Wave From ‘Gangnam Style’ to Global Recognition”

— Alison Broinowski (Australian National University), “Soft Power, Smart Power or Public Diplomacy? Australia Fumbles”

Tara Sonenshine, “Measuring the Public Diplomacy of the Future,” Remarks at the Heritage Foundation, December 3, 2012. The Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs talks about the underlying purposes of public diplomacy and the Department’s policy guidelines on planning, managing, and conducting evaluations.

US Department of Education, Succeeding Globally Through International Education and Engagement, US Department of Education International Strategy 2012-16, November 2012. In its “first-ever fully articulated international strategy,” the Department advances two strategic goals: strengthen US education and advance US international priorities. The strategy assumes traditional reading, writing, mathematics and science skills are no longer sufficient. Rather, “an effective domestic education agenda must address global needs and trends and aim to develop a globally competent citizenry.” The strategy discusses integrated and coordinated activities and programs intended to achieve three objectives: (1) increase global competencies, (2) learn from others, and (3) engage in education diplomacy.

Peter van Ham, “Two Cheers for Public Diplomacy and Place Branding,” e-International Relations,September 2, 2012. In this brief online article, posted by the e-International website for students of international politics, Peter van Ham (Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael) compares overlapping concepts, methods, and goals of public diplomacy and place branding. They “are putting traditional diplomacy to the test,” he argues. However, “these newer forms of diplomacy should not be considered harbingers of a mediatized global democracy.” Hence, only two cheers.

Stephen Walt, “Music hath charms . . . but we don’t use it (updated),” Foreign Policy Blog, December 6, 2012. FP blogger Walt laments the death of jazz legend Dave Brubeck, reflects on his impact as an American cultural ambassador, and observes the US is not using “A-list musicians” in today’s cultural diplomacy. His blog includes a response from Hishaam Aidi (Columbia University and the Open Society Institute), “Leveraging Hip Hop in US Foreign Policy,” critical of current State Department efforts to progam hip-hop and rap artists.

Matthew C. Weed, U.S. Public Diplomacy: Legislative Proposals to Amend Prohibitions on Disseminating Materials to Domestic Audiences, CRS Report for Congress R42754, Congressional Research Service, September 21, 2012. CRS analyst Weed succinctly and usefully analyzes legislation that prohibits the US government from influencing domestic public opinion through “unauthorized publicity or propaganda” and US public diplomacy. Weed’s report examines long-standing provisions of the “Smith-Mundt Act” and issues relating to pending bills that would remove the prohibition on domestic dissemination of “public diplomacy information” by the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors, “while maintaining the prohibition on using public diplomacy funds to influence U.S. public opinion.”

Robert F. Worth, “Can American Diplomacy Ever Come Out of Its Bunker,” New York Times Magazine, November 18, 2012. 32-35, 44. The magazine’s staff writer profiles the career and death in Benghazi, Libya of US diplomat Chris Steven and explores issues relating to fortress embassies and contrasting levels of tolerance for risk between Washington and diplomats. Includes views of former US ambassadors Ryan Crocker, Ronald Neumann, Prudence Bushnell, Richard Murphy, and Barbara Bodine. In Neumann’s view, “There’s less willingness among our political leaders to accept risks, and all that has driven us into the bunker.” For Bushnell, “The model has become, we will go to dangerous places and transform them, and we will do it from secure fortresses. And it doesn’t work.”

Gem from the Past

Mark Leonard, Catherine Stead, and Conrad Smewing, Public Diplomacy, London, The Foreign Policy Center, 2002. It has been a decade since the former director of “Tony Blair’s think tank” and his colleagues published this influential volume on the meaning and practice of public diplomacy. Drawing on research on public diplomacy practices in six countries, Leonard calls for “a new type of multilateral public diplomacy,” retooling embassy and foreign ministry structures, and infrastructures that link government and non-state actors across borders. Includes analysis of public diplomacy’s time dimensions, competitive and cooperative public diplomacy, “NGO diplomacy,” “diaspora diplomacy,” “political party diplomacy,” “brand diplomacy,” and “business diplomacy.”

Recent compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites are posted at Arizona State University’s COMOPS Journal, Matt Armstrong’s MountainRunner.us website, and George Washington University’s Institute for Public Diplomacy and Global Communication. For previous compilations of Public Diplomacy: Books, Articles, Websites, visit an archive created by the University of Southern California’s Center on Public Diplomacy.