VOICE OF AMERICA
Soon after becoming Director of the Voice of America
(VOA) (1942–2006) in 1965, broadcast journalist John
Chancellor defined VOA as functioning “at the crossroads
of journalism and diplomacy.” That phrase captures both
the nature and mission of the first (and still largest) official international broadcast service of the United States.
Its primary function is to inform listeners in other nations
about life in the United States. However, its Charter (P.L.
94-350) requires that it also “present the policies of the
United States clearly and effectively and will also present responsible discussion and opinion on these policies.”
Any journalist would recognize the wide range of possible
interpretations for “effectively” and “responsible.” Since
VOA is government-funded, those interpretations are likely
to reflect the political agendas of the Executive and Legislative Branches, including the Departments of State and
Defense. In such a situation, journalism and diplomacy may
operate at cross-purposes, and VOA’s history offers many
illustrative examples. However, its history also displays a
commitment to broad, balanced coverage that, if inconsistent, nevertheless has earned it a worldwide reputation for
reliability second only to that of the BBC World Service.
World War II
The Voice of America was created in 1942 by amalgamating several private international broadcasting services and
placing the new service under the jurisdiction of the Office
of War Information. Its first transmission in February 1942
began with the statement “Daily, at this time, we shall
speak to you about America and the war. The news may be
good or bad. We shall tell you the truth.“ Wartime censorship did not make it easy to tell “the whole truth,” but VOA
often noted American battlefield losses. However, it rarely
featured negative news on the home front, such as the River
Rouge, Michigan “race riots” in 1943.
Occasionally, it contradicted U. S. government policy.
For example, a 1943 broadcast referred to the “moronic
little king” of Italy (Victor Emmanuel II) even as U. S. diplomatic efforts were underway to persuade the king to withdraw his support for Italian dictator Benito Mussolini. The
problem stemmed from distance (official guidance from
Washington often was slow to reach VOA headquarters in
New York City), but also a measure of policy-maker contempt for broadcasting as an instrument of diplomacy.
The U. S. Congress generally accepted the need for an
international broadcast service during the war, although
some Republican members criticized VOA (and OWI in
general) for its overwhelmingly favorable coverage of
President Franklin D. Roosevelt, even though VOA did not
broadcast to the United States. Some also were concerned
that the service would continue following the war, fearing
that a peacetime government-run Voice of America would
be manipulated by the administration.
The Cold War
After the war, VOA operated on a sharply reduced budget,
with Congressional appropriations providing only temporary support. In December 1945 it came under the control
of the State Department. Soon, Associated Press and United
Press withdrew their services, not wishing to be linked with
a “propaganda operation.” The Smith-Mundt Act made
United States government international informational and
educational services permanent in 1948, mainly because of
concern over increasingly virulent anti-Western propaganda
coming from the Soviet Union and its allies. The resulting
war of words between the West and the East lasted until the
early 1990s, and VOA played a prominent role in it, but a
role soon shared with other U. S. government (largely CIA)
supported services such as Radio Free Europe, Radio Liberty, and numerous clandestine radio stations.
VOA journalism early in the Cold War was reminiscent
of its work during World War II, with strong attacks on the
enemy (Communist governments), support for their longsuffering people, positive treatment of democratic institutions, and emphasis on U.S. military and economic strength.
The attacks moderated by the end of the 1950s, as it became
evident that the United States would not intervene militarily to challenge Soviet control in Eastern Europe.
The Rise of the Third World
As a substantial portion of the world moved from colonial
rule to independence after the World War II, and these newly
emerging Third World nations became increasingly important targets for international broadcasting. Both the West
and the Communist-bloc nations attempted to develop political and economic alliances with them, and invested heavily in establishing language services to reach them. VOA
broadcasts emphasized U. S. financial and technological aid to the emerging nations, along with generally positive treatment of the U. S. Civil Rights movement. They criticized
dictatorial practices of Communist governments, while
highlighting U. S. economic and military strength.
VOA also covered events taking place within the new
nations—an indication of American respect but also recognition that access to information about Third World nations
in general, even immediate neighbors, was so limited. Gathering such information was difficult, since VOA had few
correspondents or stringers in those nations. Supervision
of program content emanating from VOA foreign language
services also became more challenging: few U. S. citizens
were capable of monitoring the accuracy of translations
from English into Hausa or determining whether commentary from a Hindi service staff member was in accordance
with official U. S. policy.
One newly independent nation—Vietnam—eventually
posed a major challenge for VOA journalists. By the mid-
1960s the United States was deeply involved in supporting
the southern portion of the divided nation. White House
and State Department pressure on VOA to support American policy intensified, despite rising public discontent in
the United States over the Vietnam War (what the VOA
referred to as a “conflict”). When the American embassy
in Saigon was evacuated in 1975, the State Department forbade VOA to cover it, even though every other major international broadcast service was doing so.
A Bid for Independence
After the United States Information Agency (USIA)
became VOA’s parent in 1953, the State Department continued to influence VOA by issuing guidelines, involving itself
in personnel decisions (especially through U. S. embassy
control over VOA foreign correspondents), and sometimes
restricting VOA’s coverage of such sensitive issues. The
restrictions on covering the evacuation of Saigon strengthened the determination of VOA journalists to seek independent status for the service. In 1975, two private bodies—the
Murphy Commission and the Stanton Panel—filed reports
with the United States Congress recommending independent status for VOA, with provision for State Departmentsupervised broadcasts setting forth official U. S. policy.
In 1978, Congress approved the restructuring of USIA,
keeping VOA within it. While some members favored independence, far more wanted it to remain within USIA, where
Congress could exercise oversight of an operation some
regarded with suspicion, particularly when it portrayed (as
in its evenhanded coverage of Watergate) a less than unified
United States. In 1979, VOA implemented a self-commissioned report recommending that its foreign correspondents
be separated as much as possible from U.S. embassies—no
diplomatic passports, commissary privileges, or embassy
housing—in return for greater freedom to report from the
field. It seemed to have immediate utility, since a VOA
correspondent could interview officials from both sides in
the Nicaraguan civil war during 1979–1980 even though
the U. S. embassy had no official contact with the rebel
Sandinistas.
The Collapse of Communism
During the 1970s, the U. S. and Communist governments
were less critical of one another, which reduced pressure
on VOA to attack Communism. In the 1980s, however, the
Republican administration revived some of the 1950s Cold
War when President Ronald Reagan denounced the Soviet
Union as the “evil empire.” Pressure mounted on VOA to
support the administration by featuring outspoken antiSoviet figures such as Alexander Solzhenitzyn and devoting more attention to the USSR’s problems. Although the
VOA complied to some extent, administration supporters
often criticized it for not doing enough. That again caused
newsroom staff to regard themselves as “second class”
journalists, although they took pride in their reporting on
the injustices of the apartheid policies of the South African
government despite some Congressional criticism.
By the early 1990s, Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union
itself discarded Communism. VOA, Radio Free Europe,
and Radio Liberty claimed some credit in bringing that
about, but government officials questioned the need to
continue such services, now that the Cold War was over.
In 1998, Congress approved a unified structure for them,
headed by a presidentially appointed Broadcasting Board
of Governors (BBG). The budget was cut, and VOA came
under the same overall administrative roof with the CIAoriginated Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty, causing
its journalists to wonder whether listeners might lose trust
in VOA newscasts.
The BBG also developed “tactical” services aimed
at specific nations or regions, such as Radio Sawa to the
Middle East, and Radio Farda to Iran. Radio Sawa replaced
VOA’s Arabic service, aimed chiefly at opinion leaders,
with a heavily youth-oriented program schedule featuring
more emphasis on music than on news and current affairs,
raising fears of a diminished role for VOA journalists. Just
after the September 11, 2001, suicide attacks, VOA prepared
a program containing several views on that event, including excerpts from an interview conducted by the head of
its Pashto Service with Afghanistan’s Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, who regarded the attacks as justifiable. The State Department strongly opposed using Omar’s
observations. BBG members were divided on whether to
include them. VOA Acting Director Myrna Whitworth
decided to go ahead with the broadcast. Within months,
the Pashto Service head and Whitworth were reassigned to
other positions within VOA.
Many VOA journalists regarded the changes in program
services and reassignments of personnel as diminishing the
importance of objective journalism. Days after the reassignment of their News Director in July 2004, 450 staff
members submitted petitions to Congress, calling for an
investigation of the BBG on the grounds that it was exercising undue political influence over VOA and endangering its credibility. Congress did not respond. In February, 2006,
the BBG proposed restructuring VOA’s schedule by eliminating several language services and substantially reducing
the English service, including much of the journalistic programming. The BBG stated that this would provide additional funding for broadcasts to Muslim nations, but critics
saw it as one more diminution in the importance of journalism. The crossroads of journalistic freedom and politicallyinfluenced diplomatic necessity remain an unresolved bone
of contention between VOA’s journalists and Washington’s
various political forces (including administrative appointees
within VOA). That situation seems destined to continue so
long as VOA remains a government-funded service.
Further Reading
Alexandre, Laurien. The Voice of America: From Détente to the
Reagan Doctrine. Norwood: Ablex, 1988.
Browne, Donald R. “The Voice of America: Policies and Problems.” Journalism Monographs, no. 43, 1976.
Heil, Alan.The Voice of America: A History. New York: Columbia University Press, 2003.
Krugler, David. The Voice of America and the Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945–1953. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2000.
Pirsein, Robert W. The Voice of America: a History of the International Broadcasting Activities of the United States Government, 1940–1962. New York: Arno Press, 1979.
Rawnsley, Gary D. Radio Diplomacy and Propaganda. New
York: St. Martin’s Press, 1996.
Schulman, Holly C. The Voice of America: Propaganda and
Democracy, 1942–1945. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press, 1990.
Snyder, Alvin A. Warriors of Disinformation: American Propaganda, Soviet Lies, and the Winning of the Cold War — An
Insider’s Account. New York: Arcade, 1995.
Donald R. Browne