Talk:Voice of America

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Spring term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

A Propaganda Outlet

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Why do some users have a hard time accepting VOA as a propaganda outlet for the American government while easily labeling say RT America as a propaganda outlet for the Russian government. Oh I get it, Wikipedia is a biased online encyclopedia! Case closed. 91.146.137.194 (talk)

First provide arguments, you aren´t a God or something similar to say "some people" and speak bad about "those people" just because they do not see things from your point of view, Wikipedia belongs to everyone and if something is added to the article That may affect the balance of the same in a considerable way, that first has to be discussed. be a little more formal and stop using this part of this FREE ENCYCLOPEDIA to use it as a forum. This is not a site to contribute your personal opinions, it gives an idea that can IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE and later I and more people will discuss in a friendly way what can be done. THAT'S MUCH BETTER THAN GIVING AN UNSIGNED, IRRELEVANT COMMENT TO IMPROVE THIS ARTICLE. Thank you. Oh, by the way, sign your responses so you can face the consequences of tone comments like this. This encyclopedia is not the biased encyclopedia because for that we have people and Wikipedians of all points of view, with the aim of making our articles have a neutral point of view. So if you detect bias, please report it and do not make unpleasant and unhelpful comments to the encyclopedia article. Thanks for your time. --OfficeBlue (talk) 22:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course the VOA is a propaganda outlet. I don't know why anyone would contest that fact. Binksternet (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your point that the VOA is a propaganda medium, I mean that this encyclopedia, although it may contain biases, we are not totally biased by elements such as the strict NPOV policy. Therefore, although we can point out that we cannot defend positions such as "VOA is not a propaganda medium" or "yes it is", we cannot point them out and say that they are the majority of publishers, and that this encyclopedia is biased, by themselves. How it happened with the premise of the individual who started this thread. --OfficeBlue (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

'Trump presidency politicization efforts' section

I'd like to raise several concerns regarding the section Voice of America#Trump presidency politicization efforts. It seems to me that this section more properly belongs in the article U.S. Agency for Global Media. Much of the information discussed there deals with broader issues than just what happened at VOA, and concerns other networks managed by the USAGM, the overall USAGM management issues, the board appointments, etc. It makes more sense to move over this section to U.S. Agency for Global Media and leave a relatively short paragraph with a redirect in the VOA article. However, the other issue I see here is the length of the section. Even in the VOA article, the section appears to be overly long and exessively detailed, probably in the need of compression. If moved over to U.S. Agency for Global Media, in its current form the section would overwhelm that article and create significant WP:BALANCE problems there. So I am not sure what exactly should be done here and in which order, and extra opinions would be welcome. Nsk92 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Ted Lipien's "official" blog supported turning VOA into Trump propaganda outlet is false and not supported by any citations. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com are not official blogs of any person but are managed by unpaid volunteer citizen journalists, some of them former VOA reporters, all of whom express their support for the VOA Charter and have repeatedly criticized all violations of the VOA Charter, both on the left and on the right, and have called for accurate, balanced and comprehensive factual reporting by the Voice of America. BBGWatch.com and USAGMWatch.com do not support Trump propaganda or propaganda of any kind and state it on their websites. and Ted Lipien is also not a former political VOA "official" but an independent journalist and a media freedom advocate who has been registered as an independent voter for some years and is not a supporter of former President Trump. He was promoted from within the Voice of America after he was VOA Polish Service chief during Poland's struggle for democracy and later VOA Eurasia Division director.Coldwarbroadcasting (talk) 20:19, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The sentence in the article that you object to is directly supported by the source cited, the Washington Post article[1] (see the citation tag ref number [118] at the end of the sentence in question in the article), and in addition by the NPR source you cite yourself here [2]. The WaPo sources directly says: "Lipien is a former VOA official." Note that the current text does not say that Lipien's blogs are "official" blogs, or that Lipien is a Trump voter or a Trump supporter. Instead the sentence says: "Pack named Ted Lipien, a former VOA official whose blog praised his efforts to change VOA into a pro-Trump propaganda outlet, as head of RFE/RL ..." That characterization is essentially supported by the WaPo source cited: "Lipien is a former VOA official who has run a blog titled BBG-USAGM Watch that is a forum for critical former VOA employees (BBG refers to USAGM’s former name). The blog has repeatedly asserted that VOA’s programming favors liberal views. It has also reported and commented favorably on Pack’s efforts to restructure the operation since he assumed the top job in June." However, since the source indeed does not mention Trump at all, I'll reword the relevant sentence in the article to correspond more closely to what the source actually says. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally well written section. This story seems to be more about the U.S. Agency for Global Media, rather than about VOA. But VOA played the central role. So belongs here. My very best wishes (talk) 03:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

References

I won't weigh in on the factual accuracy of the section, but it is WAY too long. The organization is over 70 years old, but this 4 year period dominates the history section. If an editors wants to maintain the text, please consider making a separate article. I will soon pare it down to a summary. Ashmoo (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Kerala.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

What do superscript R and T mean?

What is the meaning of the superscript "R"s and "T"s in the "Current languages" section? Normally I'd expect them to be hyperlinked to some sort of explanation at the bottom of the section or article. -- Beland (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Prior to a set of IP edits, there was a note saying "(radio programs are marked with an "R"; TV programs with a "T")". The IP edit also removed some of the languages. I don't have time to investigate further though. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Pokechu22: Well spotted! I will restore the note. -- Beland (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light whom were seeking safety in the EU are detained by the Turkish border police.

The members of the Ahmadi Religion of Peace and Light whom were seeking safety in the EU are detained by the Turkish border police.

https://www.eureporter.co/world/turkey/2023/05/24/over-100-church-members-beaten-and-arrested-at-the-turkish-border/

https://sofiaglobe.com/2023/05/24/members-of-religious-minority-seeking-asylum-pushed-back-at-turkish-bulgarian-border/ 197.40.194.112 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Historical VOA/Ethiopia section worth restoring

In early 2008 there was a quite solid Ethiopia section. There is some old talk page discussion (just two comments) that seems to have one person arguing that the sources are mostly pro-ET-govt, and the other talking about a VOA/Ethiopia crisis and restoring the material. The sources would have to be checked - probably many may be only on Wayback; the WP:RELTIME violations would have to be fixed; and the general NPOV would have to be checked. The material was deleted on 9 January 2010 by an IP editor who only did one other edit a year earlier, and nobody seemed to notice the deletion. Boud (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The report by Annette Sheckler - former Horn of Africa service chief for a year - is a good source. I couldn't find much else that was usable - mostly dead urls, repeat references that were given independent numbers. An incident of Ethiopian authorities apparently blocked VOA + Deutsche Welle for a brief period but doesn't really fit in this article. Any good journalism source should expect to be censored in countries with governments intolerant of independent media; VOA has almost certainly been censored many times in many countries. The ref could be put into something like a section of Censorship in Ethiopia.

In my rewrite, although I browsed the old text, I wrote new text based on the sources - there wasn't much point trying to follow the old text. Boud (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

References

Why was "propaganda" removed?

VOA has been described multiple times as propaganda. This was reflected in the opening sentence of the article until just the other day. When I pointed out on another article that VOA is not a great source for objective analysis of the Ukraine war due to an inherent COI, someone came over here and removed the word propaganda. The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not. Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article by removing the description of VOA as "propaganda".

The article is still categorized under "United States Government Propaganda Organizations". And here's another RS describing VOA as propaganda. Here's a relevant passage:

I also anticipate objections from those who might cringe at the VOA and its sister institutions being called purveyors of propaganda. The people will bend over backward as they explain how the VOA “firewall” and charter preserve the service’s independence and journalistic credibility. This, of course, is a crock. With one swift swing of his leather-soled shoe, Trump has breached the firewall and smashed its alleged independence, although a lawsuit to block Pack is in the works. As Ralph A. Uttaro wrote in a law journal in 1982, “The Voice of America, no less than Radio Moscow or Radio Prague, endeavors to change the attitudes of its listeners.” Yes, it informs, but the main idea is frame the news to the U.S. government’s benefit. If the only goal was to inform, the government could save everybody a lot of money and bother by rebroadcasting The Associated Press.

VOA was also prohibited from broadcasting to American citizens until 2013, under the Smith-Mundt Act, which was intended to "protect the American public from propaganda actions by their own government". There's no evidence that VOA's content changed after 2013 such that it no longer qualified as propaganda - on the contrary, the 2013 amendment is a recognition that American citizens cannot and are not shielded from American propaganda in the internet age.

We should either re-insert the description, or step back and have a broader conversation about contentious labels.

I would be open to significantly increasing the scope of the "contentious labels" list, and have advocated this in the past. But that's a separate discussion. Currently, propaganda is not on the list. Philomathes2357 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Why was it added to the first line? It was already in the lead in a better place with context

Voice of America is seen by some listeners as having a positive impact while others see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy.

I see you tried to edit another page and explain it by justifying propaganda being in the first sentence here [3] and that you were warned about WP:EDITWARRING on that page [4]

If you think propaganda is DUE in the lead, improve the reference thats there. Dont need to add another, extra dont need it in the lead and dont need to add it without sources Softlem (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do not think calling it a propaganda outlet in wikivoice in the first sentence would follow WP:NPOV. There is not really any mention of this viewpoint (in regards to VoA today) in the body except concerns about increasing politicization, so there should be an expansion of this first. The lead could also be expanded to mention its role during the Cold War. Mellk (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that calling it propaganda in wikivoice in the first sentence is WP:UNDUE and violates WP:NPOV. I also am deeply worried about how Philomathes2357 made this edit primarily to justify an edit warring edit at Scott Ritter.[5][6] USNavelObservatory (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The reason for removal is apparently that it's on our list of "contentious labels". It is not.

There's an exhaustive list? The one at WP:CONTENTIOUS ends with an ellipsis (...) so I took it as non-exhaustive. There are other words I'd consider contentious that are missing too, like, say, fascist or fringe science. And, if I could digress for a second, I suppose it depends on context, like the word "communist" would be contentious for a modern American politician but not for a Soviet politician.

To clarify, when I removed it (twice) it was primarily because it was uncited. If it weren't contentious language, I would have acted differently, like maybe putting a {{citation needed}} on it instead since I don't actually know enough about VOA to judge. On the other hand, the most recent removal was done by @Prolog who seems to have actually read the source that was added.

Also, I'm not familiar with the Ukraine war discussion you're talking about. Maybe you confused my edit with Prolog's?

Given the strong appetite for value-laden labels on Wikipedia that I've seen elsewhere, I don't understand why we would whitewash this article

If you're seeing contentious language elsewhere, you should remove it (or if you're not sure, tag it or bring it up on talk). Just because one article has a problem doesn't mean another article should too.

— W.andrea (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

@W.andrea you know, you're right. I'm not a fan of these value-laden descriptors in the opening paragraph of an article, either, especially when they're in Wikivoice. But I've seen them defended passionately elsewhere, so I figured that they should at least be evenly applied. But that's wrong - you are right to remove it. I actually agree that WP:CONTENTIOUS should be expanded, and should include words like fascist, fringe, and far-left/right, among others. This would provide more clarity to less-experienced editors, and avoid squabbles over the use of those words. I'd be open to including propaganda/propagandist as well. Maybe we should bring this up at the relevant noticeboard? Philomathes2357 (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above Stalinist57 (talk) 15:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I never realized I was involved in a editing war. I change the text simply because I checked the China Central Television wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Central_Television

In this page, it's pretty clear that the term "a propaganda outlet" appears in the very first sentence so I think it's a common practice to add this term to all other similar platform.

In this case, I would suggest to remove "propaganda outlet" in China Central Television's wiki page to avoid double standard and follow WP:NPOV. Ureal (talk) 05:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In this page, it's pretty clear that the term "a propaganda outlet" appears in the very first sentence so I think it's a common practice to add this term to all other similar platform. No

In this case, I would suggest to remove "propaganda outlet" in China Central Television's wiki page to avoid double standard and follow WP:NPOV. Theres no double standard, you tried to add something to the lead that was already there. Following NPOV means not saying it again and again in the lead, not removing it from other pages where its sources Softlem (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Still, in CCTV page, the same term "propaganda" is repetively stated multiple times. Given these two institutions are similar in terms of functionality, can you justify why does this two pages is treated differently? Ureal (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Repetively stated in the lead Ureal (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

References

CIA black op site

I added this context to the rumor. It was immediately reverted by a brand new IP editor with the edit summary "the ref does not refer to the rumor, denied, by unnamed persons, as saying this was a cia site, so this is irrelevant". I don't see the justification for this deletion. Since it was reverted, instead I added the material and the sourcing for it. --David Tornheim (talk) 07:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

David Tornheim, "See also" links go into a dedicated section at the end of the article. Such links should not be inserted into the body of the article. Please see MOS:SEEALSO. Cullen328 (talk) 08:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The new editor acting under various IP addresses, keeps trying to force in their preferred version. I have reverted back to the long-standing status quo and am happy to discuss how to make the section WP:NPOV. My edit summary was:

Restore back to the long-standing status quo of 2/6/24 before new IP editor started changing this section to make it less WP:NPOV that the original. IPs version does not reflect the articles accurately and instead focuses too heavily on official denials rather than the cause of the rumor (see CIA_black_sites), past suspicions of the site, and reporters flocking to the site. Discuss: Talk:Voice_of_America#CIA_black_op_site

I suggest we work on a compromise agreeable to all. I think we might agree that the original title "Relay station used as a CIA black site" makes it sound too much like the rumor was true. (Based on the WP:RS I have read, I do not believe that to be the case. But my research would be considered WP:OR.) The IP's far-too wordy version ("Unconfirmed and denied rumor that Thai relay station was used to interrogate terrorists") over-emphasizes the denials. There must be some middle-ground, which I tried to establish in my previous edit ("Rumor that Thai relay station was used as CIA black op site"). Other than the title, I had copied and pasted the material (and WP:RS) directly from the first paragraph of CIA_black_sites#Asia. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Basic concepts

@JArthur1984: your recent edit demonstrates that you misunderstood a basic fact.

Would you please pin point to me where you got that the Voice of America is "an agency"?

It is financed by an agency called the U.S. Agency for Global Media. There's a big difference here!

Everything was already referenced in the lead.

The version before your edit had the following: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

Currently is it as follows: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is an international radio broadcasting state media agency funded by the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

To label it "state media" in the first sentence is misleading. It is governed by an independent state agency after the approval of the congress. Is it too hard to distinguish between this democratic process and the direct influence of the state media as a mouthpiece of the government? An example of the latter is

• RT news,
• Rossiya 1,
• CCTV, and
• Voice of the Arabs

where such sources are mouthpieces of their own governments, aren't critical of them, whereas the Voice of America reports about everything, whether it's critical or not. These are simply basics.

--Esperfulmo (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

It's part of the of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). But there are plenty of words other than agency -- "network," "broadcaster," or "institution" could all work instead of "agency" without losing any meaning.

VOA is state-media. There are no efforts made to compare it to your other examples, so I'm not clear why you bring these up. There are numerous kinds of state-media, with more or less government editorial control, depending. State-media is not the same as "mouthpiece," and it's not necessarily a pejorative term (this depends on the reader's perspective). You can familiarize yourself with wikilinked state media article to develop a sense of the different state media approaches that exist. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)