USAID vs propaganda amateur hour

One of the revelations in the Jeff Gerth piece that a lot of people have been chewing over is that USAID finances some 30 radio stations in Afghanistan without full disclosure.   I don't see USAID's activities as at all comparable to the propaganda/payola scandal.  The Lincoln Group's amateur hour - and its Pentagon patrons - could only have the result of destroying the potential for a free and critical media, while USAID (in my opinion) was trying to create one.

From what I understand, USAID was trying to nurture the evolution of independent media outlets:   helping journalists get media outlets started, helping with training and operations, helping create a space for public debate outside the realm of the state.  While there's no doubt that people taking that assistance will feel in some way indebted to the United States, and might even self-censor critical views of America, I haven't seen any evidence that USAID has been dictating the content of these stations or has threatened stations which aired critical voices.  The recipients of USAID funds presumably knew what they were doing, where the money was coming from, and what was expected of them. 

An independent, non-state run media is a vital precondition of any kind of pluralist democracy, and helping to build one strikes me as a perfectly legitimate goal for an agency concerned with political and institutional development.  If successful, USAID's program would create independent radio stations or other media outlets, which then - presumably - produce their own content and will have to be responsive to local public opinion if they want to compete successfully in local markets.  I don't see this as any more scandalous than USAID helping to construct local stock markets or small businesses or women's health centers. 

The payola / propaganda scandal, on the other hand, subverts and corrupts the foundations of an independent media.   It intervenes at the level of content - actively rather than passively.   Once discovered - as inevitably it would be - the payola discredits individual journalists and politicians, every media outlet which voices a pro-American perspective (even if those views were honestly and independently arrived at), and the very concept of a free critical media.   

So Gerth's revelations about USAID are certainly interesting, but I don't think they should be viewed as anything comparable to the Lincoln Group's activities.   

Comments

[praktike]

Good point. Do you think USAID should disclose the funding, though?

[spk]

Yes, good point. Watch out for a current proposal to subsume USAID within the State Department that is being discussed by the Administration. This could make USAID much more like the propaganda organizations you mentioned. Increased disclosure would be the better direction for a public agency to move.

[the aardvark]

P - yes, I do think it should disclose the funding. Openness and transparency is key. You can see why there would be a temptation to keep it secret, especially in places where association with the US is the kiss of death, but it's almost certainly going to backfire when it's - inevitably - exposed. Anyway, there are lots and lots of Arab journalists who are more than willing to work with USAID-type programs openly, in my experience.

[Anna in Cairo]

I think the USAID operation in Afghanistan is pretty much an exception. US funding is not really considered cool in other countries either yet USAID insists (as it should) that its brand name be seen on everything it contributes (I work for a USAID funded project myself and have to use their branding requirements on every piece of paper that goes out of this office).