.. >> since i'm almost from missouri, the show me state, i would have to see this to believe it. the express lane. the person then stated that perhaps a relative would take her to the driver's testing center, whether this person ever votes again is highly speculative. another thing that concerns me

about the new tennessee photo law is something i learned at that november 1st informational meeting in our county. the state directer of elections, the state directer of elections was in attendance and stated that out of the nearly 175,000 tennessee people who need a photo id on their license or are registered to vote and don't have a license, only 2300 have obtained the free photo. now, this law went into effect july 1, 2011, 175,000 approximately will need the photo, and as of november 1st, only 2300 have actually got the photos. i think you'd consider that to be progressing at a snail's pace. i fear that many of these people

will be denied their right to vote in the future. >> in conclusion, this voter photo law is, quote, "a solution in need of a problem." thank you very much. >> tonight on the communicator, directer of voice of america, david ensor on how u.s. government funded news is changing. after that, remarks from the president and ceo of blue cross blue shield, scott serota on the future of the health care industry. >> this week on the communicator, the discussion about the future of voice of

america with voa's new director, david ensor. >> host: david ensor, how would you describe the mission of the voa and how it's evolved over the last 50-60 years? >> guest: you know, the mission has been the same since 1942 when we went on the air in feb 1st, 1942, and that is to provide an accurate newscast to the countries we broadcast to and explain to them what's going on in the united states and what this country's all about. that mission remained the same, but the way we do it changed dramatically, and right now it's changing because of the ways human communicate with each other are changing rapidly at the moment. where in history people think of voa as a broadcaster on short wave with the huddled masses in eastern europe listening on the radio and thinking the secret police might come, that's an out

of date image now. we're on facebook, twitter, satellite tv, and we're on fm radio. we have a lot of affiliates around the world, radio stations and television stations that use us as a washington news bureau for them. we have new ways of communicating with people, but the mission is the same which is to give a truthful picture of what's going on in the world and to many cases where that's not done anywhere else. >> host: using the new platforms the way you are, do you lose control over whether or not your message gets out? >> guest: well, you know, the extent to which it gets out of obviously of great interest to us, and we try to monitor that, and it is sometimes very difficult to do that in countries like north korea or iran. we don't have good audience data to know how many north koreans heard a broadcast. we have to interview people who escaped, but we do have ways of knowing in a lot of places, even

iran, that the broadcasts are really very popular, and they fill a need, so we're very pleased by that. now, in freer countries, for example, our most successful country now is indonesia, 38 million people are hearing or seeing something from the voice of america every week in indonesia, and we got pretty accurate data because most of that is television, and what we're doing is providing reports that go on indonesian newscasts, and they got good audience figures, so that's how we know we have a lot of viewers there. >> host: how is voa structured, and who are some of your sister organizations as it is? >> guest: well, voice of america is one of several u.s. funded international broadcasters, and we all come under something calledded the broadcasting board of governors. their structure is that there are -- there are four democrats and four republicans, and then

there's the tie breaker which is the secretary of state, so a fifth democrat, and under them are voice of america, radio for europe, radio for asia, the middle east broadcasting network, and the cuban brad casting that's tv and radio mar tee. we have sister network, and the plan of this board is to try to consolidate them more. their vision is to have, eventually, one company, many brands. this will save money, and it will rationalize and consolidate and stream line u.s. international broadcasting overseas because like the rest of the federal government or those who are funded by the federal government, these are tight times for us in terms of budgets, and we have to do more with less. >> host: what's the current voa budget, and how many employees? >> guest: we have a budget of $208 million, and the number of

employees is, i think, it's 1200 at the moment; then there's contractors and stringers beyond that. >> host: joining us in the conversation with david ensor, the director of voice of america, the new director of voice of america is keith of "politico". >> guest: thank you. you transitioned about the board of governors, but what's that mean to voice of america specifically, and we heard them phasing out of services. why are those changes being made? >> guest: well, you know, we live in a constantly changing world. we no longer broadcast to france or germany or western europe because there's not a need to, and when you have just so much money, you want to reach the key audiences, so one of the reasons we sometimes drop a language service is because it really

isn't -- croatia, for example, is allowed to join the e.u., already a member of nato. things are going relatively well for croatia, and there's a lot of free media there. china's another story. my feeling is that there's a very, very great need for our voice to be heard in china, and we're going to be looking at creative ways to try to reach more of the chinese people with voice of america. i'm expecting that that will include not so much short wave radio, which our data shows is really not reaching have many people in china, though it still reaches some, but more in terms of satellite television, doing a lot of work on the internet, and we will use internet techniques to ensure people are able to see what we putt on the internet even when there are attempts made by the government to prevent them from doing so.

>> guest: many americans looked at the arab spring and saw the real media force there were the private things like facebook and twitter covering many of the sensible goals like voice of america. given that, why shouldn't the taxpayer keep paying the same size budget for something like voice of america and other projects? >> guest: you know what? we give great value for the dollar. we're one of the most cost effective national security programs that the united states has. we cost less than the wing on a fighter jet, and we reach key audiences that cant be reached any other way. take iran for example. we have no diplomatic relations with that country, no trade, no exchanges, no diplomacy virtually. what there is is voice of america broadcasts which reach -- there's a show that

reaches to our knowledge more than 19 million iranians. it's the most popular show in iran on television even though the iranian government tries to jam the satellite broadcasts and makes other efforts to make it less easy to see. it's wildly popular. the other news broadcast to iran are also providing a very useful service, and it's one way for americans to reach the iranian people, so it's frankly very cost effective and very much needed. >> host: david ensor, you mentioned the iranian show. we want to show just a little bit from their appearance on the daily show. >> guest: that's great. >> i had to have -- the freedom i wanted to have inside my home, and when i want to go out, i had to lie all the time, you know? so this kind of lifestyle i had and lots of people of my

generation they have right now inside iran caused all of this anger, revenge, and everything, but we're trying to transform all of this into humor, and say whatever we want to say with this dark, angry humor, but in a civil way, you know? >> ahmadinejad came to columbia, one of the most well-respected schools of all time and said in front of the whole world, there's no gays in iran. from then on, you have the show. [laughter] >> host: david ensor, where is that show produced, where do they broadcast from, and what platforms do you use to get them on tv in iran or broadcast in iran? >> guest: the show is produced in our studios, just a few blocks from here in washington, d.c., and there's a big creative team at pnn, a person service

that we founded and that is part of voice of america, very creative young people in many cases, and it's just a lively look at the news. it's making fun of anybody basically. it's a kind of a different attempt to reach a different demographic, if you will, and it's been wildly successful, but we also have very serious newscasts that try to give the iranian people some perspective on what's happening in the world, and how their government is viewed by others. >> host: just to kind of peg off with what keach was asking about china or iran, if you use facebook or twitter or other platforms, aren't those easier to shut down than short wave radio? >> guest: no, actually, they are not. there's always a way of circumventing it and there's

always another website and another way of working around it, so while you can stop a particular route, and you can censor a particular way of downloading the internet, people are enormously creative. the chinese people, russian people, and others, and they are good at finding our message, and we have creative people ensuring they will be able to. it's a cat and mouse game if you will, but the mouse has plenty of ways of getting around. >> guest: so here in the u.s., we, of course, by law can't consume voice of america. we spend a lot of the career overseas, most recently at the u.s. embassy in kabul. how do people perceive america in the countries where you worked as a journalist and dip plo malt? diplomat? >> guest: well, i was very impressed how voice of america and radio freer europe, our sister network, were able to be effective in afghanistan. i mean, our audience in

afghanistan, we have approximately 8 million people who see a voa product each week. most are probably watching the television show on prime time weeknights at 6:30 p.m. on the state television network, and 2*s -- it's half an hour in the two main languages of the country, produced here in washington, but it has a lot of guests from afghanistan. it's a serious well written broadcast, and it's very, very effective, so i used to work in trying to develop public diplomacy tools in afghanistan, and i always felt i would not be able to beat what they were doing there, a very popular broadcast, and very use. . you said we can't see voa here in the united states, and that's true. there's a law against that, and

that's fine, although, because of the internet, everything is porous now. if you want to see what we're doing, you can. the current board is planning 20 ask congress for some amendments to something called the smith act under which we're not supposed to broadcast to the u.s. because here's the problem -- we've got, for example, commercial stations in minnesota saying to us, look, we have a substantial somalia immigrants in our state, and right now, they miss voa, which they used to see in somalia, and right now, they can't see it, so as our world becomes more and more global, we think it may behoove congress, and we make ask them to make changes to modernize that law so that we can reach audiences that speak

other languages, but are in the united states. >> guest: at the same time, there's so many other foreign government-owned media that set up shop here in the u.s. in the last few years, al jazeera, russia today, cctv is starting something here in dc. how does voa compete in this spectrum, and are we doing the same things as these other foreign-owned media? >> guest: well, clearly, other governments decided that having a voice, having their own television or radio network is worth it, and it's something that's important. they copied us in a way, and in many cases, they have a lot more money with which to do this kind of thing, so we find ourselves 234 a very competitive -- in a very competitive environment, and we are concerned about that, but, you know, i like our message. i think our reputation for trying to tell the truth, although, we don't always

succeed, is very high. we have a 70-year tradition at voice of america trying 20 get the story right, and believing in fairness and objectivity, and although you never achieve it, that's a good goal, and we have, you know, a proud history of broadcasting to the communist world and perhaps playing a role in the end of that terrible system, and now there are, you know, more discussions, more debates among human kind. we're, you know, we're in a battle of perceptions and ideas, but they will never end. now we have to worry about a kind of a sick distortion of islam that certain terrorist groups came up with, and we have to respond to that with facts. we also need to explain our own country. if we don't, others will do it for us. >> host: now, if david ensor's voice or face looks familiar to you, that's because he spent 32 years in television and radio

news, five years with national public radio, nearly 20 years with abc news, foreign correspondent in many different locations including many communist countries, and then about eight years with cnn as their national security correspondent. he became director of voa on august 1st, 2011. david ensor, you mentioned the islam issue. in pakistan, voa is starting a new service. how are you developing that service, and how is it different from what you've done in the past? >> guest: pakistan's a very difficult country because of the relationship between the united states and pakistan is a difficult one. we're allies, but it's contentious. it -- no other place is it more important for voice of america and for our sister stations to try to reach an audience in

pakistan. we're doing it by finding affiliates and finding pakistani radio and television stations that are willing to have a broadcast with us or put something on the air we've produced. there's a program called "the platform" that we co-produce with a pakistani company which has people on the air, it's kind of a bridge program, if you will, where there's somebody in the studio in washington and another in pakistan, and they date about the issues, and there's plenty of issues between the united states and pakistan even though we are allies. i think that programming is absolutely crucial, and i hope it's something we can increase as i'm director. >> guest: a couple years ago, the accountability office issued a report about the broadcasting governors board in general and complained having spent $10 billion since 9/11, negative

views still occur. why is that? any signs to suggest that that's turning a corner in any way? >> guest: well, obviously, we'd like to have positive views of the united states. we're americans, and we're proud of it, and we are the voice of america, but we're not going to be able to, by ourselves, turn around negative polls if people feel strongly enough, and if there's enough other sources of information coming at them, more propaganda coming at them. this is just one tool in the arsenal of the united states to reach those audiences. it's a very important one, but i can't take responsibility for the u.s. image as a whole. have we wasted money? frankly, i think we're very cost effective. i do think, though, that this is an institution that is in need of a lot of change right now.

mainly because the way human beings communicate with each other is the ways our changing so rapidly. we really are in a communications revolution right now. think of the cell phone. in afghanistan, you know, six years ago, there were 10,000 cell phones. now there are, depending on who is counting, 10 million of them. the goat herder has a cell phone, you know? that is a platform with which one can reach people with news. it's not just the telephone. it's -- we are now -- we're -- we have a successful internet program in many different languages, and now we're building more and more websites that are designed to be seen on a mobile device, and we're trying to improve making it user friendly those websites, and we think that is a very important way to reach people in the future. >> guest: how do the criticisms from the report was

that there's not good definitions of success for voa. how would you define success for voa at the moment? >> guest: you know, you have to take it almost country by country and program by program. are we reaching an audience? is the programming compelling? is it accurate? is it well produced? on, frankly by commercial standards where i used to come from on a shoe string budget, we do some pretty good stuff, but it is -- it could be better. it could be a lot better as a matter of fact, and we are having to move now more and more away from the old traditional short wave radio into a kind of modern media which could be satellite television or fm radio, you know.

fm radio is broadcast locally, you can't do that from far away, and then you need affiliates, friends in the country, and you need a partner, so the way we work is changing, but the basic mission as i said in the beginning has stayed the same. >> host: well, david ensor, just to return to that point, we've seen examples this past year where egypt in their uprising essentially shut down the entire internet, the same happened in libya. china has done this on a regular basis. they cron cor what happens -- censor what happens over the interpret, but one inserted language into a bill that says voa must continue its short wave broadcast into china because of the censorship issues. how do you respond to that? >> guest: i should probably just speak for myself on this issue. i certainly think china is one of our most important countries

that we need to reach. i don't think we're doing it at all well enough. i know that that feeling is shared by many at the bbg and throughout international broadcasting. we are working on this. i think satellite television has promise. there's a lock of work with -- there is a lot of work with internet reach, and i think it's promising. short wave radio, however, still reaches some people in china, and personally, i think we should persist thl we have a better way, but, you know, there are different views on that frankly, and, you know, is it a waste of money? is it not a west of money? there's people who think broadcasting to china on short wave is a waste of money because the audience is so tiny; then there's others who say even if you reach 200 in that vast country, it's still worth all those millions, well, reasonable

people can disagree. as i say, i pledge to congressmen and to the rest of those listening, we will look for ways to be more effective in china. that's the key. we want to reach as many of the chinese people that key we can. >> guest: how appropriate do you think that is begin that this is typically the state department, and how do you plan to coordinate with this to ensure there's not overlap or conflicting messages in some way? >> guest: you know, i'm so new to this job, i don't know too much about that, and so i'm going to -- i'm going to have to look into it. i do know that, you know, our colleagues in uniform have a very effective public diplomacy effort they make in various countries, and i wish them well, but i can't answer the question until i know more about it. >> host: david ensor, let's go

back to the arab uprising this past year. what was voa's activities or continued activities in libya, and with events occurring regularly in syria as well, is voa active in those areas? >> guest: voa broadcasts in 42 languages and reaches people in 60 countries, about 133 million at last count, but we don't broadcast in arabic anymore. the middle east broadcasting network, our sister network, is the sort of arabic speaking voice of the united states now. we work with them, we cooperate with them. al-hora correspondents in libya have been in voa air. when they were in the right place with something to report, we're delighted to have them there. we do broadcast in english.

there's bureaus in the arab world to broadcast the news to our listeners in other parts of the world. >> host: david ensor is the new director of the voice of america, keach with "politico," there's a few minutes left. >> guest: how critical is the obama administration to voa compare to previous administrations in your experience? >> guest: well, i'm the new guy, and i've been hired during the term of president obama, and my sense is warm support from the administration for what we're trying to do, but, again, i have not had much time yet to really learn, you know, the nuance, more complex answer to the question. my sense is they favor what we do. they understand it. i'm very, very supportive of and pleased that walter isakson is a chairman of the board of broadcasting governors. he's a great american, and a

very wise person, and he was president of cnn at one point, and i was working for him then too. >> guest: what do you think is the most federal place for what voa does in today's world? >> guest: actually, interesting question there because we debate this among ourselves. which is more important? to have more people or to have certain key countries listening? obviously, we want both. you have to find your place on that continuum. on the one hand, voa's enormously effective in africa, the continent of africa, and if we had a bit more money, we'd want to spend it to build that audience further, and we may be able to do that, and i'm hoping we can in the coming years. there's a real hunger for what we offer in africa, and an important audience, and for example, in the horn of africa where there's a drought and people are starving, we are doing innovative broadcasting to

those refugees to say where there's water and shelter, where you're going to be safe, so on the one hand, if we might say that a key audience is africa because we can reach so many more people there if we try to build the service, and we'd like to do that. on the other hand, there's key countries. we talked about china, iran, north korea, pakistan -- these are countries that it is in the u.s. national security interest to be able to reach the audiences of, and i think those are absolutely critical, and that we should make every possible effort to reach more people in countries like those. >> host: finally, david ensor, if americans listen to voa regularly, would they hear critiques of the united states and u.s. policies such as they would on nbc or abc, cbs national news? >> guest: yeah, they would. voice of america tries to present a balanced portrait of