hello and welcome to cross talk i'm peter lavelle the battle of the airwaves new and alternative media outlets are challenging the dominance of traditional heavyweights in all languages why are viewers looking for alternative news reporting and in how is this challenging the media environment. to. discuss how media is changing around the world i'm joined by jon hamilton in baton rouge he is a professor of journalism at louisiana state university and author of the recent book journalism's roving eye a history of american foreign reporting in atlanta we go to shawn powers he's an assistant professor at georgia state university and in new york we cross to peter hart the activism director at fairness and accuracy in reporting and another member of our cross talk team and the hunger all right if i can go to you sean first why

are the two things are going on here obviously there are new global english language stations coming on line r.t. came on line five years ago or less than that was al-jazeera press t.v.'s out there right now but chinese are going to be pouring an enormous amount of money into an english lobel english language station but at the same time there are people that are afraid of these stations in the united states so some people want more news a different perspective and other people appear to be afraid of that perspective what is some of the trends that you see. well there's there's certainly a massive amount of government investment or reinvestment international broadcasting is as you pointed out and the english language along with the arabic language are both priorities for most governments in the united states there's always been a culture of fear of foreign broadcasts and intervening into american politics and

that stems back to fears of nazi propaganda during world war two and those cultural fears still exist today especially when you start talking about broadcasts from al-jazeera which has a scary arabic sounding name or china's c.c.-t.v. or whatever english language broadcaster its name will be those cultural anxieties have always existed in american culture and i suspect are specially pervasive today with the current economic climate and so a lot of the cultural reactions you see are based on historical and economic trends ok jon if i can go to you in baton rouge but there is a desire on the part of some people to go to alternative news because well they don't think they're getting a very good perspective at home from domestic stations and i'm thinking of the the networks in the united states and cable television so i mean people looking for a different angle and there's many reasons for that foreign wars for example how

different conflicts are reported upon i can we could look at the gaza. war. russia's calm russia is a reaction to georgia's invasion of south a city i mean if they weren't these other alternatives out there then an american audience would have got a very very rigid one sided view of events. well i think that's a fair point i think it's very important that american journalists cover the world for americans and i think that's something that we've become concerned about. the window but in fact the american public's view of the world isn't rich by having news come from other countries the whole point of foreign news after all is to accentuate the foreign part to tell us things we don't know and to give us person perspectives we don't know so well i don't think we should forget about having traditional journalists report the world for us i think having these new streams of information are very saloon you know peter it's very interesting shon said that the

americans are afraid of foreign broadcasts that could be meddling or involved in american politics domestic politics but the united states does that all the time and spend seven hundred fifty million dollars a year not just on english but in foreign languages didn't want to influence politics in other countries as well i mean it seems to be a double standard to me us can do it but if anybody else tries to do it well there must be something very terribly wrong or even evil about it it's a double standard. i think so i think the political elites in this country consider us bonser broadcasting in foreign countries as an introduction to u.s. journalistic values trying to elevate the conversation in those countries whereas if we put the shoe on the other foot we see other countries encroaching into american territory and presenting english language news i think the other point to that is worth underlining is the fact that a lot of people feel nervous about these broadcasts being affiliated with

governments their government under their state sponsored and i think that's the fundamental question here whether we think journalism that is underwritten by corporations is a threat versus whether we think journalism underwritten by a foreign government is a threat i think both raise some legitimate concerns but right now we're seeing this flourishing environment online and offline where alternatives are available to people and i think americans are wondering why they can't tune into these channels on their television screen ok i'd like to point out a statement that was made by the just ok go ahead you want to jump in there. i just want to jump in here quick and say it's not i think it's important to say it's not just a fear of government broadcasting and just to point to that we can leaks case that broke over the course of the last ten months the american government is petrified not just to foreign governments intervening into american news affairs but also

non-government organizations like if the voice that they are projecting is one that is a threat to american national security or even combative to the american government's narrative and so it's not just governments it's also non-government organizations that are seen as a threat as well well let's look at threats. not to a few days ago the chairman of the broadcasting board of governors of the united states mr walter isaacson he had a statement about new media and a lot of it is state media abroad let's listen to what he had to say. we can't allow ourselves to be out communicated by our enemies. there's that freedom house report that reveals that today's autocratic leaders are investing billions of dollars in media resources to influence the global you've got russia today iran's press t.v. venezuela's telescope and of course china's all watching international broadcasting twenty four hour news channels correspondents around the world. ok i asked

mr isaacson to appear on this program and he didn't decline the invitation but he did his office did send a clarification on that and i want to be fair to him and not to have a one sided interpretation i think our viewers will have an interpretation but his interpretation of his words goes as following he wants to clarify his comment concerning enemies he meant to refer to enemies within afghanistan those that advocate terrorism he did not mean to refer to nor does he consider that russia china and other countries or new services he mentioned are enemies of the u.s. and he regrets giving that impression nonetheless that impression is made i looked at it quite a few times and i'll take him at his word if i if i can go back to if i can go back to you john i mean how do you interpret those words a very very calm combative and again i want i want to stress here is that the u.s. government spends an enormous amount of money on media for foreign audiences ok if the chinese are going to do it there's something wrong with me and that's

a government to government then i mean that's that's that's parity. well i think that i think those kind of comments are helpful. i think we those of us who care about true american ideals really think that of course we should have a political ration of ideas that come into the united states including from sources that are not ones that we might necessarily find congenial it would be a sad state if we thought that the only kind of information that could come to the united states is information that conform to our own views of what the world ought to operate like you know if you agree with that after all this unfortunately has happened at other times in history where of course people have tried to drowned out other voices or where in fact the united states which claims it believes in free speech will forbid people to come into the country because they find their views somehow unpleasant but i can't speak for mr isaacson and i think his clarification tried to perhaps clear up the picture

a little bit even if we don't think he meant exactly what he said there are lots of people who would have their point of view and i think those of us who care about true american ideals would disagree there's no evidence in the history of the country that foreign ideas have actually shaped our point of view so i'm not too worried about that frankly you know peter if i can go as you say shape i forgive you i should do what i should actually say is have changed our policy. is probably a better way of phrasing it you know but it's the same time if i go to you peter i mean it in a way if you go to these if you go to our t.v. you go to al-jazeera even maybe press t.v. if you can get it but they do give a very different picture of what's going on in the world and you know again we go to these situations where if there hadn't been the another side to report americans would have been oblivious to what had happened and if you really i get the sense that the american government and the networks in the united states cable t.v. they don't like their little monopoly they don't like the competition and if they

really see if the american public actually saw what american foreign policy is doing americans may start questioning that foreign policy which is rather taboo right now. i think that's exactly right i think isaacson's words were precisely what they sounded like on first impression and it was a clarification and sends the opposite message because the message she meant to send the message she did send sounded unusual i guess upon reflection look at the shadow that hangs over conversations like this is the iraq war and i think many people at this point and some people at the time understood that the american media largely failed the american public in the public of the entire world for that matter in how it covered the iraq war the internet gave americans a chance to see english language news brought from a different perspective you could read british newspapers and you get a very different sense of the debate over the iraq war the debate over the evidence so now we have the introduction of additional voices we're understanding that

journalism comes with a point of view american journalism or any other kind of journalism and the point of view of an outlet that might be challenging american foreign policy is to say here are the effects of american foreign policy here are we are going to hear from critics of that foreign policy that is a very different conversation i think americans welcome it and i think more americans would welcome it if it were available to them most cable networks and most capable packages do not offer these channels to american viewers and if they did i think we'd have a more robust conversation about global affairs and american foreign policy in the u.s. role in all of this ok gentlemen let me jump in right here after a short break i'm going to go we're going to have a quick break after a short break we'll continue our discussion on international media stay with.

the museum of nature discover its museum be. pleased. with the wild. test yourself and become free. nature community you see. every month we give you the future we help you understand how we'll get there and what tomorrow brings the best in science and technology from across russia and around the world. join us for technology update on r g.

c. in the moment. welcome back to rostock i'm peter lavelle to remind you we're talking about modern media diversity. but first let's see what russians think about this issue. as digital media channels multiply from obama to internet messmate is a role in society has become more problematic than ever while previously the so-called fourth estate was an essential check and balance for democracy diversity in new media is itself becoming a source of controversy and russian public opinion sent a poll assessed the section of diversity in mass media fifty three percent of

respondents said media broadly reflect the needs of society thirty three percent were dissatisfied with the variety of today's media given the challenges traditional news providers face from new voices it seems certain that demand for diversity in media will continue to rise. ok john before we went to the break you said you wanted to jump in and reflect upon something that was said earlier go ahead right well i think i need to separate myself from some of the tenor of this conversation. first of all i completely agree that we need to get more voices from abroad telling us how people see the world and giving us news but i don't agree that american news media do a terrible job all the time in that it's unreliable the fact is for example let's take the statement that the american media didn't tell us about the run up to the in the war to iraq with iraq the truth is some media did and some didn't i think on

balance they didn't do a very good job in the beginning but there were some the did like knight ridder and second of all later on the american media has done some in some cases a very good job of explaining what has gone wrong with policy so i'm not going to stand along with statements that say that american for american foreign reporting is always bad i think this is just not right ok he said you want to jump in there also. i did i thought i wanted to add some context to the speech that walter isaacson gave because i think it's important to think about his comments in the context of where he was saying them and so he was speaking on the sixtieth anniversary radio free europe radio liberty which is an american government funded news organization with the explicit purpose of promoting freedom of speech and western style of journalism abroad and in particular in the former soviet union area of influence and currently in asia and so his choice to identify both the

russian government and the chinese government as enemies in this context i think was speaking to them as enemies to freedom of speech principles not as enemies in the larger geo political sense and that's a more specific claim that i think he was making and i think it's interesting that he walked that back in his statement to you as opposed to defending. the initial impetus of that argument which is you know it's a fair argument to make but it's very interesting i'd like to say this to all is that if we stay with the isaacson speech i mean he was identifying countries that the united states may have problems with potentially have problems with the really have problems with the game when his way china. relations with russia is getting much better but you know he was mentioning those stations in those governments because these are these are countries that the united states may have broadly under the rubric problematic relationship and they're being. separated out and again upon

reflection you know these countries want to defend themselves because a lot of countries in the world that haven't defended themselves well haven't worked out very well we go back to iraq as well so i mean there is a time to foreign policy priorities here would you agree with that peter. absolutely the reason you name those countries is because the united states particularly political elites have problems with those countries. mentioning hugo chavez in venezuela for example you can have criticisms of free speech policies in venezuela but the fact that as well as singled out is obviously notable internally inside them as well the opposition to child as an eventual shortlived who carried out against his government was in some ways orchestrated within the commercial media system so they have a very vibrant an interesting debate over free speech and journalism in the role of media in that country and for a united states official to say we have enemy countries including venezuela and

pointing out that they have a pointing to their media policy i think gets back to the idea that this is this was largely a political statement you can have criticisms of speech policies of all kinds of governments it's notable that he chose as you mentioned the ones that he did you know john if i can go to you i mean one of the interesting things is also is that if we look at even media that you wouldn't even suspect is you know like friendly b.b.c. but if you look at b.b.c.'s coverage of the oil spill we always said the best case scenario the best case scenario and of course the people who were very upset with b.p. would have the worst case scenario i mean even different media is that you think it would be more mild that you have to look at other media just to make sure you're getting the correct message and again that's going back to this diversity here i mean the chance to look at everything out there because you know i don't know how easily you get b.b.c. but they even have a different point of view on that and again it's because of the government. well.

first of all i agree that different countries have different perspectives on the news and that means we should look at american news and how it has a perspective and we should also look at the perspective that other countries have i don't think of the b.b.c. as necessarily carrying the government agenda the way you say it does but it certainly reflects a british point of view and who would expect it to do otherwise. what i what i guess troubles me about framing it the way you have is it makes it all look nefarious and in fact most things in this world are complicated and not just driven by by simple metrics like there's some public support for the b.b.c. and i'm a british one of the world and that's what i'm trying to that's what i'm trying to get at is that it's not nefarious whatsoever we should expect different points of view ok even if it's different from the point of view that we would get from our own to medium domestically in united states we should expect that other governments friendly and friendly would have different points of view but we should necessarily

take make the take them as being hostile what do you think about that sean i think points well taken that it should not be seen as a hostile point of view and that's that's a very important point that once you cross into the the area where you're accusing other points of view in this case possibly news broadcasts from moscow or beijing as hostile that is that's a problem but there's also something to be said about you know publicly saying that there is a global competition to control news narratives especially about important geopolitical events like the war in iraq the kurt warner cannot stand even the oil spill and that the united states government has a vested interest in pursuing news narratives that promote their their agenda i think i was frankly just saying that that's we need to reinvest in being able to control that narrative because other governments are beating us right now it's a very interesting point when you think about that peter i mean it is a competition to control the narrative and and one shouldn't be surprised by that

because there are vested interest international ones economic ones even values if you want to put it that way it's normal ok it just because someone wants a competition doesn't mean that they are there no fair use to use the word again. yeah and i think one of the frustrations for people like isaacson that they've had over the years particularly in the years post iraq war is that the countries on the receiving end of this this broadcast and this propaganda are generally mistrustful or hostile to the message because they understand that the united states is funding particular media outlets and and coordinating that message so those publics are not always receptive to the american message we consider that a crisis and i would consider that a sign that these people are skeptical and they're aware of where this information is coming from in a global media marketplace that kind of skepticism should be trained on all media so you should have that attitude toward american media and you should have that attitude toward media that's coming from

a foreign government perspective it's healthy for people to see the media that way and the trick is making sure that all of that content or as much of it as possible is available to people and let people decide whether they believe this stuff is propaganda or whether it's it's useful you know jon if i can go to you i mean i was i watched the coverage of all the major stations of the gaza war and i found it just stunning just how different the coverage was from station to station. c.n.n. in my opinion i'm just expressing my opinion clearly sided with the israeli side b.b.c. was more or less the same way to c.n.n. and then you would have something like al-jazeera or r t it would just have radically different ones and and you know if you want to say you know state owned i mean russia was just watching. we were watching it very very closely but it was extremely biased in western media and you didn't get the full story if you just

watch c.n.n. not by a long shot not according to the goldstone report and a lot of other investigations that is a problem in western media exposure. so you watch the others yeah well what i'm saying is that this is a danger when we swing we have a policy issue that is so one sided reported in the united states and the other side is almost left completely out. doesn't even exist and this influences policy very much and of course we have and i'm not asking going to be a middle east expert here but you know when we have negotiations is where is the public pressure you know to say get a peace process get a peace process started right there put pressure on pressure president obama but if the american people don't understand the basic facts of the conflict how can how can public opinion play a meaningful role in such an important conflict right so my question to you is who covered it well i think al jazeera did very well read in a balanced way i think al-jazeera did a good job i think our t. did a good job they certainly said different things and made

a great effort to get both sides of the story of that of a very tragic tragic event and it was only one sided expression in the u.s. ok peter you want to jump in i guess my answer to that is well i think one thing that's worth. i think one thing that's worth pointing out in that case in particular with the war was that there was official state censorship israel barred reporter from entering the gaza strip to cover that story so you did have outlets that had reporters who were there prior to the war particularly al-jazeera who were in a unique position to show the effects of the war firsthand c.n.n. had reporters camped out on the hillsides overlooking the gaza strip from israel that's a very difficult way to cover any kind of war and you know c.n.n. and other outlets lodged official protest with the israeli government they were all for not but al jazeera was in a unique opportunity to present the other side of that war in a very fundamental way they were the ones who were there as the regimes were being

afraid gentlemen to jump in here we've run out of time many thanks my guest today in baton rouge atlanta and in new york and thanks to our viewers for watching us here r.t. see you next time and remember cross talk. of the red machine would show people wanted to leave the. to make changes. but was it possible to change the country's regime simply. with.

the closure of the fundamental changes in the state people's minds on the.

head of an anti drug campaign in russia jack in russia is jailed for taking the drugs fine to far but his supporters say he got results want. unconditional friendships russia says it will not place conditions on improving its relationship with britain both sides agreed to disagree on many troubling aspects. and the bubble of hype bursts around the first civilian trial of a one ton of the detainee as none of the us media is predictions of police cordons traffic gridlock and security threats come true. also state benefits paid more than some jobs in the u.k. causing generations of unemployment statistics show we've got behind us number of workforce households of all the large e.u.

economies. guest from officials and talks in romania on the country's participation in the south stream gas project we'll look at the twists and turns of the pipeline and other countries involved in it. a warm welcome to you live from our headquarters in central moscow this is our twenty first up this hour at their wit's end with drug addicts a group in russia's your old decided to take the laws into their own hands their extreme methods of kidnapping dealers and users and forcing treatment on them may have one great support from the people but it's falling foul of the authorities who have jailed some of them for abduction and torture. a drugs raid gets underway and after hours of waiting for.