Talk:Voice of America/Archive 1

Initial comments
It would be interesting to know exactly *which* US law forbids VoA from broadcasting directly to US citizens...though not directly relevant, I suppose. --zztzed 23:18, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, which law forbids it, and why? Mark Richards 07:31, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * So I can't tune in with my radio? I live in Miami FL and i would like to listen to Radio Marti. Is Radio Mambi similar to Radio Marti? --Joel M. 03:55, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


 * I was able to find a live radio feed of Radio Marti at: http://www.martinoticias.com/radio.asp I will post it on the article. --Joel M. 04:13, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is from VOA's website (http://www.voanews.com/english/About/FastFacts.cfm): "Section 501 of the Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 prohibits VOA from broadcasting into the United States."

VOA just began broadcasting in Somalia again.

Bias
4.25.2011 -- It would be interesting to know why someone keeps adding the inaccurate and inflammatory description of VOA, calling it "the official external propaganda[1] institution of the United States federal government." If you look up "propaganda" in the Wikipedia, or any dictionary, it is clearly not the appropriate term to apply to VOA, the BBC, CBC, Radio France International or any other international broadcaster that presents "balanced and comprehensive" news. Propaganda is one-sided. If you look at the VOA product you can see there is professional journalistic balance. Propaganda is by its very definition not balanced. Does VOA support democracy and a free press, yes. Does that goal make it a propaganda organization, no. Also, there is nothing in the "references" cited by this person that would support any kind of a legitimate argument; in fact one of the references cited is about migratory bird patterns; how exactly does this apply? Just because the word "propaganda" appears in the title of a so-called reference, does not mean that term applies to everything mentioned in the book. If you want to have a legitimate debate about the balance of a story or VOA’s news coverage that is one thing, but repeatedly misusing a derogatory label simply indicates some hidden motive rather than a serious effort to explain anything to Wikipedia’s readers that would be useful to them. Slinging around a label to tar the reputation or an organization is not serious journalism. And in the interests of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Voice of America. VOAKyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VOAKyle (talk • contribs) 15:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

VOA was involved in white propaganda broadcasts. //

True? I suppose probably.

What about now? A "neutral" broadcast,except of the gov editorals?

ThomasK 18:13, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * The VOA does require news stories to be confirmed by at least two sources before broadcasting it, and the VOA does have journalism standards requiring integrity. Overseas sources rate VOA news as reliable, second only in importance to the BBC World Service.  However, the VOA does make it clear that it is a government broadcasting station and it broadcasts editorials of the U.S. Government. --GABaker, 18:24, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

These days, it's not hard to find news sources willing to act as "yes men", especially AMERICAN news sources.

That's why I have bookmarks to news sites/services from around the world - Including N korea & Iran. I mean, just look at how americans blindly follow & believe whatever the TV tells them....

99.139.200.173 (talk) 08:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag
This section of the article is primarily a running commentary about why the illegality of domestic broadcast of VOA is inevitable. Without citations this is really just conjecture. Although it may be possible, I would be willing to bet it would only pass after considerable debate and over fairly vocal opposition. I think many Americans perceive of the illegality of a government-run domestic media (as opposed to the more independent PBS and NPR) outlet as part of the balance of power. I think part of the goal is to avoid a propaganda machine or the appearance of a propaganda machine.

Much is valid here, such as the domestic broadcasting over the internet, but the opinion bit should go unless it can be backed up (if Congress, for example, were considering changes). --Aranae 07:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, very little of relevance here to actual VOA content. Section on laws governing VOA activity is about as NPOV as I am Martian. Needs a lot of work. 62.55.149.206 13:09, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * This appears to have been resolved. If there are no objections, I'm going to go ahead and remove the POV tag. -- Jonathansfox 04:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the POV template from the top of the post now. -- Jonathansfox 21:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons
Just an idle thought: A comparison of listnership might be more relevant than a comparison of output.--jrleighton 15:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How many coups has VOA been involved with?
VOA website says: A trusted source of news and information since 1942!( but it does not say trusted by whom!).

But they forget to mention all the coups they have been involved with! And idea how many since 1942? Kiumars 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It still doesn't mean it's not trusted! GABaker 21:02 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This is discussing the subject rather than the article. Get an RS about the coups. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 09:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

VOA towers
There's a VOA tower in Mmadinare, Botswana. I was wondering where the other towers are. --nocturnal omnivorous canine 13:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Long Wave service
I used to pick up VOA on long wave at about 2000m in the 1950s to listen to "This is Music USA" I was certain it was being relayed from Frankfurt. 86.132.194.117 14:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag: Ethiopian service
Note that out of eighteen (non-distinct) references, only one (from www.oromoamerican.org) is from a source that is not pro-government. The rest are either from an Ethiopian Embassy web site, a pro-government web site or blog, Africa Intelligence (an unverifiable news source), or Annette Sheckler's article, which cannot be considered neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icollaborate (talk • contribs) 21:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any dispute that Annette Sheckler was an employee of VOA. So there is no reason that she "cannot be considered neutral." Secondly, the "Africa Intelligence" website source is neutral and it is a subscription or you can pay money to access the website to read about the story. Therefore, i don't see how this article can be POV. Lastly, this is a crisis that is happening and many ethiopians still claim they can't hear voa due to the ongoing feud. So i am restoring the voa crisis information that was deleted. Ethiopiawit1 02:12 15 March 2008 (UTC)

No Arabic Language
Amazing. 46 languages but not Arabic. Shouldn't this article point out that glaring omission. The omission is especially significant in an age when Al Jazeera is growing so fast. Anorlunda (talk) 22:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The VOA Arabic language service became Radio Sawa a couple of years ago. VOA does have a strong presence in the Middle East through this service.GABaker (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Voice of America -- transmitter site(s)
I believe that the transmitter site at Delano, California, has been mothballed and is facing the possibility of destruction. Not sure about the site at Greenville, but its status is well worth checking into to keep Wiki article accurate. 71.124.38.200 (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Mideast conflict
Perhaps content should be added on Voice of America's coverage of the Mideast conflict, since it is one of the big ideological divides in major news media. ADM (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Farsi
VOA's been broadcasting in Farsi for years as well. 71.56.124.57 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Went ahead and added it. 71.56.124.57 (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Farsi is the same language as Persian--which has already been added--so it should be removed. 96.232.157.128 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

English instruction
I notice the article does not mention VOA's role in assisting the learning of English. VOA uses "Special English" and many people all over the world look to VOA to be able to learn English as a second language. I would have thought this important role would be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatmarc (talk • contribs) 13:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Broken Reference Link
Reference #62 to Horn of Africa link about Annette is a broken link. 96.18.39.97 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

History
Wasn't Voice of America created by Robert E. Sherwood within the Foreign Information Service of the COI ? I read that in: Allan M. Winkler, The Politics of Propaganda (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1978), page 27.

Update: There was only mentioned the "newly founded VOA", not by wohm it was created.

Lib hist (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Voice of America was created under the aegis of the Coordinator of Information. Some of the earlier text in this entry conflates the Coordinator of Information (William J. Donovan) with the Coordinator for Inter-American Affairs (Nelson A. Rockefeller). I haven't attempted to correct this error -- the text is rather confused, and really deserves a thorough write-through -- but I have updated the specific information relating to the first VOA broadcast. Robert Sherwood coined what became the name of the organization (it began, in German, as "Voices from America" and eventually morphed into "Voice of America"), but I don't know that it is correct to say he "created" VOA. Donovan was the COI when the first VOA program went on the air. Sherwood was his nominal subordinate. (Sherwood was a presidential speechwriter, and a confidant of Roosevelt.) The actual work of putting VOA on the air was performed under the direction of John Houseman. All three men probably deserve some credit for "creating" the institution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.55.117 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia jamming
This section should be removed or heavily revised, especially the BOLD:

According to critics of VOA, the Amharic language VOA program "systematically excluded" news about the armed group ONLF's killing of numerous Ethiopian civilians near the end of 2007.[48] Pro-Ethiopian government critics of VOA will honor and remember "the bravery" of Annette Sheckler - the former head of the Horn of Africa VOA service who was fired after complaining against her bosses at the VOA executive management.[49]

Who are all these "critics"? And what's with this homage to the un-linked Sheckler? (And don't get me started on the syntax.) This passage was written by someone with an agenda.

KWWinch (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Propaganda?
It would be interesting to know why someone keeps adding the inaccurate and inflammatory description of VOA, calling it "the official external propaganda[1] institution of the United States federal government." If you look up "propaganda" in the Wikipedia, or any dictionary, it is clearly not the appropriate term to apply to VOA, the BBC, CBC, Radio France International or any other international broadcaster that presents "balanced and comprehensive" news. Propaganda is one-sided. If you look at the VOA product you can see there is professional journalistic balance. Propaganda is by its very definition not balanced. Does VOA support democracy and a free press, yes. Does that goal make it a propaganda organization, no. Also, there is nothing in the "references" cited by this person that would support any kind of a legitimate argument; in fact one of the references cited is about migratory bird patterns; how exactly does this apply? Just because the word "propaganda" appears in the title of a so-called reference, does not mean that term applies to everything mentioned in the book. If you want to have a legitimate debate about the balance of a story or VOA’s news coverage that is one thing, but repeatedly misusing a derogatory label simply indicates some hidden motive rather than a serious effort to explain anything to Wikipedia’s readers that would be useful to them. Slinging around a label to tar the reputation or an organization is not serious journalism. And in the interests of full disclosure, I am an employee of the Voice of America. VOAKyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VOAKyle (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The PBS URL was no good, as you pointed out on your user talk page. However, the article here lists a number of reliable sources describing VOA as propaganda. Certainly, the word propaganda has a widely known negative aspect, but it is also used to describe positive messages, or neutral messages which downplay the negative. Common advertising has been described as propaganda by scholarly sources. Propaganda at its most neutral sense, means "to disseminate or promote particular ideas." Propaganda is communication from a large organization given with the intent to persuade. White propaganda is never deceitful or false. A spin doctor who launders the news to minimize negative information is a propagandist. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

RT essentially uses the same narrative you are using here, so if the RT page has a line for propaganda, then in fairness so should VoA - or both should not be labelled such and let the reader decide for themselves. Slipping in token opposition doesn't make VoA any less suspicious than other state-run agencies. and I'm not sure you are listing good examples....Even in Canada itself the CBC has been known as biased and there are calls to abolish / privatize it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.94.74 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Reverted good faith edit
The recent reversion of an IP edit appears to be removing of additions that push a certain point of view and where it was placed, in the intro, may be considered WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, it was unreferenced by a reliable source(s). If this content belongs anywhere perhaps it belongs in the Controversy section. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That text was removed before though and he just reverted the edit even though he was told why it was bad. Do we still assume good faith or no? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The POV was that the VOA has never proved itself to be objective, though that is in its directive. Nothing in the article body discussed this so the addition was a violation of WP:LEAD. This problem could not be easily fixed by putting the "objective" complaint in the article body, but there was no cited reference. Until a reliable source can be found to say the VOA has not been objective, the IP addition cannot be used. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Croatian Service now defunct
The Broadcasting Board of Governors ended VOA Croatian Service broadcasts and its associated website on November 23, 2011, almost 20 years after it first went on the air in 1992. (The former Serbo-Croatian service was among VOA's earliest, dating to 1943.) http://www.bbg.gov/pressroom/press-releases/VOA_Ends_Croatian_Broadcasts.html

The Croatian homepage remains online, but is frozen as of Nov. 23. It includes a farewell message from the staff of the Croatian Service. http://www.voanews.com/croatian/news/

This change should be reflected in the main VOA page.

Added 2018-05-10 by a former shortwave listener and a longtime VOA journalist: The linked page no longer exists. VOA's roster of language services has ebbed and flowed over the years. Languages get dropped for a variety of reasons, including the agency's budget and the nation's foreign policy agenda. Likewise, new language services are added from time to time.

Edit request regarding BBG
Under the "Overview" section, it says that the Voice of America in 1999 fell under the Broadcasting Board of directors, but this should say "Broadcasting Board of Governors," otherwise known as the BBG (as stated immediately following this error). Fantasy7 (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will fix that. Thanks for bringing it up! Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

VOA vis a vis FCC
The reason that the VOA does not have an FCC call sign is that the FCC does not regulate US-government radio stations. The NTIA regulates government stations while the FCC regulates civilian stations. NTIA doesn't license stations since it's silly for the government to license itself. It does coordinate government radio stations and issues blocks of call signs for delegation to government agencies (including the FCC for civilian use!). Co149 (talk) 23:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Out of date programming section
Briefly comparing the programming section to the broadcast list at VOA, I see only one program that is still on (Straight Talk Africa). Richigi (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

governments sponsored jamming
You hardly can sponsor anything in a Communist state, where everything belongs to the state - ground for jamming devices, energy, staff.Xx236 (talk) 10:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Trump in lead
How is this not WP:Undue? Seems to fail WP:Recent and purely speculative criticism like this should not be singled out in the lead. Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was planning on bringing up the same point. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, undue. Conjecture about what will happen is not for the lead section. That lead is for stuff that has actually happened. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Radio Moscow
The Soviets not only jammed but distributed their propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So? The Soviet Union no longer exists. How exactly is this related to the article? Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Andrewa (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Voice of America → VOA – The news source is known by the initials VOA. 68.195.141.2 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC).
 * Oppose Deeply known WP:COMMONNAME; Americans know it by the full name, and overseas its the same.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Most commonly known by the unambiguous name "Voice of America" - no need to move to a lesser known acronym. AusLondonder (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the common name should stay. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Voice of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.insidevoa.com/p/5728.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141201064438/http://www.bbg.gov/about-the-agency/history/faqs/ to http://www.bbg.gov/about-the-agency/history/faqs/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Dari Ahkayoumy (talk) 02:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Voice of America — Language: American
Is there such a language as "American"? Surely this should be listed as English. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"Type" Description
Currently the sidebar under "Type" reads "Informational Public Broadcaster". It should read, "Informational Government Broadcaster". It certainly is not the public running it, but rather the US government.

The adjective must denote who is doing the broadcasting, not who is receiving it, since "broadcasting" itself already connotes that the public is receiving it, by definition of the term "broadcast". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.131.212 (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. The "P" in PBS means "Public".  It's like a "public park".  I think most people know that a public park is controlled by the government.  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2018 (UTC)