by Alex Soble:
James Glassman, then America’s undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, fielded questions from an audience of Egyptian bloggers from within a large, transparent cube. An imposing pyramid and several obelisks dotted the surrounding desert landscape. But this meeting wasn’t happening in Egypt—or, for that matter, anywhere in the physical world. Instead, it took place in the digitally simulated universe of Second life, inside a “virtual newsroom” built for the American University in Cairo’s journalism center by the New York- based company dancing Ink Productions. Attendees participated through their “avatars,” from the raven- haired maiden representing Rita King, dancing Ink’s creative director, to a suited simulacrum of Glassman himself, sporting a virtual red tie.
Neither of these leaders has the habit of thinking small. dancing Ink Productions, King told the Globalist, aims to use virtual worlds to facilitate the emergence of a “new global culture” and accompanying “new global economy.” And Glassman, placed in charge of three government bureaus with discouraging track records, sought to make America’s international outreach more open, flexible, and innovative as well as tech-savvy. Public diplomacy— defined by supporters as “efforts to inform and influence foreign publics” and by critics as a poorly disguised synonym for propaganda—encompasses everything from cultural-exchange fellowships like the Fulbright Program to media outreach towards foreign publics. Glassman envisioned a “Public diplomacy 2.0,” a more interactive approach that looks less like that of a government program and more like that of a young, bold company in the mold of dancing Ink Productions.
Private businesses and their products have always played a pivotal role in shaping America’s image abroad, from the darkest days of the Cold War, when Hollywood films sold American ideas across the globe, to the era of globalization symbolized by Mcdonald’s ubiquitous arches. Over the last eight years, as America’s stature in the world tumbled, a number of prominent voices have urged our public diplomacy strategy to turn to the private sector for inspiration, counsel, and collaboration.
Some, like Glassman, have worked from within official public diplomacy circles. Others, like Keith Reinhard, former CEO of advertising giant ddB Worldwide Communications Group, and Kristin lord, a foreign policy expert, are making their voices heard from the world of NGOs and think tanks. And several have attempted to parlay business expertise directly into the task of managing public diplomacy, including Norman Pattiz, a radio executive who transformed American broadcasting in the Middle East.
All have found that synergies between government and business in the realm of public diplomacy are easier to recommend than to realize.
Captains of Communication
The position of undersecretary of state for public diplomacy has seen four appointees come and go within the last eight years, a sizzlingly fast rate of turnover that has left little room for sustained progress. From the beginning, President George W. Bush was attracted to the idea of using business-style strategies—and business people—to beef up America’s public diplomacy. Charlotte Beers, Bush’s first appointee, was a former Madison Avenue advertising executive. during her tenure, Beers launched several ambitious projects, including Hi, a privately produced magazine targeted at Arab youth, and television commercials featuring happy American Muslims praising the tolerance and friendliness of life in the United States. The magazine, costing millions a year, flopped by emphasizing “light” topics and ignoring serious news; the commercials were generally panned as excessively sunny and cheesy. Beers resigned from her post in March 2003. Her successor, Margaret Tutweiler, spent only nine months on the job: She quit in June 2004 after images began to surface from the newly begun war in Iraq of Iraqis tortured in American custody.
President Bush then appointed Karen Hughes, a Texan political journalist and longtime aide. Hughes also wanted to conscript the public relations world to America’s public diplomacy efforts, holding a summit for the private sector on the subject of public diplomacy. little came out of it besides photographs and press releases. Hughes quit in October 2007.
James Glassman was appointed to the post in december 2008, with a single year remaining to the Bush presidency. As he explained in his Second life virtual speech, Glassman’s ideal model for public diplomacy is to “facilitate a broader conversation”—one “that may involve criticism” of the United States and its policies—instead of simply presenting information and opinions to a passive audience. He argues that although terrorist groups like al-Qaida may have been successful in leveraging the internet as a tool for recruitment and propaganda, the message and goals of the United States will fare much better in a “Web 2.0” of social networks, virtual worlds, and personal blogs where conversation flows freely and a wide swath of opinions compete for legitimacy. Glassman has recruited private-sector leaders from tech companies to help see these changes come about.
For example, Glassman enlisted the help of the private sector to organize a summit of 17 young leaders who have used the Ifnternet to bring about social change. These movers and shakers were brought from across the world to New York City to share their stories. They heard from figures ranging from Facebook co-founder dustin Moskovitz to the Obama campaign’s New Media team to representatives from AT&T and Google. Howcast.com, a “how-to” video website, webcast the proceedings and hosted topical discussion forums under the heading “learn How to Change the World.” But the forums receive very few posts. After all, will the world’s revolutionary reformers be eager to take advice from Howcast.com or, for that matter, the U.S. Department of State?
Glassman may be correct that the open, creative Web 2.0 will prove a boon for U.S. public diplomacy. But the way for the State department to “facilitate” such discussion remains murky. How can State encourage conversation without robbing it of authenticity and spontaneity? Just how much criticism should be tolerated in State department-sponsored forums? Glassman presents an alluring vision of Public diplomacy 2.0, but it remains to be seen whether the final product can be as persuasive in practice as it promises in theory. While Glassman has opened up links with businesses to chart the future of public diplomacy online, one businessman has been leading a push to change its practice on the ground.
The Ad Guru
After five decades in the advertising world, Keith Reinhard had reached the top: chairman of ddB Worldwide Communications Group (ddB), one of the world’s largest advertising agencies. during his long career, Reinhard developed the slogan “You deserve a Break Today” for Mcdonald’s and the “like a Good Neighbor, State Farm is There” jingle. In 2002, Reinhard decided to lend his resources and his charm—a blend of Midwestern calm and Madison Avenue energy—to another cause. Reinhard stepped down as ddB chairman to found a new organization: Business for diplomatic Action (BdA).
Reinhard spoke with the Globalist in his Madison Avenue office, recalling the origin of BdA. Reinhard vividly remembers a press conference held by President George W. Bush after 9/11. during the questioning, Bush asked how anyone could harbor resentment against the United States. Said Reinhard: “I thought that if the leader of our country doesn’t understand this, maybe there was a role for us to play, not only in creating an understanding of how America is perceived in the world but also mobilizing the business community to see if we could address some of the problems.” Reinhard felt that the U.S. government could learn a great deal about diplomacy from private
U.S. corporations. “Corporations like Mcdonalds and PepsiCo have no problem working smoothly across countries,” he pointed out. A few years later, BdA has an impressive number of achievements to its name. Some focus on changing the behavior of Americans: For example, BdA created a World Citizens Guide filled with tips on interacting in foreign cultures meant for Americans studying or doing business overseas. Reinhard noted: “Americans make 60 million trips abroad a year, and that’s 60 million opportunities to make a good impression.” Other projects have broader goals. BdA’s Arab & American Business Fellowship sends executives from America and the Arab world to “swap places” and hone their business skills while working for host companies in the United States and the Arab Gulf states. The program hopes one day to become “the Fulbright of the business world,” as BdA Vice President Thomas Miller proudly told the Globalist.
Business for diplomatic Action yearns to see closer cooperation between private and official efforts to improve America’s image abroad. On the government’s side, caution is the order of the day. James Thompson, a director of the State department’s Global Partnership Center, explained to the Globalist: “We have to be very careful in looking at all these partnerships. You don’t want to see your partner on the front page of the New York Times for its child labor violations.”
But BdA’s proposed changes don’t appear nearly as contentious. In particular, BdA has identified America’s border procedures as a major source of frustration and anger against the United States. Horror stories about innocent foreign nationals being interrogated, detained, and otherwise harassed at the U.S. border abound. One Irish professor of literature, a James Joyce expert heading to accept a teaching post at the University of Pennsylvania, was handcuffed at Philadelphia International Airport, jailed, and deported because of a minor technicality on his entry visa.
To address this situation, BdA contacted the U.S. Travel Association (USTA), an industry group. The two organizations offered to lend the services of companies like Marriott and disney to the Office of Customs and Border Protection of the department of Homeland Security, with the goal of training border agents to perform their duties while treating incoming travelers in a friendly, welcoming way. BdA and the USTA proposed that New York’s JFK International Airport be used as a test trial for one year, after which the program, if successful, could be expanded. “At first,” said Reinhard, “we received some interest on the part of Homeland Security. But when it got up to the top, they said: ‘No way. We’ve got one metric here, and we’re not paid to smile.’”
Commented Thompson: “You need a champion at the highest levels to make these things work.” Reinhard contrasts U.S. authorities’ attitudes with those of officials at Shanghai’s airport, where the traveler is invited to press one of four buttons, ranging from a smiley face to a frowning one, to rate the quality of service.
Reinhard is hopeful that the outcome will be different when he makes the offer again to the next administration. But the JFK test program’s fate is a reminder that not all public-private collaborations take off: More than initiative and energy, they require the right institutional mindsets on both sides of the venture. While BdA aims to take business strategies to government programs, others have suggested— and implemented—a more aggressive approach.
Media Matters
Norman Pattiz is a radio mogul with the strong opinions and affable, loud voice that match his profession. The founder of Westwood One, a media giant that bills itself as “America’s largest radio network,” Pattiz is also responsible for dramatically restructuring American broadcasting in the Arab world, scrapping old models while creating two new, private entities to speak to Arabic-speakers on behalf of America.
When Pattiz first joined the Broadcasting Board of Governors in 2000, Voice of America Arabic (VOA Arabic) was the main vector for American broadcasting in the region. This government-run radio station emitted serious news broadcasting and highbrow audio entertainment, with an eye to influencing the elite opinion-shapers of the Arab world. But from Pattiz’s point of view, this limited range was an Achilles heel. “VOA Arabic had a very small audience,” Pattiz told the Globalist. “In deciding on our first step, we talked to academics, focus groups, and others—and we found that nobody had ever really heard of the Voice of America Arabic service.” VOA Arabic, Pattiz decided, would need to be replaced by a station with more widespread appeal, especially to youth.
So Radio Sawa was born, beaming a blend of 75 percent Arabic and Western pop music with short news broadcasts at the top and bottom of the hour, and the venerable VOA Arabic service was slowly pushed to the side. VOA Arabic employees, joined by a cadre of Middle East experts, cried out against the changes. They argued that Radio Sawa, a private company instead of a government-staffed bureau, had unacceptably low journalistic standards; that the quality of the Arabic language used was low; and that its music broadcasts made it indistinguishable from any other pop music channel. Yale students from the region suggest that Sawa’s programming may indeed have blended into the crowd. “It’s just one of those stations you turn on when you want to listen to music,” said Aseel Aburizik, an undergraduate from Jordan. In its effort to capture a large market share, Radio Sawa’s primary objective—to influence attitudes towards the United States—seems to have suffered.
Three years later, Pattiz spearheaded the creation of an Arabic- language satellite TV channel, Alhurra, meaning “The Free One,” combining both projects under the banner of a new private—but Congressionally funded—entity: the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. He credits the speed with which Alhurra was able to reach the air to its private status. Unimpeded by bureaucratic hurdles, Alhurra was able to reach the air in record time. “When VOA started building its TV and internet services, it took them three years, and it never became fully functioning. From the time we swung the first hammer in building Alhurra to the time we went on the air was five months,” Pattiz noted with pride.
But building content has proven harder than building a studio set. Since its foundation, the station has experienced what the journalism organization ProPublica calls a “string of broadcast disasters.” One reporter, covering a conference of Holocaust deniers in Teheran, claimed there was no scientific evidence for the mass killing of Jews. A violently anti-American speech by Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was broadcast uninterrupted and without critical commentary. Officials from Hamas and Islamic Jihad appeared as talk show guests on the channel, receiving an honorarium for their time. ProPublica’s investigation spoke of an “untrained, largely foreign staff with little knowledge of the country whose values and policies they were hired to promote.”
A series of would-be reformers have tried to tackle the post of president of the television station. However, to date, none have been Arabic-speakers, making supervising the station’s content a challenging task. Outside of the bureaucratic structure of the State department, Alhurra and its content have proven out of control in the most literal sense. Yet Alhurra’s lack of oversight is far from its only problem. In addition to the criticism it has received in Washington, many Arabs have dismissed Alhurra as American propaganda. The channel’s mission is a Herculean one, requiring it to please Arab audiences and U.S. taxpayers alike.
To dismiss Sawa and Alhurra as total failures would be both to oversimplify and to judge prematurely. For instance, Radio Sawa has succeeded in its goal of attracting a large listener share in several Arabic-speaking countries, and Alhurra has acquired a significant viewership in Iraq: According to independent polling firm Ipsos- MENA, the station draws more Iraqi viewers than Al Jazeera.
But taken together, the moral of these media sisters’ story seems to be that in public diplomacy private management is not always better. While a commercial approach to broadcasting may be able to win listeners, winning minds requires political as well as marketing expertise. Combining the two effectively may demand an altogether different approach.
A Model for Collaboration
Kristin lord, a foreign policy expert with the Brookings Institute, believes that private-public collaboration in public diplomacy needs its own space in order to thrive. Her proposal: a new nonprofit organization, dubbed the “USA-World Trust.” This institution would be funded by Congress to the tune of $50 million a year—and take private donations as well—while remaining independent of official public diplomacy structures. The Trust’s mission would be to foster understanding between America and the world by serving as a site where the best of private- and government-led approaches to public diplomacy can interact.
“There are civic-minded CEOs out there who want to be helpful,” lord explained to the Globalist. “But they want to help in a way that doesn’t undermine their own business.” Businesses that covet the status of a “global company” would find it detrimental to be closely associated with a particular country’s foreign policy agenda. “If there were a neutral space to send people,” explained lord, companies could send staff to assist government projects “without having to wear a badge.”
More than a channel for technical assistance, lord envisions the Trust as a way to use the creativity and imagination of American companies to repair America’s image abroad. She remembers the first time she saw “30 days,” an American reality television show which places subjects in a radically unfamiliar environment for one month. The show addresses charged topics like race, religion, sexuality, and disability, and brings its participants to see America from someone else’s point of view. “I thought: ‘Why isn’t it someone’s job to distribute this overseas?’” recalls lord. “Back in the 1950s, during the Cold War, the U.S. government would directly commission the creation of documentaries meant to improve our image abroad. Today, we have limited resources but a much more vibrant and diverse media sector. Why not take advantage of it?”
If lord’s vision were to become a reality, it would serve as a kind of investment fund, one that invests in the projects most likely to lead to better understanding between U.S. citizens and those of other countries. The Trust would be able to fund concerts, newscasts, exchanges, films, textbooks, and anything else it deemed advantageous to U.S. public diplomacy. As it stands today, “the State department is a very, very risk-averse place,” said lord with the tone of someone who speaks from first-hand experience. “You can see why: They represent the government of the United States, so they can’t afford to make many mistakes.”
The USA-World Trust, on the other hand, would be free to take bold and creative action without facing entrenched bureaucratic resistance. America’s public image would have two guardians: a department of State, endowed with the official gravitas of the U.S. government, and a USA-World Trust embracing the risk-taking spirit of a business. In the future, perhaps the James Glassmans and Rita Kings of America will find their energies combined.
Alexander Soble is a junior in Trumbull College double majoring in South Asian Studies and Ethics, Politics, and Economics.