The international news will not be televised

Thu, 06/04/2009 - 4:41pm

If the United States wants to listen to the world, maybe it should start by watching first.

By Cyril Blet

When U.S. President Barack Obama spoke in Cairo this week, he delivered a message of openness. "There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground," he told a global audience of billions. But if he convinced his listeners abroad, a lingering irony will catch up with the president upon his return home: Americans themselves are literally disconnected from foreign news; they are not "listening" at all. Foreign news stations are not broadcast in the United States, meaning that for all but the extended-cable watcher, seeing things from another point of view is, well, impossible.

To call for more international news channels on U.S. television might sound a bit outdated in the era of Web-based and mobile video services. After all, Al Jazeera English already claims that at least half of its Web traffic, or 11 million visitors a month, comes from North America-based IP addresses. Still, U.S. television remains the primary source from which most Americans get their video news; Watching news videos on YouTube or LiveStation is popular only among a small tech-savvy elite.

In the rest of the world, a plethora of international media channels is the televised norm. BBC World, France 24, Al Jazeera and the Chinese state provider, CCTV, all broadcast in Africa. Virtually all international news channels can be found on European TV. Germany, France and Britain have each launched Arabic-language news channels in the Middle East. And many international carriers now deliver international outlets' programming to Asian and Latin American broadcasters.

Pity the United States, where programs from such stations as Al Jazeera English, BBC World, and France 24 are only on special cable packages or squeezed into few-minute slots on local PBS channels - if they're available at all. In Washington, for example, cable provider RCN offers France 24 as part of standard cable, but customers pay extra for BBC America, and Al Jazeera is just absent. Another provider, Cablevision, only offers Euronews and BBC World.

Add the fact that, according to the Pew Research Center's latest annual report on news media, U.S. cable networks spent only 8 percent of their time on foreign coverage in 2008, and you get a United States that is wholly detached from the global news conversation. Since, international news channels, by comparison, dedicate the bulk of their editorial content to world events, the result is a growing gap between what U.S. residents and most global TV-viewers see and think about.

The solution sounds easy: just introduce more foreign news channels. But cable companies claim that international stations simply do not attract large enough audiences for advertisers to be enticed. Offering foreign news in any but the most expanded cable packages would be a profit-losing venture. Instead, cable companies have invited foreign channels to be featured in a pay-extra international news tier, but the international stations balk at that plan, insisting that they deserve to be wrapped in the same package as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC. That leaves the option of foreign channels paying the cable operators to broadcast their content - a hard sell to the stations' funders abroad.

A shift in the current cable regulatory policy could change the game. The Federal Communications Commission that regulates U.S. cable companies allows them to operate on a broad tier basis, where channels are packaged in bundles ranging from basic to expanded (foreign news relegated to the latter). One solution would be à la carte pricing - selling each channel individually - an option that would enable consumers to receive Al Jazeera's or Japanese NHK's programs if they'd like.

When American viewers can't access international news, their ability to take part in global conversations suffers greatly. The average U.S. television-watcher doesn't ever see the diverse interpretations of any single event that filter in to most TVs across the world. So if ever the U.S. administration wants Americans to "listen" to the world abroad, it might start by providing them the soundtrack.

Cyril Blet is author of Une Voix Mondiale Pour un État, (A World Voice for a State), a book profiling the world news landscape, with a focus on France 24.

Photo: TENGKU BAHAR/AFP/Getty Images



Advertisement

 

True, but it's a two-way street

Unfortunately, the international broadcasters have less of a leg to stand on after the BBC (2001), Deutsche Welle (2004) and Radio Netherlands (2008) all ceased their shortwave radio transmissions to North America. Their stated reason? You guessed it: Rebroadcasts on NPR affiliates and the "small tech-savvy elite" that sought them out online. Now they turn around and demand bandwidth from the cable operators? Karma's a b****.

That said, Al Jazeera English and Russia Today are both available on what's called "free-to-air satellite." Haven't done it myself, but you really can get them free after investing about $200 for the equipment.

Dear Cyril, well said. And

Dear Cyril, well said. And the worst part is, our foreign counterparts are well aware of our myopia. It's one more source of derision for Americans that go abroad--that people of other nations, for instance, track the intricacies of our Presidential primary, while the average American probably could not name a foreign leader to begin with. I couldn't get into a cab in Jordan last year without the cabbie turning around and asking, "Hilary or Obama?"

We already know that cable companies offer 300 channels of garbage but balk at the thought of providing informative content, such as what's going on outside the American bubble. It's the same argument that network news makes--Americans aren't "interested" in international news. Well it's sort of hard to know what viewers are interested in if local sensationalist coverage is all we ever get.

The solution is to not subscribe to cable (everything they offer is online in any case) or watch network tv, now that we have the internet. For those that are happy to watch tv news all day, the media are probably right about them.

On another note, the only American news station available in Israel is Fox. Coincidence? I think not.

All hope is not lost...

I'd like to agree and say that cable should offer more international news, but then, it would be for the benefit of those strange people who still own televisions and purchase cable. International news might not be freely available to the American public on cable, but it's not hard to access via the internet. Yesterday morning, I got up at 3:00 a.m. to watch al-Jazeera coverage of Obama, before switching over to the speech on CNN. Afterwards, an easy google news search allowed me to track and read reactions from newspapers across the globe, essentially in real time. And thanks to the availability of free webpage translation technology, I can get the general gist of reactions and blog comments in languages other than English. Bottom line: if the inclination to pursue it is there, so is the access to international news.

Pity?

I do agree its unfortunate that we have access to much less international news than in other countries, and as someone with an admittedly unhealthy addiction to the BBC, I wish problems of access weren't there.

I actually agree with cpol on this, though I think the idea of withdrawing from the cable world completely is a little much. I truly believe that Americans would develop a newfound interest in foreign affairs if the cable companies here would step up. I don't want to point any fingers here, but its Cablevision's fault (at least where I'm at). Euronews and BBC World is an OK step, but the other 300 channels of useless garbage squelch out any utility that we get from those two channels.

I agree up to a point;

I agree up to a point; obviously, in this day and age, people should be able to access news from wherever, as long as they're willing to pay for it. However, there should be a distinction between access to news outlets that are sponsored by foreign governments and private news outlets.

Audience & support already there

I absolutely agree that Americans need greater exposure to a wider variety of news sources and international content to remain a viable voice with policymakers, as we shape the new face of U.S. foreign policy.

In pursuit of broader international education and understanding, MHz Networks offers not just one, but ten channels of premier international programming in Washington, D.C., all of which have been extremely well received by consumers and integrated underwriters alike.

Making this content available has never been more important and is the core of our educational mission.

Beginning July 1, MHz Networks will launch Al Jazeera English– joining our nine other 24/7 channels, including: euronews, France 24, NHK World TV, MCN, NTA, RT, SABC News International and VTV- in the Washington, D.C. market. On June 12, all 10 MHz Networks channels are available via digital broadcast...for free. Our channels are also available through all cable and telco providers in the area.

I disagree with the tone that international programming doesn’t capture advertisers and ultimately, a faithful set of viewers. The MHz business model is a viable plan, and is one that we have innovatively adopted in over 27 million households across the country via broadcast and cable distribution of our national channel (and that number continues to grow.)

While any actions by the FCC to make it easier to incorporate international programming are to be applauded, the truth is: a globally-minded audience and the related support is already there.

Stephanie Misar
Marketing Director
www.mhznetworks.org

keep up the good

keep up the good work

UltraSurf