Jump to content

Talk:Voice of America

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

US Backed State Media

[edit]

@JArthur1984: your recent edit demonstrates that you misunderstood a basic fact.

Would you please pin point to me where you got that the Voice of America is "an agency"?

It is financed by an agency called the U.S. Agency for Global Media. There's a big difference here!

Everything was already referenced in the lead.

The version before your edit had the following: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

Currently is it as follows: Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is an international radio broadcasting state media agency funded by the United States of America. [...] It is financed by the U.S. Agency for Global Media after the approval of the Congress.

To label it "state media" in the first sentence is misleading. It is governed by an independent state agency after the approval of the congress. Is it too hard to distinguish between this democratic process and the direct influence of the state media as a mouthpiece of the government? An example of the latter is

where such sources are mouthpieces of their own governments, aren't critical of them, whereas the Voice of America reports about everything, whether it's critical or not. These are simply basics.

--Esperfulmo (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of the of the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM). But there are plenty of words other than agency -- "network," "broadcaster," or "institution" could all work instead of "agency" without losing any meaning.
VOA is state-media. There are no efforts made to compare it to your other examples, so I'm not clear why you bring these up. There are numerous kinds of state-media, with more or less government editorial control, depending. State-media is not the same as "mouthpiece," and it's not necessarily a pejorative term (this depends on the reader's perspective). You can familiarize yourself with wikilinked state media article to develop a sense of the different state media approaches that exist. JArthur1984 (talk) 01:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is just not supported by sources. Most sources call it an 'international broadcaster' - certainly no consensus to be found on including state media in the first sentence. If anything, this should be a section that outlines the dispute with reliable sources before summarizing in the lead (I have reworked that sentence to remove the term state-media). Superb Owl (talk) 14:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special English

[edit]

Needs a section about Special English, which started in 1959. The VOA's use of Special English has helped millions of people learn English. TDKehoe (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Trump has shut this, article needs update

[edit]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvge4l109r3o Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not been disestablished as that’s not in his power, it’s been cut to the legal minimum. Secretlondon (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel @MaeseLeon @Secretlondon The network has not been shut down and media has not described it as being shut down. The article linked and other articles write about "moves to close down", "dismantling", and "slashing", but as @Secretlondon has written, it is not within Trump's power to officially disestablish the agency and rather he has shuttered federal funding. Granted, it is effectively inactive given that virtually all staff have been put on leave, but from a legal standpoint, I think that for now we should avoid labelling it as 'dissolved', and 'disestablished', at least until it is described as such by reliable news sources. As such, I will be reverting the recent changes to change descriptions of the article to put it in past-tense, but if you disagree with my decision, please feel free to file a dispute resolution request. I request that you refrain from making the edits in question until the dispute has been resolved, given that the suggested changes are the ones in contention. ⌨️NuclearSpuds🎙️ 11:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of splitting hairs, but OK. However, it needs to be added that all their services and stations stopped broadcasting by March 16, effectively taking them off air. The Voice of America going silent is big, is historical, and it's already impacting America's rep around the world. MaeseLeon (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
VOA hasn't actually stopped broadcasting, at least not yet. The sources actually say news programming (on some broadcasts at least) have been replaced by music. Legally the administration can't close VOA without an act of Congress. They have effectively suspended regular programming but it is still on the air, even if it's just music and reruns. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The radio station in kuwait is literally shut down, the frequency it used to be on is pure static. You or others interested in this might do some research before you make a false claim. It is not ‘on air’ and there is no music or reruns. If this is just kuwait, okay, but I have no information in other countries because I don’t live there. 37.39.161.80 (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're responding to a three-month-old comment. Funcrunch (talk) 05:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree just make sure changes are sourced ⌨️NuclearSpuds🎙️ 19:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary to review Wikipedia:CRYSTALBALL. It is good for the article to reflect the administration's statements and the fact of staff being placed on leave, and so forth. But until it is in fact shut down, we cannot say it is shut down. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with all of the above, as long as the article tries to stay current. - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the actual source articles and not just the headlines. VoA is not literally silent and has not stopped broadcasting. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"is historical, and it's already impacting America's rep around the world." Not really. I live in Greece. Most of the local news shows and talk shows have been saying that America's soft power is in decline or nonexistent since Joe Biden's term in office ended. Dimadick (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR program On the Mediahad an extensive discussion with a historian and reporters about the history and current situation of VOA (and then about RFA [Radio Free Asia]) on 23 March 2025. Kdammers (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article organization

[edit]

Just did some organizational edits. You can see the before and after if you look at the ToC of those two versions. The organization seemed a little haphazard, with random things broken out for a 1-2 sentence top-level section and various elements that could go in any of "history", "regions", or "controversies". So I moved all of the 1-2 sentence top-level sections elsewhere, moved a few bits around between those three big sections, and noticed that everything under "controversies" actually fits in either history or regions. Regions was really just about region-specific controversies anyway, so I retitled that heading. An observation: the section on the first Trump presidency is just too long; beyond that section, there's a clear WP:RECENTISM bias in the article -- VOA is an old organization with an important history, but events of the last 10 years take up a huge part of the article. One possible approach is to start better summarizing/condensing/trimming, but another is to create spinoff article on Voice of America under Donald Trump, covering both administrations, and then summarizing that here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:54, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being vandalized in to make it seem controversial from a POV perspective

[edit]

I can't make conclusions, but I feel its like people aligned with Trump or Musk are being sent to vandalize it. Voice of America is after all one of their targets. The page never had this kind of vandalism until they targeted it, which is another reason why I very suspicious after the intent of the editing. The article needs to be written in NPOV fashion and not mainly hyping controversy.MyGosh789 (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To sort out some wikijargon first, vandalism is intentionally harmful edits. It is something that doesn't fall along left/right lines. More like blanking a page and replacing it with "school sux" or something. It's different from non-neutral editing. To address the latter, the best thing to do is to identify specific quotes from the article and tell us either (a) why they are not a neutral summary of the cited sources, or (b) how other sources should be considered which present a different perspective. (i.e. it's all about the best way to identify reliable sources and summarize those sources -- and none of that is possible with general allegations of bias). Looking again, I see you made some really bizarre edits like this, adding tons of duplicate content, undoing organizational edits, etc. with a vague edit summary. What exactly are you trying to do? (because I imagine making a mess is not your intention). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well it already has clear POV bias "initially served as an anti-propaganda tool" right... only bad guys do propaganda, good guys propaganda is anti-propaganda hahahah 178.219.132.97 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being anti-propaganda doesn't mean that it is not itself propaganda. It's just a different type. More or less the idea is the best way to show people [living in places where their governments use propaganda to distort the truth] what a truly free country looks like is to demonstrate that freedom with independent, objective news and culture. Whether it lives up to that goal is another story, of course. IMO if I'm responding to two different people in the same section who think it's biased in opposite ways, we're probably doing ok. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you admit something is a form of propaganda here but in article just state "anti-propaganda" this is beneficial framing for this thing, right?
Idk if getting criticism from both sides means it's correct, supposedly goal is the truth, not being in the middle...
I get that this is still somewhat heated issue in USA, hopefully once things calm down and it's no longer part of ongoing political debate this article will be re-evaluated and phrased in more neutral tone.
178.219.132.97 (talk) 10:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Needs update

[edit]

The article claims that a court order requires the network to be reopened, but so far this has not happened (VOA TV online just shows trailers in an endless loop and the satellite feed displays a test card). The current situation should be mentioned. --188.23.238.167 (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added an update about the Appeals Court's stay on the ruling. 📻NuclearSpuds🎙️ 22:19, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --188.23.238.167 (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed explanation of the propaganda function

[edit]

@NuclearSpuds: I see you removed this text:

Its policies are designed to serve a propaganda function for the United States not by manipulating listeners or through always presenting the US in a positive light, but by demonstrating one of its core values: the freedom of the press. Aimed at people living in places where the government tightly controls what the press can say, it aims to become a trusted source of objective information rather than a channel for more traditional propaganda that only serves state interests.

Two sources are cited (the one which communicates this most explicitly is an interview with historian Nicole Hemmer), and the same idea is present in many sources. It's the whole idea -- state propaganda that's propaganda because it demonstrates freedom rather than manipulates, i.e. propaganda via commitment to journalistic standards. Can you elaborate as to why such an explanation doesn't belong? If it's the precise wording, perhaps you can propose an alternative way to say it? Nobody is "advertising" a doomed state media outlet here. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:34, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearSpuds: bumping this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:21, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Rhododendrites, sorry for taking a minute to respond; I was writing up a response and got sidetracked.  I removed that section because it used language that I thought sounded very promotional. I don't mean to suggest that it was written as advertising, just that the way it is written comes across as focusing on promoting America instead of laying out a factual description of the media outlet. For example:
"not by manipulating listeners or through always presenting the US in a positive light, but by demonstrating one of its core values: the freedom of the press."
"it aims to become a trusted source of objective information rather than a channel for more traditional propaganda that only serves state interests."
The "this rather than that" sentence structure seems to communicate a notion of exceptionalism.  This language and other editorial liberties like describing it as a display of American core values raised a flag for me while reading it. Tone aside, I could go either way on the content; personally I don’t think the information given is terribly valuable since it relies on a handful of individuals’ interpretations of VOA’s purpose, rather than official statements, but if you think it’s good for the article then I would be fine with keeping it. 📻NuclearSpuds🎙️ 19:47, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NuclearSpuds: Ditto on the taking a minute. :) The challenge is that VOA was explicitly set up to take a different approach to propaganda than other broadcasters. So how to explain that approach without sounding promotional? The idea of VOA being a better ad for the US because it's true and even sometimes critical of US is pretty unusual (and, indeed, probably led to its own demise). In other words, it is (or was) exceptional, not because the US is exceptional but because its propagandistic approach is unusual. It's hard to word that in a way that couldn't be confused with promotion, but it's also just a straightforward description of its strategy for most of its existence. (Whether it always lived up to its own standards is a separate question, and indeed we spend an awful lot of space on those issues, which further IMO makes it clear we're not promoting anything). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:23, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations?

[edit]

@Superb Owl: Which policy says that a humanities/social sciences journal article is not reliable and should be replaced if it has fewer than X citations? That's a first for me. (Which isn't to say I think those region-specific reception sections are ideal). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:16, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

VOA under the Biden Administration.

[edit]

It would be nice to have more text describing VOA during the Biden administration. 2605:A000:BFC0:21:C94D:52F:CA1F:5155 (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voice_of_America&oldid=1303941636"