The purpose of VOA is for American Propaganda. I think this is the common ground for all of us here.

The VOA, strictly speaking from an unbiased 3rd person, is a government apparatus, for the purpose of turning citizens of another country against its government. You can justify it however you like, for as you know, history is written by the winner, and America might not be the winner of hearts, but is definitely the winners of war. But in the end, that's what it boils down to: Its propaganda that you believe in, streamed to another person's nation, hoping that those people would revolt against the current government that your country at the moment have a conflict of interest.

So in my perspective, your article is similar in degree to those people who want to skirt the Miranda rights just so police have an easier time convicting felons.

This might be true, but the reason America is great nation it is, despite all its flaws, is because of exactly these things, things that in peace time look outdated and inconvenient, but are the control points which secures it as the most democratic nation, where the law takes care of the people with a forward thinking mechanism.

I would hate to be in a life boat with Matt Armstrong. He'd probably throw the fresh water over edge shouting "The ocean is made of water"

He makes a number of incredibly bad comparisons. The VOA is a weapon. We use it to destroy or enemies. As such we don't just let anyone muck around with it.

The BBC however is subject to near endless investigation. Inaccurate or biased reporting is investigate mercilessly and misconduct by the BBC can bring down a government.

Not only does the VOA lie in service of foreign policy interest there is virtually no way to now when, if and why they are lying.

When you read newspapers and webpages of foreign governments and militant organizations you know they may be biased, but a VOA broadcast would seem as though it is news produced by America, which is what it is supposed to look like.

In a free market free almost always beats not free. In a tightening media market the VOA wouldn't supplement news organizations it would replace them.

If you want to provide objective news in different languages do like the BBC and pay for it. I will be happy to live in a country again where health care is paid through a progressive income tax but the right to use a television is taxed by a flat fee. A 200 a yer incentive not to have a television might even get some people to read.

Mr. Armstrong makes a very compelling argument, one that is poorly dealt with by the reviewers above. To clarify, Armstrong's argument is for making US funded international journalism more accessible to those in the US that desire it, not that VOA or anybody else receive a direct-to-air medium for channeling its news to Americans. The Somali example is a good one as to why times have changed, its not 1948, and there is a legitimate need for VOA broadcasts, in some circumstances, to be available to private, domestic broadcasters, in the name of national security. First some facts:

CKWEBBIT: "The VOA, strictly speaking from an unbiased 3rd person, is a government apparatus, for the purpose of turning citizens of another country against its government." FALSE. I assume you are referring to RFE/RL during the Cold War, not VOA. RFE/RL did, in some cases, provided information and helped organize and mobilize opposition to communist regimes. The VOA was more tame -- more about news and stating facts about American policy. Brush up on your history. Second, Mr. CKWEBBIT, the idea that the status quo protects Americans from government propaganda is an utter joke. The war in Iraq is a terrific example of how, if the government wants, it can spin the US media any which way it likes. Let us, for once and for all, move past the idea that Americans (or anyone) need protection from particular media (be it Americans being protected from VOA or Arabs from Al Jazeera) and begin a conversation about the importance of integrating media literacy into the curriculum at a young age. Let's teach our children to sniff out propaganda from the outset rather than try to hide them from it. As Armstrong states clearly, propaganda is already all over our satellite systems, from China's CCTV to Russia's Russia Today (RT). Press TV, Iran's English language broadcaster is even available throughout the US via Livestation. If you want to argue for protection against propaganda, I suggest you refocus your criticism.

Mr. RLHOTCHKISS: "Not only does the VOA lie in service of foreign policy interest there is virtually no way to now when, if and why they are lying." FALSE. First, I presume you meant know, not now. Second, you are wrong. The State Department has very little input over the VOA. In fact, the British Foreign Office has had as much influence over the BBC’s broadcasts as the State Department has had over VOA. Third, there are many ways to know when any news media is being deceitful -- you compare it to other, credible sources. As an important example, the VOA corrected the mainstream media last month regarding a poll in Honduras after the coup (http://kimelli.nfshost.com/index.php?id=6988). Let me restate: the CSM, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and Reuters got it wrong and VOA got it right. You also state: "If you want to provide objective news in different languages do like the BBC and pay for it." We DO PAY FOR IT. With taxes. $700 million a year. But you can't read/view it due to the Smith Mundt Act, so who knows if your taxes are being spent well. In the simple argument of transparency, so that we intelligent FP readers can read/watch American international broadcasting and evaluate, criticize and thus improve existing efforts, please let the domestic media pick up US international broadcasters with more ease.