Jessica Haney | March 26, 2010
 |
| Photo by Jessica Haney |
| Assistant professor Emily Metzgar, standing, presented her research Wednesday as part of the school’s research colloquia series. |
Related |
Assistant professor Emily Metzgar presented her research on public diplomacy in the American context Wednesday in the Ernie Pyle lounge as part of the School of Journalism’s research colloquia series.
Public diplomacy is like traditional diplomacy in that it attempts to manage an international environment through engagement with a foreign nation, as Metzgar explained, but public diplomacy is not always official or governmental. Public diplomacy entails a two-way exchange of information and a mutual understanding between countries.
The United States uses methods of public diplomacy—such as the Fulbright exchange and state-sponsored broadcasts—to disseminate the goals and principles of the American people in hopes of interacting more peacefully with other nations. But as it turns out, government-run public diplomacy may not be so public and accessible to Americans.
Metzgar said as a part of the Smith-Mundt Act, which governs the production and dissemination of international American broadcasts, Americans cannot access what these other countries are learning about the U.S. through programs such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Alhurra Television. The agency that regulates these broadcasts is the Broadcasting Board and Governors, whose mission is to promote democracy, fair press and basic human rights in other parts of the world where they might be threatened.
“The irony, of course, is that the United States is broadcasting all this—and the American public doesn’t have access,” said Metzgar.
This detail of the act is understood as protecting Americans from government propaganda, but Metzgar said there were actually other interests at stake, like private companies. But it asks the question assistant professor Mike Conway posed: “Is it a secretive thing what they’re doing?”
Doctoral candidate Lindita Camaj said as taxpayers, Americans should have the right to know how the government spends their money. This lack of access seems like a breach of that right. “It sounds very strange in a democracy,” said Camaj.
Metzgar went on to explore how public diplomacy is viewed in the United States. While public diplomacy seems like a very academic subject, it actually extends into multiple discourses, including policy.
“That also means it’s a moving target from a research standpoint,” said Metzgar.
Metzgar conceded that public diplomacy is a very hard concept to measure. But it is becoming more recognizable, as University of Southern California now has a master’s degree track on public diplomacy.
For her research model, Metzgar conducted a content analysis of public diplomacy in mainstream newspapers, focusing on how frequently the term appeared and in what context. She also paid attention to how public diplomacy was defined, what tone it conveyed, and if any policy recommendations accompanied the term.
What she found were general trends indicating where the U.S. stands on this concept. Results of the content analysis tied public diplomacy to the baggage of propaganda, mismanagement at the Broadcasting Board of Governors, lack of access to the international government-sponsored broadcasts, and new media ideas, among other findings.
There is frustration with the government on its public diplomacy strategies because, as Metzgar said, there is a lack of data on the effectiveness of the international broadcasts.
“I suspect that the real numbers are disturbingly low,” said Metzgar.
The School of Journalism research colloquia were started early this year as a way to provide researchers a venue for presenting their research and garnering feedback from colleagues. The next one is April 14 and features the work of associate professor Tony Fargo and doctoral student Jason Martin.
Questions? Comments? Email the Web editor.
