Ping-Pong Diplomacy

Taken at an event marking the 30th Anniversary of Ping-Pong Diplomacy

Have you ever heard of Ping-Pong Diplomacy? Well, until I read Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy by Peter Kovach I hadn’t. While explaining the importance of the symbolic subset of cultural diplomacy, Kovach refers to the historical example of ping-pong diplomacy, which occurred in the 1970s prior to former President Nixon and Chairman Mao’s diplomatic opening. The reference to this exchange made me wonder what exactly this event entailed.

Like I stated previously, ping-pong diplomacy refers to one event, the exchange of ping-pong players between the US and the PRC in the 1970s which paved the way for Nixons visit to Beijing. Sports played a very important role in diplomacy in China at that time and the slogan “Friendship First, Competition Second” was often stated. The US table tennis team was the first American sports delegation to go to China since 1949 and the meeting was run by the National Committee on United States-China relations.

At the time of the event, Premier Zhou Enlai noted, "Our table tennis team represents our country and our people.”[1] When the US delegation arrived in China, at the reception Zhou stated, “Your visit has opened the door to friendship between the peoples of the two countries."[2] A few hours after the reception, Nixon then announced the relaxing of the embargo against China.

This one event is known to have restored relations between the two countries. It is amazing how powerful interactions between citizens can be, and that those interactions can then pave the way for government relations. This invitation “opened doors of access” and allowed for dialogue for years to come.[3] Each cultural diplomacy effort create different symbolic importance; yet, by allowing oneself to understand what events create what, nations will be able to continue and prosper in their cultural diplomacy endeavors.

---

[1] Ping Pong Diplomacy. China through a lens. July 8, 2004. http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/olympics/100660.htm

[2] Ping Pong Diplomacy.

[3] Peter Kovach, “Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy” PD Magazine (Winter 2010)

Cultural Diplomacy

According to Arndt’s article on the hush hush of cultural diplomacy it seems as though this aspect of diplomacy is being swept under the rug even though its role in PD is an important one. As a student of international communications however, it is hard for me to understand why the US government would not take a stronger stance in putting more money into cultural diplomacy and implementing cultural programs around the world. If this is what many other countries value and are doing, perhaps the US needs to figure out a way to assess what makes up American culture (something that many people actually have a hard time describing) and imitate the rest of the world in portraying that culture proudly as a way to gain mutual respect. One would think that culture would be a foundation for other PD efforts especially when we want to focus on our relationship with high context countries- countries that are more intrigued by ‘who’ a person is than what they do. Cultural factors demonstrate what we find important, and can describe the way we think, which is also important to relationship building with other countries. The first step is recognizing the importance of cultural diplomacy. The second step would be to understand HOW to effectively implement cultural diplomacy around the world. Kovach offers a new way to present ourselves culturally on two levels: human and symbolic.

And that's the way it... was

... or rather the original quote reads: "And that's the way it is."


As anchorman of CBS Evening News, these are the words Walter Cronkite used for decades to conclude his newscasts. Today, the concept behind this catchphrase is obsolete, as nothing in media, especially news broadcasting, remains static for very long. In Media and Globalization, Peter van Ham uses this example to show how media revolutions, most recently the Internet and blogs, are changing the way people inform themselves.

Margaret Meade in her quote, as seen above at the Newseum in Washington DC, highlights the positive in witnessing events as they happen. But, the same characteristics which promote the free flow of information and make our media environment a virtual public sphere, also pull control away from the government. When media control is not monopolized by the state, this decreases their social power, and with it the capacity for agenda-setting. Van Ham describes how the role of media as an avenue of social power is manifested in two ways: states managing and protecting their own information space, and policies to influence the media space of others. Both are affected by new technology and media transformations.

In recognition of these changes, Walter Isaacson in his speech at the 60th anniversary of Radio Free Europe (RFE) advocates taking steps to facilitate the conversations that don’t just disseminate, but share news and ideas. As he begins to patriotically wax poetic about the free flow of information as a driver of tolerance and democracy, ergo American values, he does make several points clear. He thinks credibility is king, so RFE needs to continue to do what it does well through television and radio. He also thinks that it would be foolish to ignore new methods of communication, and that promoting the free flow of information through peer-to-peer sharing, will have a positive affect on credibility, as well.

How does advocacy journalism relate to global influence and international broadcasting?

I attended the Advocacy Journalism in the Digital Age conference on March 1, 2011. The conference brought together traditional journalists with advocacy journalists, along with media makers who fit in between these delineations. Some of the ideas we discussed in our class on international broadcasting and global influence crossed over with the ideas discussed at the conference. And they also related to the Napoli article in terms of looking at how audiences have and are evolving and the way that media content providers deal with these changes.

Napoli looks at how media producers in the past looked at success in reaching audience in terms of simply the number of viewers. Napoli articulates that despite some resistance, audience measurement has evolved to include parameters such as audience participation and engagement with the content.[1]

We discussed in class that all media spaces are not alike, and asked why so many media spaces are lacking international content. Many of the presenters at the conference on March 1st believe in their role as conduits, where they give people access to information. Some of the more traditional journalists made sure to clarify that they were NOT aggregators of information, while some of the hybrid journalists embraced this term. John Sawyer, executive director at the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting, sees his role as an advocate for issue awareness. He wants to engage the broadest public possible and to fill in gaps in coverage. He funds traditional journalists to report on issues, such as HIV/AIDS in Haiti. He feels this approach gives more credibility and integrity to the reporting. He discussed how news agencies get many stories from independent journalists and he is happy to have the reporting repurposed in multiple contexts. While Sawyer’s work is important, his approach still rests on a one-to-many approach, where the journalist is providing content in a unidirectional way.

On the other side of the spectrum, Wendy Hanamura, General manager of Linktv and VP of viewchange.org, believes the issue is to give audiences a trusted pipeline, or a go-to point, to find stories. She sees her role as a curator of stories. Viewchange is about crowdsourcing, citizen journalism and user-generated content. Her approach seems to embrace the evolution of audience in terms of measuring the success of programming through participatory processes. There are multiple layers to this participation. She demonstrated how the viewchange website is based on semantic, which means that the codewriters look at the context of words and link that context to data in a dynamic way. The site has a “Social Actions API”, which finds action items, and aggregates of actions. For example, if you watch a video on Haiti, you can add a link to the video to your facebook page. There are also links to youtube, wiki and to advocacy. The model encourages not only active collaboration, but also action. The other participatory aspect of this site is that they use open source, so the code is shared and improved in the open source community.

How does all of this relate to PD? In Robert Entman’s article, “Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The U.S. Case”[2], Entman looks at a theory of “mediated public diplomacy”, which he defines as “using mass communication (including the internet) to increase support of a country’s specific foreign policies among audiences beyond that country’s borders.” (p.88) His Cascading Network Activation model considers the hierarchies and power structures involved in getting a political message out to both domestic and foreign audiences. He looks at the importance of culture and context in creating effective frames and having a “degree of success” (p.96). He points out in his conclusion that it is hard to create frames that compete effectively in the global media space.

The panelists at the advocacy journalism conference were discussing how to reach audience and how to get messages out to audiences in order to not only inform, but also to encourage collaboration and action. Pulling all of these ideas together I wonder if PD then must become a form of advocacy journalism. While the idea for international broadcasters has been to maintain credibility as practitioners of traditional journalism, perhaps there is room for advocacy journalism, such as viewchange and other groups creating content that can build bridges between people working on similar causes.

1. Entman, Robert M. “Theorizing Mediated Public Diplomacy: The U.S. Case.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 13 (2008): 87-102.

2. Napoli, Philip M. “Toward a Model of Audience Evolution: New Technologies and The Transformation of Media Audiences.” McGannon Center Working Paper Series Paper 15 (July 1, 2008). http://fordham.bepress.com/mcgannon_working_papers/15.

Out from Behind the Doors of the Residence: Art as Cultural Diplomacy in the UK

In his fine article "Out from Under the Proscenium: A Paradigm for U.S. Cultural Diplomacy," Peter Kovach lays out a pretty solid working model of a new frontier for cultural diplomacy. He emphasizes a move away from the old Cold War model of CD and toward one that focuses strongly on engagement--a term that is usually more associated with the exchanges part of public diplomacy. I had always considered cultural diplomacy to be a more one-way flow of information--jazz tours, art exhibits, etc--so while I first sort of went "huh?" at his suggestion, the more I read the more I thought he was onto something good. It will take American culture out of the movie theater and off the pedestal, so to speak; as Kovach says, "We must do this in the spirit of wanting to be known and wanting, in turn, to know others." His plan seems to couple the exchanges and other people-to-people programs with traditional cultural diplomacy subjects, and I think it's an excellent idea.

Then, while scrolling through the latest John Brown review, I spotted this article that to me shows what's wrong with the old method of cultural diplomacy. Senior FSO Patricia Kushlis critiques the placement of the US ambassador to the UK's American art collection--not just his own private collection, but works from museums, galleries and other sources, procured through the State Department's Art in Embassies program. While she notes that the collection is impressive, she wonders--rightfully, I think--why it has not been made more accessible to the public. Here's a great opportunity to showcase some of the best of American art--which according to Kushlis is hard to come by in major museums in London--and it's staying in the Susmans' residence, only to be seen by those who get invited there for events. Kushlis doesn't suggest that the residence be opened to the public, since security has been tight in residences even since before 9/11. (John Brown felt it was more feasible--see his lively discussion with Kushlis in the comments.) but that a public-private sector initiative be started that places a permanent collection of art in a well-known London gallery, complete with room for temporary exhibitions and other programs about American art and culture. She argues that this could be a step in the right direction for a better U.S. pavilion at the next World Expo, in Milan in 2016: "...it seems to me that both are important enough in terms of American image building among the public and the elite groups –in a non-propagandist way – to be taken seriously and handled right."

I completely agree with Kushlis' suggestion, and would even take it one step further by implementing some of Kovach's ideas in the process. Perhaps the PAO/CAO in London, and/or the consulates in Edinburgh and Belfast, could establish partnerships between young American and British artists, including long-term exchanges with the best art programs at universities in both countries. The emphasis, as Kovach stated, would be on co-creation, with the aim of showcasing their work in temporary exhibitions--including at that London gallery at which Kushlis suggests the permanent American art collection could be housed. Hopefully, these collaborations could lead to long-term partnerships and a better understanding of both countries--especially important in the case of the UK, our closest ally. (It could of course be implemented in other countries as well.) In order to get "out from under the proscenium" as Kovach says, we need more creativity and energy in our cultural diplomacy, and breathing life into our art programs would be a great place to start.

The Media Battlefield

In order to win the war against terrorism, the war for democracy, or whatever you want to call it; the United States has got to evaluate its use of the media as its most important weapon of choice. As van Ham mentions, our enemies are becoming media gurus, using satellite tv, video and mobile technology, and websites as a means to get their messages across in the most efficient way possible. Revolutions are begun and sustained through these media tools, allowing people to tune in and out to the messages they want to believe.

What's interesting however, is that the means is not necessarily the most important part of this battle. It has all become one big cyber race for the hearts and minds of the public... the more people you can reach with a credible message, the higher you rank. Yet this perfect formula of media and message is one to be discovered.... at least for the benefit of the United States. As the means of global media and IT connectivity change, we must understand these new patterns in order to have a leg up on influencing the "international political climate." If technology and media is a contributing factor driving foreign policy, there must be guidelines put in place on how the government will understand and interpret the spread of this news and information.

Media is such an important tool to understand because it determines what issues the public will focus on and deem most important. It plays a role in the shaping of all politics, a form of social power that the US must master in order to be a relevant participant in today's international power struggle.


Sources:
van Ham, Peter. "Media and Globalization." In Social Power.

We Need To Get The American Public Involved!

It is no question that the United States is in an ongoing battle with International broadcasting. Many questions remains on how to fix this initiative that many Americans don’t even know about. I was curious and I asked a few friends what they knew of the United States’ International broadcasting programs and organizations and if they new what it was called. I asked four friends, all of which graduated from private well-known universities with degrees that did not have to do with International relations. I was amazed. Only two of the four could even name VOA, and all stated that our international broadcasting was in the Middle East and they were not sure if it was anywhere else. How can International Broadcasting get more funding, more personnel, if Americans don’t even know its out there and its importance?

In remarks given by President of RFE in 2010, Jeffrey Gedmin states: “I realized that in an age of satellites and in an age of the flow of information, those regimes that required the repression of information were going to lose.”[i] However, I think the US is also loosing. Gedmin sees Voice of America as a way to stay a step ahead of those that repress the free flow of information. I agree with Gedmin. He also notes though that the United States is currently in a struggle against repression and intolerance, but I think that intolerance is also in the United States. He notes we must create global communities, but I think Americans are too often left out. To create these global communities we must involve Americans as well which right now is not possible because of the Smith-Mundt Act.

By involving more Americans in International Broadcasting and making them more aware of its existence and actual goals, it might be able to receive more funding which I believe would make a difference ( if the money was used correctly) The committee on foreign relations 2010 report, “U.S International Broadcasting:--Is anybody Listening?—Keeping the U.S. Connected”, notes that marketing is a necessary component and that there is a cost that comes with reaching and maintain audiences.[ii] I thought it was just incredible that Radio Free Asia is supposed to reach a population of over 1 billion people, but its marketing budget for 2009 was less than $2000. With a small budget like that, there is no way it can reach its full potential. Overall, I think to improve our International broadcasting we must get more Americans involved which will allow for more funding, and hence, more success.

---

[i] Gedmin, Jeffrey. "Celebrating 60 Years of Rfe." RFE (2010).

[ii]Senate, Committee On Foreign RElations: United States. "U.S. International Broadcasting:--Is Anybody Listening?-- Keeping the U.S. Connected." edited by U.S Government Printing Office, 1-90, 2010. 39