Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC

Short Shrift for Shortwave RadioAuthor(s): Paul M. Kattenburg and Claude MoisySource: Foreign Policy, No. 108 (Autumn, 1997), pp. 182-183Published by: Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLCStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1149119 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 06:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to Foreign Policy.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:16:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

LETTERS

SHORT SHRIFT FOR SHORTWAVE RADIO

To the Editor:

It would have been worthwhile if Claude Moisy, in his otherwise informative "Myths of the Global Information Village" (Summer 1997), had taken at least some account of the enormous amount of news and propaganda broadcast daily over worldwide shortwave radio.

While recently taking a fourth shipboard round-the-world voyage, I was dumbstruck once more at the clatter of languages, extent of source-points, and apparently limitless number of broadcasts emanating from every place on every continent, often directed to specific and frequently distant regions (e.g. Chinese broadcasts to Latin America and Deutsche Welle to Southeast Asia). Evidently someone out there must be listening-or at least hearing. BBC World Service is inescapable.

I would be curious to know whether or not Moisy thinks that perhaps it is noninteractive shortwave radio, rather than the Internet, CNN, or talk radio that is continuing to build up the global information village, as it has for the past 60 or so years. If not, why is so much time and money being spent on it?

Paul M. Kattenburg Professor Emeritus of International Studies University of South Carolina Columbia, South Carolina

The Author Replies: Professor Kattenburg is certainly right in pointing out the importance of several worldwide shortwave radio networks emanating from public organizations in most major countries as a source of news-or propaganda.

I did not dwell on that because it is neither a new technology nor a part of the so-called communications revolution characterized principally by the networking of personal computers and interactivity.

Furthermore, I know for a fact that several of the source countries have been led in recent years to reduce their foreign broadcast programs for political or budgetary reasons, and I would guess that the global scope of that

182 FOREIGN POLICY

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:16:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Letters

medium of news dissemination is no longer what it used to be at the height of the Cold War.

Claude Moisy Neuilly-sur-Seine, France

DOWN WITH CULTURAL IMPERIALISM

To the Editor: David Rothkopf's argument for exportation of American culture and capitalism in his article "In Praise of Cultural Imperialism" (Summer 1997) helps perpetuate the unflattering image of a barbaric United States within the international community. Rothkopf sees the exportation of American values as a tangible sign of global, democratic justice, albeit "democracy" the American way.

Worldwide, MTV, AT&T, and Windows 95 do not practice cultural pluralism, nor are they entirely democratic. They are more like rabid neo- colonialists, hell-bent on minimalizing competition-where the adventure is capturing market share, and the socio-political goal is not necessarily justice, but cultural homogeneity with a corporate and pop American flare.

Those who agree with Rothkopf seem to believe exporting American power is good for Americans. However, we are now seeing a resurgence of 1960s anti- Americanism. If Rothkopf's type of argument were advanced by an Arab nation or a Chinese opinion leader, we would see a sudden rise in Pentagon spending. But when Americans talk this way they are acting in the national interest. When foreigners do it, we call it nationalism; at its ugliest, we call it fascism.

How much longer can the arms of America remain stretched around the Earth? In the global high school, the United States is the popular kid with the cool clothes and friends who throws the best parties. Everyone wants to be like the United States, but everyone dislikes the United States. It will be interesting to see for how much longer non-Americans will be wearing Stars and Stripes embroidered on their shirts. It will be even more interesting to see how the United States uses its overwhelming popularity as globalization accelerates. Will the United States die out like the latest fad? Or will it just roll over everybody in the name of democratic justice and the market?

Kenneth Raposa Boston, Massachusetts

FALL 1997 183

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 06:16:42 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions