160 Packard Avenue - Tufts University - Medford, Massachusetts 02155-7082 USA - 617.627.3700
Comments to: FletcherWeb@tufts.edu
 |
 |
|||
 |
||||
 |
||||
|
||||
 |
||||
| Remarks Upon Acceptance of the Edward R. Murrow Award Philip T. Reeker Deputy Spokesman U.S. Department of State September 3, 2003 Ladies and Gentlemen: as a spokesman, whether in the fields of Kosovo, or on a podium at Foggy Bottom, I have grown accustomed to speaking on behalf of others. So, it a great pleasure for me this evening to speak only for myself—and on the record. And of course it is a treat to speak before an audience full of fresh, independent thinkers, and not just journalists! Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said recently: “it’s either brave or foolish to take a swipe at reporters – cheap shots tend to lodge close to the heart.” Close to the heart is where I hold my belief in good journalism, which is not – or at least should not be – disconnected from engaging, informing and influencing international audiences. A practice we call public diplomacy. And the study of which was pioneered right here at the Fletcher School. So I am tremendously honored to accept the Edward R. Murrow Award, named after a great American whose career mixed both excellence in media and pioneering in public diplomacy. I must admit that when I first received word of the award, I was not only surprised and delighted, I had some trepidation. After all, legend had it this was an award given near the end of a foreign service career. Indeed, so many recipients of this honor have left legacies to which I can only still aspire. I was born in 1965, the same year the world lost Edward R. Murrow who had led the U.S. government’s public diplomacy efforts for almost four years prior. Ed Murrow came to government when the world of information and reporting was changing dramatically. A decade of Murrow’s weekly program “See It Now” had profoundly directed the medium of television. Locked in the ideological battle of the Cold War, our country was on the verge of a great debate, evaluating the foundations of our republic, the nature of the liberty for which we were fighting, and inequalities that thwarted our full potential. Today, we are strengthening and refashioning our official public diplomacy programs after a period of post-Cold War neglect, something that—given the hindsight of having lived through the 1990s—was perhaps understandable, but no less mistaken. In these early years of the 21st century, public diplomacy is very much back in vogue. Do a search on Google: public diplomacy is a hot topic as described by all the media, who inevitably believe we have failed at the art as if it were a purely quantifiable science. But we cannot practice public diplomacy in the manner in which it is reported: so often through soundbites lacking content or context; attempts at entertainment masquerading as news. While it has become so difficult to penetrate the constant buzz of the media worldwide, there must be a dialogue. We must listen, discuss and reach out. This requires time, patience, resolve, and resources. To practice successful American public diplomacy does not require agreement with every foreign policy taken by any one administration or another. Such decisions are products of a process balancing perceptions of our security, our prosperity, and our values, modified and shaped by current events and national mood. Public diplomacy in our democracy can and should be driven by a belief in the convictions of that process. It’s crucial to understand and explain to foreign audiences that debate--often angry and impassioned--is a critical and necessary part of the American system. Debate is alive and well in America, and History’s pendulum finds balance in our diversity, access to opportunity, and fundamental good will. If Edward R. Murrow, were to come back today (I like to think of his reaction to cable TV news—kind of a “See It Now,” over and over again!) he would face the debate we are having over the causes, consequences and cures of so-called anti-Americanism. Certainly in the past two years we have at times expressed and exported a sense of fear and anger. While others around the world face the reality of American predominance in so many spheres and question our wisdom in using such power, we should seek a return to a voice of optimism, hope and healing. Sympathy has long been an American strength, but we do not always know empathy. To be aware of the feelings, thoughts, and experiences of others helps in the wise use of our power. To reach out we must use all resources available. But in this day of the internet and non-stop news, we must take a cue from another Murrow TV program, “Person to Person,” and remember the human element. As a wise colleague of mine once said, I’ve never met a website that could shake your hand. The results of our efforts cannot be measured in budget cycles or Nielson ratings. Rather we must look for changes over years, decades, and generations. I do want to thank the Department of State – my peers, colleagues and friends for their part in selecting me as this year’s Murrow Award winner. I really accept this award on behalf of all my colleagues, at home and abroad, for who public diplomacy is a daily endeavor. I particularly thank Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary Madeleine Albright, for allowing me the opportunity to speak on both their behalves. I thank Dean Bosworth, the Faculty, Fellows and the whole family of the Fletcher School and Tufts University for honoring me here at Convocation in Medford. In turn I extend my admiration to you, the students who have set to studies and careers international, with a focus on a dialogue among nations and peoples. I hope some of you will join me in foreign or public service. But whatever we do, each and every one of us—in or out of government—has a role to play in Public Diplomacy. I wish you all the best, and I thank you very much. |
 |
2002 The Fletcher School, Tufts
University |
|
|
| |