Talk:Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 April 2020 and 20 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gracewang0424.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

In 1975, RFE was merged with a very similar Congress funded anti-communist organization called Radio Liberty (RL, founded in 1951 by the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia) and the group name was officially changed to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL).

As I read in the article about the American Committee for the Liberation of the Peoples of Russia, wasn't Radio Liberty founded in 1953(with its previous name Radio Liberation)? (instead of 1951). Radio Liberation changed its name in Radio Liberty in 1964. Also the CIA funding in RFE was revealed in 1967.

sources: Soley Lawrence C., Radio Warfare, OSS and CIA Subversive Propaganda, Praeger, New York, 1989.

Maybe, but at the same time it was the best source of information in many Soviet-ocuppied countries, supported by many emigrants. The anti-RFE activities of several US politicians were criticised and still are.

The text is biased. Xx236 12:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

In what way do you feel it's biased? I myself think that the only bias here is the lack of clear mention that RFE/RL is no longer a propaganda tool and is now a legitimate news organisation. --Aramգուտանգ 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

--- Just thought I'd add my 2 cents after discovering this discussion. I live not far from the RFE HQ in Prague, and I know the developers that built the site. Disaster of a project. The funny thing is though that is not 'on the periphery' of the city at all, but right next to a metro station (Zelivskeho), a hotel, next to a bus station, next to a Jewish cemetery and on a street called "Izraelska." The previous HQ caused a totally artificial commotion because some idiot insisted on blocking a major street with tanks and etc to demonstrate the "threat" (which in Prague is totally nonsensical) to the RFE building. Security guards marched around looking bored for a year or two. Finally they got the funds to build a new site about 1km further up the road where I described, and given the location it was probably a bunch of Israelis that orchestrated it just for the real estate deal. I walk past it frequently and there's usually some American spook types walking in and out. It's a blatant CIA substation.FrankSz (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

- Your argumentation is extremely funny! I know the new building and it's there were you indicated, but still..if it's a Jewish cemetery nearby and the street name is "Izraelska" than it was "orchestrated" by Jews?? And how do you recognise American spook types? If I walk nearby can I recognize them, as well? Give us some tips! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.113.15.69 (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't inform that the RFE informed. (The main goal of propaganda is misinformation.) Nowak-Jeziorański was a very respected man, not a CIA puppet. RFE was better than the majority of commercial stations today, it informed about culture and history.

The first line in the section on Jamming said: "During the Cold War, Radio Liberty gained a reputation as one of the most reliable sources of international and internal news in Russia." Wonder where this sexed-up remark came from? 88.107.52.44 (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Given that US funded and backed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty continues to broadcast (toned-down) propaganda, (carefully designed) mis-information and (general) lies - I suggest the heading should read:

Broadcasts were, and continues to be, part of a general CIA Psychological Warfare campaign in Eastern Europe

92.20.242.92 (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is that yes or no to the suggested heading, "Broadcasts were, and continues to be, part of..." being added to the main page? 92.16.147.111 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

You can only use it if a person with standing says it. As an unsourced judgment it cannot stand. For instance, Kissinger would be a credible source, Clinton (either one), a person who worked there, in the Pentagon, or CIA, or a university professor (outside the countries broadcasted to) who has done a specific analysis of the broadcasts to say 'yes, this is warfare'. They must also quote examples. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:BC21:30C0:7EC7:A8DA (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't have the time to do the editing, but this article needs some serious work. It helps if you have someone who knows something about internatinal broadcasting, international news and the differences between international broadcasters and the subset of surrogate broadcasters. The best site for information is the Hoover institute at Stamford, which is the repository for RFE-RL. I don't consider RFE-RL to have been guilt of blatant propagandizing in its Cold War period or since. The CIA generally recognized that straightfoward, faactual almost boring news did the job best. That became an issue for critics at the Heritage Foundation, which in 1981 did a report which complained RFE-RL was "too fact neutral" and urged more freedom for non-objectivity by broadcasters. The Hoover URL is hoorferl.stanford.edu/rlexhibit/

Opinion in part -- The crackdown the week of 9July06 represented a serious failure of RFE-RL (and VOA) management. Their affiliates program, started more than a decade ago, in which they pay for the right to broadcast their news on internal affairs within the Soviet Union was controversial at the outset, but critics were stifled. The difficulty is that such an arrangement has long been considered an infringement of national sovereignty -- and provided no backup to the information flow if shut down. Given its then financial constraints, RFE-RL put market share and cost savings ahead of program integrity (not in content but delivery). Expensive transmitters could be shut down and more listeners gained for a fraction of the cost, especially as RFE-RL was reshaped so that it bore little resemblance to its predecessor with the same name. BBG does the same in other countries around the world,but while less controversial by virtue of carrying litttle local news, the practice is unwise. In the case of Russia, an RFE-RL official in effect boasted of disclosing corruption, etc. that would affect local elections. It should be reported, but the Ameircan government would not tolerate the same conduct by the Russians. This happened because no one paid attention or cared what the radios did post-Cold War and still don't. I doubt that belongs in the article, but perspective is needed. Having shut down most of their transmittters, foreign radios cannot act as surrogates in a time of need.

As a factual matter (from Hoover and multiple sites). The facade of private funding, real but completely inadequate, was used from the outset with secret CIA funding. The CIA connection was probably widely suspected.

Ramparts Magazine disclosed in 1967 that the CIA had secretl (and illegally) funded the National Student Association. LBJ ordered a study of CIA funding in a number of areas and the eventual result was the disclosure that the CIA paid for and operated RFE and RL. It would take some research to establish the date that the CIA was linked to RFE-RL, but it was probably later than 1967. The CIA funding was stopped by 1971 with the BIB oversight, but until then it was still secret in the sense it was part of the CIA budget which was not disclosed. The CIA would have required some time to separate its intelligence functions from the radios. Although they remained separate operatins for another five years, most would have conflated the two CIA operations into one -- whether they were merged or not. Both were part of the anti-commnist contrainment policy urged on the US by diplomat George Kennan, whose "long telegram" warned of Soviet intentions.

Radio Free Europe was's cover was established by a committeee for freedom in the "captive states." it first broadcast to czechoslovakia in 1951. It was from the beginning intended for "Captive Nations" rather than the Soviet Union. Those states included the Baltic Republics etc. The central language was English.

Radio Liberty began broadcasting in 1953 and also had a cover group that originally had a name calling for eliminating Bolshevism in Russsia. Liberty was aimed at the Soviet Union itself, broadcasting in Russian and up to 20 other languages within the USSR proper.

There was some crossover, but the organizations were different and operated from different buildings in Munich. The two organizations were merged in 1976 and RL moved into the RFE building after an expansion. Other operations were combined. It was an absolute mess. Beyond language, the pay scales, the pensions and everything else was different - even the spy vs. spy routines. The culture clashes took years to resolve.

RFE was hardly a dull place with things like a bombing and Georgi Markov's killing. and Stasi spies as executive secretaries.

RFE-RL contributed to the Soviet Empire collapsing. But there is NO objective evidence that this is true. As for the broadcasts, while in theory they all followed the same rules and programming guidelines, it is in reality very difficult to follow the output of so many languages unless you are a native speaker. On a given day, a Czech broadcaster might cross a line and be told to shape up, or wherever. But a listener who heard a crossing of the line would remember. Was it common? I doubt it. But it can't be proven in general without a line by line reading of scripts and listening to 50 years of output. Not practical. You have to trust what subjective evidence there is. RFE-RL research was also good (and used by the CIA). I have less trust in RFE-RL assessments about themselves on a corporate level, bbut on a factual or historical level, they're good.

Some writers compare VOA favorably or unfavorably to RFE. The comparison is not valid although criticism may be. As the Cold War neared an end, the two were competing for funds.VOA broadcast nearly full time in Russian, the other major Soviet languages and most of the European as well. These were cut or eliminated as Western Europe stablized. But the two American radios were never intended for the same purpose. In addition, VOA was based in New York (until 1954) and then Washington. Atlhough VOA also had a large operation in Munich during the 1950s, all broadcasts originated from studios in the US. The difference in locations gave a different perspective.

VOA was primarily an International broadcaster while RFE-RL filled a subset called International surrogate broadcaster, i.e. they were intended as surrrogates for radio stations that were not allowed.

This page mentions next to nothing about the general content of Radio Free Europe broadcasts. Was it all a question of news and current affairs? Were there documentaries? Music? Did RFE play an important role in spreading western musical styles behind the Iron Curtain? Obviously this has some baring on the development of youth culture behind the Iron Curtain. Jamrifis 14:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm working on getting more in the article...I just presented my M.A. thesis on the topic of Radio Free Europe and I hope in my free time over the next month or so to really bring this article to life. I will specifically address broadcast content as well Etzler78 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Etzler78Reply

"via shortwave, AM, FM and the Internet" - how did they use the internet? They didn't have the internet in the 50's. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of lies.

Duh they started on Shortwave. Added Mediumwave. After 1989 they appeared on FM (and satellite) and by the late 1990's were on the internet. 80.229.222.48 (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Hungarian RFE misinformed Hungarians in 1956. It was probably the only dramatic error of the RFE, so it should be discussed in the article.Xx236 (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please expand upon that statement? 128.205.61.32 (talk)SAB —Preceding comment was added at 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

The article is written from US point of view, nothing about the contents.Xx236 (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

99% of all claims of CIA being behind something is bullshit. I propose we remove that claim unless a reliable source can be found. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You can prove anything with statistics, 60% of the people know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.175.53.21 (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The CIA's involvment with RFE is very well documented. There are congressional records, declassified documents from the organisation itself and interviews with former employees. What IS dubious is the positive light this article shines on RFE. It sounds like a fluff piece for a media organisation, not a description of a propaganda system.--Senor Freebie (talk) 07:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

RFE absolutely WAS set up as a CIA propaganda front. Here is the source (it should be inserted in the introductory section where a more reliable source is asked for): "Safe for Democracy: The Secret Wars of the CIA" by John Prados, Publisher: Ivan R. Dee, 2012. Josephwaters (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can it be confirmed that, because the 'information' they broadcast is considered pure propaganda, neither Radio Free Europe nor Voice of America are allowed to broadcast inside the USA? 92.20.242.92 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Indirectly this can be proven. The CIA funded Brian Crozier (book: Free Agent) ran an information service for journalists and opinion makers called 'Conflict Studies". He wrote that Langley forbade him to have US subscribers. He has a sentence in there that it was not legal to 'propagandize' to US institutions or people. And this is what the censors let through; he mentions that the book was vetted and he had to change a few things. The age pensions for former RFE staff come from Austria, but I haven't asked about details. 58.174.193.2 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi everyone,

I have been doing some research on RFE/RL and thought that the current Wikipedia article needed some work. I included a lot of historical information that was not mentioned in the previous version as well as some new information on RFE/RL's activities today. Please let me know what you think, I am open to criticism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkos2010 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. The article is praising RFE from the very beginning till the end. We may or we may not admire RFE, but this WP article clearly gives only one - pro-RFE - POV. The only sentence involving "criticism" is "During the Cold War RFE was often criticized in the United States as not being sufficiently anti-communist." Well, that may be the most obvious reson for criticism to some, probably, but were there no other critics - at all?
2. The article features tons of non-neutral sentences, and tons of claims not supported by any sources (or sources are not mentioned yet?). The examples are: "RFE/RL currently serves as a surrogate free press in regions where uncensored information is often difficult to find," "RFE/RL is often the first to cover key events in these countries and ironically, their governments often receive valuable information through these broadcasts," "RFE/RL continues to struggle with authoritarian regimes for permission to broadcast freely within their countries. Starting January 1,st 2009, Azerbaijan has imposed a ban on all foreign media in the country, including RFE/RL. Kyrgyzstan has also suspended broadcasts of Radio Azattyk, RFE/RL's Kyrgyz language service, requesting that the government be able to pre-approve its programming. Other states such as Belarus, Iran, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan prohibit re-broadcasting to local stations, making programming difficult for average listeners to access." (no links given).
3. Description of the object of the article given in the lead is actually a self-description. It's not a direct quote from the RFE site main page, but it links only to this page and gives the same description - independent, international, broadcast organization for countries where media is limited/ banned. However, the article also adds "uncensored" (no links, of course).
4. The article totally lacks any mentions of the audience opinions. Also no external medias opinions, no journalists from outside the West, nothing.

Please don't get me wrong, I do not mean RFE is a U.S. propaganda tool. Of course not, it criticises U.S. as much as any other world media would, one can easily hear that in the broadcasts, or find those RFE articles in the web. However, it's not that obvious for a non-Western user that U.S. government does not influence medias created by the then-time CIA chief and solely funded by the U.S. government ever since.

PS. I do not support any of the claims that CIA still influences RFE broadcasting. It's just that the article lacks any independent sources with outside opinion. We need to get outside POVs added - and then we could well remove the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.85.148.66 (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

1. That's not true any more.

2. Only the part about Kyrgystan is left in the article, and that needs sources, yes, but it's not POV.

3. It doesn't say uncensored any more.

4. Well find some then?

In my opinion the problems mentioned has been fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

An old history teacher of mine claimed convincingly that radio free europe/liberty broadcasted during the 1st gulf war that the US-led coalition was going to proceed to baghdad and topple saddam, thus the kurds and anti-saddam iraqis took arms. Then Bush SR. pulled back coalition forces and the rebelling kurds, iraqis were crushed by remanant forces of saddam. Any truth to this or any sources? I can't find any, it seems outside of RFE's MO, but if it was just one report that had bad information or was influenced by a neocon in or out of Bush's admin it doesn't seem that far-fetched.

129.32.172.106 (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

"On January 31, 2004, RFE/RL launched broadcasts to the former Yugoslavia in Serbo-Croatian (Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian-Montenegrin). In the late 90's RFE/RL launched broadcast to Kosovo in Albanian and to Macedonia in Macedonian. In 1995, RFE/RL moved its headquarters from Munich to Prague. ..."

(in "Cold War" section -- should the date in the first sentence be 1994?) Blue5732 (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)blue5732Reply

There should be a whole section about in my opion, there are tons of report out there how they try to influence people they did it during the cold war and they do it now.--Shokioto22 (talk) 02:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

US Propaganda and disinformation: Just how deep does the rabbit hole go?

Not wishing to over-state the point but - as well as Freedom House Europe - there are indications that a number of 'Human Rights' groups are outlets for US Government Dis-information. Would not this make an interesting section? 78.147.87.61 (talk) 19:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, do you have any sources? No reliable source, no inclusion.Image2012 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

“A number of the groups and individuals directly involved in the revolts and reforms sweeping the region, including the April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, the Bahrain Center for Human Rights and grass-roots activists like Entsar Qadhi, a youth leader in Yemen, received training and financing from groups like the International Republican Institute, the National Democratic Institute and Freedom House...” New York Times, April 14, 2011 78.147.85.88 (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Given the number of reliable sources, pointing to Freedom House and so-called Human Right's groups having been involved in 'Color Revolts' - are there any good reasons against having a section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.147.111 (talk) 14:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

There could be a section on it, but it should be written from a NPOV and using reliable sources. The header "Freedom House Europe is Propaganda backed by US Government Funding" is not neutral, and you should write content for a section before adding it. Sysys (talk) 02:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine

“…How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know thus far is that the US government, through the US Agency for International Development (USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine Cooperation Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the US-based Freedom House…” HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS COMMITTEE December 7, 2004

A fairly reliable source, indicating that Freedom House Europe - as well as US Government dis-information - is anti-Russian. Would not this be an interesting section for someone to write up? 92.24.234.3 (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

RFE is still a CIA/Neo-fascist NATO run imperialist media outlet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:7:8500:982:31EA:6833:F933:55CC (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

This is an American subject, so teh English used should be American. However, the label on the comparison chart is in British English. when i went to change it, I could not find the source code (all I saw was a description in American Engish). 211.225.34.166 (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The Polish RFE supported many Polish writers living abroad and broadcasted their texts. This article is about politics only.Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

With regard to this removal [1], I thought this is something obvious. The intro suppose to summarize content of the page. Selecting only these aspects from a lot of information currently provided on the page is not a fair summary and goes against WP:NPOV. Fortunately, that was easy to fix. Fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You should perhaps have waited for a consensus to emerge before you removed the text. In my opinion, apart for the last sentence, it is factual and well-sourced. I would like you to expand a little more on your arguments for reverting. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The revision by My very best wishes is a neutral revision. The terrifying Scourge of Trumpton 10:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Meh, their initial removal was fine (WP:BRD) but second was just pushing it ;-P. I removed the last line with blurb about Czech. Not seeing any POV issues. What specifically is the issue (there can be no work toward consensus unless adequately explained position/rationale is provided)?? I'm all for improving it, however. @Trumpton "I agree"* is not productive or helpful in advancing discourse along. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is literally just two lines of history about the separate organizations, then one for their unification under auspices of CIA/State Dept. Proposed "After the fall of communism..." discounts operations during/prior (Communism still hasn't fallen, BTW). And, "surrogate free press" implies the empire's external propaganda arm is free expression, as the now current "broadcast policy" blurb speaks to. Seems to lay the foundation and aims of the org well and seems fine to me (unless you're CIA... dun dun duuuuun *thunderclap* TINC) -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, 2nd paragraph was intended to describe history of this organization? I am not sure the history should be described at all because the summary must be short. However, if we still want do it, current version is terrible. It does not provide a proper/NPOV description of this organization even during the Cold War period, and it does not tell anything about later times. If we want do it, we must shorten the Cold war period description and add something about the later years. My very best wishes (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do not continue reverting and imposing your preferred version of content while discussion is still ongoing. Allow the status quo to stand while we work toward a revision which reflects consensus and interested parties have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter. Relax a little, there is no rush. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:34, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure what original authors' intent was with that para, but it does summarize orgs' hist, output, financial base, organizational structure, editorial policy and aims with just two lines. It is short. :-|. You've still failed to articulate how the text is pushing a point-of-view, or which POV you believe it's pushing. Personally do not see a neutrality issue here; you just don't like it saying anything about CIA? State Dept.? Most of article is about "Cold War" era so we could summarize that. If want to include blurb or two on current propaganda operations to lead at bottom that is fine. -- dsprc ^[talk] 18:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The first and third paragraphs are fine. No, only ~1/3 of the page is about Cold War era. However, 2nd paragraph does not properly summarizes content even for this period by describing only one aspect - relationship with CIA and state department. So, unless this can be fixed by providing proper summary, the paragraph must be removed per WP:NPOV, which is the policy here, unlike WP:BRD you refer to. WP:BRD and Wikipedia:Reverting are not policies, but essays, i.e. basically nothing.My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

(←) From §"Early history" to §"1980s and the fall of communism" (vast majority of article) is about "Cold War" era and covered by those lines; certainly greater than one-third. If summary is sparse then expand it to cover more topics (contradicts own motion at removal). So it is CIA and State Dept. you object to; oh well; not a POV and you still fail to articulate your rationale at how including them is one. I'm not here to argue but can not work toward compromise w/o knowing where you're coming from; and we've yet to hear back from Againstdisinformation who also expressed interest in discussion. Let's see their input and if Trumpton actually has anything to add. Again, chill, drink an iced beverage, smoke if you got 'em - no rush. If balance is issue, all articles get knocked off equilibrium as part of natural evolution and above suggested expansion can be one solution in solving at least part of that. Policies are only guidelines themselves - basically nothing. Instead of throwing acronyms back and forth, let us iron it out, formulate an agreement and work toward solutions; which may include full rewrite of entire lead if need be. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:22, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You tell: "policies [WP:NPOV] are ... basically nothing". Hmm... Not so to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can also ignore the last sentence and we won't get anywhere. -- dsprc ^[talk] 21:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Do you agree that WP:NPOV is a policy that must be respected? My very best wishes (talk) 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

A lot of people get confused by the NPOV rules. As I read them, they referred to taking sides And disagreements between the reliable sources. If reliable source 1 says ABC, And reliable source 2 says BCD, Then the article should say B and C, and mentioned that some reliable sources argue on behalf of a or D. Rule does not say that we are neutral about the historical topic. That is, we have to be neutral between scholar 1 and scholar 2 the we do not have to be neutral about King Whats-his-name. In this case the rule does NOT say we have to be neutral about RFE, or the Soviet Union or communism or the Cold War. The problem with the debate above, is that it really doesn't tell us what scholars 1 and 2 are saying and how they disagree with each other. Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but this is all very general. Why almost the entire 2nd paragraph in the introduction was dedicated to the CIA if this info about CIA appears only briefly in the body of the article here? I do not think this is an adequate summary of the content. Would you agree with this? My very best wishes (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

(←) Fist sentence says when and why created and under what auspices. Second when two orgs merged. Third is funding and control for majority of operation. Fourth describes organizational structure and editorial policy for most of what this article covers.

I've compressed lead to contain one less (redundant) mention of CIA and State Dept. Article directly mentions CIA several other times but, RFE/L were directly controlled by CIA well into 1980s (and likely beyond) until handed off to State Dept. under whos auspices it operates currently. They're the parent orgs and should be mentioned. Removing them is like removing The Beatles and political philosophy from John Lennon or General Electric from NBC. Again, if you've issue with not enough being summarized then include those other aspects. -- dsprc ^[talk] 04:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The funding/parent organization was mentioned in the 1st paragraph. CIA is not a parent organization. Yes, please fix it as you see appropriate, and I will possibly also make some changes. My very best wishes (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually, this POVish text was only recently inserted (and reinserted again) by an SPA [2]. At the very least, one should check if their statements are supported by quoted sources.My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The current is 1st para (along with an actual marketing line which you don't give a damn about). CIA was previous primary controlling org, along with a slew of others (plenty of official docs and Puddington also supports in pp.125-128, which I skimmed randomly); now State Dept. runs the show (literally). The edits you give are from 2013 which is hardly recent. They're not SPA per se; SPAs are welcome so long as they're here to contribute positively. Professors who partake in broad Wikimedia Education programmes with their pupils are not COI (WP:Education program, outreach:Education etc.). Please use caution when making COI claims w/o evidence. -- dsprc ^[talk] 12:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

What "COI"? My comment above does not tell anything about COI. What "professor"? This is an anonymous user who made just a few edits. I started checking sources used by this user (that could be anything, including copyright violations), but realized that I do not have time for that right now. My very best wishes (talk) 13:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

For your inquiries: [3] [4]. Indeed, it could be anything, including perfectly legitimate, original and well sourced contributions (it appears you've some perceived malice when there is none). If we've not time to investigate, then it best to not level accusations against fellow contributors without solid evidence. -- dsprc ^[talk] 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Regardless to who said what, I would like to return to my initial argument. This is section on the history of this organization. What we had in intro was not an adequate summary of this section. That is what I fixed in the edit. My very best wishes (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

• Again, your "fix" is simply to remove all mentions of the Central Intelligence Agency and Department of State; These are not fixes at all and completely ignore previous consensus (which is subject to change but have zero indication this is the case). More to your point, the lede section does not summarize just the "Cold War" era, but the entire organizational and editorial structure/stance up till recent times. -- dsprc ^[talk] 17:24, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, I did not remove mention of CIA from the page. It can be found in this subsection. My point is different. The history of organization was described an a much larger section. If anyone wants to summarize whole history, that would be a very different description. Of course, I can try to write down a different summary of the history, but it would be probably too long for the short intro. My very best wishes (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@My very best wishes: Fair enough. If you hack something out in your sandbox we can work together on structure and making the improvements fit. -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I should point out the CIA and State Dept did more than fund RFE/L; they ran the show. E.g. this declassified CIA document (PDF) from the 50s -- it is a little blurry, but gist is:

"Naturally I share your belief that the type of cooperation envisaged(???) should not entail any surrender by the Agency of actual operation control of RFE, nor, for that matter, any surrender by the Department of its responsibilities for the provision of foreign policy guidance for RFE." -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, the role of CIA and State Department in the past should be mentioned on the page. The only question if this should be also mentioned in intro and how exactly. I will think about it. My very best wishes (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

OK, I rewrote 2nd paragraph to summarize all subsections from history section, rather than only one cherry-picked subsection about funding. Note that funding by the CIA was mentioned in the intro. Welcome to add more info if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@My very best wishes: good additions. Article is a bit sporadic and a lot in there suitable for inclusion; we've nothing for the "After the fall of communism" section (which itself could be expanded... *nudge nudge*). What else stands out to you? -- dsprc ^[talk] 20:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'd like to suggest some updates to this article, but I can't edit myself as I am affiliated with this organization. If I post the info here, could someone else update the article? For example, it doesn't mention Current Time, a 24/7 Russian-language digital TV network connecting Russian speakers with each other and the world. Here are some links: https://pressroom.rferl.org/a/current-time-tv-launch/28284863.html https://www.bbg.gov/2017/02/06/current-time-network-launches-real-news-real-people-real-time/

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riza35 (talk • contribs) 11:06, 7 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

In some (English) articles on the web, "Radio Svoboda" is used to reference the entity. While that lemma redirects here, it is not described. --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

The lemma svoboda.org redirects here. Still no description. --91.54.6.130 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is Svoboda.org (from ru:Радио «Свобода») a part of or the synonymous with RFE/RL? X1\ (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Svoboda in Russian means Liberty.--Figure19 (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• RFERL broadcast regions.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Is svoboda.org the Russian language RFE/RL? It appears so on ru:Радио «Свобода». X1\ (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes. My very best wishes (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@BunnyyHop (I assume). [5] - this edit. "Although it is claimed that this arm’s-length structure" and so on does not mean promoting propaganda. Source does not really say it. Pleas also check this discussion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Mercy11 about this - diff. See https://www.wsj.com/articles/radio-free-europe-shuts-down-in-russia-after-moscow-tax-authorities-file-involuntary-bankruptcy-11646674049?mod=article_inline Renat 18:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a question? Mercy11 (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Add to bibliography: Pomar, Mark G, Cold War Radio: The Russian Broadcasts of the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (University of Nebraska Press/Potomac Books, 2022) Vermonter1950 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Puddington was a former bureau manager for RFL/RL, and therefore isn't an WP:INDEPENDENT source. We can of course cite his book, but it always requires attribution describing his relationship to the subject and should never be cited without that attribution, which means we should probably be trying to replace him with sources that don't require attribution when possible. (And, generally, while he's a useful source when used with attribution, we don't want to be citing the same WP:BIASED source over and over throughout the article for WP:DUE reasons.) --Aquillion (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Editors of this page may wish to know that this media outlet is being discussed at an RfC at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_RFE/RL. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to me the article reads like a an apology for Western propaganda. 2A02:C7C:E0AC:3200:E433:BB65:A3CF:7AF2 (talk) 07:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)Reply