STANDARDIZATION OF SOURCELINES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 5
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2012
• Sequence Number: 45
• Publication Date: October 1, 1975
• Content Type: LETTER

Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
1 October 1975
Deputy Chief, London Bureau
Subject: Standardization of Sourcelines
Dear Art:
This responds to your letter of 8 August 1975 on sourceline
standardization progress achieved at the FB/S-BBC Working Group's
31 July meeting. I'm sorry it has taken this long and I'm primarily
at fault. As the new boy on the VCS block, I am insisting that I
have a clear understanding of existing problems and issues.
Gaining insight into this business of sourcelines has not been
easy and I have repeatedly kicked back PCS comments to the staff
for clarification or further study.
We are in agreement, apart from some minor phrasing, with the
sourceline principles set forth in the 31 July meeting's minutes
as far as voice material is concerned. But the questions I raised
with the staff invariably resulted in distinctions between voice
and press agency sourcelines. Our efforts to combine the two
mediums in one paper resulted in positions with too many excep-
tions and qualifiers. We than opted for listing voice and press
agency sourceline principles separately. But some of the suggested
formulations would legitimize positions on press agency sourcelines
which I question. I want to study these more closely and seek
additional opinions. Therefore, our comment and suggestions on
the minutes are confined to voice sourceline policy. (See Enclosure)
I trust our separation of voice and press agency sourceline
principles will not throw a spanner in your works. If it does,
don't hesitate to detail the problems from your vantage point.
If tho need arises, please explain to the BBC that our caution on
press agency sourcelines and the wording on voice sourcelines is
intended to avoid future disagreement wherever possible. We
believe that the eventual agreements will be the definitive
documents on sourceline formulation for years to come and we
should arrive at precise language and positions where possible.
narinQcifipn in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
STAT
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
The working group has done a remarkable job of bringing the
two points of view together. But me realise that there will be
certain areas where we must agree to disagree, hoping that
existing gaps can be closed at a later date. This may result
in certain broadcasts and transmissions being given different
sourcelines by our two organisations. But the important thing
is that each of us will know Mutt the other in dein* so the
respective sourcelines can be readily translated from one system
to the other.
Our comments and suggestions on the sourcaline principles
for voice broadcasts, keyed to the minutes' numbering system,
are contained in the Enclosure. We hope to have our thoughts on
press agency sourcelines in your hands in two weeks.
Enclosure
As Stated
Distribution:
Original & 1 -
I -
Lie=
1 -
1 -
Sincerely,
Chief, Field Coverage Staff
Addressee
C/Ops
Ops 9-0 file
Reading file
Executive Registry file
jak/2924(1 Oct 75)
-2-
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
(
ENCLOSURE
FCS Comment and Suggestions on Voice Sourceline Principles
1.01 (i)--This statement is correct for all present voice
sourcelines which include the word "Service," but we see a possible
difficulty in the future. If a nonofficial broadcast station having
"Service" as part of its name were to start operation, we might want
to include that word in a sourceline, at least initially. Perhaps
the paragraph could be expanded to read: "The word 'Service' to
be eliminated from all aourcelines unless it is necessary to include
it as part of a station's name."
1.01 (ii)--We are in agreement with the intent, but the paragraph
as phrased makes no distinction between off icical broadcasts on the
one hand and semi-official and nonofficial on the other. This should
be rephrased to be consistent with the principle enunciated in 1.03.
We suggest: "The word 'Domestic' to be used for official broadcasts
intended for a domestic audience." Thus we would use "Brasilia
Domestic in Portuguese" but "Rio de Janeiro Radio Ministerio da
Educacao e Culture in Portuguese." Our understanding is that the
domestic sourceline would be applied equally to official broadcasts
at the national, regional or city levels and to programs for minor-
ities. (Examples: Moscow Domestic in Russian, Tacna Domestic in
Spanish--for Radio Nacional, Tallinn Domestic in Estonian--for FM,
Peking Domestic in Mongolian). Exceptions would be regional and
local broadcasts in the PRC and possibly the programs for Moscow
Oblast. We would be interested in the BBC position on Moscow Oblast.
44 1.01 (iii)--Patre again, we feel the phrasing must be narrowed.
We suggest using the phrase "official broadcast" for "transmission."
1.01 (iv)--We understand this to mean that where the phrases
"General Overseas Service," "World Service," "Overseas Service,"
"International Service" or "External Service" appear in source-
lines now, the word "External" will be substituted. We are in
agreement with this, but "Transmissions" should be changed to
"Official Broadcasts." As a point of clarification, nis intends
to use "External" in some cases and to name targets in others but
never to include both elements in the same sourceline. We will
use "External":
a. When the foreign target is unknown, vague or unrealistic.
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14 : CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14 : CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
b. When the enumeration of multiple targets would make a
sourceline too long or complicated. We would use "Prague External
in Czech and Slovak" rather than "Prague in Czech and Slovak to
Europe Africa Far Bast and Australis".
c. When a station, sudh as Radio Australia, changes targets
every time a transmitter joins or leaves a transmission service
and it would be impractical to stipulate them.
d. When a station, such as Bern or Stockholm, repeats
the same material to successive targets. The inclusion in
the sourceline of any of the targets would be meaningless
because the station is making no special effort to tailor
material for it. The inclusion of targets for such broadcasts
would give undesirable emphasis to what is actually the
accidental combination of favorable reception and monitoring
availability which caused it to be chosen for coverage.
Ws will specify the foreign target of official broadcasts when
doing so serves to embalm* the consumer's understaudiss of the
monitored material. For example, we include targets in sourcelines
for international programs from Radio Moscow (accept in Russian)
and Radio Peking (except in Chinese). We inelude them selectively
in some sourcelines for semi-official international broadcasts:
"Fukien Front FLA ia Mandarin to Taiwan" and "Moscow Radio Peace
and Progress is English to Africa." On the other baud, we would
regard a sourcaline such as "Cairo Voice of the Arabs in Arabic
to the Arab World" as overkill. As a rule, we do not include
targets for private intermational broadcasts, even when they are
well defined. Cteamples Quito's ECM We rejeet the claim of
the Recife station that it is broadcasting "to Pernambuco, to the
world" as hyperbole.
1.02?This paragraph, like 1.01 (iv), can be interpreted to
mean that either organisation may impose the inclusion of targets
on the other or that each organisation may deal with each of these
soureelines as it sees fit. Your cover letter explains that the
latter interpretation (which we prefer) is correct, but it would
be better if the agreement clearly stated that choice is optional
rather than binding.
1.03?The first part of this is dealt with in the emendations
proposed to 1.01 (II).
1.04?No problem.
1.05?For your information, in present FRS usage the only
situation in which inclusion of the country is nandetory is for
broadcasts and presscasts from Santiago Chile.
-2-
nAciassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6
1.06--This paragraph suffers from the same ambiguity as 1.02
and it also tends to oversimplify the sourceline formulation policies
for presscasts. We will deal with this point separately in our
press agency submission.
-1-
npriacsified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved forRelease2012/08/14 : CIA-RDP92-00053R000300430045-6