Colleen Graffy has an article, The Rise of Public Diplomacy 2.0, in the Fall issue of The Journal of International Security Affairs. Graffy is a professor at Pepperdine University’s law school and director of global programs. She recently served as the first deputy assistant secretary for Public Diplomacy to be appointed to the State Department, serving in the Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs. According to her Pepperdine bio, “Professor Graffy was the first high level US government official to actively advance ‘Public Diplomacy 2.0’ using Twitter and other social media platforms to further U.S. communications.”

Traditionally, the State Department has been risk averse when it comes to getting its message out, Graffy says, with off-the-record, print-centric roundtables the primary means that U.S. embassies used to communicate. But audiences in those countries were increasingly shaping their views from watching television and listening to radio.

Graffy said that Karen Hughes, who served as President Bush’s undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, understood the importance of broadcast media.

“She did so by issuing ‘Rules of the Road’ which eliminated the need for diplomatic personnel to secure clearance for appearing on in-country media. She encouraged engagement with the media and, importantly, she supported those who went out and got sucked into the undertow of media-gone-wrong—an unavoidable consequence for anyone in the spotlight. These steps reflected a basic understanding: without backing from leadership at the top for those who brave the media, State Department officials will shy away from it.”

They also created “media hubs” in Brussels, Dubai and London which helped to make broadcast more of a priority and the European and Eurasian Bureau created a “Media Matrix” tracking who was going on television and making it very clear when one consul general was doing more media than another.

Graffy says there has been some resistance by embassies to investing resources in improving websites where the internet is not widely used.

“This represents a misunderstanding of the Internet and its importance. First, it is global, hence the name “World Wide Web.” Diasporas are on the Web and communicate with their family and friends back home. Second, even though Internet use may be low, who is using it? Generally it will be key influencers—media, politicians, NGOs, business persons, educators and youth, and they are worth reaching out to. Finally, Internet connectivity and usage will only grow, and in many embassies it will take years to ramp up the staff, know-how, equipment and funding to be ready.”

Graffy’s observation about the disaspora effect reminded me of how South Korean candidates will seek the support of Los Angeles émigrés in the hopes that their support will influence the votes of friends and relatives still in South Korea. The Los Angeles Times wrote in 2007 about how South Korean presidential candidates sent their top advisors to Los Angeles – home to the highest concentration of Koreans outside of Asia – to campaign for them.

Graffy also acknowledges that the internet is not the only way to dispense informaton:

“Finally, it should not be overlooked that in numerous countries mobile phones and cell phone technology are as important, if not more important, than the Internet. Text messaging is cheaper and more prevalent in places with no or low BlackBerry connectivity or other mobile means to access e-mail. Many embassies are well aware of this, and use text distribution lists to contact journalists with breaking news or to notify them about an interview opportunity.”

Graffy also argues that public diplomacy must become better integrated into the geographic bureaus if it is to become a core component of foreign policy:

“To that end, the Secretary of State should mandate that every geographic bureau have a Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Diplomacy whose sole portfolio is public diplomacy. This individual should be dual-hatted to both the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and the Assistant Secretary for the relevant geographic bureau. Without such a “front-office” presence for public diplomacy in the policy world, public diplomacy will always be relegated to second-class status, no matter how strong the R Bureau may be….
“Public Diplomacy 2.0 should mark the end of the separation of policy and public diplomacy. The operative question today is not whether public diplomacy officers are contributing to policy, but whether policymakers are contributing to public diplomacy.”