Hillary Clinton deserves sympathy when she appeared before the US Congress this week to justify the $55.7 billion State Department budget request. The money she asked to expand American soft power is indeed a fraction compared to the monstrous defense budget of $664 billion last year.

But Clinton was exaggerating and wrong when she said "we are in an information war and we are losing the war Al Jazeera is winning. The Chinese have opened up a global multi-language television network. The Russians have opened up an English network. I've seen it in a couple of countries and it's quite instructive."

By all accounts, the international news media have been and are still dominated by American and European players such as CNN, BBC, the International Herald Tribune and the Financial Times. That kind of monopoly, or lack of diversity, is counter to what the US advocates since many more voices in the world are unrepresented or underrepresented.

So instead of worrying about the rise of new global media from the developing world, Clinton should openly welcome them. Networks, such as Al Jazeera, CCTV and Russia Today, which she mentioned in the speech, provide fresh perspectives compared with Western news media. They have not only kept world news reporting more balanced, but also kept Americans better informed about the rest of the world.

If the function of the news media is to speak for the voiceless, the rise of global media organizations in other parts of the world means that more voiceless people can and will be heard, and heard loud and clear.

The increasing popularity of these new global news sources in the past few years is evidence that people around the world prefer more perspectives. To be blunt, they are bored with the Western-only perspective in interpreting the world for the past decades.

Clinton did acknowledge the serious problem of the Western media when she complained that the private US media cannot do the job she expected.

"Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it's real news," Clinton said. "You may not agree with it, but you feel like you're getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners."

What is interesting is that in a country that does not believe in the government role in the media, Clinton wanted a boost. She said she is leading an effort to spread US propaganda through new media.

Statistics show that the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), which operates the US government-run international broadcasting Voice of America (VOA), has also asked for a budget increase from Congress from its fiscal 2010 budget of $750 million, already a hefty jump from the $425 million in 2001.

Clinton's fear of growing foreign news media is nothing new. Last year, BBG Chairman Walter Isaacson said that "we cannot allow ourselves to be out-communicated by our enemies".

Just like the rising economic clout from emerging countries like China, India and Brazil, the growing global news media endeavor by developing countries are only fitting in an increasingly multipolar world.

Given the tough fight for Clinton to defend the budget in a Republican-led House of Representatives, it is understandable why she wanted to scare Americans and lawmakers about what's going on in a healthier and more balanced global media market.

Some day when the fight for budgets is over, Clinton should make another speech to welcome the rising global news organizations from the developing world.

The author is deputy editor of China Daily USA. He could be reached at chenweihua@chinadaily.com.cn