Kari Lake previews her plans for Voice of America in the next Administration.

[Mediafrog+]

Where the new administration will or could have an impact is in the nations and languages to be served and through what means. The total death of the effectiveness of short wave means that new media will be key, while in some nations they can buy time on local stations.

The BBC is pushing a “digital first” strategy for its international audiences, while partnering with local FM broadcasters. I suspect they will be getting out of the shortwave business in the near future, with perhaps only a few very specifically targeted transmissions remaining.

Increased rumblings about a big overhaul of BBC World Service programming this coming October.

 

[davideduardo]

You were also a lot younger and loved broadcasting. Bozell is a critic.

"Young" here means inexperienced and a high-school dropout. I loved broadcasting, but had no experience running a station or a business. My point is that a competent person will put the right people in power.

 

[TheBigA]

My point is that a competent person will put the right people in power.

I don't think he's competent. Those who can...do. He never did.

 

[boombox4]

There's a common refrain on this site where people ask, "why should radio bother to do this when you can get it somewhere else?" Usually 'somewhere else' means online, on your phone, traffic on your car's navigation screen, etc,, but your question here is another variant of that.

I think the answer is, why should radio -- or in this case, this particular station -- give up and defer to its rivals? Each outlet provides a different experience even when offering similar products. The consumer doesn't need to make a choice between one or the other, they can always choose multiple ways to get the content they want, making them all relevant.

In this case, VOA, like all state media broadcasters, exists to spread the nation's culture and point of view beyond its own borders. This radio station allows the American government to present American culture to overseas listeners the way it wants to -- which is its mission -- as opposed to the local stations in those countries that don't present an American point of view despite playing Western music in their mix.

I would say that this stream sounds simple as opposed to incredibly cheap. Sure, those of us who know the radio business know it's voice tracked and lacks a flashy jingle package, so we understand where the cost savings are coming from. But the host sounds professional and his content is well-suited for a foreign audience that may not be as immersed in the day-to-day American pop culture happenings as those who live here.

Agreed. Too often over the past few years many in Radio seem to be shooting the industry in the foot. They're giving up. There are examples of Radio people deriding AM in cars, or some in Radio deriding government funding of public radio -- issues, to me, which everyone in Radio should be supporting wholeheartedly. If Radio pulled the plug on OTA and went all online, most of the 15K radio stations would cease to exist within 3-5 years because online content is highly competitive, a fickle market, and doesn't always pay out well. "Radio" would be Spotify, Pandora, YouTube, Apple. Is that what people in the industry / hobbyists and observers actually want?

I realize that it's a tough environment, and OTA eventually will disappear, but it seems that on Radio forums and Radio-oriented social media a lot of people seem to be giving up and deferring to the rivals -- as you put it. It doesn't have to be that way.

 

[TheBigA]

If Radio pulled the plug on OTA and went all online, most of the 15K radio stations would cease to exist within 3-5 years because online content is highly competitive, a fickle market, and doesn't always pay out well.

Which online content is "highly competitive?" What I see happening is people are leaving curated linear radio for on-demand radio. These are two different things. Traditional radio is built on a one-to-many system, while online is more one-to-one. Radio stations can't do one-to-one. So it's up to the audience to decide.

I realize that it's a tough environment, and OTA eventually will disappear, but it seems that on Radio forums and Radio-oriented social media a lot of people seem to be giving up and deferring to the rivals -- as you put it. It doesn't have to be that way.

It's not a one-or-the-other thing. But on-air has to find a way to adjust the cost structure to fit revenues. What we're talking about with VOA is a transmission system built on short-wave. That's not the same as AM-FM. It's not a matter of "giving up," but following the audience. If the audience is going someplace else, radio has to go there too.

 

[boombox4]

Which online content is "highly competitive?" What I see happening is people are leaving curated linear radio for on-demand radio. These are two different things. Traditional radio is built on a one-to-many system, while online is more one-to-one. Radio stations can't do one-to-one. So it's up to the audience to decide.

It's not a one-or-the-other thing. But on-air has to find a way to adjust the cost structure to fit revenues. What we're talking about with VOA is a transmission system built on short-wave. That's not the same as AM-FM. It's not a matter of "giving up," but following the audience. If the audience is going someplace else, radio has to go there too.

ALL online content is highly competitive. There are thousands of choices, even today, for online music and online radio channels. YouTube has probably millions of 'channels'. I have just Pandora on my phone. It's got maybe 100 channels of curated music, and then you can curate your own playlists on top of that. And that's just one service, which isn't radio related.

I think IHeart has hundreds and hundreds of stations and curated channels, along with the ability to make your own playlists. That's a lot of competition for the consumer to find one particular station's channel. What defines "radio" is already changing, but it's going to change even more once every form of audio info, news, and entertainment is online.

Agreed otherwise. Although in the case of VOA, online may not reach a lot of the people whey want or need to reach as much as OTA radio, and placing OTA FMs in every part of the world with low internet access might cost more than the SW operations. They may get the same number of listeners either way. Maybe the entire concept of VOA is past the pull date -- whether SW, local radio, or online. Radio Canada went all online. I doubt they get more visitors than their SW did. And online platforms are also vulnerable to budget cuts.

But you're correct, radio has to go where the listeners are.

 

[TheBigA]

ALL online content is highly competitive. There are thousands of choices, even today, for online music and online radio channels.

And none of them have enough mass to have the impact of most broadcast stations. There are limits to the number of broadcast stations a company can own, and limits on the number of broadcast stations in a market. There are NO limits on the number of curated streams on the internet. They're two very different things. That's why, as you said, iHeart, Audacy, and other broadcast companies offer curated streaming stations.

The real problem is the audience for curated content is dropping. Regardless of the platform.

 

[Theater of My Mind]

The real problem is the audience for curated content is dropping. Regardless of the platform.

That's not really true. My Spotify feed is curated just for me and I'm sure the same is true for all of the other similar platforms, Amazon Music, Apple, etc.

But FM radio "curates" music by dumbing down its playlists as low as they can possibly go and playing the same super-narrow library of over-researched songs over and over and over, lather, rinse, repeat. Based on the amount of negative feedback I hear from literally everyone about that, I think you mean the real problem is the audience for THAT KIND of curated content is dropping (or has already dropped...right off the cliff).

 

[TheBigA]

That's not really true. My Spotify feed is curated just for me and I'm sure the same is true for all of the other similar platforms, Amazon Music, Apple, etc.

By "curated feed" I'm not talking about personalized playlists. I'm talking about streaming radio stations. They all have them. Some of them are hosted. They're not really what the users want. The users want what you have: A feed made just for you. Broadcast radio can't do that.

Apple Music expands live global radio offering with three brand-new stations

Apple today launched three new live global radio stations on Apple Music.

www.apple.com

But FM radio "curates" music by dumbing down its playlists as low as they can possibly go

Broadcast stations make their curated playlists based on the songs people are streaming. You may consider those people dumb, but they're still people. Apple, Amazon, and everyone else does similar playlists. But to them, it's just one of a million playlists. Broadcast radio doesn't have that luxury. They have to create playlists that will attract the most people, not an audience of one.

 

[davideduardo]

Agreed otherwise. Although in the case of VOA, online may not reach a lot of the people whey want or need to reach as much as OTA radio, and placing OTA FMs in every part of the world with low internet access might cost more than the SW operations.

How many independent nations are going to give a local radio license to the United States of America's government?

I believe the number is somewhere below "zero".

They may get the same number of listeners either way.

The alternative may be leasing time on locally owned stations, but how many stations would lease time for programming with very limited appeal?

Maybe the entire concept of VOA is past the pull date -- whether SW, local radio, or online. Radio Canada went all online. I doubt they get more visitors than their SW did. And onlinYoe platforms are also vulnerable to budget cuts.

I think the "pull date" is long expired. And I really don't see a more contemporary alternative. VOA and all the other SW services worked moderately well when there was limited local radio (often controlled by a government agency) and no internet. Today, everyone has so many options, even in the least developed nations, that the uniqueness of the VOA or other SW services is gone.

But you're correct, radio has to go where the listeners are.

And deliver it when they want it, not when we want it.

 

[davideduardo]

Broadcast stations make their curated playlists based on the songs people are streaming.

That is only part of what radio stations use to create playlists. Streaming does not identify "your listeners" and it is very deficient in age, gender and ethnicity data.

Stations and station groups principally use traditional music testing with their own P1 listeners. The tests may be done online on a tablet or smartphone, but the system remains the same as wen stations started researching that way in the 1970's.

Before we did our own research, we tried record sales and jukebox play data. But, like the web today, we did not know precisely who was buying or playing the songs and we did not know if they were our listeners.

 

[TheBigA]

That is only part of what radio stations use to create playlists. Streaming does not identify "your listeners" and it is very deficient in age, gender and ethnicity data.

The view on that may be changing. One of the topics at CRS this year was using streaming data to guide playlists.

 

[ted chittenden]

How many independent nations are going to give a local radio license to the United States of America's government?

I believe the number is somewhere below "zero".

The alternative may be leasing time on locally owned stations, but how many stations would lease time for programming with very limited appeal?

And I would add that might broadcast commentaries that oppose the views of the nation's current government.

I think the "pull date" is long expired. And I really don't see a more contemporary alternative. VOA and all the other SW services worked moderately well when there was limited local radio (often controlled by a government agency) and no internet. Today, everyone has so many options, even in the least developed nations, that the uniqueness of the VOA or other SW services is gone.

While I agree with you on the problems of shortwave, you are making a mistake that a lot of other commentators make when discussing the Internet. Dictatorships and other wayward governments have found ways to keep those items on the Internet they deem to be troublesome from entering their countries. In some cases (such as Cuba and Iran), Internet access is limited to the very few. In other cases (such as China and Russia), certain sites (such as Facebook and possibly Google) are not allowed to operate; in addition, these countries keep a tight lid on what messages even their own citizens can send. This was, and is, why shortwave broadcasts are so invaluable--it is harder to jam shortwave broadcasts for an entire population, especially if it is spread out over a large area (the entire country of China) than it is to close off Internet access to all but those with the most technical no how.

 

[davideduardo]

While I agree with you on the problems of shortwave, you are making a mistake that a lot of other commentators make when discussing the Internet. Dictatorships and other wayward governments have found ways to keep those items on the Internet they deem to be troublesome from entering their countries. In some cases (such as Cuba and Iran), Internet access is limited to the very few. In other cases (such as China and Russia), certain sites (such as Facebook and possibly Google) are not allowed to operate; in addition, these countries keep a tight lid on what messages even their own citizens can send. This was, and is, why shortwave broadcasts are so invaluable--it is harder to jam shortwave broadcasts for an entire population, especially if it is spread out over a large area (the entire country of China) than it is to close off Internet access to all but those with the most technical no how.

I agree that the internet is not always accessible where it might be most needed. We can remember the period of the so-called "Arab Spring" where the totalitarian or authoritarian governments simply closed off access to many methods of communication that protesters could use.

But with no readily available shortwave radios and local government abilities to close off data sources, what route does the VOA or any other information source have to reach such areas?

A good current example is South Africa's prohibition of Starlink; all Starlink does is provide channels, not content. But the radical government of SA has chosen to play politics with a service that could benefit many in the more remote areas of South Africa!

 

[Theater of My Mind]

What method is used for shortwave audience measurement and is the data available to the public? I think I previously asked the same question on this site but never received a response.

 

[davideduardo]

What method is used for shortwave audience measurement and is the data available to the public? I think I previously asked the same question on this site but never received a response.

There is no real measurement. Stations have tried to "project" listening based on things like mail received and other ancient technologies.

In competitive markets with radio ratings, I've never heard of a foreign SW station showing up with any kind of numbers. Of course, I have not seen ratings in every market with every release, but in decades of work in more than 20 countries, I never saw SW register.

Of course, until more recently SW was an alternative in rural areas, but those areas don't have ratings. And in most nations, first AM and then FM have reached nearly everywhere.

 

[TheBigA]

NPR has put together a pretty detailed analysis of what's been happening at the USAGM networks in the last 8 weeks, and the changes that will likely happen. They say some services are likely to go away. Some people have already been fired. I didn't see anything specifically about shortwave.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/10/nx-s1-5322493/radio-free-europe-asia-liberty-voice-of-america-usagm-kari-lake-doge

 

[Mediafrog+]

NPR has put together a pretty detailed analysis of what's been happening at the USAGM networks in the last 8 weeks, and the changes that will likely happen. They say some services are likely to go away. Some people have already been fired. I didn't see anything specifically about shortwave.

I’m still thinking broadcasts to Africa will get the ax, including the shutdown of the Botswana transmitter facility. I don’t think the current administration has any interest in reaching the continent.

The rest can be divided into three parts: Is Iran still a target of interest? Perhaps so, with the possible push for a nuclear deal with the regime in Tehran. Do we still care about reaching Afghanistan and the Pakistan border region? Likely less so. What about Radio Free Asia aimed at China and its ethnic minorities? Depends on where our overall China policy is going.

Radio Marti may be safe due to Marco Rubio and the Cuban diaspora in Florida which is loyal to Trump. That would also keep the Greenville, North Carolina transmitters in operation. Outside of that everything else may very well be up for closure.

The Kuwait transmitter facility is in the midst of an expansion, adding four transmitters. Does that project get killed before it is completed? That expansion would allow the long-planned closure of the two remaining transmitter facilities in Germany to go ahead.

We might know more in a week when the A-25 shortwave schedules are revealed. Preemptive cuts for USAGM services might already be in the works pending further closures.

 

[ted chittenden]

NPR has put together a pretty detailed analysis of what's been happening at the USAGM networks in the last 8 weeks, and the changes that will likely happen. They say some services are likely to go away. Some people have already been fired. I didn't see anything specifically about shortwave.

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/10/nx-s1-5322493/radio-free-europe-asia-liberty-voice-of-america-usagm-kari-lake-doge

Given that the U.S. is now siding with some pariah states (Russia) and some of the comments by the current Vice-president while overseas, maybe it might not be a bad thing for the Voice of America and its affiliates to completely shut down, at least for the duration of this administration. I mean hearing no news or cultural affairs programming from the U.S. might be better than hearing politically motivated and dangerous lies from these trusted information sources.

 

[TheBigA]

I mean hearing no news or cultural affairs programming from the U.S. might be better than hearing politically motivated and dangerous lies from these trusted information sources.

You should think of it more from the administration's point of view. They're the ones making these decisions. The president didn't pick Kari Lake or Brent Bozell to shut something down. They don't share your concerns.