• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

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

If it gets rid of the useless shortwave and blockable internet streams, it really does not matter. There are so many people opposing this closure using totally unverifiable data on millions of listeners that it has taken on political joust status.

Once again, I believe that's a perfectly acceptable reason to give for shutting down or reinventing the service. I'm not here to defend VOA. I would love to have Kari Lake or anyone connected to the administration say that the VOA is using fraudulent or unverifiable audience data. That alone would be enough to warrant congressional review of the system. But that's not what they're saying, and that's not why they shut it down. The fact that the courts have mandated the return of funding to these services gives the administration the opportunity to use some of that money to at least commission an industry study of the system. That would give them a real reason to either shut it down or reinvent it. That was even called for in Project 2025. But instead, Kari Lake sits at home all day on a government salary making political posts on social media.

You would think with all of the people in this administration who at one time worked in the media, who have that experience in their background, that maybe one of them would use that experience to talk about the media they now regulate. Rather than use political or ideological language. The only time it ever comes up is when the president talks about ratings. But then he uses ratings to further his ideology.
 
If it gets rid of the useless shortwave and blockable internet streams, it really does not matter. There are so many people opposing this closure using totally unverifiable data on millions of listeners that it has taken on political joust status.

The fact is that nearly every other nation has abandoned international broadcasting, yet there are people in the United States trying to make a museum dinosaur skeleton roar around the planet influencing people.


I think the VOA serves a purpose but except in very limited cases, liek parts of Africa and Asia, its not the best way of doing things.

So what is? I dont know. The internet can be blocked easily

So, lets say for sake of argument.... we all agree VOA should continue but not on SW.. how do we have it continue, using what mediums?
 
With the upcoming 75th anniversary of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, REM just put out a bunch of merchandise related to their song "Radio Free Europe", and the proceeds from selling the merch (shirts, the vinyl, and the bundles) will go to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty:
 
If it gets rid of the useless shortwave and blockable internet streams, it really does not matter. There are so many people opposing this closure using totally unverifiable data on millions of listeners that it has taken on political joust status.

The fact is that nearly every other nation has abandoned international broadcasting, yet there are people in the United States trying to make a museum dinosaur skeleton roar around the planet influencing people.

Once again that is not the issue that has been cited. If the administration had conducted a study and found this to be true and that VOA can reach people in a better content delivery system, so be it. That is NOT what happened. The administration did not like the content and decided to not follow the legal process and just shut it down. Period. Full stop.

Follow the legal process to do it or get slapped with lawsuits. It really is that simple.
 
What about streaming VOA over free to air satellite?

It's even less practical than shortwave I know, but with new phones having satellite capabilities now, maybe that can change?

Starlink is doing something like this, except for broadband and not free, but it proves the idea is valid, however nontrivial its implementation may be.

c
 
I'm not aware that anyone in the administration is considering alternative distribution methods for VOA.

The decision to shut it down was based wholly on the content, not the distribution.

USAGM no longer exists. The person who had been proposed as its head has been withdrawn.
 
I'm not aware that anyone in the administration is considering alternative distribution methods for VOA.

The decision to shut it down was based wholly on the content, not the distribution.

USAGM no longer exists. The person who had been proposed as its head has been withdrawn.

Not only that but Elon Musk owns the Starlink satellite system, and I very much doubt that he would let VOA use it, no matter how much money was offered.
 
Not only that but Elon Musk owns the Starlink satellite system, and I very much doubt that he would let VOA use it, no matter how much money was offered.
True.

In time, there will probably be viable alternatives that would be free of Musk's interference.

Unless maybe it could be implemented using an existing network of satellites that's not Starlink.

c
 
I'm not aware that anyone in the administration is considering alternative distribution methods for VOA.

The decision to shut it down was based wholly on the content, not the distribution.

USAGM no longer exists. The person who had been proposed as its head has been withdrawn.
There is no "mass market" alternative distribution method.

Satellite phones, no matter who owns the service will always be more expensive.

Shortwave is obsolete and few people in what would be the principal target areas and populations have radios... and have not had for decades.

The internet is easily blocked in nations where differing opinions are most important to deliver.

This is a concept that is out of date and belongs in Cold War writings. Ever since our president told Kruschev to "tear down that wall" its purpose was gone.
 
This is a concept that is out of date and belongs in Cold War writings. Ever since our president told Kruschev to "tear down that wall" its purpose was gone.

That was a different Russia. The current Russia funds things like Radio Sputnik, which American radio owners were airing, until the government stopped them. So clearly things are not as simple as you describe. There is still a lot of concern in congress and at the FCC about foreign interference in US owned media. We're bad playing defense, and we're unable to play offense. This is why we're losing the information war. Other countries are far better at it.
 
What about streaming VOA over free to air satellite?

It's even less practical than shortwave I know, but with new phones having satellite capabilities now, maybe that can change?


VOA and for that matter, the entire USAGM audio and video package had been on the free-to-air satellite services for many years.

I would submit that the satellite coverage with the USAGM programming was more practical for many people, considering the high concentration of Ku band satellite receiving systems in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
 
Last edited:
VOA and for that matter, the entire USAGM audio and video package had been on the free-to-air satellite services for many years.

I would submit that the satellite coverage with the USAGM programming was more practical for many people, considering the high concentration of Ku band satellite receiving systems in Europe, the Middle East and Asia.
And the people in those places who could afford a satellite system are basically privileged upper class.
 
That was a different Russia. The current Russia funds things like Radio Sputnik, which American radio owners were airing, until the government stopped them. So clearly things are not as simple as you describe. There is still a lot of concern in congress and at the FCC about foreign interference in US owned media. We're bad playing defense, and we're unable to play offense. This is why we're losing the information war. Other countries are far better at it.
None of that defends keeping an expensive shortwave system with very costly programming in many languages... that nobody listens to

For that matter, Radio Sputnik was laughable and not commendable. It was on a couple of highly deficient AM stations with content nobody would be attracted to. A poor example of updating distribution systems.
 
None of that defends keeping an expensive shortwave system with very costly programming in many languages... that nobody listens to

Regardless it's not the job of the president to shut it down. Presidents are supposed to be mostly ceremonial. Not supposed to legislate from the oval.

Radio Sputnik was laughable and not commendable. It was on a couple of highly deficient AM stations with content nobody would be attracted to. A poor example of updating distribution systems.
Yet the Russians are successful at achieving their mission. Same with the Qataris. Lots of countries have made great inroads into our media.
 
Regardless it's not the job of the president to shut it down. Presidents are supposed to be mostly ceremonial. Not supposed to legislate from the oval.
That is not the correct definition of the "Executive" branch. Whether you apply the correct definition to Kennedy's stand-off with Russia about Cuba or Roosevelt's nego9tiations with the UK and Russia in WW II, the president is, in a radio equivalent, the "General Manager".
Yet the Russians are successful at achieving their mission. Same with the Qataris. Lots of countries have made great inroads into our media.
If the Russian mission was to be on rimshot AMs with no listeners, then they succeeded.

No country has made any kind of inroad into U.S. electronic media. Perhaps the greatest foreign influence in U.S. media would be Televisa in television and "Jack" in radio. Mexico and Canada, neither of which are any less than allies.
 
And the people in those places who could afford a satellite system are basically privileged upper class.


David, I might agree with you if this was 40 years ago and everything was C-band.

Ku band dishes with LNBs aren't expensive and the receivers are also relatively inexpensive these days.

I will admit I've not bought a satellite receiver in many years, but the last one I bought was under $20. Sure, it wasn't built to the same quality as a professional rackmount receiver, but it worked and picked up the VOA satellite package available in the Middle East.

By the same token, the Scientific Atlanta/Cisco receivers for use with the AFRTS network, in the same timeframe, they were about $350 in the Exchange stores.
 
David, I might agree with you if this was 40 years ago and everything was C-band.

Ku band dishes with LNBs aren't expensive and the receivers are also relatively inexpensive these days.
Inexpensive? By American standards, perhaps. But for most of the rest of the world, the cost of that equipment and its installation is huge if not totally prohibitive.
I will admit I've not bought a satellite receiver in many years, but the last one I bought was under $20. Sure, it wasn't built to the same quality as a professional rackmount receiver, but it worked and picked up the VOA satellite package available in the Middle East.
And that is just a portion of the cost. In most of the rest of the world, people don't live in single family homes in the suburbs. If you are in Madrid or Milano or Moscow, you have to get access to the roof of the building your flat is in and figure out how to run wires back to your location. The cost is considerable.

Let's take a country nearer the high end: Romania. Average household income is around $600 a month. In Burkina Faso it is under $150 a month. In Egypt is around $300. Average income around the world
By the same token, the Scientific Atlanta/Cisco receivers for use with the AFRTS network, in the same timeframe, they were about $350 in the Exchange stores.
In other words, over the monthly household income of over half of the countries of the world, without adding in shipping, import duties, taxes, antennas and a screen and audio system to display the content on. In About half the world, such a system would be about the equivalent of a year's earnings.
 
That is not the correct definition of the "Executive" branch. Whether you apply the correct definition to Kennedy's stand-off with Russia about Cuba or Roosevelt's nego9tiations with the UK and Russia in WW II, the president is, in a radio equivalent, the "General Manager".

A radio GM with no control of the budget? Constitutionally, the president can't take back what the congress has given.

No country has made any kind of inroad into U.S. electronic media.

The BBC and the CBC are each carried on hundreds of US public radio stations. Duetsche Welle has also had some success.

Al Jazeera had a lot of success on cable for a while.
 
A radio GM with no control of the budget? Constitutionally, the president can't take back what the congress has given.
When I was GM, even at a group I was CEO and a board member of, the budget had to pass the BOD approval... either directly or via a committee that reported to a member of the board.
The BBC and the CBC are each carried on hundreds of US public radio stations. Duetsche Welle has also had some success.}
And all three are very mainstream and conventional. All shared what I would call a "NATO" worldview. Different designs for the flag, but the same core values.
Al Jazeera had a lot of success on cable for a while.
Keyworld: "while". There was a moment when it was thought to be a solid and interesting perspective to the world view, but then it went radical.
 


Back
Top Bottom