• 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.

I can't think of anyone I ever talked to about international broadcasting who did not think of the VOA as being the propaganda voice of the government of the United States.

But that's not why Kari Lake shut it down. The president said the VOA was in fact the complete opposite. You're saying one thing, and the president is saying another. He says it was NOT the voice of the government, and therefore he was justified in firing everyone. He listed a lot of specific examples. Here is his announcement:


The problem with his view is the law creating VOA was written specifically to prevent it from becoming the propaganda voice of the government. They were supposed to be independent from the white house. That's why the judge has reversed his actions. If the VOA had been doing what you claim, it would not have been shut down.
 
But that's not why Kari Lake shut it down. The president said the VOA was in fact the complete opposite. You're saying one thing, and the president is saying another. He says it was NOT the voice of the government, and therefore he was justified in firing everyone. He listed a lot of specific examples. Here is his announcement:
Here we are differentiating my opinion and that of Kari Lake. I do not agree with her opinions, but I do agree with the intent to close down the VOA.
The problem with his view is the law creating VOA was written specifically to prevent it from becoming the propaganda voice of the government.
Yet it was, in every respect, the propaganda voice for the American system of government.
They were supposed to be independent from the white house. That's why the judge has reversed his actions. If the VOA had been doing what you claim, it would not have been shut down.
My opinion is that it should be closed or phased out because technology passed it by. Any international information should be part of the functions of the diplomatic service.

In fact, we used to have the United States Information Service, later the Information Agency, that did just that.


It was not without reason that folks in the nations where there was a USIS office "back then" pronounced the acronym as "Useless".
 
Here we are differentiating my opinion and that of Kari Lake.

No I'm comparing what you said to what the president said. You & he don't agree.


Yet it was, in every respect, the propaganda voice for the American system of government.

Perhaps at one time, but according to the president, it hasn't been lately, and that's why he shut it down.
 
What did Jamaica do to piss Trump off that much, and what in the world do the words "Kari Lake" and "Certificate of Demonstrated Competence" have to do with each other? IIRC, she still needs to be approved by the Senate. Shouldn't be a problem.

EDIT: Ignore the "Technical Difficulties" title. The link works, at least for me. I tried it twice and it was OK both times.

 
VOA's services have been slowly returning since the shutdown was ruled illegal. Here's a website that continually updates as VOA's various language divisions publish new content.

The Chinese service is providing extensive live special coverage of the US-China Summit, including airing reports from VOA reporters who were sent to Beijing.

VOA's access to Reuters was also restored sometime in the last month.
 
IIRC, she still needs to be approved by the Senate. Shouldn't be a problem.

Correct, all ambassadors need confirmation. Then again, she technically needed that to do what she was doing at VOA. The white house avoided it.

U.S. ambassadors are nominated by the President and must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Senate after review by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

They may leave her in an acting capacity for a while. In the meantime, she gets a paid vacation at taxpayer expense.
 
Last edited:
Correct, all ambassadors need confirmation. Then again, she technically needed that to do what she was doing at VOA. The white house avoided it.



They may leave her in an acting capacity for a while. In the meantime, she gets a paid vacation at taxpayer expense.

If the vote is held before the midterms, Kari Lake will probably be the next U.S. ambassador to Jamaica. However, if it is delayed until after the midterms, then all bets are off. As to the question of what made the current ppresident so angry as to send Mrs. (or is it Miss) Lake to Jamaica, keep in mind that the current U.S. president considers the island nation to be a s**thole country because of the skin color of the natives.
 
According to a posting by Daniel Burns on the World Radio TV Handbook Facebook page, the USAGM Botswana transmitter facility is being reactivated with English broadcasts on Tuesdays and Fridays:

“Looks like VoA, Mopeng Hill, Botswana is firing back up today, May 22.
4940khz 0530 - 0700z. 12060khz 0600 - 1400z. 15160khz 0600 - 1400z. 17690khz 0600 - 1400z. 4930khz 1200 - 1400z. All english, Tuesdays and Fridays.”


These broadcast times are registered with the HFCC, but actual usage may be less. Will also need to have this all confirmed by actual reception.

(H/T to Glenn Hauser, Dave Kenny and John Jurasek on Glenn’s World of Radio forum for the heads up.)
 
It's kind of wild that, in this day and age where shortwave is considered long dead, broadcasts are actually coming back from the dead.
Only a few scattered hours from USAGM have returned. And since VOA broadcasts to Africa (and elsewhere) have been off the air for 14 months, the audience is gone, possibly never to return.

There have been some reports of the Botswana facility testing with filler music on Friday May 22, but no actual programming. The transmitters are from the early 1990s; when units that age are turned back on after lengthy disuse they often don’t wake up happy.
 
Only a few scattered hours from USAGM have returned. And since VOA broadcasts to Africa (and elsewhere) have been off the air for 14 months, the audience is gone, possibly never to return.
And that is assuming that anyone was listening prior to the "new administration".
There have been some reports of the Botswana facility testing with filler music on Friday May 22, but no actual programming. The transmitters are from the early 1990s; when units that age are turned back on after lengthy disuse they often don’t wake up happy.
Particularly if the site was "decommissioned" with climate control discontinued.
 
Only a few scattered hours from USAGM have returned. And since VOA broadcasts to Africa (and elsewhere) have been off the air for 14 months, the audience is gone, possibly never to return.
Fair point. However, "only a few scattered hours" totally counts. As minuscule as it is, it does represent a new broadcast (well, technically it's the resumption of a recently discontinued broadcast as opposed to something completely new, but that's splitting hairs in this case, I think).

And yes, the 2 or 3 people who were listening before have probably long since given up, so it's fair to say, "why bother now? The damage is done."

c
 
Update on the USAGM Botswana site: Glenn Hauser, on his World of Radio forum, reports this:

“Per reliable sources, the operation of Botswana is just testing to maintain the equipment and there is not any scheduled programming being planned at this time.”

So apparently not decommissioned, but no plans for its future, either. Looks like the HFCC registrations for the site are mostly wooden, other than transmitter tests.

I had the thought that if USAGM wants to resume limited broadcasts to Africa, it could do so by leasing time on other transmitter providers, rather than incurring the expense of the Botswana facility.
 


Back
Top Bottom