VOA To Do Propaganda?

[davideduardo]

When those who feel the need to mock hyperbole, which is as valid a rhetorical technique as any other, themselves also eschew the use of exaggeration to make a point, or who seem to think that a positive exaggerations is somehow less inaccurate than a negative exaggeration to make a point, then I'll respect those people. Until then ...

And this comes right after you dismissed all journalists with this:

""Self-respecting journalist" is a lot like "dedicated public servant". People talk about them in the abstract, but no one has actually seen one in reality. "

"Hyperbole" is not the same as "lie". In this case, your statement was a lie... even if there is just one "self respecting journalist" left in the Universe.

 

[Avid Listener]

From Miriam Webster

hy·per·bo·le noun \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
: language that describes something as better or worse than it really is

Examples of hyperbole:

Examples of HYPERBOLE

<“enough food to feed a whole army” is a common example of hyperbole>
Four decades later we're all blabbermouths, adrift on a sea of hyperbole, shouting to be heard. —Steve Rushin, Sports Illustrated, 1 Apr. 2002

 

[FredLeonard]

So, why do all those polls rank "journalists" right down there in public trust with lawyers and car salesmen?

The VOA has already shut down most of their short-wave transmitters. What's the point of continuing to spend money on VOA. People can listen online to anything from anywhere. Short-wave is as dead as medium wave (what the rest of the world calls "AM").

VOA also operated transmitters for AFRTS, which was pure, brainwash-the-troops propaganda and made no bones about it.

 

[TheBigA]

So, why do all those polls rank "journalists" right down there in public trust with lawyers and car salesmen?

Regardless of what people say in polls, neither lawyers nor car salesmen are hurting for clients.

What's the point of continuing to spend money on VOA. People can listen online to anything from anywhere. Short-wave is as dead as medium wave (what the rest of the world calls "AM").

No one in Congress is saying they should shut down VOA. Even the staunchest of staunch Republicans want to continue to fund VOA and AFRTS.

Most of the service on AFRTS is music programming, and most of the listeners are area residents, not troops.

 

[FredLeonard]

OK, I say shut it down.

Lifer music - except, of course, for Rush. Although, I guess Rush is music to a lifer's ears.

 

[TheBigA]

OK, I say shut it down.

Let me know when you run for Congress.

Lifer music - except, of course, for Rush.

Not really. Regardless, no one in Congress is going to deny anything to our troops.

Both of these are up to Congress, neither will ever be put up for a public vote, and the federal appropriation will not be challenged. So move on.

 

[FredLeonard]

Really! Lifer NCOs pick the music and other programming.

 

[TheBigA]

Really! Lifer NCOs pick the music and other programming.

My father was a lifer.

As I said, no one will vote to cut money for VOA or AFRTS, so move on.

 

[davideduardo]

So, why do all those polls rank "journalists" right down there in public trust with lawyers and car salesmen?

Because todays news consumer believes blogs and not newspapers and periodicals. So they shoot the messenger, often, and fatally.

The VOA has already shut down most of their short-wave transmitters. What's the point of continuing to spend money on VOA.

The point is the same as it was in the short wave era... to have a voice around the world to counter all the other nations that have a voice. There is loads of VOA material available on the web, and lots of VOA programming carried on independent local stations.

People can listen online to anything from anywhere.

So? VOA was not chartered to run shortwave transmitters. It was chartered to create content.

Short-wave is as dead as medium wave (what the rest of the world calls "AM").

And the VOA knows that shortwave is not the distribution path of the future. That does not change the fact that the content has to be created before it is fed to any distribution channel.

VOA also operated transmitters for AFRTS, which was pure, brainwash-the-troops propaganda and made no bones about it.

VOA operated only some SW facilities for AFRTS; these were ones intended to make AFRTS accessable to isolated military communities that did not have a base or community station. The more typical AFRTS radio station was 50 watts or so into a less-than-100-foot tower receivable in and around a base only. Those stations were installed by and run by AFRTS base personnel.

The content was hardly "propaganda" unless you consider American Top 40 and things like that to be "propaganda". AFRTS was intended to give some amount of "homestyle" programming to the military, particularly in locations where there were no local stations in English or with music, news and entertainment that they would enjoy.

I lived for many years quite close to Ft. Buchanan, which had an AFRTS station. For non-Spanish speaking military, it was about the only option for radio entertainment and it had rather well done news that I often listened to to keep "in touch". It had nothing I would characterize as "propaganda". It was just entertainment.

 

[davideduardo]

hy·per·bo·le noun \hī-ˈpər-bə-(ˌ)lē\
: language that describes something as better or worse than it really is

You are trying to dress a lie in hyperbole's clothing and it does not work. It is simply insulting to the many self-respecting, honorable and decent newspeople out there.

 

[Avid Listener]

Regardless of what people say in polls, neither lawyers nor car salesmen are hurting for clients.

So, polls, which are another name for "market testing" are dead-bang accurate and reliable for picking songs, but if they report something you disagree with, they're useless. And do not mistake the fact that people need the services of lawyers, or need to buy cars with thinking that means people trust lawyers or car salesmen. There are some things in life that you must use when you need it, and yet are quick to discard it when it is no longer needed. Toilet paper is a good example. Lawyers are another.

No one in Congress is saying they should shut down VOA. Even the staunchest of staunch Republicans want to continue to fund VOA and AFRTS.

Most of the service on AFRTS is music programming, and most of the listeners are area residents, not troops.

Proves nothing. aside from the fact that the folks doing the propaganda broadcasts understand that you need to use some entertainment to attract listeners to hear your propaganda. Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally both played all the hits in between propaganda pitches. The fact that nowadays we've learned to be more subtle doesn't really make things any different.

 

[Avid Listener]

You are trying to dress a lie in hyperbole's clothing and it does not work. It is simply insulting to the many self-respecting, honorable and decent newspeople out there.

If I ever run into either one of them, I'll apologize.

 

[TheBigA]

So, polls, which are another name for "market testing" are dead-bang accurate and reliable for picking songs, but if they report something you disagree with, they're useless.

Wow, way to hijack the thread to suit your agenda. Congrats to you on your creativity. Too bad I wasn't talking about polls, but rather how Congressional votes determine funding for VOA and AFRTS. Radio stations, on the other hand, pay attention to their market testing, and tend to follow their results.

 

[FredLeonard]

Wow, way to hijack the thread to suit your agenda. Congrats to you on your creativity. Too bad I wasn't talking about polls, but rather how Congressional votes determine funding for VOA and AFRTS. Radio stations, on the other hand, pay attention to their market testing, and tend to follow their results.

Well, if you want to take it in that direction, radio broadcasters are among the worst users of market research. They hire consultants who have a product to sell and let them do research which always seem to show the product is needed. Talk about gullible.

 

[davideduardo]

Well, if you want to take it in that direction, radio broadcasters are among the worst users of market research. They hire consultants who have a product to sell and let them do research which always seem to show the product is needed. Talk about gullible.

That's seldom how it works.

Hiring a consultant and hiring a research company may be related, but a management or programming consultant generally does not own a research company. So if a consultant is already on board, they have nothing more to sell.

Research companies offer related consulting as part of the total package... in other words, assistance in understanding the results of a research project and the best way to make use of the data.

But the use of consultants is far more limited today than in the past. When companies were limited to 7 FMs and 7 AMs, they often did not have the depth of experience and skills for every situation in-house. So they made good use of consultants who brought a broader variety of experiences and solutions to the station. Today, groups usually have people in the company with specific expertise and knowledge... which is why we have seen many of the well known consultants of the 70's and 80's disappear or downsize in the post-consolidation era.

Back to the subject: with or without a consultant, station owners order research from specialized research companies. The most common research for music stations is the Auditorium Music Test (AMT) which is, after nearly 40 years of use, quite well understood and effectively deployed. Talk stations with local talent and news will do perceptual research of some kind, and such products are also rather time-proven and effective.

The only time research is used to actually change a format is when the decision is already made based on ratings and revenue, and then a format search project is done to look for potential openings in a market. Nobody gets a perceptual or an AMT and then says, "well, we had better change format" because those products are used to improve an existing format, not to decide to abandon it.

You blatently misunderstand both the hierarchy of programming decisions and the distinction between professional opinion (consultants or in-house specialists) and listener opinion (research conducted among select groups of the public).

 

[davideduardo]

If I ever run into either one of them, I'll apologize.

There you go again.

 

[davideduardo]

So, polls, which are another name for "market testing" are dead-bang accurate and reliable for picking songs, but if they report something you disagree with, they're useless.

I doubt researchers would confuse an opinion poll and a test among station listeners of the songs they like.

That's like comparing a Letterman Top 10 list with way the GDP is determined.

Proves nothing. aside from the fact that the folks doing the propaganda broadcasts understand that you need to use some entertainment to attract listeners to hear your propaganda. Tokyo Rose and Axis Sally both played all the hits in between propaganda pitches. The fact that nowadays we've learned to be more subtle doesn't really make things any different.

VOA music shows don't insert "Dear GI Joe" messages in between songs. Most are indistinguishable from radio station in any market in the US, save for the absence of commercials and the target-specific "PSA" material that relates to service personnel. It sounds like you have never listened to an AFRTS station, as you are attributing to them a great deal of content that simply is not part of their formats.

German and Japanese W.W. II radio was produced by hostile governments for non-citizens of those two countries. AFRTS is produced by the US Military to inform and entertain US Military personnel and their dependents.

 

[Small Market Guy]

They say they don't do propaganda. Fox says they are fair and balanced.
The typical right wing spiel: What you say is "propaganda" or "media bias." What we say is "news" or "truth."
This is the same thinking that has terrestrial radio wall to wall right-wing talk.

You can't help but make every thread about your pathological hatred for conservative talk radio, can you? Stop it.

 

[Small Market Guy]

Sure but no "self respecting journalist" would work in radio

And this is how I know you've never worked in a radio station. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of radio reporters that do an excellent job. They sit through mind numbingly boring city council meetings, they interview the kid who won the spelling bee. They ask the mayor why he's resigning. They're fair and objective JOURNALISTS.

Every single post you make here shows more and more of your ignorance. One of these days maybe you'll learn your lesson and shut the hell up and maybe then you'll learn something about how radio REALLY works.

You sound just like the idiot that called my show on Friday complaining that I wasn't talking about a local issue that has been out of the news for MONTHS. Apparently the less responsible host across town has been spreading the rumor that the former mayor was taking kickbacks. Maybe you think slander is good radio, but it's NOT.

 

[Avid Listener]

Wow, way to hijack the thread to suit your agenda. Congrats to you on your creativity. Too bad I wasn't talking about polls, but rather how Congressional votes determine funding for VOA and AFRTS. Radio stations, on the other hand, pay attention to their market testing, and tend to follow their results.

Is this, or is this not, what you posted?

Regardless of what people say in polls, neither lawyers nor car salesmen are hurting for clients.