Voice of America to Terminate "News Now" & Virtually All English Services; Budget Guts the Voice

[dampier]

Voice of America to Terminate "News Now" & Virtually All English Services; Budget Guts the Voice

In the most far reaching change in the history of the Voice of America, the Bush Administration has proposed the total elimination of English language broadcasting from the Voice of America, with the exception of one hour a day in English directed to Zimbabwe and the VOA Special English service for listeners whose native language is not English.

The proposal would gut nearly 90,000 broadcast hours per year in VOA programming, terminate more than 14 hours of English language news programming per day, and result in the loss of hundreds of VOA jobs.

The only remaining global service in English would be the text found on the VOA News website, which would continue.

Resources would be redirected to non-VOA special surrogate radio services not bound by the charter of the VOA itself, such as the Arabic language Radio Sawa.

The total retreat by the U.S. government in English language shortwave broadcasts comes at the same time China Radio International has announced major expansion plans for its English language service, which will eventually provide 24 hour service to all parts of the world, as well as the launch of Al-Jazeera International's new English 24 hour news service.

Here's a commentary from Martin Schram, a Washington journalist who frequents VOA programming as a guest:

VOA is DOA in Bush budget
Martin Schram

We interrupt the non-stop news about the War on Terror for a bulletin from the battlefront of public diplomacy, otherwise known as the global Battle for Hearts and Minds.

This just in: According to a little-noticed line in its 2007 budget, the Bush administration has proposed pulling the plug on just about all of the Voice of America’s English-language broadcasting and telecasting.

Unless smarter heads in Congress intervene, this means the U.S. will be taking a giant step in the wrong direction – at the worst possible time. A world of listeners will be losing a group of English-language programs that provide them with a chance to hear perhaps the best example of what American-style democracy is all about.

For once we are discussing a topic in which a number of Washington journalists, me included, are not disinterested bystanding observers. For almost two decades, we have made up a rotating panel of journalists – liberals, conservatives and somewhere-in-betweeners – who appear in groups of three on “Issues in the News,” a radio show discussing Washington and world events. (We are paid nominally for our time, $100 for a panel member and $150 for the panel’s host – figures that remained unchanged for at least a quarter-century.)

At a time when Al-Jazeera and China Radio International are adding English programming, the U.S. is going the other way.

Funding will continue only for VOA English radio beamed to Africa and a special program for beginning English-language users that features a very limited 1,500-word vocabulary, spoken very slowly. The VOA’s English Web site will also continue.

The board went on to unintentionally prove its own misjudgment, saying: “The budget reflects the board’s commitment to English-language programming in the medium of the future, the Internet and for excellence in Special English programming. Research shows that millions more are benefiting from Internet programming than from shortwave transmission, which VOA News Now relies on.”
It is correct: Shortwave broadcasting is old-tech (yet still widely used, especially in rural impoverished areas). And the Internet is not just the medium of the future; in many places that future is now. Moreover, there is also a medium of the future within the Internet – streaming audio and video. Millions soon will be listening to or viewing programs not just on home computers or laptops, but on their cell phones – which are becoming the communications instrument of choice in poor countries.

So, if millions of English-speaking people in Muslim countries and other places in the emerging world are watching the Internet, what English-language programming will there be for them to watch? Precious little – if it is all being scrapped in a shortsighted effort to save a few bucks ($9 million) in the interim. They will not be able to see the living demonstration of what democracy in action is all about – brought to them by a government that is in power, but not above listening to the views of its critics on all matters of war and peace.

“That’s a good point,” said Mark Helmke, a senior professional staff member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind. “We’ll have to take a look at that if we’re going to salvage that sort of program.”

Helmke, a Fort Wayne native and an expert on public-diplomacy issues, has advocated an end to the patchwork reforms and a complete review of U.S. global communications strategy. He has also suggested that perhaps the VOA should become a sort of international C-SPAN, airing unfiltered views that support and oppose government policy. A government showcase for democracy – that’s one of the most intriguing and purely positive ideas to be heard in a capital city where negative and partisan intrigues too often prevail.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Good for the VOA

>
> Unless smarter heads in Congress intervene, this means the
> U.S. will be taking a giant step in the wrong direction – at
> the worst possible time. A world of listeners will be losing
> a group of English-language programs that provide them with
> a chance to hear perhaps the best example of what
> American-style democracy is all about.

I can only address one issue here... the usage of Short Wave in general. In the last few decades, the world-wide use of SW has declined dramatically. While radios with SW bands used to be the norm in any store from Ambato, Ecuador to Luanda, Angola, such radios are no longer common if available at all. AM /FM radios predominate, and FM coverage of even the least developed nations is significant and plentiful.

Those who understand spoken English in non-English speaking nations are gnerally the middle and upper class, socioeconomically speaking. These are the folks who have satellite TV and watch the news and other programming on the plethora of satellite-distributed channels.

The BBC understood this, and moved to new distribution methods several years ago.

Short wave is very close to an anachronism. It has ugly quality, unreliable reception and the bands are now populated by evangalists and political extremists.

In much of the world, the availablity of local SW service, such as on the tropical bands in much of Latin America, SE Asia, Oceania and Africa, kept an interest in SW. 75% or more of these stations are gone, and there has been a decline from the mid-60's through today.

Even one-time strong proponents of SW, like HCJB, have reduced power, cut service and adopted a policy of promoting local FM services around the world instead of SW.

I speak as the former licensee of a tropical band SW station, which I shuttered and returned the licese for in the late 60's. There is nobody listening.

Bravo to the VOA and the administration for eliminating a pork barrel boondoggle that only soaked the taxpayer without doing much good at all.
>
> At a time when Al-Jazeera and China Radio International are
> adding English programming, the U.S. is going the other way.

I could add Uhru programming on aterrestrial station in Los Angeles. Nobody would listen. It is not about what is being broadcast, but what listeners can (they must have an SW receiver) and want to hear.

SW needs to be replaced by relevant and usable options.

 

[gr8oldies]

Re: Good for the VOA

Sadly, gotta agree. I learned a lot of my Spanish listening to the tropical broadcasters, particularly Ecos Del Torbes (with "Lo Que Esta Noche Recurerda" which often sent greetings to overseas Venezuelans) but now you can hear Spanish radio or watch Spanish TV almost anywhere.

 

[dampier]

Re: Good for the VOA

> I can only address one issue here... the usage of Short Wave
> in general. In the last few decades, the world-wide use of
> SW has declined dramatically. While radios with SW bands
> used to be the norm in any store from Ambato, Ecuador to
> Luanda, Angola, such radios are no longer common if
> available at all. AM /FM radios predominate, and FM coverage
> of even the least developed nations is significant and
> plentiful.

This isn't true in Africa. Cheap Chinese shortwave radio are sold all over Africa because the radio offerings, outside of the largest cities, are nearly non-existant on anything but shortwave. Worldspace, touted as some great 21st century solution, has become a total failure, now moving to a pseudo-XM/Sirius pay model. There are some rural places in Latin America, Asia, and Russia where shortwave remains extremely important. I was watching a documentary from the CBC & BBC about life in the central Asian republics and it was remarkable the HUGE number of cheap Chinese shortwave radios that are sold in flea markets all over the region. Shortwave is critically important in a lot of these places.

Once you get into cities and the more developed world, shortwave more and more is becoming ... well, quaint. Satellite radio, local relays, and retransmission agreements are making shortwave redundant in several areas.

However, what happens the moment you start crossing a government that permits local MW/FM relays in country? The transmitters get switched off. Shortwave is critical if you need to convey information into hostile regions or during wartime. The Internet is also no replacement for shortwave radio if you want to reach the developing world, but on demand (and now podcasting) service for the developed world is a great way to deliver your programs to audiences.

The VOA switching off English is like the BBC World Service closing down its English network except for Calling the Falklands and English by Radio! It's amazingly shortsighted and stupid. If the VOA doesn't want to produce a ton of programming itself, then cut a deal with NPR and let them serve as an international voice instead, but don't turn the whole service off.

So far, the VOA's appointed leadership has managed to actually suggest that they outsource news to Communist China's Hong Kong overnight. This latest proposal is just as stupid.

> Those who understand spoken English in non-English speaking
> nations are gnerally the middle and upper class,
> socioeconomically speaking. These are the folks who have
> satellite TV and watch the news and other programming on the
> plethora of satellite-distributed channels.

This audience however is also critical to reach as they are often the decision makers and opinion leaders in a country.

> The BBC understood this, and moved to new distribution
> methods several years ago.

The BBC didn't shut off English.

> Short wave is very close to an anachronism. It has ugly
> quality, unreliable reception and the bands are now
> populated by evangalists and political extremists.

That occurs from a handful of commercial shortwave stations, and has nothing to do with the rest of the stations that don't carry these shows.

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Good for the VOA

> This isn't true in Africa. Cheap Chinese shortwave radio
> are sold all over Africa because the radio offerings,
> outside of the largest cities, are nearly non-existant on
> anything but shortwave.

Even the smaller villages in Burkina Faso have an FM or two these days, and the SW radios are rapidly disappearing as they did in Latin America.

> Worldspace, touted as some great
> 21st century solution, has become a total failure, now
> moving to a pseudo-XM/Sirius pay model. There are some
> rural places in Latin America, Asia, and Russia where
> shortwave remains extremely important.

And you think that the residents of rural Ecuador, Bolivia or Peru understand English? This was about the VOA English services. I have built rural radio stations in remote parts of South America, and the fact is that SW is pretty much gone and forgotten.

> I was watching a
> documentary from the CBC & BBC about life in the central
> Asian republics and it was remarkable the HUGE number of
> cheap Chinese shortwave radios that are sold in flea markets
> all over the region. Shortwave is critically important in a
> lot of these places.

For English? How many rural Chinese know English? And I think you exaggerate the importantance of SW, as the broadcasters themselves have cut back or discontinued service because nobody listens. The multitude of SW commercial staitons in Latin America, Indonesia, some African nations, etc., are nearly gone as they can not make money because there are not listeners.
>
> Once you get into cities and the more developed world,
> shortwave more and more is becoming ... well, quaint.
> Satellite radio, local relays, and retransmission agreements
> are making shortwave redundant in several areas.

Lago Agrio, Ecudor or Tarapoto, Peru or Cochabamba and Potosí, Bolivia or Chitré, Panamá are hardly developed or big cities. I put FMs on the air in all of them, and that was 25 years ago. today, every one of those towns has many FMs and no operating SW.
>
> However, what happens the moment you start crossing a
> government that permits local MW/FM relays in country? The
> transmitters get switched off. Shortwave is critical if you
> need to convey information into hostile regions or during
> wartime.

If there are few or no receivers, nothing happens. I looked at the radio ratings in a variety of Latin American cities in the late 60's at the respondent level and found that there was no listening to SW recorded, even 40 years ago.

And this is all way off the point that none of this audience would be the least interested in English language VOA transmissions. Heck, if in the US territory of Puerto Rico, no one listens to English radio, who would possibly listen in a less developed nation?

> The VOA switching off English is like the BBC World Service
> closing down its English network except for Calling the
> Falklands and English by Radio!

The Brits chose to serve British subjects abroad. Expensive and less than sensible. And there is nobody to call in the Malvinas, except a thousand or so shepherds who mostly listen to the local FM relays, not SW. Have you ever tried to listen to SW in those deep latitudes? Awful!

> It's amazingly shortsighted
> and stupid. If the VOA doesn't want to produce a ton of
> programming itself, then cut a deal with NPR and let them
> serve as an international voice instead, but don't turn the
> whole service off.

I can just see someone grooving to the tales of Lake wobegon in Zimbabwe. As I said, the audience for English programming on SW from the VOA long, long ago disappeared.
>
> > Those who understand spoken English in non-English
> speaking
> > nations are gnerally the middle and upper class,
> > socioeconomically speaking. These are the folks who have
> > satellite TV and watch the news and other programming on
> the
> > plethora of satellite-distributed channels.
>
> This audience however is also critical to reach as they are
> often the decision makers and opinion leaders in a country.

Believe me, most would never listen to SW. They have a satellite dish, and view good quality broadcasts. They don't listen to the VOA and never have listened, especially in English. The whole VOA idea is a chimera; a boondoggle to perpetuate jobs but with no verified reason to exist.

If very knowledgable SW broadcasters like HCJB are abandoning SW, reducing transmitters and cutting schedules, they know something. If only the VOA could see it also and save us some money.
>
> > The BBC understood this, and moved to new distribution
> > methods several years ago.
>
> The BBC didn't shut off English.

They significantly reduced it, and most is for British subjects, not third world speakers of vernaculars. Check WRTVH for the schedules this year vs. 5 years ago.
>
> > Short wave is very close to an anachronism. It has ugly
> > quality, unreliable reception and the bands are now
> > populated by evangalists and political extremists.
>
> That occurs from a handful of commercial shortwave stations,
> and has nothing to do with the rest of the stations that
> don't carry these shows.

The real point is that nobody cares about VOA in English. And that is because it has not had more than a comparitive handful of listeners for decades and decades.
>

 

[DJKraze]

Re: Good for the VOA

> > This isn't true in Africa. Cheap Chinese shortwave radio
> > are sold all over Africa because the radio offerings,
> > outside of the largest cities, are nearly non-existant on
> > anything but shortwave.
>
> Even the smaller villages in Burkina Faso have an FM or two
> these days, and the SW radios are rapidly disappearing as
> they did in Latin America.
>
> > Worldspace, touted as some great
> > 21st century solution, has become a total failure, now
> > moving to a pseudo-XM/Sirius pay model. There are some
> > rural places in Latin America, Asia, and Russia where
> > shortwave remains extremely important.
>
> And you think that the residents of rural Ecuador, Bolivia
> or Peru understand English? This was about the VOA English
> services. I have built rural radio stations in remote parts
> of South America, and the fact is that SW is pretty much
> gone and forgotten.
>
> > I was watching a
> > documentary from the CBC & BBC about life in the central
> > Asian republics and it was remarkable the HUGE number of
> > cheap Chinese shortwave radios that are sold in flea
> markets
> > all over the region. Shortwave is critically important in
> a
> > lot of these places.
>
> For English? How many rural Chinese know English? And I
> think you exaggerate the importantance of SW, as the
> broadcasters themselves have cut back or discontinued
> service because nobody listens. The multitude of SW
> commercial staitons in Latin America, Indonesia, some
> African nations, etc., are nearly gone as they can not make
> money because there are not listeners.
> >
> > Once you get into cities and the more developed world,
> > shortwave more and more is becoming ... well, quaint.
> > Satellite radio, local relays, and retransmission
> agreements
> > are making shortwave redundant in several areas.
>
> Lago Agrio, Ecudor or Tarapoto, Peru or Cochabamba and
> Potosí, Bolivia or Chitré, Panamá are hardly developed or
> big cities. I put FMs on the air in all of them, and that
> was 25 years ago. today, every one of those towns has many
> FMs and no operating SW.
> >
> > However, what happens the moment you start crossing a
> > government that permits local MW/FM relays in country?
> The
> > transmitters get switched off. Shortwave is critical if
> you
> > need to convey information into hostile regions or during
> > wartime.
>
> If there are few or no receivers, nothing happens. I looked
> at the radio ratings in a variety of Latin American cities
> in the late 60's at the respondent level and found that
> there was no listening to SW recorded, even 40 years ago.
>
> And this is all way off the point that none of this audience
> would be the least interested in English language VOA
> transmissions. Heck, if in the US territory of Puerto Rico,
> no one listens to English radio, who would possibly listen
> in a less developed nation?
>
> > The VOA switching off English is like the BBC World
> Service
> > closing down its English network except for Calling the
> > Falklands and English by Radio!
>
> The Brits chose to serve British subjects abroad. Expensive
> and less than sensible. And there is nobody to call in the
> Malvinas, except a thousand or so shepherds who mostly
> listen to the local FM relays, not SW. Have you ever tried
> to listen to SW in those deep latitudes? Awful!
>
> > It's amazingly shortsighted
> > and stupid. If the VOA doesn't want to produce a ton of
> > programming itself, then cut a deal with NPR and let them
> > serve as an international voice instead, but don't turn
> the
> > whole service off.
>
> I can just see someone grooving to the tales of Lake wobegon
> in Zimbabwe. As I said, the audience for English programming
> on SW from the VOA long, long ago disappeared.
> >
> > > Those who understand spoken English in non-English
> > speaking
> > > nations are gnerally the middle and upper class,
> > > socioeconomically speaking. These are the folks who have
>
> > > satellite TV and watch the news and other programming on
>
> > the
> > > plethora of satellite-distributed channels.
> >
> > This audience however is also critical to reach as they
> are
> > often the decision makers and opinion leaders in a
> country.
>
> Believe me, most would never listen to SW. They have a
> satellite dish, and view good quality broadcasts. They don't
> listen to the VOA and never have listened, especially in
> English. The whole VOA idea is a chimera; a boondoggle to
> perpetuate jobs but with no verified reason to exist.
>
> If very knowledgable SW broadcasters like HCJB are
> abandoning SW, reducing transmitters and cutting schedules,
> they know something. If only the VOA could see it also and
> save us some money.
> >
> > > The BBC understood this, and moved to new distribution
> > > methods several years ago.
> >
> > The BBC didn't shut off English.
>
> They significantly reduced it, and most is for British
> subjects, not third world speakers of vernaculars. Check
> WRTVH for the schedules this year vs. 5 years ago.
> >
> > > Short wave is very close to an anachronism. It has ugly
> > > quality, unreliable reception and the bands are now
> > > populated by evangalists and political extremists.
> >
> > That occurs from a handful of commercial shortwave
> stations,
> > and has nothing to do with the rest of the stations that
> > don't carry these shows.
>
> The real point is that nobody cares about VOA in English.
> And that is because it has not had more than a comparitive
> handful of listeners for decades and decades.
> >
>


Hmm, to think I just purchased, for the first time ever, a copy of Passport to World Band Radio last night. Oh well, I'm off to fire up the old DX-440 now...

 

[PineTar]

Re: Good for the VOA

> Hmm, to think I just purchased, for the first time ever, a
> copy of Passport to World Band Radio last night. Oh well,
> I'm off to fire up the old DX-440 now...
>
Me too! Here on the east coast of the US, I was listening to the news from Australia this morning. Not just news OF Australia, mind, but a transmission originating IN Australia! Now that's what I call DX!

While outfits like VOA are reducing broadcast hours, others, like China Radio International, are increasing theirs. Also, since 9-11 Americans have bought boatloads of those hand-crank emergency radios. While these aren't precision receivers, they're enough to expose many new listeners to shortwave.

As much as I respect Mr. Eduardo's experience, it seems a bit premature to issue the death certificate for shortwave radio just yet. Here's the way I see it: shortwave is particularly poorly suited for commercial radio, so it will shrink when business interests are calling the shots. But there are enough non-commercial communication needs to keep shortwave going for a long while yet. It retains the advantage of easily crossing borders, which could become quite suddenly in a changing world.

Anyway, I'm enjoying it. It's a lot more interesting than hearing the same syndicated programs from 15 different cities on the AM band.

 

[DJKraze]

Re: Good for the VOA

> > Hmm, to think I just purchased, for the first time ever, a
>
> > copy of Passport to World Band Radio last night. Oh well,
> > I'm off to fire up the old DX-440 now...
> >
> Me too! Here on the east coast of the US, I was listening
> to the news from Australia this morning. Not just news OF
> Australia, mind, but a transmission originating IN
> Australia! Now that's what I call DX!
>
> While outfits like VOA are reducing broadcast hours, others,
> like China Radio International, are increasing theirs.
> Also, since 9-11 Americans have bought boatloads of those
> hand-crank emergency radios. While these aren't precision
> receivers, they're enough to expose many new listeners to
> shortwave.
>
> As much as I respect Mr. Eduardo's experience, it seems a
> bit premature to issue the death certificate for shortwave
> radio just yet. Here's the way I see it: shortwave is
> particularly poorly suited for commercial radio, so it will
> shrink when business interests are calling the shots. But
> there are enough non-commercial communication needs to keep
> shortwave going for a long while yet. It retains the
> advantage of easily crossing borders, which could become
> quite suddenly in a changing world.
>
> Anyway, I'm enjoying it. It's a lot more interesting than
> hearing the same syndicated programs from 15 different
> cities on the AM band.
>


Not to mention Shortwave has a digital mode that sounds like near FM quality with "DRM" http://www.drm.org

 

[PineTar]

Re: Good for the VOA

>
>
> Not to mention Shortwave has a digital mode that sounds like
> near FM quality with "DRM" http://www.drm.org
>
This would require the purchase of a new receiver, yes?

 

[DJKraze]

Re: Good for the VOA

> >
> >
> > Not to mention Shortwave has a digital mode that sounds
> like
> > near FM quality with "DRM" http://www.drm.org
> >
> This would require the purchase of a new receiver, yes?
>

Maybe, they do have software drivers for computer users, there is a cost for the software though.

 

[BRNout]

Re: Good for the VOA

> > This isn't true in Africa. Cheap Chinese shortwave radio
> > are sold all over Africa because the radio offerings,
> > outside of the largest cities, are nearly non-existant on
> > anything but shortwave.
>
> Even the smaller villages in Burkina Faso have an FM or two
> these days, and the SW radios are rapidly disappearing as
> they did in Latin America.

I cannot speak for Burkina Faso, but I can speak definitively for Uganda - having travelled across the country last summer. SW radios ARE plentiful and cheap everywhere and they are relevant. Yes, there is some limited FM in 2 or 3 of the larger cities outside of Kampala - but much of the country has limited service. Also, I tried DXing AM at night from a city in central Uganda and received only 2 weak signals! The rest of the channels were open.

However, SW was very useful (I brought my little Radio Shack portable) and I did listen to the VOA and BBC. It was great, being away from home for 3 weeks. People still do listen to it over there - and the official language of Uganda is English...though many of the rural folks speak only Buganda.

(As an aside, the BBC world service is heard 24/7 on a nice strong FM stereo signal in Kampala...but elsewhere you need sw)

One place where I agree with David is about Latin America. Nobody seems to have any interest in SW down there any more. But, this cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the world. Folks in places like Central Asia and the Middle East DO listen to it. Not everyone has satellite TV - SW radios are far more available to the public (economically) than is satellite TV. And, English is the second most spoken language on Earth (behind Mandarin, of course).

So, I think that the assumption that most English speakers can afford satellite TV or regular internet access or live in places with a reasonably free press is inaccurate. Remember, as a former part of the British Empire, a lot of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis DO speak English. And not all are rich. Surely the English SW services of the VOA and BBC are of some use to that audience.

 

[PineTar]

Re: Good for the VOA

> So, I think that the assumption that most English speakers
> can afford satellite TV or regular internet access or live
> in places with a reasonably free press is inaccurate.
> Remember, as a former part of the British Empire, a lot of
> Pakistanis and Bangladeshis DO speak English. And not all
> are rich. Surely the English SW services of the VOA and BBC
> are of some use to that audience.
>
I would venture a guess that most English speakers right here in the USA can't afford satellite/cable/dish TV. Those who CAN have enough disposable income to be interesting to advertisers.

I'm enjoying SW here in the US because there's so little variety of opinion on AM and FM radio here. I would love to use satellite radio, if I could afford it.

 

[KeithE]

Re: Good for the VOA

> I would venture a guess that most English speakers right
> here in the USA can't afford satellite/cable/dish TV. Those
> who CAN have enough disposable income to be interesting to
> advertisers.

The last figure I saw was 77% of American households have either cable or satellite TV, so by definition, most people (English-speaking or otherwise) can and do afford one or the other.

> I'm enjoying SW here in the US because there's so little
> variety of opinion on AM and FM radio here. I would love to
> use satellite radio, if I could afford it.

Anything that can be heard on SW can be heard via an internet stream, either directly from the stations' websites or via World Radio Network. There really is almost no need for any SW broadcaster anywhere to beam English-language programming to the US or Canada anymore. Probably why the BBC quit doing it.

I've enjoyed DXing the SW bands over the past 40 years as much as anyone, but the reality is this: This is 2006, not 1946, 1966, or even 1986. Technology moves on and shortwave broadcasting is dying due to better technology. The ionosphere is considered a liability today, not an asset like it was in the past. It's just too unreliable, what with that sunspot-cycle stuff. :-D

My guess is that the only services using frequencies between 1.7 and 30 MHz for actual communications in the future (say, 15 years from now) will be ham radio, CB, and the military, and they'll be subject to interference from Part 15 devices, BPL, and other noise-producing non-communications equipment.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Keith Elster on 02/16/06 09:58 PM.</FONT></P>

 

[PineTar]

Re: Good for the VOA

> The last figure I saw was 77% of American households have
> either cable or satellite TV, so by definition, most people
> (English-speaking or otherwise) can and do afford one or the
> other.

Assuming your figures are correct, 23% of the US population is still about 68 million people. The percentages would have to be higher in less developed countries. Better technology is nice for those who can afford it. But it's a mistake to ignore 1/4 of the population who can't. While it ain't what it used to be, broadcast TV doesn't seem to be going away tomorrow. Similarly, shortwave broadcasting won't ever dominate in a marketing sense. But there is still a place for it.

As for listening over a computer, it would defeat the purpose of having a portable radio. Kind of difficult to take the computer outside, or even to another room.

I probably wouldn't have been drawn to shortwave if the programming available on AM and FM weren't so mind-numbingly boring. Successful marketing has lead to a dumbing down of content to some bottom line. There's little local flavor to broadcasts, which steals some of the fun from DXing.

 

[KeithE]

Re: Good for the VOA

> Assuming your fi gures are correct, 23% of the US population
> is still about 68 million people. The percentages would
> have to be higher in less developed countries. Better
> technology is nice for those who can afford it. But it's a
> mistake to ignore 1/4 of the population who can't.

Those who can't afford it aren't on national advertisers' radar screens. The OTA transmitters are pretty much just along for the ride now. Television doesn't market to poor people. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean to be insulting, but it is a fact.

>While it ain't what it used to be, broadcast TV doesn't seem to be
> going away tomorrow.

Local broadcast TV isn't going away tomorrow but it's becoming increasingly irrelevent. Outside of news & sports, the amout of locally-produced programming has been dropping like a rock for almost 50 years. Really, there is almost no local non-news TV broadcasting anymore and there hasn't been for ages. It's cheaper to buy Wheel of Fortune, Dr. Phil and Oprah than to produce local shows.

> Similarly, shortwave broadcasting won't ever dominate in a marketing sense. But there is
> still a place for it.

Shortwave broadcasting has been almost totally the realm of governments and religious organizations for almost that long. It's propaganda of one kind or another from one end of the dial to the other. Not only that but it's getting too expensive to maintain multi-hundred kilowatt transmitters and huge antennas that send signals to a relatively few people. How many people are regular listeners to shortwave worldwide anymore? Outside of a few hundred thousand hobbyists, probably very few.

American commercial shortwave has been almost completely gone since WNYW bit the dust in the '70s. It hasn't been prominent since WW2 when the VOA commandeered most of the commercial stations. The Latin-American tropical-band broadcasters are dying out now. The BBC no longer broadcasts to North America or Australia. Others will probably follow. The VOA may be gone soon. Few will notice. I hope they'll keep their English services going online since I enjoy their programs, but since they aren't (technically) allowed to broadcast to Americans, it probably won't happen. There's no need for a VOA English service anymore.

> As for listening over a computer, it would defeat the
> purpose of having a portable radio. Kind of difficult to
> take the computer outside, or even to another room.

A laptop with WiFi is your friend. Expect portable internet-radio devices to hit the market soon as well, probably built into cellphones. Wireless Ethernet is the new ionosphere.

 

[smorris]

Re: Good for the VOA

> Even the smaller villages in Burkina Faso have an FM or two
> these days, and the SW radios are rapidly disappearing as
> they did in Latin America.

Don't make the mistake of thinking what you can hear in an African or Asian city or town represents what you can hear in the surrounding rural area (where often 50%+ of the population live). What looks like a "national network" on paper for a commercial station may consist of a few 10 watt relays in reality. And as someone pointed out, the programming that comes out of these stations may be far from unbiased.

Latin America is far more developed than Africa and Asia, and a reasonable level of freedom of the press is well established in most areas.

SW radios are cheap, and work everywhere. No other medium can say this, yet.

> And you think that the residents of rural Ecuador, Bolivia
> or Peru understand English? This was about the VOA English
> services. I have built rural radio stations in remote parts
> of South America, and the fact is that SW is pretty much
> gone and forgotten.

Many, many Africans and Asians do. It is the official language in many places in Africa at least. I can't really talk about Latin America, but you would be amazed how many people elsewhere in the third world speak English.

> The multitude of SW
> commercial staitons in Latin America, Indonesia, some
> African nations, etc., are nearly gone as they can not make
> money because there are not listeners.

This is true - but these were local SW stations, primarily using groundwave. The only reason they were on SW was because the transmitters were cheap, and because FM receivers were incredibly expensive for the average citizen at the time. There's no point in these stations using SW any more since the use of FM is now cheaper and more reliable for local applications, even in mountainous areas.

> If there are few or no receivers, nothing happens. I looked
> at the radio ratings in a variety of Latin American cities
> in the late 60's at the respondent level and found that
> there was no listening to SW recorded, even 40 years ago.

This is again true, but misses the point that in these places there was (even 40 years ago) a reasonably developed local media, and freedom of speech was possible in many places - and under the repressive regimes, SW of course wouldn't show up in the ratings, since it would be unwise to admit listening.

In Africa repressive regimes continue, and in many cases what little local media there is (state or commercial) remains the mouthpiece of a tiny political elite.

> The Brits chose to serve British subjects abroad. Expensive
> and less than sensible. And there is nobody to call in the
> Malvinas, except a thousand or so shepherds who mostly
> listen to the local FM relays, not SW. Have you ever tried
> to listen to SW in those deep latitudes? Awful!

I think you'll find that the World Service has a very substantial audience internationally - 39 million people tune in every week to the English language services by their own estimate, out of 149 million in total. There are certainly not 39 million British expats out there, so it must have a broader appeal than you suggest...

Apparently about two thirds of the entire Afghan population tune in to the BBC World Service - and with only a handful of low power FM transmitters in an impoverished Himalayan land roughly the size of Texas, the vast majority of these *must* be using short wave.

Interestingly, the main direction in which the funds are being diverted away from the VOA is to pump money into more targeted propaganda channels, particularly in the Middle East, which will be expanding - on SW as well as newer mediums. It's not so much that they're abandoning SW broadcasting, but more that the current government has more interest in overt propaganda than providing a reasonably unbiased international news service.

 

[PineTar]

Re: Good for the VOA

> Those who can't afford it aren't on national advertisers'
> radar screens. The OTA transmitters are pretty much just
> along for the ride now. Television doesn't market to poor
> people. That may sound harsh, and I don't mean to be
> insulting, but it is a fact.
>

Not insulted, and I don't disagree with you at all. But there are other reasons to communicate than making money.

> Local broadcast TV isn't going away tomorrow but it's
> becoming increasingly irrelevent. Outside of news & sports,
> the amout of locally-produced programming has been dropping
> like a rock for almost 50 years. Really, there is almost no
> local non-news TV broadcasting anymore and there hasn't been
> for ages. It's cheaper to buy Wheel of Fortune, Dr. Phil
> and Oprah than to produce local shows.
>

Too true. Even worse is the number of infomercials these outfits run. But if no one is watching, why would those infomercials pay to be on the air? Hmmm.

> Shortwave broadcasting has been almost totally the realm of
> governments and religious organizations for almost that
> long. It's propaganda of one kind or another from one end
> of the dial to the other.

Well, one man's propaganda is another man's information. Is a program of music reviews from Canada or Sweden propaganda, or culture? I've listened to both in the past two weeks. I enjoy getting regional perspectives from Radio Japan, or Australia. Even from Canada. Americans get very little world news from the big media companies.

And anyway, if it's so expensive to broadcast shortwave, how can those fringy religious whackos afford to do it? Aren't they on shortwave because they can't afford anything else?

> American commercial shortwave has been almost completely
> gone since WNYW bit the dust in the '70s.

So what? Commercial radio on AM and FM is boring. Just because something is commercially successful doesn't make it worth listening to.

> A laptop with WiFi is your friend. Expect portable
> internet-radio devices to hit the market soon as well,
> probably built into cellphones. Wireless Ethernet is the
> new ionosphere.

Once again, these shiny new techno-toys only help those who can afford it. I picked up a decent SW portable receiver for $100 bucks. Now, how much would I have to spend on a laptop WiFi rig, with all the trimmin's? Heck, I can't even spring for the monthly payments on XM or Sirrius.

Anyway, all I'm sayin' is that SWL is far from dead. In decline, sure. But there's still a lot of fun to be had out there.

 

[JeeperOne]

Re: Good for the VOA

Hi everyone:

> > The last figure I saw was 77% of American households have
> > either cable or satellite TV, so by definition, most
> people
> > (English-speaking or otherwise) can and do afford one or
> the
> > other.
>
> Assuming your figures are correct, 23% of the US population
> is still about 68 million people. The percentages would
> have to be higher in less developed countries. Better
> technology is nice for those who can afford it. But it's a
> mistake to ignore 1/4 of the population who can't. While it
> ain't what it used to be, broadcast TV doesn't seem to be
> going away tomorrow. Similarly, shortwave broadcasting
> won't ever dominate in a marketing sense. But there is
> still a place for it.

Agreed. There IS a place for it HOWEVER the BBC World Service is still available on TV via satellite, some cable systems and many PBS affiliates who carry the news from BBC World.

As for radio, I think what the government should do is create an Arab service of VOA. This would give the Arab World the pro-western American perspective on world affairs that many of them have been (no pun intended) DYING to hear on a daily basis.

> As for listening over a computer, it would defeat the
> purpose of having a portable radio. Kind of difficult to
> take the computer outside, or even to another room.

Ever heard of WiFi and laptop PCs?

> I probably wouldn't have been drawn to shortwave if the
> programming available on AM and FM weren't so mind-numbingly
> boring. Successful marketing has lead to a dumbing down of
> content to some bottom line. There's little local flavor to
> broadcasts, which steals some of the fun from DXing.

Agreed. But some of the LOCALLY produced content still makes the hobby fun even for the most passive DXers like me.

Just my opinion though

Cheers

Pat<P ID="signature">______________

http://patspodcast.blogspot.com/
Radio? Uhh.....What's THAT?? </P>

 

[davideduardo]

Re: Good for the VOA

>
> Don't make the mistake of thinking what you can hear in an
> African or Asian city or town represents what you can hear
> in the surrounding rural area (where often 50%+ of the
> population live). What looks like a "national network" on
> paper for a commercial station may consist of a few 10 watt
> relays in reality. And as someone pointed out, the
> programming that comes out of these stations may be far from
> unbiased.

An associate distributes an internationally syndicated countdown show, which is produced in several dozen langauges. It runs in about 75% of the Sub Saharan African nations, and the producer goes from country to country helping the localized versions get set up. One thing he learned was that the rural areas tended to lean towards vernaculars even if there is an English presence. Further, the penetration of higher power FMs and FM nets is growing very very fast in every nation that allows private broadasts. For this reason, I stated that the use of SW was declining faster and faster.
>
> Latin America is far more developed than Africa and Asia,
> and a reasonable level of freedom of the press is well
> established in most areas.

Please tell that last part to they guys who came with rifles and kicked me out of Ecuador, talking my 12 radio stations.
>
> Many, many Africans and Asians do. It is the official
> language in many places in Africa at least. I can't really
> talk about Latin America, but you would be amazed how many
> people elsewhere in the third world speak English.

While I generalize, Americans who travel seem to be amazed how many "foreigners" speak English. THis is because those are the only people they can talk with. I am amazed, for example, that many Americans think Puerto Ricans are all fluent in English, while the truth is that less than 15% are bilingual, and about 50% know no English. This is "tourist syndrome." Most people do not understand English unless it is the offical and only language.
>
> This is true - but these were local SW stations, primarily
> using groundwave. The only reason they were on SW was
> because the transmitters were cheap, and because FM
> receivers were incredibly expensive for the average citizen
> at the time. There's no point in these stations using SW any
> more since the use of FM is now cheaper and more reliable
> for local applications, even in mountainous areas.

In my experience (I put Ecuador's first FM on in 1966) there were more FM receivers in the country then than TVs, and simply no broadcasts. Receivers sold so fast thereafter that one of my FMs became the #2 station in Quito by 1970. SW radios, in contrast, cost over S/. 1.200 and were, thus, the equvalent of more than a month's income for the lowest income levels.
>
> This is again true, but misses the point that in these
> places there was (even 40 years ago) a reasonably developed
> local media, and freedom of speech was possible in many
> places - and under the repressive regimes, SW of course
> wouldn't show up in the ratings, since it would be unwise to
> admit listening.

The fact was, SW began to disappear as an item of interest 45 years ago in most South America, and this is the same pattern, although somewhat delayed, in other areas.

>
> Interestingly, the main direction in which the funds are
> being diverted away from the VOA is to pump money into more
> targeted propaganda channels, particularly in the Middle
> East, which will be expanding - on SW as well as newer
> mediums. It's not so much that they're abandoning SW
> broadcasting, but more that the current government has more
> interest in overt propaganda than providing a reasonably
> unbiased international news service.

VOA was chartered to broadcast the American point of view. It was not set up to be NPR for the world. If that has increasingly been its perception, it is off track.
>

 

[BRNout]

Re: VOA = Shortsighted

> The BBC no longer broadcasts to North America or Australia. Others will
> probably follow. The VOA may be gone soon. Few will
> notice. I hope they'll keep their English services going
> online since I enjoy their programs, but since they aren't
> (technically) allowed to broadcast to Americans, it probably
> won't happen. There's no need for a VOA English service
> anymore.
>
While it may be an anachronism here in North America, I maintain that such services continue to be useful when beamed to Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. The majority of people in those places DO NOT have laptops with WiFi or even regular internet access. But, SW radios are still plentiful.

So, yes, I believe that the VOA move is shortsighted. Clearly, the world cannot be treated as a single "market". SW may be reduced to a quaint hobby here in the US (unfortunately), but there still are places where it is a lifeline.

> A laptop with WiFi is your friend. Expect portable
> internet-radio devices to hit the market soon as well,
> probably built into cellphones. Wireless Ethernet is the
> new ionosphere.
>
Fine for those who can afford the technology, but worldwide that percentage is low.