The AM Forum
April 27, 2024, 05:39:02 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Calendar Links Staff List Gallery Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: VOA English QRT ?  (Read 10070 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
WA3VJB
Guest
« on: April 24, 2007, 12:19:16 PM »

A summary article of recent budget testimony indicates the VOA's English service could be reduced to broadcasts only to Africa.



http://voanews.com/english/2007-04-19-voa69.cfm
Logged
W1DAN
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 906



« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2007, 01:08:18 PM »

Paul:

This has been coming for a couple of years. It is almost impossible for me to hear any VOA English these days and I have taped some for posterity. Here are more links than you ever want:

http://www.publicdiplomacy.org/60.htm

http://www.afge1812.org/

http://ics.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=141&paper=1511

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20050701faresponse84416/david-s-jackson/his-master-s-voice.html

There has been strong opposition to this, and the current head of VOA, Ken Tomlison has been in the news the last couple of years for his "stretches" of the rules.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901492.html

http://www.cjrdaily.org/the_audit/tomlinson_expands_witch_hunt.php

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4707444

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5204369

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=3205005

I spoke with a ham at the VOA who says the television division is sucking the life out of radio.

Very sad!

Dan
W1DAN
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2007, 01:13:27 PM »

Makes sense. If the broadcasts are for those outside the US, why broadcast in English? Other than for expats and such, it's of little value, especially with world wide  sat coverage providing your favorate 24x7 news and entertainment channels.
Logged
k4kyv
Contributing Member
Don
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 10057



« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2007, 02:42:00 PM »

Makes sense. If the broadcasts are for those outside the US, why broadcast in English? Other than for expats and such, it's of little value, especially with world wide  sat coverage providing your favorate 24x7 news and entertainment channels.

But about 50% of English-speaking people in the world live outside USA.

Numerous countries of the world, particularly in the middle east and Africa, were carved up by victorious European powers following WW1, and former colonial rulers.  These artificial borders remained after they gained independence.  These bogus "nations" (Iraq is a prime example) are made up of people of multiple ethnicity, often hostile to each other and sharing little in language or culture.  In many cases, there are so many local languages spoken within the unrelated tribes, that the common language for business and commerce used throughout the country is English or French, depending on the former colonial ruler.  Other former colonial languages include Portuguese, Italian, Spanish, Dutch and German.  In many areas, these less widespread colonial languages have been replaced by English as the lingua franca.

But it's not only the VOA.  BBC ceased broadcasting to North America, Australia and New Zealand years ago.  Sometimes you can still  catch a weak signal from the World Service in English, beamed to the Caribbean or Africa.  Radio France International quit broadcasting in French and English to the Americas.  Radio Canada, Radio Australia and Radio New Zealand have gone dark to N. America.

Their justification is that these broadcasts can be downloaded as streaming audio over the web, and are often relayed via local broadcast stations, or are available over satellites.  NPR and PBS broadcast a lot of BBC to fill in gaps in their local programming.  We get the BBC World Service on our local public TV station as the 10 o'clock news.

Tune across the SWBC bands these days and about all you hear in English is Bible Beaters.  There are still a limited number of English-language broadcasts from Radio Havana, China, the Voice of Russia, and from some of the former communist countries in east Europe.  About all I hear from the Voice of Germany these days is the rushing noise from their DRM signal on 3995.

I recall back in the 60's in the UK, shortwave receivers were very common in housholds, and even in car radios.  During my last visit about 5 years ago, my brother-in-law listened to FM on his car radio, and it sounded pretty much the same as what we endure over here.  His car radio had AM, Longwave and a shortwave broadcast band or two, but he said he had never even tried to listen to anything but FM.

Shortwave broadcasting has about fizzled, except in sparsely populated countries where there is limited or no local broadcasting.

Even with DRM, the Great White Hope of shortwave broadcasters, as more and more people get internet and satellite reception, HF broadcast listening is fading into history, just as it did in the USA right after WW2.

We are supposed to get 7100-7200 back as exclusively amateur in the next couple of years, and they are talking about getting 7200-7300 back at the next World Radio Conference, as well as a real 60m band.

The BPL industry is banking on HF communications, including amateur frequencies, being declared "obsolete" by governments of the world in the near future.
Logged

Don, K4KYV                                       AMI#5
Licensed since 1959 and not happy to be back on AM...    Never got off AM in the first place.

- - -
This message was typed using the DVORAK keyboard layout.
http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak
Bacon, WA3WDR
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 881



« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2007, 02:50:23 PM »

If there should ever be a war where China or some other country starts blowing up communication satellites, that attitude will change real quick.
Logged

Truth can be stranger than fiction.  But fiction can be pretty strange, too!
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2007, 02:57:03 PM »

Yes, but the 50% of the the English speaking population is a tiny percent of the world's population. So, on the priority list English has to be way down the list compared to languages like Chinese, the various languages spoken in India, middle eastern languages like Farsi and the language of nearly all of Central and South America, Spanish.
Logged
W1DAN
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 906



« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2007, 03:49:43 PM »

Hi all:

I went to the SWL Winterfest in Pennsylvania this year.

I learned...

1) SW broadcasters feel they can ignore the more developed countries (like the US) as they "all have broadband internet" which is not true. However, htis is the main reason the English broadcasters have ended transmissions to developed countries.

2) SW is still useable for those countries that have wide geographic areas, like South America, Africa, etc. The use of domestic SW is a good idea here.

3) DRM is a cat and mouse game. Broadcasters will not go for it until cheap receivers are out there and vice versa.

In my studying this issue, the VOA can reach listeners for about $1.00/day. SW is inexpensive, and most parts of the workd do not have broadband yet.

I agree that English should be a strong secondary language broadcast behind a nation's native language. At this time, the VOA and BBC are not broadcasting in the same ratio as there are English speaking countries.

When the towers/antennas and transmitting plants are torn down and we have a major conflict, we will lose the public opinion fight with the world.

My final thought and most strong reason SW is still viable is another country cannot stop a broadcast to their area. They can try to jam it, but that can be a limited solution. The Internet can be filtered or blocked by your government (i.e. China).

73,
Dan
W1DAN
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2007, 04:11:00 PM »

don't worry Dan we go to war and we won't have to worry about radio when most of the population can't turn a screw or operate a hack saw.
Logged
W1DAN
Contributing
Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 906



« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2007, 05:05:24 PM »

Frank:

Very good point indeed!

Dan
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2007, 10:32:57 PM »

Our PR problems aren't with English speaking countries. The most bang for the buck is non-English broadcasts. Probably should have gone this route decades ago. Maybe we wouldn't have our current PR problem.
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2007, 09:45:06 AM »

our current PR problem can't be fixed with a radio program.
A nuke or two might help
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #11 on: April 25, 2007, 09:59:30 AM »

Probably true Frank. I was just going from the point of view that VOA has a positive impact on how the USA is viewed abroad. I don't necessarily agree with this view, but this view is required to continue discussion of the original topic. Arguing otherwise would demand the complete shut down of VOA (no broadcasting in any language), which may be the better financial option.
Logged
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #12 on: April 25, 2007, 10:11:32 AM »

Yea, I agree but isn't there an old saying "clean your own house first"
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #13 on: April 25, 2007, 10:24:52 AM »

Not sure what you mean.
Logged
k3zrf
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 604


WWW
« Reply #14 on: April 25, 2007, 07:57:42 PM »

My final thought and most strong reason SW is still viable is another country cannot stop a broadcast to their area. They can try to jam it, but that can be a limited solution. The Internet can be filtered or blocked by your government (i.e. China).

Fifteen thousand watts!  Still got a voice, may be small compared to some, but from within the wilderness!
Logged

dave/zrf
A closed mouth gathers no foot
WA1GFZ
Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 11152



« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2007, 08:17:48 PM »

Steve, my point was to clean up our act before we impose out will on others.
Lead by example works much better.
The stick works too if you have the nads to use it right.
Logged
Steve - WB3HUZ
Guest
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2007, 09:59:08 PM »

Two things to consider.

1. We will never be perfect. Cleaning up our act is subjective and will never be agreed on by many.

2. Broadcasting ANYTHING on VOA is hardly imposing our will.

I agree with leading by example. Having a free press and broadcast media is leading by example, be it VOA or Don Imus.
Logged
WA3VJB
Guest
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2007, 11:15:02 AM »

VOA in years past has had the misfortune of being considered a government mouthpiece by the domestic American broadcast journalism outlets. One controversy I'm aware of was whether a VOA correspondent should be among those included in the rotation of a "pool" or community reporter serving all the networks when there's not enough space on Air Force One.

It's true that VOA's mission has been to portray US values to the rest of the world, and the specific agenda is shaped to a greater and lesser degree by geo-politics of the day.

What's lamentable is the loss of an audience of Third World listeners not only in regions no longer directly targeted by VOA's (and BBC, and Radio Canada) shortwave signals, but also the bystanders elsewhere in the propagation path.

NGOs (non-government organizations) providing relief and development support still distribute low-cost broadcast radios to these areas. There's a shift toward satellite based digital radio mondial type receivers, but for the large existing base of analog HF portables, there will be less and less to listen to as these major shortwave outlets discontinue coverage.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

AMfone - Dedicated to Amplitude Modulation on the Amateur Radio Bands
 AMfone © 2001-2015
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.045 seconds with 18 queries.