[Swprograms] Re: Incredible Arrogance

[John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think Richard has given an excellent analysis of why we are where we 
are.  Let me just add that I personally have no argument with the bulk 
of what the BBC (and other international broadcasters who are still 
international broadcasters) are attempting to do vis-a-vis the new 
distribution technologies.  They should be actively involved in all of 
them and seeking the best way to leverage them primarily for the 
benefit of their audiences.

But analog shortwave is STILL one of them--throughout the world, 
including NA, Europe and Australasia.  By virtue of the fact that there 
are today more than one distribution method available, of course the 
use of what was once the sole distribution method is going to decline.  
It is simply a matter of perception as to whether this connotes a real 
decline in the usefulness of the medium or simply represents a divvying 
up of the available audience according to the most convenient and 
accessible medium given the individual circumstances of the individual 
listener at a particular point in time.

My objection to the BBC's approach is four-fold:

1.  They are dishonest about the continued utility of shortwave (at 
least in the short term) in developed regions.
2.  They use their proprietary hold over their research to justify 
after the fact what they've already decided on with regard to 
distribution policy.  Selective releases of such information are 
inherently dishonest.
3.  They are behaving as a private commercial business would (and 
incidentally would be justified in doing so if that's what their 
Charter said they were), and in so doing have run roughshod over the 
public service broadcasting principles on which they were founded, have 
operated under for decades and are still ostensibly committed to as 
stated in their Charter.  In other words, they've turned their back on 
the very principles that hoisted them on the pedestal they currently 
(still mostly, despite it all) operate from.  (FWIW, I think we can see 
signs that the plaster is starting to crumble beneath them.)
4.  They are using their respected position, earned as the primary 
creator of and consistent devotee to public service broadcasting 
principles, to drive an agenda that bows mightily to commercial 
broadcasting imperatives.  That, too, is dishonest.

There were warnings that the BBC's hiring of (what I termed at the 
time) "commercial broadcasting denizens" to manage a Corporation that 
represented the pinnacle of what a public service broadcaster aspires 
to be, would result in the wholesale destruction of that ideal.  It's a 
pity that no one heeded those warnings.  It's a further pity that many 
who hold positions of responsibility and consultancy in the field today 
either fail or are blind to the implications of what at this point must 
be seen as a near fait accompli.

John Figliozzi
Halfmoon, NY


On Mar 26, 2005, at 12:40 PM, Richard Cuff wrote:

> Warning, rambling analysis follows.
>
> You mean why the BBCWS is scaling back shortwave?
>
> Answers exist on multiple levels.
>
> The Middle East looms large among the answers.  Both the BBC and the
> US' IBB have been scrambling to find ways to help Western ideas and
> ideals better resonate with the cultures of the Middle East.  Both
> organizations believe that television is a necessary ingredient of
> this process, and TV is expensive to produce vs. radio.  These are new
> initiatives, both with high startup costs that these broadcasters
> believe cannot be funded solely by new sources -- funding must also
> come from existing budgets.
>
> In the universe of programming delivery methods, as we've discussed
> before, Shortwave is expensive.  The sender bears all the costs except
> for the cost of a radio.  Couple that with the relative penetration
> level of shortwave radios in North America / W. Europe / Australia vs.
> Africa / Asia, in comparison with FM and satellite, and shortwave
> becomes a ready target for saving money.
>
> Much hay has been made regarding the fact that the BBCWS on FM is
> relegated primarily to overnight fill-in services in North America.
> It was comical to hear the BBC executive cite that most Americans are
> listening to the BBCWS overnight.  The BBCWS rep didn't state how or
> when most relevant Americans *wanted* to hear the BBCWS.
>
> Having said that, It's worth noting that the BBCWS has been making
> gradual progress in having its programming picked up during the day by
> public radio FM stations -- many now air Newshour at 8 or 9 AM local
> time, and some are now airing World Briefing at approximately 1 PM
> Eastern time.  A few stations are now picking up the afternoon
> Newshour at 3 PM ET as well.  A few are also picking up The World
> Today in the evenings once All Things Considered is over.  Meanwhile,
> the documentary series are being repackaged as "A Changing World" by
> PRI and are seeing pickup primarily on Saturdays and Sundays.
>
> The BBCWS most assuredly will point to this improving daytime and
> evening carriage as a success and also as a work in progress.
>
> The potential audience for BBCWS programming via these local FM
> services is far higher than shortwave, in North America, simply
> because many more people listen to FM.  NPR itself is pointing to a
> cumulative 50% increase in listenership since 1999.  That's pretty
> impressive given the overall decline in radio listening in the USA,
> and the BBCWS is attempting to ride NPR's coattails.  The BBCWS, it
> appears, would rather be considered "second fiddle" in a medium
> serving most of America's population than considered "first fiddle" on
> shortwave.
>
> The BBCWS has also made a conscious decision to be known primarily as
> a source for news, versus being a source for music / culture / etc.
> To that end, they'd rather fight to get Newshour picked up than
> "Science In Action".
>
> The BBCWS is also figuring that we truly motivated listeners will be
> willing to pay to hear the BBCWS, and to a point, they're right --
> witness the amount of time we're discussing XM and Sirius satellite
> radio.  It doesn't cost the BBCWS a dime to reach us Sirius and XM
> listeners -- if anything, PRI pays the BBCWS to be able to offer it to
> member stations, because stations pay PRI for the privilege.  Compare
> that to the costs of shortwave.
>
> None of us are privy to the details of the BBC's audience research,
> nor are we privy to the processes used to establish budgets and assess
> the willingness of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office to fund the WS.
> It does appear that the F&CO is unwilling to offer unlimited resources
> to the BBCWS to fund all possible delivery methods to all regions,
> while launching new expensive initiatives to serve the Arabic-speaking
> world..
>
> Most of us here find fault with the BBCWS in the latest brouhaha for
> the following reasons:
>
> 1) The BBCWS came across as condescending and arrogantly self-serving
> in explaining its rationale to the North American audience, instead of
> 'fessing up to the tradeoffs they face and the costs of these various
> initiatives.
>
> 2) The BBCWS made no apparent attempt to reduce the count of
> frequencies elsewhere but still provide availability via shortwave to
> the Americas.
>
> 3) The BBCWS seems blatantly interested in "targeting" its services to
> particular audience demographics.  Shortwave isn't tidy that way.
>
> Those are my thoughts as to why this is happening, FWIW.
>
> Do I agree with their rationale?  No, I don't.  They haven't shown me
> they've done what they could to get more funding, nor have they proved
> to me why they need to spend so much on TV.  Perhaps, as Kim Elliott
> has said before, people are more willing to watch bad television than
> listen to good radio.
>
> What I wonder about is how people will "discover" international
> broadcasters as shortwave declines in relative importance.  That is a
> subject for another discussion.
>
> Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA  USA
>
> On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 10:50:30 -0600, Scott Royall <royall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
>> Has anyone here asked themselves why this is happening?
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
>
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  
> swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the 
> URL shown above.
>

_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://dallas.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms

To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.