[Swprograms] Re: Incredible Arrogance

[Bill <ka2emz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I guess the best thing to ask anyone of managment of the BBC is...."do 
you drive to work" why? buy a helicopter...its much faster AND  it's 
newer technology"

Bill
KA2ENZ


John Figliozzi wrote:

>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.
>
>
>
>  
>

_______________________________________________
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.