Re: [Swprograms] [ODXA] BBC to Caribbean

[jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

Yes, I accept your criticism that the remit I suggested was a bit too 
wide.  I suppose I would place greater emphasis on the fact that the 
BBC seems to be hewing more to commercial standards in its self 
analysis over traditional public service standards. It is all the rage 
today--the flavour of the month, if you will--so not entirely 
surprising that the BBC would succumb to it.  But it is disappointing 
to some of us, all the same.

Re: your comments regarding "shortwave enthusiasts".  In response I 
would say (and think you would agree) that shortwave is simply just 
another platform.  One may prefer it for a number of reasons, only one 
of which would be some kind of "hobby" orientation.  It still holds 
some clear technical advantages over the others, not the least of 
which are its inexpensive nature and low energy requirements (from the 
listener's point of view) as well as its avoidance of "the 
gatekeeper".  (And I would posit that this latter phenomenon is not 
confined to the third world.  I don't really want my public radio 
station deciding what BBC programs I should hear any more than I want 
the government to do so.)  

No sentient being would argue that the BBC should stay on shortwave 
just to satisfy hobbyists.  But BBC constantly raises (politely) this 
argument as a defense. It is just a straw man that management uses to 
avoid talking about the harder questions.  I do find this 
objectionable, if only because it flies in the face of factual data 
that undermines at least partially the BBC stance.  

Ignoring facts is no way to create and set policy.  Of course, as a 
policy analyst by trade I see this approach taken every day.  It is, 
sadly, quite effective--mostly because most people either lack the 
time, facility or interest to pursue the facts. After 30+ years in the 
profession, it still sticks in my craw.  We are all entitled to our 
own opinions; but we are not entitled to our own facts.

Sorry if some see this as a rant.  It is not intended as such.

John Figliozzi

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Cuff <rdcuff@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, March 30, 2006 8:26 am
Subject: Re: [Swprograms] [ODXA] BBC to Caribbean
To: Shortwave programming discussion <swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> While I agree with most everything you've said, I am not sure I 
accept
> the statement I quoted below as fact.
> 
> I would add the following qualifying statement to this sentence:
> 
> "...in every way possible, consistent with the instutition's reasons
> for existence -- its charter -- and the resources allotted to the
> institution to accomplish its tasks."
> 
> By the logic you used, then the BBC should broadcast in every known
> language -- that's part of "every way possible".  That isn't 
practical
> either, as I am sure you'd agree.
> 
> In many ways I'm convinced this logic dates back to the discussion we
> had here on "BBC Audibility" back in June 2001.  In 1999/2000,
> pre-cuts, the audibility of the WS in North America was "63%" on some
> sort of percentage scale, whereas the global audibility target was
> 81%.  We never did sort out what "audibility" meant, or what the
> percentages meant as well.
> 
> The BBC at that time categorized its target audiences -- i.e. its
> "reasons for existence" -- into three groups:  "Information Poor",
> "Aspirants", and "Cosmopolitans".  Nowhere did "Shortwave 
Enthusiasts"
> enter into the mix of audience demographics.  Those first two
> categories, it was determined, didn't apply to we Americans /
> Canadians.  The report then looked at how each demographic habitually
> received its media.
> 
> Also, back then, the average weekly audience size for English lanuage
> services in various regions was compared:  9 million for the 
Americas,
> 70 million for Asia/Pacific, and 47 million for Africa & the Middle
> East.
> 
> Take those three "facts", or more correctly, those perceptions, 
> add in
> a helping of budgetary pressure, and you have a surefire recipe for
> shortwave closedown to the Americas.
> 
> While that *explains* the Bush House rationale, it still doesn't
> justify it.  Even if the Americas aren't worth 66.7 transmitter hours
> per day, a  75% reduction -- to 17 transmitter-hours -- would be
> enough to preserve *some* decent shortwave access for those motivated
> to seek it out.
> 
> I'll send that old 2001 e-mail observation out in a separate e-
> mail. 
> Unfortuantely the weblink that referred to the annual reviews in
> question is no longer valid.
> 
> Richard Cuff / Allentown, PA
> 
> On 3/29/06, John Figliozzi <jfiglio1@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >  It is also a fact
> > that the primary task of an institution founded on public 
> service is
> > to serve the public in every way possible.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Swprograms mailing list
> Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://arizona.hard-core-dx.com/mailman/listinfo/swprograms
> 
> To unsubscribe:  Send an E-mail to  swprograms-request@hard-core-
> dx.com?subject=unsubscribe, or visit the URL shown above.
> 
_______________________________________________
Swprograms mailing list
Swprograms@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://arizona.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.