"B Banton" wrote in message

Nice sentence. If they did - they don't now.

Muhahhahhhaha... what a sentence...

**** Off!!!

"T. Early" wrote in message
...

"Brian Denley" wrote in message
news:16%Sb.201644$na.333691@attbi_s04...
Mike:
Don't listen to him. US BBC listeners are at an all time high.
Many of
trust that source over the ones we have here.


Wouldn't the BBC's -much- wider relatively recent distribution through
numerous FM/public radio outlets account for the increase in
listenership here? It seems to make sense that, if you make something
regularly available to a significant enough number of people, a
certain percentage are going to find it their liking, esp. on public
radio.

Exactly. If BBC listenership is at an all-time high, a big part of the
reason is simple availability from sources _other_ than shortwave
(listenership via shortwave is rapidly decreasing). One of the reasons the
BBC finds favor is that they provide coverage (on just about any subject) in
much more detail than do U.S. broadcasters with the exception of NPR.
However, it's important to keep in mind that sheer high volume of material
on a given subject doesn't, in itself, mean that the product is
"trustworthy." The extent of coverage does not necessarily have anything to
do with accuracy or trustworthiness.

As far as U.S. commercial broadcasting is concerned, there isn't enough
serious coverage of _any_ subject to even allow a listener to judge much of
anything about the reportage except that it's brief. Public broadcasters,
the BBC, NPR and so on, do tend to provide much more detail and analysis of
a very wide range of subjects. It's kind of interesting (and only that) to
note that, for example, NPR News is a far bigger _radio_ news organization
than CBS, ABC etc. _combined_. Broadcast radio news (network) in the United
States ceased to be an important or even serious activity in commercial
radio in the late 1950's. Note that nothing I've written here has anything
at all to do with the truthfulness or reliability of _any_ news
organization. I have not cast aspersions on any broadcaster, so no need to
reply as though I did. I also got up on the wrong side of the bed this
morning :-).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Don Forsling

"Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States"

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 07:22:04 -0500, Atlas wrote:

Why use a SW radio? What uses are they for the average person?

1. it's free

2. no commercials

3. it's relaxing for a technical person to come home and turn dials
after a day of working with computers

4. it's a challenge to get those far-away stations and to make the
best antenna you can

5. just try to listen to "streaming audio" on days like 9/11/01,
everyone else is doing the same thing. With radio, everyone can be
tuned to the same station and everyone can still hear what's going on.

6. really good programs sometimes.

7. interesting music, from greece, brazil, africa, asia

8. you don't need to be near any big cities. You can visit your
inlaws in Podunk and there's always something to do. If you're
staying there a while, put up a big wire. Ask them first.

9. it's a unique listening experience with lots of interesting sounds
coming through to your radio, if you have the kind of spouse that is
not bothered by them

10. It saves time. You can get news bulletins before the bush
propaganda machine changes its meaning and it is put on TV the next
day for your neighbors to consume. Then later when the news reports
(or not) that the meaning or facts had been changed, it doesn't matter
to you because you didn't have to rely on biased, discredited sources
like the bush administration.

11. it's something you can enjoy at sea, on the beach in Bali, in the
Nevada desert, abroad during an attempted coup wondering what the hell
is going on outside, or in the privacy of your home.

12. if you live in the United States, you can get in touch with
what's going on in with the 96% of the people who don't. I worked at
news radio stations and know that international news is considered
unimportant in my country, it's even generally known that people will
turn the channel if international news is a subject. people here just
aren't interested. But if you're one of those people that could care
less about the Laci Petersen murder trial then stick up your middle
finger and turn on the shortwave.

13. screw the 'average person'

11. it's something you can enjoy at sea, on the beach in Bali, in the
Nevada desert, abroad during an attempted coup wondering what the hell
is going on outside, or in the privacy of your home.

Remember the attempted coup by communist hardliners during the last days
of the Soviet Union? The Russians had to rely on SW to tell them what
was going on.


a guy i worked with was in Beijing during the suppression of the
student actions in Tiananmen Square after Gorbachev visited China.
They tried to take his passport... he said he was sure glad he had
that shortwave. I figure an 'average' person could relate to that,
being surrounded by cops in a hotel and not knowing what the hell is
going on outside.

Interesting item in The NY Times Magazine:
- Theres a Pretty boring Column called " The Ethecist"
- About Ethics .. Nothinig really interesting..
In Any case..

In the column Sunday, A guy who is a Republican indicates he & " freinds" are
sending money
to a Democratic candidate, in the hopes he will win in the primaries,
- But then be so weak he'll be defeated by "W" in the fall

- Sounds like this is possibly where Deans $$$ is coming from..





In article , N8KDV
writes:



Diverd4777 wrote:

Hey Steve ! !

HOOWWARRRRRDDD DEEEAANNNNN . . .

BROUUUUUAHHHAHHHHAHHHAHH ! ! !!

( Gets better milage than a friggin Bicycle ..)

;-)

I'm wondering where all of Howard's money went! It was commented on this
morning that he went into Iowa with $40 million, spent something like $5
million there, and then spent around $10 million in New Hampshire, now he
seems to be down to $5 million. ??

On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 06:44:00 -0600, "Brian Hill"
brianehill@charterDOTnet wrote:


"Multithreaded"
That is a non sequitur. What is the relevance of that statement to my

Joe said:

SWL is a hobby for masochists who enjoy listening to socialist broadcasters
like the BBC slander our country as part of their daily broadcast agenda

You replied:

My God, are you a typical citizen of your country? I certainly hope
not, for the world's sake.

And I said:

Are you saying that the whole world loves us? I don't hear it when I turn
on
the radio.

Unless I'm missing part of the thread in my reader? It does make sense.
So I ask you again. Do you think the people of the UK and the world in a
whole hold us in a favorable light?
I thank you for your reply.

As I said, you are not making sense. I'll answer your question anyway.
No, I don't think every person in the world thinks well of current
American foreign policy, myself included. How on earth you can blame
us is beyond my comprehension. I would hope that - to keep at least a
small amount of relevence to this NG - your HF listening habits would
open up your mind at least slightly, but I guess the constant pounding
of the domestic media in your country must more than offset this.
Pity.

And no, I do not consider myself in the least "anti-American." I
simply regret the current choice of administration.

--

Please use Reply-To address.

"Multithreaded" wrote in message
...
As I said, you are not making sense.

Allright?

I'll answer your question anyway.
No, I don't think every person in the world thinks well of current
American foreign policy, myself included. How on earth you can blame
us is beyond my comprehension.

No one blamed you. I just said I don't think anyone likes use from what I
hear. And for your information I don't entirly agree with our foreign policy
either.

I would hope that - to keep at least a
small amount of relevence to this NG - your HF listening habits would
open up your mind at least slightly, but I guess the constant pounding
of the domestic media in your country must more than offset this.
Pity.

Well I would hope that you'd allow me a few more words before you lable me
narrow minded and I don't listen much to the domestic media.


And no, I do not consider myself in the least "anti-American." I
simply regret the current choice of administration.

I never ment to imply that you were anti American. I just think a lot of
people are mad right now but the world never the less will be better without
Sadam in power. I do think we should have had more aproval from the global
comunity. This Yank likes the UK. Spent a little time there once. Cheers

Brian


--

Please use Reply-To address.

Brian Hill wrote:

"Multithreaded" wrote in message
...
As I said, you are not making sense.

Allright?

I'll answer your question anyway.
No, I don't think every person in the world thinks well of current
American foreign policy, myself included. How on earth you can blame
us is beyond my comprehension.

No one blamed you. I just said I don't think anyone likes use from what I
hear. And for your information I don't entirly agree with our foreign policy
either.

I would hope that - to keep at least a
small amount of relevence to this NG - your HF listening habits would
open up your mind at least slightly, but I guess the constant pounding
of the domestic media in your country must more than offset this.
Pity.

Well I would hope that you'd allow me a few more words before you lable me
narrow minded and I don't listen much to the domestic media.


And no, I do not consider myself in the least "anti-American." I
simply regret the current choice of administration.

I never ment to imply that you were anti American. I just think a lot of
people are mad right now but the world never the less will be better without
Sadam in power. I do think we should have had more aproval from the global
comunity. This Yank likes the UK. Spent a little time there once. Cheers

Brian

One must remember that jealousy engenders hatred.

We don't need, nor should we seek, 'approval', from the international community
when the vital interests of our country are at stake.

Steve
Holland, MI
Drake R7, R8 and R8B
"I swear by, not at, Drake receivers" ©

http://www.iserv.net/~n8kdv/dxpage.htm

"N8KDV" wrote in message

One must remember that jealousy engenders hatred.

We don't need, nor should we seek, 'approval', from the international
community
when the vital interests of our country are at stake.

Steve
Don't get me wrong Steve. When our vital interests are at stake I agree. I
just haven't determined that to be true yet? I think maybe in this instance
we should have eased into it a little. Osama is still on the loose and I
think he is a greater threat. But maybe there's more to this than can be
seen from were we sit?

Brian

Agree;
You can't have a " CNN War" & get anything done...


In article , "Brian Hill"
brianehill@charterDOTnet writes:


I will say this. It was easier running a war and getting approval before the
modern media got involved. I'm sure if CNN and the others were around in
WWII Patton would have been apologizing ten times as much :)

Brian