KDOG3
Flashlight Enthusiast
Yes I know dumb question. But I'll admit that I really don't know anything about shortwave radio. Anyone care to give me the abridged explanation.
So what is Shortwave good for anyway?
- Thread starter KDOG3
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Sigman
* The Arctic Moderator *
I guess it depends on what you mean by "shortwave". SWL, or short wave listening, is basically a hobby. Some people will "collect" areas of the world that they have heard signals from. Usually this collecting includes documentation form one of the transmitting parties they have heard. This involves listening only, no transmitting.
In additon to SWL is "HAM" radio, also known as Amateur Radio. In this country it requires a license from the FCC to transmit on the "amateur bands" which are competely separate from commercial frequencies. Commercial frequencies range from TV and radio to cell phones and pagers. Again, HAM radio is a hobby, but has become increasingly useful in disaster communication. If you'd like to find out more about HAM radio, go here
Hope this was informative enough and abridged as well.
In additon to SWL is "HAM" radio, also known as Amateur Radio. In this country it requires a license from the FCC to transmit on the "amateur bands" which are competely separate from commercial frequencies. Commercial frequencies range from TV and radio to cell phones and pagers. Again, HAM radio is a hobby, but has become increasingly useful in disaster communication. If you'd like to find out more about HAM radio, go here
Hope this was informative enough and abridged as well.
billgr
Newly Enlightened
you will get a different slant on world news from the bbc and other world news orgs.
our american news orgs. put out what they want in terms of news....you'd be surprised at how other countries view say middle east problems or iraq or north korea or iran etc etc etc
our american news orgs. put out what they want in terms of news....you'd be surprised at how other countries view say middle east problems or iraq or north korea or iran etc etc etc
rikvee
Enlightened
[ QUOTE ]
billgr said:
you'd be surprised at how other countries view say middle east problems or iraq or north korea or iran etc etc etc
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen! Mainstream US Media second-guess and under-estimate their audiences, AND they sensationalize, oversimplify and POLARIZE, all in pursuit of ratings!
This means the biggest democracy with the biggest guns, is badly informed, a lethal formula.....
billgr said:
you'd be surprised at how other countries view say middle east problems or iraq or north korea or iran etc etc etc
[/ QUOTE ]
Amen! Mainstream US Media second-guess and under-estimate their audiences, AND they sensationalize, oversimplify and POLARIZE, all in pursuit of ratings!
This means the biggest democracy with the biggest guns, is badly informed, a lethal formula.....
I meant it in terms of using short wave as a means of staying in touch with the world when away from home. I agree with billgr on the different slant. Thats the great thing about the net. Can get news from all over the world with local slant. Just find their local newspaper sites.
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
Shortwave is great for some things.
If you want to punch right across national borders and get your message to people who have all of their other comms censored, it would be difficult to find a method cheaper or more effective than SW. You may have a great effect on many people who can not afford a computer to access news on the Web. It should also be noted that unlike a computer, a shortwave radio doesn't keep any records of what you've listened to which may be studied by your government and used against you at a later date.
It is also a wonderful window into other peoples cultures. I was an avid Shortwave Listener (SWL) for decades, listening at home and when I worked overseas. SW is a great way for travelers to keep up with what is happening at home and throughout the rest of the world.
I was always fond of the DX shows; HCJB's DX Partyline from Equador, the Swiss DX Merry Go Round (with the two Bobs) and Glenn Hauser's World of Radio.
In the last ten years most countries with active International SW networks have funded their newish WWW presence by simply de-funding their old, long standing, SW nets. For those of us who have had a long love affair with Shortwave, it is very sad. It is a shadow of its former self.
In spite of all of that it is still one of the most cost effective ways to reach the masses in many parts of the world. SW is still the information super highway for many in the more remote parts of the world.
If you want to punch right across national borders and get your message to people who have all of their other comms censored, it would be difficult to find a method cheaper or more effective than SW. You may have a great effect on many people who can not afford a computer to access news on the Web. It should also be noted that unlike a computer, a shortwave radio doesn't keep any records of what you've listened to which may be studied by your government and used against you at a later date.
It is also a wonderful window into other peoples cultures. I was an avid Shortwave Listener (SWL) for decades, listening at home and when I worked overseas. SW is a great way for travelers to keep up with what is happening at home and throughout the rest of the world.
I was always fond of the DX shows; HCJB's DX Partyline from Equador, the Swiss DX Merry Go Round (with the two Bobs) and Glenn Hauser's World of Radio.
In the last ten years most countries with active International SW networks have funded their newish WWW presence by simply de-funding their old, long standing, SW nets. For those of us who have had a long love affair with Shortwave, it is very sad. It is a shadow of its former self.
In spite of all of that it is still one of the most cost effective ways to reach the masses in many parts of the world. SW is still the information super highway for many in the more remote parts of the world.
Phil_B
Enlightened
I always take a SW set away with me on travels. The best news by far is the BBC,no bias(they aren't allowed a "viewpoint" by British law).
Sadly I have to agree with Rikvee,the US media is a shambles,and not just the radio.
SW has been put to good use in Africa in the fight against AIDS and presenting info on healthcare.
Unfortunately (IMO) the Vatican also has a SW station,which is er... not so helpful in that direction.
There's a Brit magazine if you're interested,with the imagination free title of "Short Wave Magazine". Nontheless,a good start point.
HTH,Phil.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Sadly I have to agree with Rikvee,the US media is a shambles,and not just the radio.
SW has been put to good use in Africa in the fight against AIDS and presenting info on healthcare.
Unfortunately (IMO) the Vatican also has a SW station,which is er... not so helpful in that direction.
There's a Brit magazine if you're interested,with the imagination free title of "Short Wave Magazine". Nontheless,a good start point.
HTH,Phil.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
Phil_B said:...The best news by far is the BBC,no bias(they aren't allowed a "viewpoint" by British law)...
[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis mine.
If you've never heard complaints about the BBC's bias, it's probably because that's a story you won't hear much of on "The BEEB". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif The most cursory Google phrase search for "biased BBC" kicks out 120,000 hits this afternoon. Each and every one of the authors of those articles has a point of view that is just as valid as your own. This has been an ongoing topic for years, but as I've already stated, this is a story that probably doesn't get much airtime on the BBC network.
As far as the stated psuedo-proof goes,..."no bias(they aren't allowed a "viewpoint" by British law)...", that dog won't hunt. British law also does not allow bank robbery or home invasion or murder but those crimes have continued despite the fact that they have been made illegal. If all a society ever had to do to guarantee a certain type of behavior was write a law there would be no need for police forces, not to mention judges, courts and prisons. I do not believe that the UK is different from any other state in this regard.
The BBC has a great many things going for it but when it comes down to impartiality, they are in the same boat as any other news network, and many throughout the world and in the UK itself have questioned their motivations again and again. That's life.
There is an old saying that goes like this:
"When you buy a newspaper you pay your money and you take your chances."
The same is true for ALL news organizations. Everyone in the news business has their own point of view. One of the biggest reasons shortwave radio had such a huge following prior to the WWW was because it gave common people a very cheap way to hear someone elses point of view. If you don't like the slant of one news department it's very easy to just balance it with five or six other points of view. That's why shortwave is still around in spite of the budget cuts.
Phil_B said:...The best news by far is the BBC,no bias(they aren't allowed a "viewpoint" by British law)...
[/ QUOTE ]
Emphasis mine.
If you've never heard complaints about the BBC's bias, it's probably because that's a story you won't hear much of on "The BEEB". /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif The most cursory Google phrase search for "biased BBC" kicks out 120,000 hits this afternoon. Each and every one of the authors of those articles has a point of view that is just as valid as your own. This has been an ongoing topic for years, but as I've already stated, this is a story that probably doesn't get much airtime on the BBC network.
As far as the stated psuedo-proof goes,..."no bias(they aren't allowed a "viewpoint" by British law)...", that dog won't hunt. British law also does not allow bank robbery or home invasion or murder but those crimes have continued despite the fact that they have been made illegal. If all a society ever had to do to guarantee a certain type of behavior was write a law there would be no need for police forces, not to mention judges, courts and prisons. I do not believe that the UK is different from any other state in this regard.
The BBC has a great many things going for it but when it comes down to impartiality, they are in the same boat as any other news network, and many throughout the world and in the UK itself have questioned their motivations again and again. That's life.
There is an old saying that goes like this:
"When you buy a newspaper you pay your money and you take your chances."
The same is true for ALL news organizations. Everyone in the news business has their own point of view. One of the biggest reasons shortwave radio had such a huge following prior to the WWW was because it gave common people a very cheap way to hear someone elses point of view. If you don't like the slant of one news department it's very easy to just balance it with five or six other points of view. That's why shortwave is still around in spite of the budget cuts.
d'mo
Enlightened
When visiting the Philippines with my wife, my only contact with the outside world(in English) is on shortwave. I would never travel internatioally without a receiver. Voice of America is truly a blessing when it's practically the only thing I hear in English on a daily basis.
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
d'mo,
I've had that same experience overseas with VOA. I was really glad to hear it even though it's something I would almost never tune in at home...
I've had that same experience overseas with VOA. I was really glad to hear it even though it's something I would almost never tune in at home...
Phil_B
Enlightened
I take your point Sub Umbra,but what I was saying is that there is no financial pressure on the BBC(we all buy a license to watch and listen),no sneeky "product placement", no sponsors/pressure groups wanting a certain slant etc.It is simply not in the BBC constitution to allow this.
There are always going to be examples of **** ups/bias/misreporting etc,but these are not ingrained within the culture. Human factors I guess.
Because the "Beeb" has to be unbiassed,anyone with an alternate point of view WILL scream when their POV is not heard/distorted.This is primarily because the Beeb IS recieved as the truth.Worldwide.
I've met many people who get news of their own land from London.They seemed grateful.
Look at the coverage of your election(the one Al Gore won),did the media in the US have a slant on that? Was it bought? I think maybe so.
We have sh1tty media too,but it's not the Beeb.
I've been around and believe me, the US has some of the poorest broadcast standards I have ever seen or heard.
That said,VOA and Christian Science Monitor stand out.
Sorry you missed my point.
There are always going to be examples of **** ups/bias/misreporting etc,but these are not ingrained within the culture. Human factors I guess.
Because the "Beeb" has to be unbiassed,anyone with an alternate point of view WILL scream when their POV is not heard/distorted.This is primarily because the Beeb IS recieved as the truth.Worldwide.
I've met many people who get news of their own land from London.They seemed grateful.
Look at the coverage of your election(the one Al Gore won),did the media in the US have a slant on that? Was it bought? I think maybe so.
We have sh1tty media too,but it's not the Beeb.
I've been around and believe me, the US has some of the poorest broadcast standards I have ever seen or heard.
That said,VOA and Christian Science Monitor stand out.
Sorry you missed my point.
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
Phil_B said:
I take your point Sub Umbra,but what I was saying is that there is no financial pressure on the BBC(we all buy a license to watch and listen),no sneeky "product placement", no sponsors/pressure groups wanting a certain slant etc.It is simply not in the BBC constitution to allow this...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, what you said was that there was "No bias" at the BBC -- anyone can scroll up and see what you wrote for themselves. Your original inflamitory statement about how your government's news reporting had "No bias" is what I would expect from someone who lives under a bridge, if you get my drift. Now you seem to at least have come closer to reality by admitting that in fact, the people at the BBC are human (like everyone else) and that at least some bias comes with that distinction. That's a step in the right direction.
Your statement that there is "no financial pressure" is absurd. Are you trying to make the case that since there was, in your own words, "no financial pressure...no sneeky "product placement", no sponsors..." that RADIO MOSCOW was unbiased under Communist rule? There was, after all, "no sneeky "product placement"" there, right? Certainly "no financial pressure" -- there was such an incredible lack of financial pressure on RADIO MOSCOW that it didn't even matter that financially the USSR went broke in what could only be described as a truly spectacular manner. Your discription of the perfect broadcasting system would also apply to Cuba, North Korea and scores of other countries where people who have no say in their own affairs are watching their children starve, day by day. All of the examples that you have based your arguments on perfectly fit the model used by all of the most tyranical dictaterships of the 20th century. I'm not saying that the UK is a tyranical dictatorship -- only that your superficial arguments would justify any of them. I'm not buying. The conditions that you so proudly point to do not assure bias free reporting in any way, shape or form. These glittering generalities prove none of your assertions.
You are very quick to attack the US media. If you would have read my post more carefully you would have noticed that I never defended them. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that bias is actually the nature of ALL humans. I made no such nationalistic knee-jerk pronouncements.
Your statement that there are no "pressure groups wanting a certain slant" is simplistic and totally false. Humans are not built that way. Anywhere. Re-read previous two paragraphs.
Repeating the tired bit about "the BBC constitution" without addressing my previous point about how mere laws cannot guarantee behavior indicates that you haven't really given much thought to this whole issue. Anyone can scroll up and read these points which you have failed to address.
I have also noticed that you have not addressed anyone else who happens to dissagree with you and the BBC -- like the 120,000 hits I mentioned in my previous post for the basic Google phrase search "biased bbc". Since you didn't see fit to mention any of them I suppose that as far as you are concerned, they are all biased, too. Life is way to short for me to haggle over a mere 120,000 points of view that don't agree with yours.
Often when one is unable to comprehend a bias (or a whole set of biased positions) it is because the observer merely shares the same biases.
Perhaps you could write a letter to President Gore and compare notes. From you own posts apparently you and the BBC think he won. In the real world, however, he did not. So I guess that I'm just going to have to disagree with you and the BBC on that one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
Phil_B said:
I take your point Sub Umbra,but what I was saying is that there is no financial pressure on the BBC(we all buy a license to watch and listen),no sneeky "product placement", no sponsors/pressure groups wanting a certain slant etc.It is simply not in the BBC constitution to allow this...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, what you said was that there was "No bias" at the BBC -- anyone can scroll up and see what you wrote for themselves. Your original inflamitory statement about how your government's news reporting had "No bias" is what I would expect from someone who lives under a bridge, if you get my drift. Now you seem to at least have come closer to reality by admitting that in fact, the people at the BBC are human (like everyone else) and that at least some bias comes with that distinction. That's a step in the right direction.
Your statement that there is "no financial pressure" is absurd. Are you trying to make the case that since there was, in your own words, "no financial pressure...no sneeky "product placement", no sponsors..." that RADIO MOSCOW was unbiased under Communist rule? There was, after all, "no sneeky "product placement"" there, right? Certainly "no financial pressure" -- there was such an incredible lack of financial pressure on RADIO MOSCOW that it didn't even matter that financially the USSR went broke in what could only be described as a truly spectacular manner. Your discription of the perfect broadcasting system would also apply to Cuba, North Korea and scores of other countries where people who have no say in their own affairs are watching their children starve, day by day. All of the examples that you have based your arguments on perfectly fit the model used by all of the most tyranical dictaterships of the 20th century. I'm not saying that the UK is a tyranical dictatorship -- only that your superficial arguments would justify any of them. I'm not buying. The conditions that you so proudly point to do not assure bias free reporting in any way, shape or form. These glittering generalities prove none of your assertions.
You are very quick to attack the US media. If you would have read my post more carefully you would have noticed that I never defended them. In fact, I went out of my way to point out that bias is actually the nature of ALL humans. I made no such nationalistic knee-jerk pronouncements.
Your statement that there are no "pressure groups wanting a certain slant" is simplistic and totally false. Humans are not built that way. Anywhere. Re-read previous two paragraphs.
Repeating the tired bit about "the BBC constitution" without addressing my previous point about how mere laws cannot guarantee behavior indicates that you haven't really given much thought to this whole issue. Anyone can scroll up and read these points which you have failed to address.
I have also noticed that you have not addressed anyone else who happens to dissagree with you and the BBC -- like the 120,000 hits I mentioned in my previous post for the basic Google phrase search "biased bbc". Since you didn't see fit to mention any of them I suppose that as far as you are concerned, they are all biased, too. Life is way to short for me to haggle over a mere 120,000 points of view that don't agree with yours.
Often when one is unable to comprehend a bias (or a whole set of biased positions) it is because the observer merely shares the same biases.
Perhaps you could write a letter to President Gore and compare notes. From you own posts apparently you and the BBC think he won. In the real world, however, he did not. So I guess that I'm just going to have to disagree with you and the BBC on that one. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
I thought SW would be useful in case of major national or world disaster. Say all of your local media and internet providers were knocked out by a natural disaster or power failure, with a battery-powered SW you could still have contact with someone.
Phil_B
Enlightened
Sub U,you're always right,and I'm always wrong. Whatever. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
BB
Flashlight Enthusiast
Regarding no finacial pressures at the BBC...
1,700 redundancies now, possible 5-6,000 (20% of BBC Staff) total
[ QUOTE ]
THE BBC announced plans to cut 1,730 of its central support staff yesterday, the first wave in a programme to lose more than 5,000 jobs in the 26,000-strong corporation.
Mark Thompson, the Director-General, said that 980 employees would be made redundant over the next 18 months and 750 jobs would be outsourced to other companies. The cuts amount to nearly half the BBC's support staff.
Union leaders said workers reacted with anger and disbelief to the announcement, which Mr Thompson delivered in a video message to employees. It comes a week after BBC staff across the country protested over his "savage" cost- cutting plans.
[/ QUOTE ]
And, just to remember, George Orwell's book "1984"... Much of the plot was based on his experience when he worked at the BBC some 60 years ago.
-Bill
change "later" to "total" in sub-head. -BB
1,700 redundancies now, possible 5-6,000 (20% of BBC Staff) total
[ QUOTE ]
THE BBC announced plans to cut 1,730 of its central support staff yesterday, the first wave in a programme to lose more than 5,000 jobs in the 26,000-strong corporation.
Mark Thompson, the Director-General, said that 980 employees would be made redundant over the next 18 months and 750 jobs would be outsourced to other companies. The cuts amount to nearly half the BBC's support staff.
Union leaders said workers reacted with anger and disbelief to the announcement, which Mr Thompson delivered in a video message to employees. It comes a week after BBC staff across the country protested over his "savage" cost- cutting plans.
[/ QUOTE ]
And, just to remember, George Orwell's book "1984"... Much of the plot was based on his experience when he worked at the BBC some 60 years ago.
-Bill
change "later" to "total" in sub-head. -BB
CroMAGnet
Flashlight Enthusiast
hmmm I've been looking for "unbiased" news on the net for a long time. Thanks for a few tips.
One good way is to get it from many unrelated feeds. Maybe Google news or yahoo news is good for this. Try AltaVista It's good.
What do you all think of PBS or the enviornmental news of Grist or San Francisco Independent Media ?
When I lived in Canada I thought that we had a sort of neutral and enviornmentaly responsible news network but I can't say since I haven't lived there for over 10 years now. The Globe and Mail was national and CBC news was similar
Maybe we should start a thread on finding a wide range of viewpoints on news topics. Yahoo News Board is maybe a good place to discuss specific headlines.
One good way is to get it from many unrelated feeds. Maybe Google news or yahoo news is good for this. Try AltaVista It's good.
What do you all think of PBS or the enviornmental news of Grist or San Francisco Independent Media ?
When I lived in Canada I thought that we had a sort of neutral and enviornmentaly responsible news network but I can't say since I haven't lived there for over 10 years now. The Globe and Mail was national and CBC news was similar
Maybe we should start a thread on finding a wide range of viewpoints on news topics. Yahoo News Board is maybe a good place to discuss specific headlines.
Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
Phil_B said:
Sub U,you're always right,and I'm always wrong. Whatever. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
If you had used examples that weren't created specifically to serve a special interest maybe your points would have been taken more seriously. The Christian Science Monitor was created to specfically put out their viewpoints. The VOA was created by the US govt. to put out Pro American propaganda. Obviously they are biased, they were created to be that way.
Phil_B said:
Sub U,you're always right,and I'm always wrong. Whatever. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon6.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
If you had used examples that weren't created specifically to serve a special interest maybe your points would have been taken more seriously. The Christian Science Monitor was created to specfically put out their viewpoints. The VOA was created by the US govt. to put out Pro American propaganda. Obviously they are biased, they were created to be that way.
lymph
Enlightened
I used to listen for a laugh now and then. Especially "news" coming from authoritarian places, like Radio Havanna or Radio Baghdad.
I don't find the coverage from the BBC or other outlets any less biased than American news. Those who think that's the case are deluded. Those who also think that Americans are particularly uninformed, thanks to our biased media, have been watching too much Jay Leno.
I don't listen to shortwave anymore. I just beep along in CW in the ham bands.
I don't find the coverage from the BBC or other outlets any less biased than American news. Those who think that's the case are deluded. Those who also think that Americans are particularly uninformed, thanks to our biased media, have been watching too much Jay Leno.
I don't listen to shortwave anymore. I just beep along in CW in the ham bands.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
What was your prep for today?
- Latest: Hooked on Fenix
