Why Short Wave Is Still Relevant

Thanks, Paul:

Interesting radio articles:

He Hears a Bounty of Listening Options 
http://www.rwonline.com/article/he-hears-a-bounty-of-listening-options/211462

Why We Still Believe in Shortwave 
http://www.rwonline.com/article/why-we-still-believe-in-shortwave/211554

 

Comments

[Dan]

It's unfortunate that the so-called "think tanks" and advisors that the big SW broadcasters pay to tell them how to be relevant don't subscribe to this point of view.

[Bob C.]

This article offers an interesting paradox for me. On the one hand, I agree with Mr. Caudill's conclusions regarding SW radio. But, on the other hand, the proliferation of "Bible Blaster" signals all over the various SW bands has contributed mightily to the waning interest in shortwave radio listening.

Stations such as his rant and rave breathlessly at high power, 24/7 all over the band. And, to the casual listener, they're about all that's left in English - so they tune out. These guys operate on frequencies that are scattered all over the place, so even if the propagation is good enough to pull in an African relay of something good (like BBC WS or VOA, etc.), the God squad is often stepping all over it.

Do they really need to simulcast the same nutjob "preecher" on 4 bands, with 3 frequencies each? All of which pound in at an 8 or 9 of 10? And not just where I live, this is true all over the Americas. Listening in Central America, same deal. If you really want to do something in the name of God, please program something of interest!!! Real, actual news, popular music, documentaries, talk shows that we've heard of. Something. Give (yes, give, because y'all have tons of $$) some of the frequencies to AFRN - that would be great!

So it was challenging for me to read that second link without losing my breakfast because this guy is the personification of the people who have spoiled SW listening and driven the casual listener away from it. They are appalling pests. Sorry for the rant, but this got under my skin.

[Doug T.]

The articles say something different than one might think from their titles. Both articles seem to imply that shortwave radio really only matters if one does not have access to the Internet.

The interview with Paul Riismandel reveals that he is primarily listening to Internet radio:

"Q: Have Internet 'radio' and personalized 'radio' platforms changed your own radio listening habits?

"A: Honestly it’s an amazing time for radio and audio media, and having this bounty of listening options has truly changed my listening habits.

"I’ve been listening to Internet radio since it first became feasible in the late 1990s. At that time it was thrilling to listen to unique stations in other cities or countries that I might not otherwise hear. I still do that now, but I also supplement with services like Pandora, Rdio and Spotify, alongside a steady diet of podcasts.

"I use the personalized radio platforms to check out new music or artists I’ve heard about, or when I want something a little more customized to my mood than a typical broadcast playlist. Many of the podcasts I listen to are radio programs, so catching them by podcast lets me listen on my schedule."

The Charles Caudill statement is from the point of view of a broadcaster -- his point is that many of his listeners don't have Internet. However, if like most middle-class Americans, you have Internet at home, then you'll find that his podcasts are more convenient to listen to than his shortwave broadcasts.