Guest Post - Bob Zanotti On The Relationship Between DX Chasers and Shortwave Broadcasters

In recent months I have received several private questions and comments about postings on various shortwave-related forums, which were highly critical of so-called “DXers” – the term commonly used by broadcasters to refer to those who make a hobby out of tuning the bands for signals to identity, just in order to obtain a QSL card, as opposed to those who actually listen to programs and comment on program content. Although my name and that of Bob Thomann were mentioned in some of the postings in question, we were not directly involved in them.

But there is an issue here, and it is based on this fact: Broadcasters need to be able to demonstrate that their programs are not only reaching their target areas in a technical sense, but very importantly, also that the expenditures for program production, transmission infrastructure and the cost of sponsorship are warranted, in the sense that the MESSAGE is getting through to the audience. DXers do not help matters here, but Shortwave LISTENERS or “SWLs” do.

It is no secret that the management of Swiss Radio International (and other SW broadcasters) was upset over DXers , and asked Bob Thomann and me to address the issue in the Swiss Shortwave Merry-Go-Round, which we did. In fact, I think we were the first SW broadcasters to do so, but not the last.

However, while I can confirm that the SRI management did not like "QSL-hunting DXers” who didn't listen to program content and sometimes referred to them as “DX nuts”, Bob Thomann and I were always diplomatic in discussing this issue over the air, and we never called anyone names. Our position on-air can be summarized this way, and it was stated many, many times:

"We [broadcasters] are not here simply to supply a signal to identify, just for the purpose of getting a QSL card. If that were the reason for our efforts, we might as well transmit a 1,000 Hz tone along with an ID loop. There is no conflict between being a technically-interested DXer and being a program *listener*. Just use your technical skills to improve reception to the extent possible, but then, *listen* to the program. You'll get a QSL card, but all we're asking for is some comments about our programs, whether good or bad. This is what justifies the enormous cost of our broadcasts, but QSL card-hunting does not."

This was and still is our position on DXers, and I know it is shared by other SW broadcasting veterans. From that perspective, DXers were and are very frustrating for the broadcaster and program-maker, and I feel sure that this group was, indeed, at least partly responsible for the demise of big-time shortwave broadcasting after the end of the Cold War.

Having said all of the above, I want to make it very clear that this issue can be discussed in a businesslike and objective way, and I discourage the use of language that could be construed as abusive or excessively provocative on the part of either side of the argument.

I know how easy it is in this field to get embroiled in controversy and in-fighting. For this reason, I want to emphasize that the purpose of this posting is to restate the position of Bob Thomann and me on this issue for the record. While I realize that the discussion will continue, this posting is not intended to add to or encourage the debate. There are more appropriate forums than SIS for this purpose. Any related comments are, of course, welcome.

The Future of Shortwave Broadcasting by Bob Zanotti

The Future Of Shortwave Broadcasting by Bob Zanotti

There is much pessimistic talk today about the validity of shortwave as the prime vehicle of international broadcasting. Critics present several arguments: high operating costs, environmental considerations, a need to re-channel available funds into satellites and the Internet, and what is loosely termed a decline in shortwave. From the point of view of the broadcast planner and decision-maker, this catalogue of negative arguments appears sound and reasonable. From the perspective of a large segment of the audience, however, reductions in shortwave services are inexplicable and a source of frustration and even anger.

Let us examine the issues carefully, using the senses and instincts of the investigative journalist. We are in a period of restructuring, a contemporary buzzword that is used and abused so frequently as a catch-all excuse to justify virtually any action taken by management, regardless of how inappropriate. We are in a period where human endeavor is scientized, and we no longer have faith in our common sense judgment as human beings. This is the age of consultants and high technology. The media are ruled by time-and-motion studies and so-called market forces. Radio and television no longer produce programs, but products. Today there are no listeners, there are markets.

How did we arrive at this state of affairs? My view and that of seasoned colleagues is clear: international broadcasting is no longer directed by professional intuition. Instead, an army of theoreticians and technocrats, often with little or no broadcasting knowledge, experience or dedication, have taken control of the decision-making process in many organizations.

With limited experience of their own, these people are forced in desperation to turn to someone else for advice. These are the consultants, the industry gurus, in which so much hope is placed. But all too often, these ‘experts’ have overstated their own qualifications, and have to rely in turn on others for advice. Unfortunately, this ‘other’ advice often comes from individuals or institutions with vested commercial interests. These special interests also include broadcast technologies.

Let us get down to cases and examine the satellite broadcasting industry. Many billions of dollars have been invested in telecommunication satellite technology. It is elementary that the investors expect a return on their investments, and considering the limited life span of satellites, this return must be as fast as possible. The main thrust of broadcasting today is television, and it was for television that the current broadcast satellite technology was designed. In concrete terms, the concept of transmission capacity for these satellites was designed with TV in mind, not radio. Sound Broadcasting, to use the ITU terminology, was promoted later as a way to merchandise over-capacity and to improve the return on investment.

But the allocation and accessing of sound channels on satellites is user-unfriendly, and therefore unattractive for most people. Furthermore, although impressive statistics based on satellite-households are often quoted to support the satellite radio argument, only a very tiny fragment of this potential audience ever listens to radio via satellite. In Europe, where direct satellite radio is allegedly highly developed, an independent study revealed that a mere one percent of satellite households ever used their satellite receiver for sound broadcasting.

Mobility is another striking deficiency in present satellite sound broadcasting. Current technology does not permit us to carry a satellite receiver in our pocket and take it along on our travels. Furthermore, reception indoors is also virtually impossible. Cable distribution of international programs is often cited as a promising alternative to direct home satellite reception, but here too, cable installations are fixed; they cannot be used away from the home setting.

Superficially, the cost of shortwave as compared to satellite appears higher. But if the factors of market penetration and acceptability are considered, as well as the crucial factor of personal cost to the listener, shortwave wins hands down. There are literally millions upon millions of shortwave receivers in use. They are compact, portable, easy to use, and above all, cheap. Technically speaking, there is no other sound broadcasting medium that can compete with shortwave in these respects.

For years now, I have heard the repeated, tired refrain: “shortwave is dead”. I recall the teachings of C.G. Jung and his concept of Collective Consciousness, in which a prevailing belief or slogan, repeated often enough, and although even a lie, can influence the thinking of an entire group or even nation. Goebels, Hitler’s propaganda minister, embraced this concept, and used it to manipulate an entire nation, with cataclysmic results.

Powerful, manipulative forces are at work here. Although difficult to prove, there has even been speculation that considerable ‘promotional fees’ may have been paid in the process. A big part of the sales talk involves belittling shortwave as a relic of the past and exalting the virtues of technologies that are frankly not yet mature. This sounds good in today’s shallow-thinking, buzzword-ridden world, but in the final analysis it doesn’t make sense. To make the propaganda strategy complete, those who would question the slogans are conveniently labelled as uninformed, obstructionist, inflexible, old- fashioned, or generally lacking in vision.

Like it or not, from a purely technical point of view, the fact is, there is nothing at this moment to replace shortwave. One day there may be. In the meantime, it is good and wise to gain a foothold in the new technologies, but not to overestimate or over-represent their value. If market orientation is truly important, than we would have to admit that the demand is still for shortwave. Ironically, shortwave technology does not stand still either: there is a current effort to develop digital shortwave, which would go far in curing analogue shortwave’s qualitative shortcomings.

To quote the old saying: Let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water. Another popular and wise saying is: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I for one am in favor of new technology, provided it demonstrates a clear superiority to what is currently in use. In the case of shortwave, some would like to bury it before it has even died.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS REGARDING INTERNET BROADCASTING:

The above essay was written at a time when Internet audio streaming was still immature. Although radio over the Internet (audio or “radio” on demand, or “podcasting”) opens a new and wider vista for broadcasters and would-be broadcasters, the Internet as a primary medium exhibits the same deficiencies of mobility as does satellite broadcasting. In this sense, the terms “satellite” and “Internet” are synonymous.

Written in 2002 & revised in 2007

Bob Zanotti

Switzerland In Sound

Announcing The NEW Audio News Programming Page

As promised earlier this year, Shortwave America attempted to bring you access to some 7 different radio or world news related programming. Many of those shows with the exception of two of them, have shut down. There was also a problem with bringing you many of these programs because the publishing schedules were either very erratic or just too difficult to keep up with in the practical sense.

In an effort to keep the promise made to our fans and followers, Shortwave America has erected an "Audio News Programming" page, located at the very top of the page. The shows here are high quality content produced and engineered by veteran broadcasters. Here's the list:

• Amateur Radio Newsline
• The Rain Report
• Classic Media Network with Jonathan Marks
• Nash Holos / Ukranian News Outlook with Paulette MacQuarrie
• Bob Zanotti's Switzerland In Sound
• The QSO Show with Ted Randall

The QSO show isn't produced anymore as far as we know, but it seems as if it is a good show with good material. 

Switzerland In Sound with Bob Zanotti

Bob has been reporting on Switzerland for more than thirty two years now. Bob has been a distinct voice on the air, sharing his expertise about Switzerland starting with travel and then going on to share the culture, languages, and overall richness of this great country and its people.

The May 21st episode of "Switzerland In Sound" comes to us from the East side of Switzerland, close to Italy just on the South border. Since the Summer months are almost here, Shortwave America thought it would be worth talking about the great work Bob has been doing.

Switzerland In Sound does an awesome job of giving every listener a virtual tour of each place Bob visits, painting pictures in the mind of absolute beauty that give way to pleasant dreams for anyone who looks forward to traveling.

In this episode, Bob speaks and tours with Gabriella. Gabriella is the Director Of The Nature Biosphere, in the Valley Of The Minster. Your tour starts in the Cemetery, and the Covent of St. John's Church. After this visit, Gabriella shows Bob a local restaurant and explains the local tastes. The scenery changes from the restaurant to a local bio - production plant where natural products are made. We are then whisked away to a textile manufacturer where original hand looms are still used, and Mrs. Oswald is working on a product in the middle of the Village of Santa Maria.

We won't give it all away, so, you'll have to click here to listen!

To learn more about Bob and his Switzerland in Sound, follow this link.