I caught the tail end of this story on a recent NPR broadcast, but I wanted
to confirm it; the confirmation is at:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/schedules/010518_byford.shtml

The BBC World Service is going to end shortwave broadcasting in English
to North America, Australia, New Zealand and some other places, effective 
July 1.  The BBC argues that they are reaching many more people through
their FM partnerships with National Public Radio and other countries'
service, and through their Internet broadcasts, and they need to refocus
their shortwave resources on places like the Middle East.

The Grundig radio company, who probably make most of the shortwave receivers
sold in America, is *very* disappointed.

21 responses total.

Jim comments that he thinks about a third of NPR is now BBC.  Do they really
have enough news to fill 24 hours/day without repeating?  I don't know anyone
who listens to shortwave - it tends to sound even worse than Toledo a 60
miles.

Spring agora 150 re BBC has been linked to radio 32.

When I heard this on NPR, I almost couldn't believe it. I started 
listening to shortwave radio as a kid, and I grew up listening to the 
BBC. If nothing else was coming in very well, you could always count on 
the BBC.

Having said that, I rarely listen to the shortwave broadcasts anymore. 
I still fire up an old Hallicrafters receiver once in a while when I'm 
working on something down in the basement, but I now listen to the Beeb 
either via NPR or via the Internet.

While we may lament the passing of the transmissions, at least they are 
not cutting back on programming. That would really be a tragedy.

re #1: I suppose they do repeat stuff now and then, but I think I can 
honestly say that I've never heard a repeat. The range of programming 
is truly amazing, from general world news to the latest cricket scores 
in India to radio dramas to popular music programs.

Even though NPR carries BBC programming, I have never heard any of the fine
BBC dramas on NPR.  I recall some wonderful radio drama productions, including
_Blood Wedding_, a play I waited many hears to see in the theater.

Re #1: That will depend to a large extent on your radio and
  especially on your antenna.  That said, I've enjoyed good
  results even with some very basic equipment.

Re #3: I agree, and if doing away with the short-wave
  broadcasts makes the licence fee go a little further, it
  may not be an entirely bad thing.

Re #4: I was spectacularly unimpressed when I heard the
  radio stations local to me (in East central Illinois), and
  realised just how awful they were.  U.S. Television took a
  lot of getting used to as well.  There are some U.S.
  programmes that I really enjoy, and some British ones that
  I would not waste my time watching.  Taken as a whole
  though I think the BBC's quality of programming may be
  unmatched, and their news coverage sets a very important
  benchmark.

I'll be sad to lose the BBC's shortwave broadcasts, but I'm
very glad that the BBC radio stations are available over the
Internet as RealAudio streams!  :-)

Both major satellite providers and some cable companies provide BBC America.
Granted, it's probably not the same as having all of the BBC channels, but
they tend to some some decent programming.

I don't know that I'd say that the BBC provides an inherently better "quality"
of programming, per se. But the scope of BBC's audience is for the most part,
a bit limited by comparison. The major networks here have to cater to every
lifestyle and color under the sun, and they often bungle it up. BBC tends to
be more..."Anglo", for lack of a better term.

That's not to say that either are better or worse. Personally, I like a lot
of the programming on BBC America (I'm currently hooked on Attachments), but
that's because it's geared towards my demographic, and they stay within those
bounds, for the most part. I doubt very highly that I would have the same
appreciation for the BBC, if I wasn't a heterosexual caucasian.

Now...if we could just get them to ship us over some of the game shows, and
Euro Trash...I'd be a very happy camper. :)

you're right, Twinkie. British TV would never have a show like, say, "The
Weakest Link" on it. ;}

European TV/radio is much less exploitative.  You'd never see something like
"Survivor" on European TV.  ;P

The advantage of getting your news from the BBC is that it's not (necessarily)
the news that is filtered by the American media companies.  Reflect a bit on
the American broadcasts into Cuba and the like...

re: 8 -- Just like "Whose Line Is It Anyway?", and "Queer As Folk", we get
the bastardized...er...Americanized ripoffs.

Aren't there several BBCs, to serve the several classes in England?

European media is highly exploitive.  Ever heard of British tabloids? :)

re #9:  Yeah whatever.  One of my roommate's favorite shows in Germany was
one where they made people face their worst fears for a prize.  If you were
scared of spiders, they made you run an obstacle course full of them.  Scared
of driving?  You get to drive in a Nascar-style race.  Insecure about your
girlish figure?  One poor guy had to strip, holding his hands over his privates
on live TV, and then had to catch a large beach ball thrown at his upper
chest.

Actually, here we go "Fear Factor" on NBC, the newest import, it starts in
july.

re: 11 -- I think there are four terrestrial BBC channels. From my very vague
recollection of a British friend bitching about it, one of them is PBS-ish,
and another is mostly news. 

Channel 4 is where it's at.

Re #7: We get BBC America via cable, and they have some
  programmes that I would miss otherwise. It doesn't seem to
  have quite the range of programming that their British
  channels do.  I guess they have to make room for the
  advertisments over here, and there are probably other
  reasons too.

  Britain is very diverse, so I'm not sure it's fair to
  assume that their audience is more limited.  Perhaps BBC
  America is more "Anglo" though. The World Service provides
  more diverse programming, I hope that their move away from
  short-wave radio will not impact the World Service badly.
  Happily it's still available via the Internet, hopefully
  they'll still use old-fassioned radio where that is more
  available to people.

Re #8, #12: I'm not claiming that all of the BBC's
  programming is high-quality, or even watchable! ;-)

Re #9: That's my feeling about their news coverage - perhaps
  I'm biassed though :-)  That said, I think it was in the
  BBC's ground rules from early on.  I think there was some
  resistance within the BBC to the propoganda that they were
  being pressured to broadcast during the second world war,
  and that may have solidified their resolution to be
  independent of even the British government in the years
  since.

Re #11, #15: To serve different tastes, certainly in their
  radio stations (check them out at www.bbc.co.uk)  There
  are only two national BBC television channels: predictably
  called BBC 1 and BBC 2.  There are regional studios that
  produce some programming.

  When I lived in Wales I had the choice of three English
  language TV channels: BBC 1, BBC 2 and HTV Wales.  The
  fourth channel available was S4C, which was broadcast in
  Cymraeg (Welsh).  A fifth national channel was launched
  while I lived there, but was not broadcast in South Wales
  (it may be now, I don't know).

I can hear the BBC right now, on 5975....
!

Yes, even though that transmission isn't beamed to North America, it's 
very easy to pick it up here in Ann Arbor. Where in Canada are you, 
Phil?

NEAR TORONTO

Uh-oh!  It's not just the BBC doing this!

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss