kjl@UUNET.UU.NET> (02/06/90)
By Michael Conlon
RACINE, Wis., Reuter - Broadcasters from the Soviet Union and the
United States, tearing down more international barriers, agreed Monday
to exchange a number of radio programs.
Some of the swaps involving public radio stations in the United
States and government-controlled Radio Moscow could begin in a matter
of days or weeks on an informal basis, although a more structured
exchange may not begin until later this year when funding for
satellite fees is worked out, participants said.
The agreement will be signed later this week in Washington by
Vladimir Andreyev, director of programming for Radio Moscow and Louis
Bransford, president of the Public Service Satellite Consortium which
is facilitating the exchange.
Andreyev told reporters Radio Moscow has a freer hand in reporting
internal and external political events than was the case before Soviet
President Mikhail Gorbachev came to power.
When fully operational programs such as National Public Radio's
``All Things Considered'' could be beamed to Radio Moscow via
satellite for rebroadcast on that organization's English language
service.
In turn non-commercial radio stations in the United States could
receive Soviet English-language programs such as ``Moscow Mailbag''
now available only on crackly short-wave channels.
But broadcasters attending the meeting said a wide range of music
and educational programming was discussed, and swaps of non
time-sensitive tapes via mail could begin immediately.
U.S. editors and program managers said they liked a Soviet folk
music program called ``Folk Box'' and they'd like to air it as soon as
possible.
The Soviet delegation was smitten with radio programs produced by
the Smithsonian Institution, a large library of which is already on
hand. The Russians also said they were hungry for ``life style''
programs about the United States.
``There was definitely a mutual desire to exchange business
news,'' said Leslie Peters, director of Program Marketing for National
Public Radio.
Jeff Rosenberg, an executive producer at Natonal Public Radio,
said the Soviet broadcasters wanted to air stories about ''the living
and working conditions of average Americans, including cultural
developments, the arts, science, medicine.''
But, he said, there was little enthusiasm shown by the visitors
for assessments of U.S. political events.
``They have little information on what it is like to be an
American,'' he said.
James Russell, vice president for national productions at the
University of Southern California Radio, said he could begin airing
some Soviet programs two weeks from now. But he said the exchange as
currently envisioned is not exactly an even swap in turns of
audiences.
``They are very eager to place their programming on American
public radio. They don't have any of our programming on their
counterpart -- the domestic (Russian language service),'' he told
Reuters, adding, ``They concede that there are political problems and
what they say to their own people is a bit more sensitive than what
they say on the external side.''
John Scott, director of international programs for the Public
Service Satellite Consortium and chair of the conference held at the
Johnson Foundation center, said the Soviets have agreed in principle
to pay for their share of the swap.
But he said more than $120,000 must be raised in the United States
to pay for two voice-quality satellite channels that would be needed
to make the exchange work.roskos@BBN.COM> (02/12/90)
kjl@atexnet.UUCP (Ken Lebowitz) writes: >``They are very eager to place their programming on American >public radio. They don't have any of our programming on their >counterpart -- the domestic (Russian language service),'' he told >Reuters, adding, ``They concede that there are political problems and >what they say to their own people is a bit more sensitive than what >they say on the external side.'' I'm sort of puzzled by this swap. Does this mean we put their programs on our local radio, and they put our programs on ... "crackly shortwave" radio intended for the US (and other English-speaking countries)? It would give wider coverage to NPR, though, unless NPR is on one of the newer US shortwave stations. -- Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) "The left side of the brain/Dominates the right./The right side has to labor through/The long and sleepless night." -P. Simon
Phil Hughes <fyl@ssc.uucp> (02/21/90)
In article <1990Feb15.044934.18564@stb.uucp>, thobe@stb.uucp (Glenn Thobe) writes: > How about their broadcasting our programs in English on their domestic > service and sending us some of their domestic programs in Russian? > It's so easy to get loud clear reception of the English language > Radio Moscow World Service on modest SW receivers we don't really need it > on our PBS stations too. Actually, it would be better if both propaganda networks (VOA and RM) would broadcast something a little more real -- in other words news instead of propaganda. They should both pick up the BBC, CBC, Radio New Zealand and a few of the less-partial services. -- Phil Hughes, SSC, Inc. P.O. Box 55549, Seattle, WA 98155 (206)FOR-UNIX uunet!pilchuck!ssc!fyl or attmail!ssc!fyl (206)527-3385
Eric Roskos <roskos@IDA.ORG> (02/22/90)
fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >Actually, it would be better if both propaganda networks (VOA and RM) >would broadcast something a little more real -- in other words news >instead of propaganda. They should both pick up the BBC, CBC, Radio New >Zealand and a few of the less-partial services. I'm still curious which VOA programs other than the editorial at the end of the broadcast people consider to be propagandistic, and in what sense? -- Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL)
"K. Sankara Rao" <KSRAO@POWER.uucp> (02/22/90)
In article <1990Feb22.155245.19965@IDA.ORG>, roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) writes: >fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: > >>Actually, it would be better if both propaganda networks (VOA and RM) >>would broadcast something a little more real -- in other words news >>instead of propaganda. They should both pick up the BBC, CBC, Radio New >>Zealand and a few of the less-partial services. > >I'm still curious which VOA programs other than the editorial at the end >of the broadcast people consider to be propagandistic, and in what sense? >-- >Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) I do find VOA news not to be 'propagandish' at all. Their news broadcast is much less of a 'propaganda' as our domestic network TV news is and is much more complete. True they devote more time to US news than does BBC. Radio New Zeland news seems to be fairly regional and short (5 minutes, at least those that I hear in the night during cricket broadcast). Even though I like BBC World Service News programs, I have one very strong criticism of it. If I am a Britisher livung abroad, most of the time there is british news at all. I know that there 'news about Britain' but it not on the hour. In that respect RCI and VOA do serve their citizens abroad in addition to the rest of the world. VOA devotes more of its programming time, this I am recalling the time when I was in India, to American subjects, like Jazz, Press Club rebroadcast etc, than does BBC. If that is propaganda, I am all for it. Its news is not slanted as RM's was and not even as our TV network news is K. Sankara Rao ksrao@power.eee.ndsu.nodak.edu Department of Electrical Engineering North Dakota State University, Fargo
Brian Sturgill <brian@cs.utah.edu> (02/22/90)
> From: roskos@IDA.ORG (Eric Roskos) .. > Date: 22 Feb 90 15:52:45 GMT > > fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: > > >Actually, it would be better if both propaganda networks (VOA and RM) > >would broadcast something a little more real -- in other words news > >instead of propaganda. They should both pick up the BBC, CBC, Radio New > >Zealand and a few of the less-partial services. > > I'm still curious which VOA programs other than the editorial at the end > of the broadcast people consider to be propagandistic, and in what sense? > -- > Eric Roskos (roskos@IDA.ORG or Roskos@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL) > > To see the propaganda on VOA, listen to any news cast and take notes about what was talked about. Then tune over to the BBC and do the same. Ask yourself while reviewing the notes about the selection of material and the tone and presentation of (East-West) controversial stories. I think the problem is that you compare RM and VOA in your mind and see an obvious difference in the level of propaganda and say VOA is propoganda-free rather than the more likely statement that RM is propaganda-full. Also, a certain part is that it is hard for us Americans to spot the propaganda, in that it is OUR propaganda, something that is a built-in part of our cultural prejudices. The BBC (et. al.) do a better job of keeping their cultural prejudices out of the newscasts. Brian --------- Brian Sturgill cs.utah.edu
Glenn Thobe <@RAND.ORG,@ucla-an:thobe@stb> (02/23/90)
In article <38750@apple.Apple.COM> winter@Apple.COM (Patty Winter) writes: > >Was KSCI [ch 18 Los Angeles] able to broadcast same-day editions of Vremya? >I imagine that >dubbing can be done a lot faster than typing subtitles. These Vremya broadcasts were prepared at the RAND/UCLA Center for Soviet Studies, which has its own ground station to track the Molniya satellites. They reformat to NTSC, which includes demodulating the sound-in-syncs audio. The program was translated and subtitles included. The rebroadcast was at 6pm PST which is just 8 hours after the original 9 pm broadcast in Moscow. The KSCI rebroadcast was also a two week experiment. They solicited letters from viewers and are now seeking sponsorship. -Glenn