http://www.bloggernews.net/120049 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:41:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 http://www.bloggernews.net/120049#comment-1057850 ted Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:29:42 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/120049#comment-1057850 Contrary to Vitali's comment, the 10.3% for 2007 is accurate. VOA's previous reach in Russia was a combination of local TV and radio rebroadcasts, Internet, and shortwave. While Mr. Putin has been largely successful in silencing local rebroadcasts in Russia of VOA, RFE/RL, and other Western broadcasters, the Russian authorities were not able to eliminate VOA and other from the Russian media market for as long as VOA relied on multiple program delivery channels. BBC and other Western broadcasters also used the same program delivery strategy. It was the BBG's decision to switch VOA to a single program delivery channel, i.e. the Internet. This decision alone has resulted in the deline of VOA Russian Service's annual reach in Russia from 10.3% in 2007 to the estimated 0.2% in 2009. Vitali is right that 0.2% does not justify spending U.S. taxpayers' money, but the blame goes to the BBG. The Russian need and want news and information about the United States and they can get it from VOA if only VOA would be allowed to function as a normal broadcasting organization and allowed to have multiple program delivery channels and the right marketing strategy. Contrary to Vitali’s comment, the 10.3% for 2007 is accurate. VOA’s previous reach in Russia was a combination of local TV and radio rebroadcasts, Internet, and shortwave. While Mr. Putin has been largely successful in silencing local rebroadcasts in Russia of VOA, RFE/RL, and other Western broadcasters, the Russian authorities were not able to eliminate VOA and other from the Russian media market for as long as VOA relied on multiple program delivery channels. BBC and other Western broadcasters also used the same program delivery strategy. It was the BBG’s decision to switch VOA to a single program delivery channel, i.e. the Internet. This decision alone has resulted in the deline of VOA Russian Service’s annual reach in Russia from 10.3% in 2007 to the estimated 0.2% in 2009. Vitali is right that 0.2% does not justify spending U.S. taxpayers’ money, but the blame goes to the BBG. The Russian need and want news and information about the United States and they can get it from VOA if only VOA would be allowed to function as a normal broadcasting organization and allowed to have multiple program delivery channels and the right marketing strategy.

]]> http://www.bloggernews.net/120049#comment-1038920 Vitali Ch. Thu, 12 Mar 2009 08:56:37 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/120049#comment-1038920 A biased lobby article. The rating was never 10.3% in 2007. No Russian listens to shortwave radio from the US. You need a proof? If VOA had so many listeners of its shortwave radio, they would jamm it like in the Cold War. But they do not do it, because nobody is listening to this old technique anymore. You cannot even buy a radio with shortwave signal. Shortwave radio is very expensive anyway and stopping shortwave transmission is saving taxpayer's money. A biased lobby article. The rating was never 10.3% in 2007. No Russian listens to shortwave radio from the US. You need a proof? If VOA had so many listeners of its shortwave radio, they would jamm it like in the Cold War. But they do not do it, because nobody is listening to this old technique anymore. You cannot even buy a radio with shortwave signal. Shortwave radio is very expensive anyway and stopping shortwave transmission is saving taxpayer’s money.

]]>