I don't know enough about the userbase for shortwave in, say, Australia, but, in general, shortwave has been a declining medium with lower ROI. Your paranthetical acknowledges that reality.
What you describe with regard to the HF spectrum and China is opportunism made possible when one understands the potential value in its use. Whether they'll use that spectrum for transmitting programs or for other purposes, I don't know.
About RFE/RL over the air broadcasts, I think it's likely some will be abandoned for financial reasons. It is possible that RFE/RL picks up other frequencies, say the more limited MW, through local relationships and tighter relations with European governments as the network re-establishes itself. (Related but separate: I wonder if we'll see a corporate restructuring to further severe the connection to the US based on some concept of self-protection.)
Matt, what do you think China is doing with all of the SW frequencies they occupy? In Australia Chinese broadcasts are wall-to-wall. Do they want to assert "ownership" of a kind over the HF broadcast spectrum? (Chinese-Australian people I know are unaware of SW let alone the Chinese language services of CNBC et al. They get their news from apps, not radio of any kind). When Radio Australia vacated the HF spectrum I understand that China took those frequencies over rather quickly. Is this what will happen with the VOA RFE frequencies?
Now that I've got that of my chest, I look forward to seeing what steps will be taken to save RFE, et al. I would remind current administration apologists of something I've been repeating often: Our actions almost never 'speak for themselves' when someone else with interests opposed to our own are doing the reporting on those same actions and effects.
Put another way, if you don't tell your story, someone will. This is an old story. Too often, people project their information bubble onto others. Things are not always self-evident and actions may speak for themselves, but actions bring a different vocabulary and then you're hoping for the right interpretation while hoping others won't alter the story. Hope wasn't and isn't a strategy, though.
"...not performed in good faith." That phrase has been used a great deal of late. I'm still looking for the strategic intent tying together the actions of State and others supporting American interests outside the country under the new administration. Perhaps this is just another exercise of the "unitary executive theory" which is, perhaps, the only goal: to establish and exercise this theory. Now, to those looking to justify the President's actions under this theory let me ask you if the next Democratic President should dismantle anything built under this President which could certainly be done under the same pretext. We're establishing a precedent that will make our own democracy increasingly unstable.
Grahame, shortwave is useful and digital shortwave is cool, but the audience share is relatively small, smaller when you look at who you really want to reach if you need to prioritize. When I was on the BBG board, I chaired a committee looking into the agency's need and utility of shortwave. That report was called "To be where the audience is" and it's still on the USAGM website: https://www.usagm.gov/2014/08/01/to-be-where-the-audience-is-report-of-the-special-committee-on-the-future-of-shortwave-broadcasting/
I don't know enough about the userbase for shortwave in, say, Australia, but, in general, shortwave has been a declining medium with lower ROI. Your paranthetical acknowledges that reality.
What you describe with regard to the HF spectrum and China is opportunism made possible when one understands the potential value in its use. Whether they'll use that spectrum for transmitting programs or for other purposes, I don't know.
About RFE/RL over the air broadcasts, I think it's likely some will be abandoned for financial reasons. It is possible that RFE/RL picks up other frequencies, say the more limited MW, through local relationships and tighter relations with European governments as the network re-establishes itself. (Related but separate: I wonder if we'll see a corporate restructuring to further severe the connection to the US based on some concept of self-protection.)
Matt, what do you think China is doing with all of the SW frequencies they occupy? In Australia Chinese broadcasts are wall-to-wall. Do they want to assert "ownership" of a kind over the HF broadcast spectrum? (Chinese-Australian people I know are unaware of SW let alone the Chinese language services of CNBC et al. They get their news from apps, not radio of any kind). When Radio Australia vacated the HF spectrum I understand that China took those frequencies over rather quickly. Is this what will happen with the VOA RFE frequencies?
Now that I've got that of my chest, I look forward to seeing what steps will be taken to save RFE, et al. I would remind current administration apologists of something I've been repeating often: Our actions almost never 'speak for themselves' when someone else with interests opposed to our own are doing the reporting on those same actions and effects.
Put another way, if you don't tell your story, someone will. This is an old story. Too often, people project their information bubble onto others. Things are not always self-evident and actions may speak for themselves, but actions bring a different vocabulary and then you're hoping for the right interpretation while hoping others won't alter the story. Hope wasn't and isn't a strategy, though.
"...not performed in good faith." That phrase has been used a great deal of late. I'm still looking for the strategic intent tying together the actions of State and others supporting American interests outside the country under the new administration. Perhaps this is just another exercise of the "unitary executive theory" which is, perhaps, the only goal: to establish and exercise this theory. Now, to those looking to justify the President's actions under this theory let me ask you if the next Democratic President should dismantle anything built under this President which could certainly be done under the same pretext. We're establishing a precedent that will make our own democracy increasingly unstable.