"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Globally, there were 146m weekly World Service listeners in 2004, down
from
150m in 2003.

They are saying the number of listeners declined 2.7%. I'd like to know how
they come up with such numbers, and how they can have any confidence in
their accuracy and precision.

[snip]


US audience increased from 3.9m to record 4.7m

Are there 4.7 million listening to the full range of World Service
programming or just to the World Service news? Local radio stations don't
produce their own national and international news stories. The World
Service is a good choice for some stations which want to carry international
news. I hear WS news, but I rarely hear any other WS programming on locals.



One in five opinion formers in New York and Washington listen each week


I wish they would have expanded on their "opinion former" concept. I'd
think five out of five people form at least their own opinions, even in New
York and Washington. And what ever happened to the World Service companion
term, as in "opinion formers and decision makers"?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain...io/3825701.stm



Frank Dresser

Ruud Poeze wrote:

One of the reasons for that is that people dont know how to change band.
Or in other words, they only use ONE single broadcastband.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think every single person of
average intelligence anywhere on this planet can figure out how to
change bands. It may have taken *me* a while, but that is the exception.



mike


--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

..let the cat out to reply..

©Densa International
'Think tanks cleaned cheap'

"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Globally, there were 146m weekly World Service listeners in 2004,
down
from
150m in 2003.

They are saying the number of listeners declined 2.7%. I'd like to
know how
they come up with such numbers, and how they can have any confidence
in
their accuracy and precision.

[snip]

I would too. Perhaps it's because, in their own words, they are "the
most trusted and objective international broadcaster."

Unfortunately, others more objective don't seem to concur:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/

"T. Early" wrote in message
...


I would too. Perhaps it's because, in their own words, they are "the
most trusted and objective international broadcaster."

[snip]

The BBC didn't give any details of the survey(s) referenced in the article.
I'm interested in the number of SWLs, and I didn't find any useful
information there. The BBC has an obvious self-interest in claiming the
World Service has an impact.

Imagine if ABC radio claimed they had the largest number of listeners in a
particular bracket. Where did the numbers come from? Did they come from an
impartial source such as Arbitron, whose methods are known, or from a survey
conducted by Disney employees at Disney World?

I sorta assume the BBC gives a more detailed report of their methodology
when the submit budget requests. Too bad they didn't share the information
on their article.

Frank Dresser

One slight inaccuracy and the world came down on them. If that
doesn't speak to the fact that they are credible I don't what would.

Fox News has a glaring fib every day.

http://mediamatters.org/

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 11:08:18 -0400, "T. Early"
wrote:


"Frank Dresser" wrote in message
...

"Mike Terry" wrote in message
...

[snip]

Globally, there were 146m weekly World Service listeners in 2004,
down
from
150m in 2003.

They are saying the number of listeners declined 2.7%. I'd like to
know how
they come up with such numbers, and how they can have any confidence
in
their accuracy and precision.

[snip]

I would too. Perhaps it's because, in their own words, they are "the
most trusted and objective international broadcaster."

Unfortunately, others more objective don't seem to concur:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/

"David" wrote in message
...
One slight inaccuracy and the world came down on them. If that
doesn't speak to the fact that they are credible I don't what would.

Well, characterizing the Hutton Report's findings as dealing with a
"slight inaccuracy" speaks volumes about credibility--yours, that is.
Or do you think that BBC Chairmen usually resign on the basis of
"slight inaccuracies."?


Fox News has a glaring fib every day.

http://mediamatters.org/


Of course Fox News has a "glaring fib" every day. They are, after
all, part of the vast right wing conspiracy engaged in manipulation of
the American public, and, as such, worthy of being denounced by truth
seekers everywhere--especially those with web sites. It's
interesting, though, that those same guardians of the airwaves who are
now so concerned with one media (moderately conservative) news outlet
were less interested in the fact that, before Fox, CNN (and apparently
the New York Times, among others) was "fibbing" on a regular basis.
Can't imagine why.

m II schreef:

Ruud Poeze wrote:

One of the reasons for that is that people dont know how to change band.
Or in other words, they only use ONE single broadcastband.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. I think every single person of
average intelligence anywhere on this planet can figure out how to
change bands. It may have taken *me* a while, but that is the exception.

mike

--

No, you are wrong.
The vast majority really does not know how to do that.
They hardly realize that there are more bands than one (FM).
I have several AM frequencies, and freinds, family and neighbours all
needed intruction how to piuck up one of the AM channels.
Some of them also did not know how to get back to FM!
ruud

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /\ / /
/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /\ \/ /
/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/ \/_/

..let the cat out to reply..

©Densa International
'Think tanks cleaned cheap'

Ruud Poeze wrote:

Mike Terry schreef:


Short wave decline

BBC World Service attributed the global audience decline to a significant
drop in short wave radio listening year-on-year, which has been partly
offset by a rise in FM audiences.





In New York WABC 77 was on AM until 1982, long after the introduction of
FM.



Maybe I'm missing something here but 770 on my AM band keeps announcing
itself as WABC New York?

Dave

Dave Holford wrote:

Ruud Poeze wrote:

Mike Terry schreef:


Short wave decline

BBC World Service attributed the global audience decline to a significant
drop in short wave radio listening year-on-year, which has been partly
offset by a rise in FM audiences.



In New York WABC 77 was on AM until 1982, long after the introduction of
FM.


Maybe I'm missing something here but 770 on my AM band keeps announcing
itself as WABC New York?

Have you discovered a time warp? ;-)

dxAce schreef:

Dave Holford wrote:

Ruud Poeze wrote:

Mike Terry schreef:


Short wave decline

BBC World Service attributed the global audience decline to a significant
drop in short wave radio listening year-on-year, which has been partly
offset by a rise in FM audiences.



In New York WABC 77 was on AM until 1982, long after the introduction of
FM.


Maybe I'm missing something here but 770 on my AM band keeps announcing
itself as WABC New York?

Have you discovered a time warp? ;-)

You are right.
But I was referring to Musicradio 77, WABC went to News/Talk, dropping
the popular Top 40 format.
ruud