As a reminder to readers of the board, the Russian government through third parties funds Radio Sputnik English broadcasts via AM 1390 WZHF and FM translator W288BS. The latter is owned by Reston Translator LLC, I believe the prime owner is retired broadcast lawyer John Garziglia. AM 1390 is listed as Way Broadcasting, the same folks who run Multicultural Broadcasting. How shameful!
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Radio Sputnik - DC's Kremlin Radio
- Thread starter RF101
- Start date
CRI ended its lease with WCRW recently, we can only hope Sputnik is next.
KCXL in Liberty, MO runs Radio Sputnik too.
Wasn't there a time (and not very long ago) when the very idea of RT America, Radio Sputnik and CRI having bases in Washington DC broadcasting to the American public would have set everyone's hair on fire? These nations were never our allies. We never had formal peace treaties or allowed to set up stations for their public inside Moscow or Beijing. What gives?
Wasn't there a time (and not very long ago) when the very idea of RT America, Radio Sputnik and CRI having bases in Washington DC broadcasting to the American public would have set everyone's hair on fire? These nations were never our allies. We never had formal peace treaties or allowed to set up stations for their public inside Moscow or Beijing. What gives?
Maybe the sanctions will hasten the demise of Radio Sputnik
Or maybe not. Radio Sputnik is the result of a 2014 reorganization of the previous Voice of Russia international radio service, which itself was a 1992 rebranding of the Soviet-era Radio Moscow, which goes back to 1929. Been around a long time. Might disappear from local stations in the U.S., but will be available elsewhere.
BBC used to have a Russian-language AM in Moscow, as did World Radio Network (a station broadcasting a selection of programming from various international broadcasters). The key there is used to - the Kremlin didn't renew either broadcast licence when they came up for renewal some years ago.
There's an argument both ways. Having RT, Radio Sputnik and the rest broadcasting openly on the Western airwaves means people can tune in and hear how ridiculously wrong-headed it all is - it's not slick propaganda in any sense of the word, it's clumsy, bone-headed stuff. Taking it off the air reduces people's exposure to it, but also pushes the broadcasts into unregulated online spaces like Telegram channels where really harmful disinformation can spread.
There's an argument both ways. Having RT, Radio Sputnik and the rest broadcasting openly on the Western airwaves means people can tune in and hear how ridiculously wrong-headed it all is - it's not slick propaganda in any sense of the word, it's clumsy, bone-headed stuff. Taking it off the air reduces people's exposure to it, but also pushes the broadcasts into unregulated online spaces like Telegram channels where really harmful disinformation can spread.
Must admit I thought about the old Radio Moscow (and even Radio Kiev) and what they'd be saying.
Foreign state-run propaganda from adversarial nations doesn't belong on the American airwaves. At all. It looks disgustingly bad from every conceivable angle. Especially in Washington, D.C. I mean, I simply just have no printable words for it. The whole idea of it is just that revolting to me.
So im playing total devils advocate here.... i in no way support or beleive what russia believes... but you wanna take away someones freedom of speech because you don't agree? thats a slippery slope.. take away theirs and someone could easily argue to take away yours
Heck, even Metromedia had FMs in several cities including Moscow and St Petersburg.
All state radio tends to be that way, at least in some aspects. Even the VOA over the years has had some absurdly patronizing stuff.
They will always find a way. Back over 50 years ago, I was offered free service, a free teletype, and a bunch of newsroom supplies if I would take the Prensa Latina service. The VOA offered me free tape decks to run recorded shows. Pay for play has been around for years and years.
The real proof of the validity of what you say is seen in the fact that neither the Chinese sponsored not Russian sponsored stations in the US ever got any measured audience.
Our own VOA used to "bribe" stations everywhere on the planet to run their shows on local radio. Every embassy had a facility to make tape copies and people to deliver shows to stations.
American broadcasters at one point owned a number of FMs in major Russian cities. Unable to make money, they were sold to local oligarchs.
thats the other thing.. these stations never had much if any audience save of some radio geeks and dxers.... and a few wingnuts.
i in now way support alot/most of what china or russia say or do, but i support freedom of speech.. mroeso, i disliek people who say they do but turn against that belief when they disagree with whats being said
I’d argue the exact opposite. Having the opposite propaganda available on public airwaves for consumption shows that we have nothing to hide from our citizens—unlike “western” media, which has been stymied at every corner by the Chinese and Russians.
Put it this way, if one had an unlimited bank account and the connections in Russian media to broadcast US propaganda on a Moscow station, how long do you think it’d last before it became “inconvenient” to broadcast it? Probably not nearly as long as Sputnik has been broadcasting in DC. Not to drop a stupid paraphrased political slogan into this, but that is what makes America great. The ability for all (including adversaries) to be able to speak their minds.
I really don’t think the other side(s) would be as generous as we are…
Even domestic Russian broadcasters have been labelled "foreign agents" - and unlike in the US, this causes real problems for their output. They have to broadcast a lengthy message saying they're a "foreign agent" every few minutes, attach it in large print to every page of their website and to every social media post. TV Dozhd (Rain) in Moscow is a good example of this.
Perhaps a less intrusive version of this would be appropriate to the Sputnik broadcasts in the US - maybe a short message alongside the legal ID stating that the following hour of programming is funded by the Russian state. Same for the Sputnik hours on KCXL and whoever else is carrying it.
It is a communications law, US Constitution and Bill of Rights question. Individuals have different opinions and feelings about what is an outrage and should be stopped, and what is acceptable, or simply lawful. Google freedom of speech in US.
Consider the Communications Act of 1934:
Of course, the Communications Act can be changed by US Congress. Elections have consequences. Interesting how everything comes down to individuals, what kind of country we want to live in, and how we collectively act in our daily lives and choices.
What do you want, and for whom, and why?
On the media side, ultimate question is does someone really want to act based on what someone says on TV, radio or Internet, without digging deeper? Here's a harmless example- years ago I was driving in the California desert late at night, and for the first time, heard Art Bell. He scared the hell out of me, I might have gone pale, driven off the road and hit a cactus. Fortunately, I came to my senses and realized it was a performance.
I'm not picking on radio. TV, movies, music, Internet, and theatre have all kinds of content. Up to the audience to determine what is acting and what is real.
Consider the Communications Act of 1934:
Of course, the Communications Act can be changed by US Congress. Elections have consequences. Interesting how everything comes down to individuals, what kind of country we want to live in, and how we collectively act in our daily lives and choices.
What do you want, and for whom, and why?
On the media side, ultimate question is does someone really want to act based on what someone says on TV, radio or Internet, without digging deeper? Here's a harmless example- years ago I was driving in the California desert late at night, and for the first time, heard Art Bell. He scared the hell out of me, I might have gone pale, driven off the road and hit a cactus. Fortunately, I came to my senses and realized it was a performance.
I'm not picking on radio. TV, movies, music, Internet, and theatre have all kinds of content. Up to the audience to determine what is acting and what is real.
Last edited:
The station I managed carried programming labeled "China Radio International". There were people who would call and cuss me out or threaten me but they had no clue what was being broadcast. In my instance it was mostly Los Angeles radio people (call it the B team talent with no offense intended) doing English language programming in the form of entertainment news, sports talk and such all consulted by the BBC and catering to the American. The purpose, as told to me, was to attach China's name to programming Americans liked in hopes when trade deals were made, China could get better deals because we'd view them as just like us. Oil is big in that market. Certainly my callers thought I was trying to overthrow the American government with the programming that aired. The loudest complainers never heard a word of what was broadcast and were ignorant enough to call me a liar when I explained. If anything, for that station, China really helped it along financially.
My only guidance is if you are complaining about the programming, at least get familiar with it so you actually know what you are complaining about.
Oh, and for listeners: with no promotion, high on the AM dial as a daytimer in a top 10 market, we might have had listening in the low double digits...maybe 15 on a really good day.
My only guidance is if you are complaining about the programming, at least get familiar with it so you actually know what you are complaining about.
Oh, and for listeners: with no promotion, high on the AM dial as a daytimer in a top 10 market, we might have had listening in the low double digits...maybe 15 on a really good day.
I agree with you about CRI. I've not listened to their shortwave broadcasts in recent months, but for many years when I did listen from time to time, the English programming was frankly fairly boring, but not in a "dull Communist propaganda" way. There were lots of inane discussions of things like tipping and restaurant etiquette, internet dating, fashion trends, pop music. The aim seemed to be to put across an image of "hey, we Chinese are just like you" for whatever reason.
- Status