HFU HF Underground
General Category => General Radio Discussion => Topic started by: KaySeeks on August 18, 2019, 0902 UTC
-
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/business/bbc-kashmir-india-shortwave-radio/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/16/business/bbc-kashmir-india-shortwave-radio/index.html)
"Shortwave radio bands are able travel long distances using very high frequencies, unlike traditional radio waves that need to travel in straight lines. "
Possibly the worst explanation I have ever read.
-
Appears the writer used Wikipedia for inspiration for that sentence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_radio
" Thus shortwave radio can be used for very long distance communication, in contrast to radio waves of higher frequency which travel in straight lines..."
Changed a couple of words and voila, a mess of a sentence. A great example of professional reporting today.
What's going on there should be a sign to SW broadcasters to not be so hasty in destroying their transmitters & antennas.
-
Beeb has been catering to the lcd for years now. I also suspect they'll side with Pakistan as far as editorial bias.
-
[sarcasm button on] Who needs ancient, outdated tech like "short wave" when we've got cell phones and internet streaming?" [sarcasm button off]
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortwave_radio
" Thus shortwave radio can be used for very long distance communication, in contrast to radio waves of higher frequency which travel in straight lines..."
Changed a couple of words and voila, a mess of a sentence. A great example of professional reporting today.
"Shortwave radio bands are able travel long distances using very high frequencies, unlike traditional radio waves that need to travel in straight lines. "
Wow, they really screwed that up. Couldn't they have just referenced the Wikipedia article?
Reminds of a time when I heard the announcer on a TV station news program talking about a proposed high-voltage power line interchanging "high voltage" with "high frequency" a few times in the space of three minutes. It made me cringe.
It also reminds me of the times in the 1980s when the launches of the US Space Shuttle would be delayed by electrical problems, which would almost always be described in US TV news as "a short circuit". It didn't matter what the electrical problem was, it might have been a software issue or a defective sensor, but it was always described as "a short circuit." I'm fairly certain that NASA paid a lot of attention to wiring inside the rocket and you can imagine that if a NASA rocket had an actual short circuit, there would have been hell to pay. So describing everything as a short circuit was ridiculous to me.
Coming back around to the original topic - it's fair to say that I would not go to CNN Business for a proper description of electromagnetic wave propogation. It's also fair to say that I would not go to Scientific American for a description of the intricacies of the the bond market. So there's that.