Some questions in search of sound answers re: COVID-19

 by Don Keith

Once more, I'll veer slightly away from rapid technological change for a bit. But not really. Technology is racing along yet seemingly unable to give us much reassurance when it comes to the one thing most on our minds these days.

We are now...what?...six months into this pandemic. I'd say we've spent billions fighting and studying it. (Somebody is making money, by the way. They aren't burning that currency in barrels somewhere to scare away the Chinese bug with thick smoke. It's going into somebody's bank account.) We've allowed it to radically alter our lives and economy. We have armies of people who supposedly know what they are doing performing both those functions--studying and fighting--and yet as much as I try to follow developments, I still see so many questions going unanswered. Or incorrectly answered. Or politicized by all sides.

1) Are we really still considering all positive tests as "cases" and, if so, is that a good measure? What is the error rate of the more commonly used tests? I personally know more people who tested positive and then tested negative...sometimes multiple times...than I do those who actually had symptoms of COVID-19. I know others who had symptoms of something, tested negative for COVID, but still got counted positive because of lung congestion and cough. There are other viruses out there, folks. And they didn't run and hide just because the new guy came along.

2) Do we still count as a COVID-19 hospitalization and/or death those who present with something else entirely...even heart attacks or accidental injury...then test positive for the virus?

3) I saw a study this morning that teens who vape have a 5- to 7-times greater likelihood of contracting the virus as do those with good sense...er...those who choose not to vape. Do we have any idea at all of the number of infections by those of all ages who smoke or vape--smoke anything, including pot, but good luck getting that number--who catch coronavirus compared to those with good sense...er...those who do not. Seems that would be a good stat to know when we start isolating and protecting folks most likely to get the virus. Simple question: what percentage of cases and deaths are/were regular smokers? Please tell me we are asking that question. And reporting it to some central repository of data. And using it to fight and study.

4) Could we not settle on one standard way of counting cases, positive tests, negative tests, symptomatic individuals tested who are negative AND positive, non-symptomatic individuals tested who are negative AND positive, positive tests that were later negative, hospitalizations, intubations, ICU cases, and deaths? How can we come up with accurate data if every hospital, local health department, national agency, media outlet, Facebook user, and politician counts and interprets these crucial numbers differently? Often based on his, her or its own agenda. Then throws them into one big, scary pot. Or is that the idea, counting anything possible as a "case" and "death" to scare us into wearing masks and staying the heck at home?

5) And finally, can we please, please, please have somebody reporting these data in a clear, consistent, understandable way on a regular basis, along with what they mean and what we are doing to make things better? Somebody we can trust? Not somebody whose funding, grants, career advancement, personal popularity, media ratings or website clicks, or political party and/or career depends on the spin placed upon such data?

By the way, the media ain't the answer to this last question. They have done a huge disservice throughout this thing so far. Example: one local TV station starts every newscast with, "Our state now has XXXX cases of COVID-19, setting a new record for infections." "XXXX" is the total number of positive tests since the end of February. Far as I can tell, every single one of those either recovered (more than 98%), died, or turned out to be false positives...or will. There certainly are not that many active cases right this red hot minute. And if there is one new case today, yes, it sets a new record. One more case/positive test tomorrow breaks the record again. It only takes one to set a new record! And they and other media continue to show us that cumulative graph which starts at zero cases in February and frighteningly climbs to XXXX today over there on the right-hand side. And if they format the graph just right, it is an almost vertical climb. What is the purpose of such a misleading and useless graph other than to make us look and come back tomorrow to look again? Incidentally, it may eventually flatten out.Unlikely since we will likely always have a few new cases of this virus, just as we do with just about every other virus that has come along. It will NEVER go down. That I can assure you.

Just asking...

Questions that I would like to see answered

by Don Keith

Really, I'm not trying to cause trouble here. I know COVID-19 is one bad bug and we should mitigate as requested to help prevent its spread. That makes sense even in a normal cold and flu season. But please, help me find the answers to some questions the media seem to have forgotten to answer:

1- Why do media insist on showing us that "Total number of cases" line graph? Of course it is a steadily rising curve and will continue to get higher...unless we suddenly have NO new cases. The data are cumulative! With number of cases on the x axis and time on the y, the graph will get fatter as time goes on. Or until there are zero new cases. Or until time stops.

2- Corollary to that question: Why does the total number of cases since the beginning not equal the number of people who have recovered, the number of active cases currently, and the total number of deaths from the corona virus? You've either recovered, have it now, or died from it, right? Those numbers are not even close to each other. What happened to all those folks not accounted for?

3- Is it true that anyone presenting to a hospital with viral pneumonia is automatically classified as suffering from COVID-19? I've heard this from more than one reliable source. Even though there are many, many other causes of viral pneumonia besides corona. And if someone is tested, say, six times and is positive three times and negative three times, does that count as three more cases of COVID-19? I know people who have tested four times with two negatives and two positives. And each is still without symptoms.We've all heard those stories of test people submitting unused swabs that came back positive. Or that swabbed a peach that apparently has a raging case of COVID-19. I have no verification of those kinds of things.

4- How come we don't know why there has been a surge of new cases in many states over the last month that had previously been relatively unscathed? We've been studying this virus for six months now, and similar ones for years, and we apparently don't have a clue. You can't blame it all on the bars, the beaches, or the political party of the governors can you?

5- Corollary question to #4 above: Is it possible that this surge could be related to dramatically increased testing? See this article about accuracy of the current tests being done.

6- That, of course, would not explain the increase in hospitalizations and deaths. Something is going on. Surely the vast, well-funded communicable disease bureaucracy can tell us what's up and suggest ways to fix it. Besides everybody going into a bunker, I hope. I do hear phrases in the media like, "...deadliest day yet..." and "...record-breaking new cases..." But I do note that these are coming in states and areas where positive tests and deaths were very low before, so records are not that hard to break if there is an increase in either. And with far fewer cases in the past, that leaves a much bigger group with no immunity, right? Or am I way off base here?

7- And then there is that big grab bag of rumors, guesses, wishes, and naysaying. Do kids carry the bug and infect us old folks while they stay well? Are we killing more people by using porous,filthy, germ-saturated, carbon dioxide-trapping face masks than we are saving with them? Does the virus remain alive on an elevator button for about two seconds, two minutes, two hours or two days? (I've heard all four!) Does your blood type, diet, IQ, blood alcohol content, or sign of the zodiac have anything to do with your likelihood of catching this mess? Is stress really a factor? Do the meds we've been hearing about for months really help, and if so, why is nobody talking about it in the media? Has the death rate eased or not? And why, if a six-year-old comes down with COVID-19, is it "Dancing With the Stars"-program-interrupting breaking news? But if a thousand recovered people in the country are dismissed from the hospital today, we never get the word? Just the shots of somebody who looks like death warmed over being wheeled out, barely able to manage a weak wave to the cheering medical professionals lining the hallways, as if to say, "Well, we pulled one through, I guess."

Again, we're pretty far along with this thing now and we're spending billions worldwide, but either nobody is telling us what we really need to know...or I've been so busy living and writing and laughing and growing tomatoes in flower pots in the backyard that I've missed the answers to these questions.

More reading: this article contains some arithmetic. But dive in anyway. It will still make sense to most of you. And hopefully cause you to ask your own questions.

News you may have missed while engaged on social media

by Don Keith

THEY TELL ME 95% OF YOU GET 100% OF YOUR NEWS FROM SOCIAL MEDIA these days…so I thought I’d bring you up to date on a few stories you may have missed.

You may have heard from others that both the Washington Redskins NFL team and the Cleveland Indians MLB team are considering new names because the ones they’ve used for most of a century are now offensive and causing considerable offense and psychic pain to some folks. But you may have missed these similar breaking stories:

The Dallas Cowboys are also coming under pressure to change their name. We’ve all seen those John Wayne and Clint Eastwood westerns in which the cowboys brutally shot indigenous Native Americans right out of the saddle. Plus, in some circles, the word “boy” is considered a racist term while also being sexist and discriminatory to members of the LGBTQ community, who are offended by any such crass, hurtful designation of gender. And environmentalists assure us that cow flatulence is destroying the planet while vegans are quite upset that we glorify beef in this or any other way. Some of the latter are proponents of renaming the Cowboys as “The Rutabagas.” They maintain the time has finally come when we should use names of prominent root vegetables for our athletic teams. (Remember, too, that Clint Eastwood, of “spaghetti western” fame, came right out in public and addressed the Republican National Convention several years ago, acting as if there was nothing at all evil in doing such a thing. Or at least he addressed an empty chair there on the dais. That, alone, should be sufficient reason to discard the “cowboy” moniker!)

Similar actions are imminent for the Oakland Raiders, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and the Pittsburgh Pirates. You surely know the atrocities committed by those similarly-named, lawless brigands not so long ago in our country’s history. Maybe you don’t, because you studied history in college, and most of it has been properly expunged—note that very soon, the American history textbook will be a pamphlet, as it should be!—but trust me, those were some bad thieving, killing, ship-sinking dudes. Or, I should say, misguided individuals who would have benefited from self-awareness therapy and anger management intervention by a qualified professional counselor. But that was before we recognized the value of re-directing taxpayer dollars from the police to such far better solutions for combatting crime. Yes, the pirates mostly robbed, pillaged and killed European explorers, which is no reason for criticism against them. As we now know, those imperialists were only interested in bringing the rule of their royalty, their religion, and their syphilis to the so-called New World. But the bandits also did some bad stuff to the indigenous people of the Caribbean, including burying chests of plunder and allowing the dead bodies of European imperialists to wash up on their pristine beaches, creating early pollution issues. Even worse than a plastic straw up the nose is having a dead European stuck to the snout of a struggling sea turtle.

Finally, I note that the San Diego Chargers will have to change both their names this fall, first because they are no longer located anywhere near San Diego, so it makes no sense to tie them to that city (don’t get me started on the San Diego Padres, whose name insults people everywhere who are hoping to remove any designation of gender in the words we use to describe each other, as well as that horrid name doing so much to crush the feelings of atheists, who prefer their tobacco-chewing, crotch-scratching athletes not be saddled with such a painful and Catholic title). But the real reason so many are having their feelings bruised by the name “Chargers” is because their team name shows a lack of respect for those who are being crushed by credit card debt and mammoth student-loan obligations. A number of truly woke organizations note that the team’s slavish devotion to the evils of capitalism should not be celebrated. And since free college tuition is absolutely a birthright (another strike against the old white men who wrote that silly constitution under which we continue to operate a nation), a four-quarter reminder every Sunday afternoon and again on the scoreboard/highlight shows of the economic evils promulgated upon us by greedy billionaires is simply not acceptable.

Okay, those are some of the top stories you may have missed while busy on social media perusing pictures of people’s cats and culinary dishes you could never make yourself in a million years (but still posted the picture from the recipe web site, hoping somebody might think you cooked it and took the photo). Stay tuned.

Some recent news stories you may have missed

By Don Keith

Several related stories in the news today you may have missed:

1) Citing the presence of a small number of racist or violent police officers on their forces, state legislatures and city governments in several areas have begun the process of defunding or eliminating entirely the police departments over which they have jurisdiction. Most will allocate the money previously allotted for police to social service and drug intervention programs, maintaining such interdiction programs will eliminate all crime and that armed police will no longer be necessary.

2) Noting that a small percentage of all major league baseball players perennially have a batting average below .100, the League will dismantle professional baseball in this country entirely, eliminating the personal suffering of and constant pressure on these vulnerable players. Money that would have gone to MLB will now be used to build batting cages in centrally-located areas and to pay instructors to teach kids how to hit the curve ball.

3) Because almost 40,000 people die in auto accidents each year on highways in the USA, the NTSB has begun a multi-billion-dollar program to bulldoze every single mile of roadway in the country. The original plan was to use any leftover funds to provide every man, woman and child in the country a bicycle, However, it was learned that almost 800 people die in bicycle accidents each year. Although practically all of those fatalities were from autos hitting cyclists, the NTSB said, "Even one person dying on a bicycle is too many."

They will, instead, outlaw bicycles and provide every man, woman and child in America a walking stick, pending accurate statistics on how many non-traffic-related walking fatalities occur each year. There was some discussion about simply ordering everyone to stay home, but since that policy is already in effect, it would have little impact on the problem.

4) Because a percentage of all elected and appointed government officials--including those serving in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, state legislatures, and city governments--are corrupt, dim-witted or certifiably insane, it has been determined that every single one of them will be removed from office, just to be sure the right ones are gone and can do no more damage. Since that is cited as the reason to get rid of all police officers just to eliminate the bad ones, it should work just fine for all politicians, too.

Elections will be scheduled for some future date...or not. The consensus is that the media has all the answers anyway and should be able to step in and run the government just fine until we get around to elections.One suggestion is that elections not be held until some scientific way is developed to determine if a candidate has at least some modicum of common sense. The problem there is that anyone who desires to run for political office is clearly devoid of common sense in the first place.

The decision of how to eventually re-elect a government will now rest with a panel of academics from Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Malcom X University, representatives of several community organizing groups, and contributors to Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. The group has already announced that the committee to plan the agenda for the first agenda-planning committee meeting will begin discussions sometime in the near future at a location to be determined by the location-determination committee.

Next verse - same as the first

 
by Don Keith

(Blogger Note: I apologize for not having posted in a while. And give credit to COVID-19 that I'm finally socially isolated enough that I have time to do so now. My excuse is a good one: I've been busy as a supermarket hand soap re-stocker! We've completed post-production on the documentary "Colors of Character," trying to meet with various folks about distribution opportunities for the film (no thanks to CoronaVirus!), finishing up with George Wallace our next book in The Hunter Killer Series of military thrillers, and working on some other exciting movie projects. Plus the grandkids are out of school during the pandemic and we grandparents are official fallback for daycare. Still, media and technology rapidly change - and has done so since I started this long blogger note - so here's my latest observation. Your thoughts?)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My friends at InsideRadio (and I do have some good friends who work there) are out with an article about a recent research study that even this outlet sees as troubling for the over-the-air broadcast news source. See, InsideRadio typically looks for positive spin on anything pertaining to radio. But it's difficult to put any such lipstick on this pig.

The study by Edison Research reports that, of the people surveyed, 68% report having at least one radio in their homes. Not bad, huh? Well, consider that quite recently, that number approached 100% of all households.  As the article says, "That’s down from 79% in 2016, 90% in 2012 and 96% in 2008. The average home now has 1.5 radios, down from double that number in 2008." 

Again, I must state that I am pro-broadcast-radio. I spent many years of my life in the medium and still believe it can be one of the most powerful there is when it comes to offering entertainment, information, companionship, and advertising that reaches consumers closest to point-of-sale. But this trend is not only surprising but downright frightening...to me, to broadcasters, to listeners, to advertisers. Especially when almost one-third of respondents report having NO radios in their homes.

I don't think I need to rehash why I think people are less and less likely to have radios (or to listen to the ones they do have). It's a natural effect of having multiple sources of streaming music and info available from myriad types of technology. And clearly those sources are offering folks what they want, when they want it, and by the means that they want to consume it. Even if traditional radio is still ubiquitous and relatively easy to access, all those other free or cheap sources of what people want to listen to have simply overwhelmed the medium. And for that, I blame two things: technology and broadcasters.

At a time when listeners have so many options, over-the-air broadcasters abdicated. They panicked. They chopped the very things that made them unique...entertaining personalities, local news, geographically curated music, community involvement, and more. Instead, they now do exactly what online music streamers do - offer "long sets of today's top songs" - but with many more commercials interrupting them and without the ability to program those music streams precisely to the listeners' taste.

News and information? We used to brag, "Read yesterday's news in today's newspaper. See today's news on TV tonight. Or hear the news now on WXXX!" Most news/talk stations now are better known for nationally-syndicated talk shows and not for covering local news stories. Even those news stations that employ a news staff of some kind still lag TV for instantaneous coverage of local events...with pictures. And TV stations that now offer many hours of local newscasts, each day, not just at 7 and 11. (There is an economic reason for that, too, you know. Local newscasts offer much more opportunity for insertion of all those commercials than "Ellen" or "The Price is Right" do. So putting on news makes more money than running syndicated or network shows. As with radio, with viewership/listenership down, and with commercials priced by how many people see or hear them, broadcasters can't add more minutes to the hour so they add more commercials.)

Is it too late for radio? If the trend continues - and I see no reason why it won't - soon less than half the households in the USA will even have a radio in their casa. And with almost every new car model about to come internet-ready and 5G compatible, why would we expect to have in-car listening to the radio go any way but south?  If I am streaming Spotify as I shave in the morning, and if, once I start my commute, my in-car choice is either continuing to hear MY songs or listen to some lame morning show or a stream of music that plays a very limited list of formatted music that may or may not fit what I really want to hear, which will I choose? And if Google tells me the weather and top news and Siri lets me know if there is a wreck on the freeway (I have to wait to hear that on my local radio station, and then it may be old and inaccurate info), what's my incentive to suffer through ten commercials and a trying-too-hard-to-make-me-laugh morning radio team (most of whom are voice-tracking a half dozen other shows on stations around the country when they leave the air locally, so they can make a living)?

And how long will it be before mega-station broadcasters like iHeart decide they really no longer need that tower on the hill or big transmitter and can rely on their online mechanism to reach people and sell advertising? It's happening already. Look at how many AM licenses are being surrendered voluntarily because they can't or won't pay the power bill to keep the stations on the air, or the property where the tower(s) is/are located is more valuable than their airtime is.

Please give me a reason to listen to that old-fashioned device on the shelf in the kitchen or in the middle of my car dash!  Please don't try to outstream the streamers! Please give me the companionship and entertainment value that only live, local radio can offer! That no mouse click or "Hey, Alexa.." can offer.

Please don't continue to try to cut your way to prosperity!

Are we so involved in chronicling our lives that we are missing living them?

By Don Keith

I often tell my wife that we watched our kids grow up through the viewfinder of this or that film or video camera. And it is not far from the truth. Then I receive this spot-on correspondence from Becky Robinson of the company Weaving Influence.

You may have noticed that earlier this week, Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp had a glitch when it came to uploading and viewing images. A quick Google search for “Facebook image issues” resulted in a number of articles and tweets about the issue, along with calls to “stay tuned” for updates. And while I appreciate the frustration of not being able to share images - especially when it’s part of your job - I couldn’t help but think about how the world has changed! What if, instead of fanatically following the progress of Facebook engineers to get images back online, we put our smartphones down and gazed out at the ocean instead? Rather than aiming to get the perfect shot to share, how about laying in the grass with our kids and enjoying the fireworks? What if we just ate the hotdog instead of Instagramming it? In recent years, I’ve become less inclined to share via social media, despite coaching our clients to show up consistently, partly because I want to be more tuned in to what’s happening around me. What if social media’s downtime is actually a reminder to us to unplug every once in a while as well? I’d say it’s something to consider.

"Well said, Becky!" I yell, even as I am making a post about her thoughts here on my blog...

Amid all the celebrating on this July 4th...

By Don Keith

It is not boastful nationalism to call attention on this day to a bold, successful experiment that has actually made this planet far better than it would have been otherwise. History has been littered with brutal empires, despotic dictators, and corrupt royalties that dominated practically all of the world's people, and in the 1700s it appeared that would always be the case.

Then, a brave group of very bright men took ideas from the ancient Greeks and applied them to a "new world" that at the time was ruled by a distant king as part of a far-flung empire. After boldly declaring that men (and women) should live free and determine their own fate and fortune, that men and women were free to live, worship, and thrive as they desired so long as they did not infringe on the rights of others, and that this new country would employ a democratic form of government, governed by the people and not a "divinely-appointed" king or queen or a dictator, the United States of America was born...not to dominate the earth, not to build empires, not to threaten with its might but to offer other people across the globe a powerful, shining example of what could be. That experiment gave hope for freedom and prosperity through democracy and an economic system that, together, would raise the living standards, recognize individual rights, and provide an existence not then available to most of the world's people.

Yes, there have been rough spots and necessary change (slavery, civil war, women's rights, civil rights), but it was that very form of government and rule by the people that made those vital adjustments possible...if not always painless. It is true that democracy can be messy. Certainly a distant king or a brutal dictator or a socialist regime would have never allowed such. Government is decidedly neater and quieter under such iron-fist rule. And even as so many bemoan our "division" or our "economic inequality," we need to take a moment to reflect on how wonderful it is that we can even debate such points without being arrested or censored. But also remember that because of those brave men and our persistent form of democracy and thanks to our powerful free-enterprise system, we continue to raise the standard of living not only of our own citizens but of people around the planet. And that everyone can see that they, too, can demand their own rights be granted. Nobody is storming the borders of Venezuela or North Korea or Iran, trying to get into those countries.

And that's just another reason we should shoot our fireworks and eat our barbecue and celebrate this day with renewed vigor. Because this noble experiment continues to demonstrate the correctness of its ideals and the power of its ideas, We may never get it totally perfect, but it has certainly worked out well so far for our country and to those others around the world that emulate it. Even as we continue to try to get it even more perfect, we should acknowledge how great we have it. We should vow to better educate ourselves, be open to hearing opposing ideas, remain open-minded and fair, evaluate our representatives on ideas, not personality or promises, and do everything we can to continue the intent of those bright, brave men who started this whole thing. We can and we must. I'm confident we will.

To me, that is worth celebrating!

Bull feathers!

by Don Keith
N4KC

Here's a post just for my amateur radio friends. I've been enjoying a back-and-forth debate with another ham radio guy who has some very strong--but seriously misguided and misinformed--opinions on our hobby and our national organization, the American Radio Relay League. Here is my latest response to him. I think most amateur radio folks will understand what I'm saying without my having to include the other guy's arguments.

(If you do want to see the ongoing conversation, click HERE and scroll toward the bottom of the thread.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert,

Regardless the field of endeavor, things have to change to keep up with society, its wants and needs. Yes, ham radio experienced solid growth as baby-boomers were impressed with the almost magical ability to communicate worldwide by radio. Gen-Xers and Millennials are not quite so amazed since they have a device on their belts and in their purses that enable them to do that anytime they wish. We do have to show them all the other aspects of our wonderful hobby if we hope to attract their interest and allegiance, and we have to do that in a landscape in which billions of dollars are being spent and the latest technology employed to accomplish that goal for so many other pursuits and products.

The ARRL is clearly working hard to address the needs and wants of all ages of potential hams. Were you a member, you might be more aware of what they are doing, as well as their recent efforts to better learn what would work and how to deliver that experience to those interested in joining us.

You mention a few things you think the League is wrongly doing or not doing to keep the hobby vibrant and relatable. Sponsoring contests? Well, I'd bet the ARRL has nothing to do with 75% of all contesting. But Sweepstakes, the DX contests, VHF/UHF events, and Field Day are among the most popular out there. And if you don't see how radiosport might be a strong draw for generations that grew up on video games, then I'll probably never be able to change your mind anyway. If contests are not popular, they would go away. They don't. They are more popular than ever, based on number of entries.

Try to help hams overcome CCRs/HOAs or all the hands-free-driving legislation? Again, if you were a League member...or bothered to read any of the independent news services that report on amateur radio...you would know about a long, long list of League initiatives as well as a plethora of expensive lobbying and legal maneuvering the ARRL has undertaken in those very areas?

Demonstrate the hobby to young people? Holy cow! Even if your head is stuck in the sand, you have to be aware of the many activities the League sponsors and promotes for youth, including scholarships to college, operating events, and a strong push through affiliated clubs. They are also finally doing research to develop an actionable plan to attract a continuing influx of hams of all ages. And this is at the urging of members, first and foremost, but also to benefit everyone, not just members.

(Loaded question, Robert: What have YOU done to demonstrate the hobby to young people? How have you helped those facing issues with covenants, HOAs, or having a mobile radio? Have you contacted your representatives locally and in Sacramento on these issues? Are you a member of a club out there in The People's Republic of Kalifornia?  If not, why not? Have you thought about starting a club that would do outreach to those you believe would make happy, contributing hams? Or urged the club you belong to to do such since you are of the opinion that the hobby dies when we baby-boomers go SK.)

And once again, you cite the old belief that the ARRL's only effort toward growing the hobby is dumbing down the test so my Labrador retriever can become an Extra Class ham. And even that effort is solely to sign up more members, sell more books, and make more money for the fat cats in Connecticut.

To which I say, "Bull feathers!" I maintain the League has done more to build and promote the hobby since I started typing this response than you and other misguided detractors have done...well...ever! Take a minute and visit www.arrl.org. Give it a look. See what is going on. Then tell me the only thing that bunch in Newington does is cash checks and smoke expensive cigars.

I have never maintained the ARRL is perfect, that every action is correct, that it should not be improved. Like you, I am aware of the demographics of our hobby and what the new-licensee numbers are. But so is the League. And if you were willing to keep yourself better informed, you would know what they are proposing to do about it. There are some dedicated folks who do a lot, whether paid or not, to make this hobby better and attract every single soul out there who might have an interest in it. That's why I support them by being a member, by communicating with my Section Manager and Division Director and letting them know what my concerns are. Not by blasting all things ARRL in some chat forum.

You say the League should be doing those things you mention INSTEAD OF pushing contests? Or dumbing down the tests? (Have you taken a General or Extra practice exam lately, Robert?  How'd you do? If you aced that Extra one, you may want to go ahead and upgrade from Advanced. There is a ton more of 75 meters you could use if you did.)

Read, listen, and make yourself aware and you will see that not only is it NOT an either/or proposition, but these are things our national organization takes very seriously and is doing every single day...with the guidance of its members...to improve all things for all hams, not just League members. That is, when they take a break from promoting all those contests and coming up with easy exam questions!

Now, excuse me but all this diatribe-swapping is cutting into my on-air time. There may be some contest going on I need to work. Or a new, young ham I would like to welcome to the hobby before curmudgeons like you convince them we're all about to be as rare as sunspots and they'd be better off sticking with their video games and Smartphones.

73,

Don N4KC
www.donkeith.com
www.n4kc.com
www.facebook.com/donkeith
 
 

"Radio Days"

By Don Keith

A friend of mine recently sent me an old magazine article that proclaimed that the time before World War II should be declared as "Radio Days." The article went on to say that anything related to the medium after the war was downhill, killed off by television. I agree that the '20s and '30s was a magical time for broadcasting, typified by the Woody Allen movie "Radio Days." 

I actually believe each generation has its own "radio days." For me, it was the top 40 radio of the '60s and album rock of the early '70s. My radios were in the dashboard of my VW bug or a smaller Radio Shack AM/FM portable, battery-powered receiver, but with a speaker big enough I could hear the songs.  I further believe radio had two golden ages, the '20s and '30s, as this article describes, and the 60s and 70s, when top 40 and creative deejays saved radio from the onslaught of TV.

(I wrote an article that ran in the December issue of American Legion Magazine about a big broadcast on Christmas Eve 1943, the first time all four radio networks simulcasted a single entertainment program. Bob Hope hosted and they used shortwave to bring in servicemen at many points around the globe...the most ambitious use of remote broadcasting ever attempted, though to mixed results. It ended with a fireside chat from President Roosevelt. But the point of the article was to show the power of radio at the time, to boost morale on a special day in the midst of a brutal war. You can read the article HERE if you are interested.)

Now, this generation probably won't even know the word "radio," and their source of music and entertainment is an iPhone or Pandora or YouTube. Music is not "presented," curated for them, or delivered in a way in which it is part of a "show" or has a host who was telling listeners why they should hear the song about to play. And it is not put together in such a way that the music flows from one song to another so each song "fits." It's not heard on good radios with big speakers so the music sounds good. Sounds good and can be FELT!

Instead, it is "streamed," one song unrelated to the other, selected for them by a computer algorithm, a formula based on what other songs the person typically listens to, almost certainly eliminating the chance the listener will be introduced to new music and artists he or she might actually enjoy, but is culled by the algorithm.  And unless the listener wants to Google the artist, he or she might hear the song and not even know who sang it, who wrote it, why it was sung or written, who played on the session, what other songs the artist might have written or recorded, how popular it might be with other listeners, or whether or not the artist might be coming to town soon for a live concert. The listener is almost totally detached from the stream, thus rendering it little more than background noise.

That's what I think today's music listeners are missing!  Their "radio days" will be "streamed-music-on-an-iPhone days." And that is sad.

Drinking that free Bubble-Up and eating that rainbow stew

by Don Keith

I know I am supposed to discuss rapid technological change and its effect on media, society and Amateur Radio on this blog. But sometimes I simply have to venture out when something compelling enough grabs my attention.

See, a couple of interesting things landed in my in-box today that I wanted to share. First, there was a story about one of the possible Democratic presidential candidates who promises to give every man, woman and child in America a free $1000 every year, no strings attached. No, not a tax rebate or a welfare plan. 47% of Americans don't pay any income tax anyway, and he does not want them to be left out of that FREE money.

The candidate proposes to pay for that trillion or so dollars a year with a value-added tax on every item sold in the US, theoretically to be paid by those greedy capitalists who suck up all the money and hide it from the rest of us so we can't earn any of it. Never mind that any VAT will be paid by the very consumer that gets that free thousand bucks, not by the manufacturers, importers, creators, or sellers.

Then, moments after I read that ridiculous mess, I got an article that tried to figure out why so many Americans are suddenly becoming infatuated by the lure of free stuff from the federal government...a ploy straight out of the socialism playbook. Yes, it takes a few minutes to read the article, but if you really care about the future of our country (and, what naturally follows, the future of the rest of the planet), then go to all the trouble to read it.

Then, get ready to line up for your free thousand dollars, free cellphone, free internet, free healthcare, free college education, and, as that great poet Merle Haggard says, start "drinking that free Bubble-Up and eating that rainbow stew."

It rarely turns out the way we think it will

by Don Keith

First an apology: I have not posted here nearly as often lately as I wanted to. This is not due to the lack of interesting and sometimes frightening developments in the ever-mutating world of rapid technological change. Nor is it because I didn't see plenty of the effects of that change on society, the media and my hobby of choice, amateur radio. Trouble is, much of what I observed and wanted to comment on had blown past and either did not turn out the way I would have predicted or it continues to change and morph before I get the opportunity to even think and post about it.

Final excuse: I have been quite busy lately, what with the release of the movie "Hunter Killer" based on my and George Wallace's book, "Firing Point," now reissued in all forms by the publisher under the title "Hunter Killer." That and at least four film/TV projects I'm neck-deep in. And an exciting new book-publishing venture I'll be announcing soon.

Speaking of which: the article that encouraged me to come up for air long enough to make this long-delayed blog post. Check out this story in "Wired," which states right up front that rapidly changing media don't always turn out the way all the smart prognosticators predict. In fact, it rarely does. And the prime example about which the author writes is the good, old-fashioned book.

Yes, the book!  I'll allow the article to speak for itself, but suffice it to say, the more things change, the more they stay the same. Sorta.

Best of the New Year to you and yours!

Broadcast radio's cume audience boogaloo

by Don Keith

As traditional over-the-air broadcast radio strives to prove its relevance, I see they continue to cling to any bit of good news there is to stave off people like me who think the medium has chopped its own way to irrelevance.  "Good news" whether it is true or not.

Don't get me wrong.  I love broadcast radio.  Free, over-the-air radio.  I think it is by far the most intimate medium, the one that can be most successful at getting into the heads of listeners, of entertaining, challenging, inspiring, and selling stuff to people who listen.  Especially people who are busy doing something else, like driving a car or working.  People stuck in a traffic jam.  People who are most likely to be approaching an advertiser's establishment.  People who simply want to be able to hit a button and turn up the volume to experience something created by another actual human being.

But thanks to the monster companies that own most stations in America and their myopic attitude that they can somehow cut their way to prosperity, radio is going down the drain in one big hurry.  AM is dead as a hammer.  FM, with its boring streaming-music formats, its band cluttered with low-power non-commercial stations and thousands of supposedly-AM-saving translators, and its impersonal, soulless "personalities," will almost certainly follow.

But radio will continue to grab hold of any seemingly positive news.  Here's some.  It is an article in The Washington Times that quotes a study from the good folks at Nielsen about how old-fashioned, left-for-dead broadcast radio still reaches more people than any other medium.  (Nielsen, the TV ratings giant, bought Arbitron, the company that previously led the way in radio audience estimates--what most of us call ratings.  And in the spirit of full disclosure, I once worked for the Arbitron Company.)  In a day of Facebook, Netflix, Pandora, Instagram, Amazon, XM/Sirius Satellite and so many other choices, this is truly startling but encouraging news for us fans of the medium.

Right?

Dig deeper, my friend.  Remember, as Mark Twain so eloquently quoted British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli:  "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

The Washington Times quotes the study from Nielsen (which, I admit, I have not actually seen) as saying, "Each week, more Americans tune to AM/FM radio than any other platform. What’s more, according to Nielsen’s second-quarter 2017 Comparable Metrics Report, 93 percent of U.S. adults 18 and older listen to radio every week — more than those watching television or using a smartphone, TV connected device, tablet or PC.” 

In all, Nielsen breathlessly reports, over-the-air radio reaches 243 million people each month compared to television's paltry 229 million.  The article does not mention if that TV number includes all variations of video programming.  I doubt it since not even the powerful Nielsen folks have yet managed to measure all such viewing.  Nor could it possibly have included, for example, Netflix, who now boasts over 100 million people paying about $10 a month to enjoy their programming.  Netflix does not publish any numbers for how many people are watching at any given time.

(I will also avoid making a big deal of the fact that this fine study is based on data that is now on the verge of being ONE FULL YEAR OLD.  Do you think there have been any changes in media since the second quarter of 2017?  Then you have not been paying attention to this blog!)

It does appear, though, that the rosy AM/FM story is based on what is called "cume audience."  Anyone who takes part in Nielsen's measurement exercise--either having everyone in a household keep a diary of listening for one week or carrying a small meter device that theoretically senses the stations that the participant is capable of hearing--who listens for at least five minutes during a week gets counted as a "cume listener."

Therefore, five minutes in a week gets considered in this study to be someone who "listens to AM/FM" broadcast radio.  This study also appears to add up a month's worth of such reported listening to arrive at the hefty 243-million figure that so impressively beats out that dying medium, TV.  

Sorry.  We should be impressed that 243 million people--or as the study crows, 93% of all people in the U.S. over the age of 17--catch some radio in a given month.  But again, only five minutes of listening by someone on Nielsen's ratings panel is required to be counted as one of those 243 million souls.

Let me say that again:  anyone who participated in the Nielsen listening survey during that month who reported listening to as little as five minutes of any program on any station gets counted as a listener to AM/RM radio.

I wouldn't care but for one thing.  If the people with the keys to all those radio stations really think such a statistical boogaloo means anything, then they might continue to believe that what they are doing with all those AMs and FMs is actually working.  That they still hold sway over 93% of the people who count.  

And further believe that advertisers are actually getting their money's worth when running ads that have to be heard in wherever that magical five minutes of listening happens to occur within the more than 41,000 minutes that make up a typical month.

Yes, Nielsen tells a good story with statistics.  Or damned lies.  

You be the judge.
   

Okay, time to 'fess up!

 
by Don Keith
N4KC

(While watching the Congressional testimony by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and the inane questions from our elected representatives, I could not help myself. Now it appears likely that there will be some kind of legislation proposed for restricting social media in a new effort to protect us from ourselves. But can government legislate and keep people from doing dumb stuff?  Can they stop people from believing everything they read on Facebook, see on CNN or Fox News, or read in the National Enquirer while waiting to check out at Publix? 

Maybe the better question is, "Should they?"  Legislate, I mean. At any rate, all this pertains to rapid technological change and how it affects media and society.  Thus my post below.)

Okay, time to 'fess up. Raise your hand if:

- You had no idea that if you put on #Facebook your address, the names of your kids, the place where you are at this very second, or your opinions on the presidential race, your favorite football team, or whether or not you preferred cilantro in your salsa any of the 120 million Facebook users worldwide could see it instantly upon your hitting the POST button.

- You thought all this stuff was free, no strings attached and not only didn't know but didn't care how Facebook, #Instagram, #YouTube, #LinkedIn and all the others made money to pay for all this web design, expensive computer servers, bandwidth and all that technical stuff.

- You thought it was just a happy coincidence that if you went shopping for a mattress and box springs online that for the next two months, no matter the website you visited, you kept seeing ads for mattresses and box springs.

- You are unable to figure out why, if you printed out a map of and directions to Albuquerque, you suddenly started getting spam email and even actual paper junk mail from every hotel, auto rental agency and pizza parlor in Albuquerque.

- You never considered that if you post on #Facebook a cute picture of your 2-year-old child peeing off the deck onto the azaleas, it will one day show up when he is running for Congress or applying for a job at NASA.

- You always...ALWAYS...check the box declaring you have read and understood the 30,000-word privacy and data-use policy of every web site you have ever joined, every bank home page where you have an account, and every on-line vendor from which you have purchased something, all to facilitate whatever it is that you are trying to get done, and you simply have never had the time to even scroll down so much as a millimeter or read a single word of that legalese novella.

- You click on every link on every piece of email you get--apparently from your bank, your email provider, the IRS, a friend traveling in Ecuador who has been robbed, and even companies with which you have no account at all (just in case there really is something wrong because they wouldn't be emailing you if there wasn't) and happily give your user name, password, checking account and charge card number, Social Security number and blood type, just to make sure your checking won't be closed, your email blocked, your taxes audited, your friend incarcerated, or your vacation to the Bahamas cancelled...even though you have never had an account with those companies, only know the "friend" through Facebook, or never booked a vacation to the Bahamas in your life.

- You thought #Google was a philanthropic organization, providing all that search engine power out of the goodness of their hearts, and even put the very best results at the top and down the side of the listing on the page so you didn't even have to look any farther.

- You see no chance that that picture of you chug-a-lugging that bottle of Jagermeister or forwarding that hilarious ethnic joke will ever become an uncomfortable topic in a job interview.

- You are truly ticked off that this #MarkZuckerberg guy sold information about YOU to companies, surely without asking you first...and surprised that the guy even owns a tie and a dress shirt since you've never seen him in anything before but jeans and a tee shirt.

- You figure you are just unlucky when you buy that computer protection software you saw on some late-night infomercial in order to clean up your virus-ridden computer, laptop, smart phone, or on-line clothes dryer, yet the software is now telling you that you have to send them $59.95 a month for the rest of your natural life if you ever want to use your device again.

- It never occurred to you that if #Alexa or #Siri could hear you and know what you are asking or saying--even when you are not saying it to them--or if you use the free #WiFi at the tattoo parlor, anybody else could hear you or see what you are doing because it is RADIO!

- You spend more time posting pictures of your kids at soccer practice than you spend watching your kids practice soccer because you are so busy taking pictures and posting the pictures at soccer practice.

- You have shared posts with your friends that were so funny or inspirational or thought-provoking that you couldn't even remember sharing them when you got called into the boss' office to explain you are not a racist terrorist or to the principal's office to get expelled.

- You have more friends on Facebook or contacts in your #Linkedin profile than people you actually know by name...by a hundredfold... but if anybody...even a semi-naked person named Zumbezi Gatalayana from South Sudan, who works at Sears in Miami and has an MBA from North Dakota State who just today created a #Facebook account featuring two pictures of herself, one in which she is white and one in which she is black...sends you a friend request, you are by-God going to accept it because she is certainly interested in your soccer pictures, your whereabouts, your recipe for salsa, and your kid peeing off the deck.

So? 'Fess up! Right there on #Facebook or on some other social media site, or share or forward this to everyone on your email or contact list. Only 120 million folks will know what a doofus you are!