超级军网为什么在美国收不到“美国之音”?
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/26 10:54:02
中国新闻周刊:为什么在美国收不到“美国之音”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008年09月23日 来源：中国新闻网
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑
上世纪80年代学英语的人大多离不开一部短波收音机，因为通过短波可以收听“美国之音”的英语广播，练习听力。到美国后，熟悉的电台、电视、书籍、报刊一下子全没有了，所以在所谓的自由世界里反倒觉得消息突然闭塞起来，于是就想收听“美国之音”。可是，当地的中波、长波都没有“美国之音”，而找遍了大小商店，竟然都没有短波收音机出售。
原来，在美国是收听不到“美国之音”的！
问美国人，大多不仅说不出什么道道，甚至都没看见过短波收音机、没听说过“美国之音”。后来，我慢慢了解到，因“美国之音”是美国政府的宣传机构，所以美国法律禁止它直接向美国公民广播。
“美国之音”源起于第二次世界大战。1942年，美国联邦政府战时信息办公室兴办美国之音，信号对准日本、南太平洋、欧洲和北非，为的是抗衡纳粹德国和军国主义日本的宣传机器。所以“美国之音”的宣传性质是在一开始就定好了的。
二战前，“美国之音”已开发出1000多个节目，用40种语言、通过39个频道向外广播。二战后，本来标志着“美国之音”使命的终结，但好不容易砍掉一半节目后，冷战又热了起来，“美国之音”随之再度膨胀，只是这次膨胀的部位不一样罢了，主要指向苏联、东欧和中国，宣传性质却一样明显。
美国制度的基本精神是对权力设置多重制约，而制约的标志之一就是禁止已经掌握了军队和警察大权的政府操办媒体。“美国之音”是以因应战时之需的借口创办起来的，战争结束了，就得有个法理上的交代。1948年，美国国会通过史密斯-曼德法，在501款中明文规定：“‘美国之音’节目为美国境外受众制作，严禁在美国国内散发”(美国媒体、学生、研究人员和国会议员索要以作研究之用除外)。这实际是从法律上肯定了“美国之音”政府操办的宣传属性。
政府操办媒体并不鲜见，不过，政府操办的媒体大多坦诚自己的宣传性质，毫不隐讳自己就是政府的喉舌。
“美国之音”则不一样，明明是政府操办却又要掩盖其作为宣传工具的事实。开播伊始，“美国之音”就声称：“每天的这个时候，我们将和你谈论美国和战争。新闻或好或坏。我们将告诉你事实。”
宣传和普通媒体有很多相通之处，都是通过文字或声像传递某种信息。有些从业人员也会来来去去地在二者之间跳槽，进一步模糊二者之间的界限。但是，宣传和普通媒体之间有着本质上的区别。宣传的目的非常明确：为其操办者塑造良好的公共形象。
普通媒体则是为报道事实而存在的，任何舍此以外的目的性考量都只能影响其报道的真实性，因而也会损害其取信于受众的自身利益。
二者间的这种区别在美国表现得非常清楚。我曾给国内一个环保访美代表团做过翻译，该团团员和美国的一位环境记者的对话很能说明问题。
环保代表团：“听说您给环保事业做出了很多贡献，我们首先向您表示感谢和敬意。”
环境记者：“我得说明：我是报道环境事务的记者，不是给环保部门工作的。”
环保代表团：“您不是环保部门的，但是却给环保宣传作了大量努力。我们非常感谢。”
环境记者：“我得重申一遍，我的报道不是为环保服务的。我的唯一使命是全面调查与环境有关的事情的所有真相，然后如实报道。很多时候，我的报道会对环保不利。比如，假若某个环保项目对人民生活、经济发展带来不利的影响的话，我一样会如实报道。”
“美国之音”则是有着明确目的的：“宣传美国和民主”。比如，从一般美国媒体报道和评论中浮现出来的布什形象很不雅观，基本反映了他在美国民众中低达30%支持率。而“美国之音”却几乎没有批评布什的声音，因为布什是美国的政府首脑，也就是“美国之音”的大老板。
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑。这种不愿正视自身的做法往往会给自己带来难以解脱的困境。
“德国之声”是仿照“美国之音”设立的，是德国政府的宣传机构。有鉴于此，它容不了与其观点相左的张丹红也在情理之中，但是，它又不愿意承认自己并不是以揭示真相为唯一使命的一般媒体，无怪要被人骂为虚伪了。中国新闻周刊:为什么在美国收不到“美国之音”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008年09月23日 来源：中国新闻网
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑
上世纪80年代学英语的人大多离不开一部短波收音机，因为通过短波可以收听“美国之音”的英语广播，练习听力。到美国后，熟悉的电台、电视、书籍、报刊一下子全没有了，所以在所谓的自由世界里反倒觉得消息突然闭塞起来，于是就想收听“美国之音”。可是，当地的中波、长波都没有“美国之音”，而找遍了大小商店，竟然都没有短波收音机出售。
原来，在美国是收听不到“美国之音”的！
问美国人，大多不仅说不出什么道道，甚至都没看见过短波收音机、没听说过“美国之音”。后来，我慢慢了解到，因“美国之音”是美国政府的宣传机构，所以美国法律禁止它直接向美国公民广播。
“美国之音”源起于第二次世界大战。1942年，美国联邦政府战时信息办公室兴办美国之音，信号对准日本、南太平洋、欧洲和北非，为的是抗衡纳粹德国和军国主义日本的宣传机器。所以“美国之音”的宣传性质是在一开始就定好了的。
二战前，“美国之音”已开发出1000多个节目，用40种语言、通过39个频道向外广播。二战后，本来标志着“美国之音”使命的终结，但好不容易砍掉一半节目后，冷战又热了起来，“美国之音”随之再度膨胀，只是这次膨胀的部位不一样罢了，主要指向苏联、东欧和中国，宣传性质却一样明显。
美国制度的基本精神是对权力设置多重制约，而制约的标志之一就是禁止已经掌握了军队和警察大权的政府操办媒体。“美国之音”是以因应战时之需的借口创办起来的，战争结束了，就得有个法理上的交代。1948年，美国国会通过史密斯-曼德法，在501款中明文规定：“‘美国之音’节目为美国境外受众制作，严禁在美国国内散发”(美国媒体、学生、研究人员和国会议员索要以作研究之用除外)。这实际是从法律上肯定了“美国之音”政府操办的宣传属性。
政府操办媒体并不鲜见，不过，政府操办的媒体大多坦诚自己的宣传性质，毫不隐讳自己就是政府的喉舌。
“美国之音”则不一样，明明是政府操办却又要掩盖其作为宣传工具的事实。开播伊始，“美国之音”就声称：“每天的这个时候，我们将和你谈论美国和战争。新闻或好或坏。我们将告诉你事实。”
宣传和普通媒体有很多相通之处，都是通过文字或声像传递某种信息。有些从业人员也会来来去去地在二者之间跳槽，进一步模糊二者之间的界限。但是，宣传和普通媒体之间有着本质上的区别。宣传的目的非常明确：为其操办者塑造良好的公共形象。
普通媒体则是为报道事实而存在的，任何舍此以外的目的性考量都只能影响其报道的真实性，因而也会损害其取信于受众的自身利益。
二者间的这种区别在美国表现得非常清楚。我曾给国内一个环保访美代表团做过翻译，该团团员和美国的一位环境记者的对话很能说明问题。
环保代表团：“听说您给环保事业做出了很多贡献，我们首先向您表示感谢和敬意。”
环境记者：“我得说明：我是报道环境事务的记者，不是给环保部门工作的。”
环保代表团：“您不是环保部门的，但是却给环保宣传作了大量努力。我们非常感谢。”
环境记者：“我得重申一遍，我的报道不是为环保服务的。我的唯一使命是全面调查与环境有关的事情的所有真相，然后如实报道。很多时候，我的报道会对环保不利。比如，假若某个环保项目对人民生活、经济发展带来不利的影响的话，我一样会如实报道。”
“美国之音”则是有着明确目的的：“宣传美国和民主”。比如，从一般美国媒体报道和评论中浮现出来的布什形象很不雅观，基本反映了他在美国民众中低达30%支持率。而“美国之音”却几乎没有批评布什的声音，因为布什是美国的政府首脑，也就是“美国之音”的大老板。
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑。这种不愿正视自身的做法往往会给自己带来难以解脱的困境。
“德国之声”是仿照“美国之音”设立的，是德国政府的宣传机构。有鉴于此，它容不了与其观点相左的张丹红也在情理之中，但是，它又不愿意承认自己并不是以揭示真相为唯一使命的一般媒体，无怪要被人骂为虚伪了。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008年09月23日 来源：中国新闻网
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑
上世纪80年代学英语的人大多离不开一部短波收音机，因为通过短波可以收听“美国之音”的英语广播，练习听力。到美国后，熟悉的电台、电视、书籍、报刊一下子全没有了，所以在所谓的自由世界里反倒觉得消息突然闭塞起来，于是就想收听“美国之音”。可是，当地的中波、长波都没有“美国之音”，而找遍了大小商店，竟然都没有短波收音机出售。
原来，在美国是收听不到“美国之音”的！
问美国人，大多不仅说不出什么道道，甚至都没看见过短波收音机、没听说过“美国之音”。后来，我慢慢了解到，因“美国之音”是美国政府的宣传机构，所以美国法律禁止它直接向美国公民广播。
“美国之音”源起于第二次世界大战。1942年，美国联邦政府战时信息办公室兴办美国之音，信号对准日本、南太平洋、欧洲和北非，为的是抗衡纳粹德国和军国主义日本的宣传机器。所以“美国之音”的宣传性质是在一开始就定好了的。
二战前，“美国之音”已开发出1000多个节目，用40种语言、通过39个频道向外广播。二战后，本来标志着“美国之音”使命的终结，但好不容易砍掉一半节目后，冷战又热了起来，“美国之音”随之再度膨胀，只是这次膨胀的部位不一样罢了，主要指向苏联、东欧和中国，宣传性质却一样明显。
美国制度的基本精神是对权力设置多重制约，而制约的标志之一就是禁止已经掌握了军队和警察大权的政府操办媒体。“美国之音”是以因应战时之需的借口创办起来的，战争结束了，就得有个法理上的交代。1948年，美国国会通过史密斯-曼德法，在501款中明文规定：“‘美国之音’节目为美国境外受众制作，严禁在美国国内散发”(美国媒体、学生、研究人员和国会议员索要以作研究之用除外)。这实际是从法律上肯定了“美国之音”政府操办的宣传属性。
政府操办媒体并不鲜见，不过，政府操办的媒体大多坦诚自己的宣传性质，毫不隐讳自己就是政府的喉舌。
“美国之音”则不一样，明明是政府操办却又要掩盖其作为宣传工具的事实。开播伊始，“美国之音”就声称：“每天的这个时候，我们将和你谈论美国和战争。新闻或好或坏。我们将告诉你事实。”
宣传和普通媒体有很多相通之处，都是通过文字或声像传递某种信息。有些从业人员也会来来去去地在二者之间跳槽，进一步模糊二者之间的界限。但是，宣传和普通媒体之间有着本质上的区别。宣传的目的非常明确：为其操办者塑造良好的公共形象。
普通媒体则是为报道事实而存在的，任何舍此以外的目的性考量都只能影响其报道的真实性，因而也会损害其取信于受众的自身利益。
二者间的这种区别在美国表现得非常清楚。我曾给国内一个环保访美代表团做过翻译，该团团员和美国的一位环境记者的对话很能说明问题。
环保代表团：“听说您给环保事业做出了很多贡献，我们首先向您表示感谢和敬意。”
环境记者：“我得说明：我是报道环境事务的记者，不是给环保部门工作的。”
环保代表团：“您不是环保部门的，但是却给环保宣传作了大量努力。我们非常感谢。”
环境记者：“我得重申一遍，我的报道不是为环保服务的。我的唯一使命是全面调查与环境有关的事情的所有真相，然后如实报道。很多时候，我的报道会对环保不利。比如，假若某个环保项目对人民生活、经济发展带来不利的影响的话，我一样会如实报道。”
“美国之音”则是有着明确目的的：“宣传美国和民主”。比如，从一般美国媒体报道和评论中浮现出来的布什形象很不雅观，基本反映了他在美国民众中低达30%支持率。而“美国之音”却几乎没有批评布什的声音，因为布什是美国的政府首脑，也就是“美国之音”的大老板。
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑。这种不愿正视自身的做法往往会给自己带来难以解脱的困境。
“德国之声”是仿照“美国之音”设立的，是德国政府的宣传机构。有鉴于此，它容不了与其观点相左的张丹红也在情理之中，但是，它又不愿意承认自己并不是以揭示真相为唯一使命的一般媒体，无怪要被人骂为虚伪了。中国新闻周刊:为什么在美国收不到“美国之音”?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008年09月23日 来源：中国新闻网
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑
上世纪80年代学英语的人大多离不开一部短波收音机，因为通过短波可以收听“美国之音”的英语广播，练习听力。到美国后，熟悉的电台、电视、书籍、报刊一下子全没有了，所以在所谓的自由世界里反倒觉得消息突然闭塞起来，于是就想收听“美国之音”。可是，当地的中波、长波都没有“美国之音”，而找遍了大小商店，竟然都没有短波收音机出售。
原来，在美国是收听不到“美国之音”的！
问美国人，大多不仅说不出什么道道，甚至都没看见过短波收音机、没听说过“美国之音”。后来，我慢慢了解到，因“美国之音”是美国政府的宣传机构，所以美国法律禁止它直接向美国公民广播。
“美国之音”源起于第二次世界大战。1942年，美国联邦政府战时信息办公室兴办美国之音，信号对准日本、南太平洋、欧洲和北非，为的是抗衡纳粹德国和军国主义日本的宣传机器。所以“美国之音”的宣传性质是在一开始就定好了的。
二战前，“美国之音”已开发出1000多个节目，用40种语言、通过39个频道向外广播。二战后，本来标志着“美国之音”使命的终结，但好不容易砍掉一半节目后，冷战又热了起来，“美国之音”随之再度膨胀，只是这次膨胀的部位不一样罢了，主要指向苏联、东欧和中国，宣传性质却一样明显。
美国制度的基本精神是对权力设置多重制约，而制约的标志之一就是禁止已经掌握了军队和警察大权的政府操办媒体。“美国之音”是以因应战时之需的借口创办起来的，战争结束了，就得有个法理上的交代。1948年，美国国会通过史密斯-曼德法，在501款中明文规定：“‘美国之音’节目为美国境外受众制作，严禁在美国国内散发”(美国媒体、学生、研究人员和国会议员索要以作研究之用除外)。这实际是从法律上肯定了“美国之音”政府操办的宣传属性。
政府操办媒体并不鲜见，不过，政府操办的媒体大多坦诚自己的宣传性质，毫不隐讳自己就是政府的喉舌。
“美国之音”则不一样，明明是政府操办却又要掩盖其作为宣传工具的事实。开播伊始，“美国之音”就声称：“每天的这个时候，我们将和你谈论美国和战争。新闻或好或坏。我们将告诉你事实。”
宣传和普通媒体有很多相通之处，都是通过文字或声像传递某种信息。有些从业人员也会来来去去地在二者之间跳槽，进一步模糊二者之间的界限。但是，宣传和普通媒体之间有着本质上的区别。宣传的目的非常明确：为其操办者塑造良好的公共形象。
普通媒体则是为报道事实而存在的，任何舍此以外的目的性考量都只能影响其报道的真实性，因而也会损害其取信于受众的自身利益。
二者间的这种区别在美国表现得非常清楚。我曾给国内一个环保访美代表团做过翻译，该团团员和美国的一位环境记者的对话很能说明问题。
环保代表团：“听说您给环保事业做出了很多贡献，我们首先向您表示感谢和敬意。”
环境记者：“我得说明：我是报道环境事务的记者，不是给环保部门工作的。”
环保代表团：“您不是环保部门的，但是却给环保宣传作了大量努力。我们非常感谢。”
环境记者：“我得重申一遍，我的报道不是为环保服务的。我的唯一使命是全面调查与环境有关的事情的所有真相，然后如实报道。很多时候，我的报道会对环保不利。比如，假若某个环保项目对人民生活、经济发展带来不利的影响的话，我一样会如实报道。”
“美国之音”则是有着明确目的的：“宣传美国和民主”。比如，从一般美国媒体报道和评论中浮现出来的布什形象很不雅观，基本反映了他在美国民众中低达30%支持率。而“美国之音”却几乎没有批评布什的声音，因为布什是美国的政府首脑，也就是“美国之音”的大老板。
“美国之音”不批评其主办机构及其首领是理所当然的，但是它同时又竭力摆出以公正报道为己任的一般媒体的架势，也就难以逃脱虚伪的嫌疑。这种不愿正视自身的做法往往会给自己带来难以解脱的困境。
“德国之声”是仿照“美国之音”设立的，是德国政府的宣传机构。有鉴于此，它容不了与其观点相左的张丹红也在情理之中，但是，它又不愿意承认自己并不是以揭示真相为唯一使命的一般媒体，无怪要被人骂为虚伪了。
专们播给外国听的
楼上正解。美国之间主要是对外宣传颠覆而用的
汗 :L
原来美国之音不能在美国国内播放！！！
请CHE同学考证，如果是真的，这可是个非常好的论据
原来美国之音不能在美国国内播放！！！
请CHE同学考证，如果是真的，这可是个非常好的论据
是真的?~~看来我还真是孤陋寡闻
美国之音 自由亚洲之声
还有什么更漏骨的？？？
还有什么更漏骨的？？？
你听听这名字就是极端的左派了，还可能有什么反对伊拉克战争之类的言论么。:L
为什么在美国收不到“中国之音”?
呵呵。。。
呵呵。。。
楼上的有点晕吧，看记录说中国之声在美国有播出的，而且中国之声在国内也照样广播的。。。。
原帖由 qianniansun 于 2008-9-23 22:58 发表
楼上的有点晕吧，看记录说中国之声在美国有播出的，而且中国之声在国内也照样广播的。。。。
要美国之音性质的那种，
报道不痛不痒的，
不过是在应付了事，
呵呵。。。
光华广播电台
偶听了一年有余,当时还特地弄了根六米的软天线.
结果就是,成了HKC.:') :')
偶听了一年有余,当时还特地弄了根六米的软天线.
结果就是,成了HKC.:') :')
1948年，美国国会通过史密斯-曼德法，在501款中明文规定：“‘美国之音’节目为美国境外受众制作，严禁在美国国内散发”(美国媒体、学生、研究人员和国会议员索要以作研究之用除外)。这实际是从法律上肯定了“美国之音”政府操办的宣传属性。
=================================================================================
至今没被撤销？
=================================================================================
至今没被撤销？
美国之音
洗脑工具
洗脑工具
八+九其间
我可是亲耳听美国之音报道:被打死的学生尸体在**广场被当场焚烧.
当时一个亲戚惊呼到:难怪我看到电视里黑色的东西在飘,原来是骨灰!
我可是亲耳听美国之音报道:被打死的学生尸体在**广场被当场焚烧.
当时一个亲戚惊呼到:难怪我看到电视里黑色的东西在飘,原来是骨灰!
短波收音机在美国国内应该收得到...问题是,谁还有短波收音机?基本都是FM的.
原帖由 f22 于 2008-9-23 23:39 发表
短波收音机在美国国内应该收得到...问题是,谁还有短波收音机?基本都是FM的.
问题是，如果有一天在中国买不到一部短波收意机，你以为美国之音会怎么说。:D
楼主说的事,n前我就知道,楼上居然还有几位不知道,也不知道是真不知道,还是假装不知道.其实用脚后跟想想都知道.一个基本上都没有广告的电台靠什么能生存?什么美国之音的东西,我上大学就从来没听过,因为在上高中的时候都听过了.后来倒是听了听自由亚洲之声,可惜比美国之音更不如,美国之音好歹还有英语教学节目,还有点用.这个自由亚洲之声,意识形态立场更露骨.经常听网友们说中国的真理部的老头子宣传手法落后,完全没有效果.我看美国的也不见得多高明.
记得当年最好笑的一件事就是香港回归的时候,美国之音的一个报道,说百幕大的居民们正喝着啤酒狂欢,因为从香港疯狂出逃的金融业必将会去另外一个曾经的殖民地安家.我当时就想,怎么会有这么弱智的电台做这么弱智的节目.
记得当年最好笑的一件事就是香港回归的时候,美国之音的一个报道,说百幕大的居民们正喝着啤酒狂欢,因为从香港疯狂出逃的金融业必将会去另外一个曾经的殖民地安家.我当时就想,怎么会有这么弱智的电台做这么弱智的节目.
以受正常教育的美国人的那种DIY能力，自己做个短波收音机不在话下吧？全世界290万注册HAM，美国就有70万。
摘录自WIKI
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E4%B9%8B%E9%9F%B3
美国之音现在归属广播理事会下的国际广播局管辖。这使得关于美国之音新闻报道是否与政府政策相独立的争论增多起来。
根据美国法律，美国之音是禁止直接向美国广播的。制定这项法律限制的目的是为了保证政府不会垄断某个新闻媒体当喉舌向公众发声——就像某些欧洲国家那样。特例是国会在1981年批准了电视节目Let Poland Be Poland向美国国民播放。无论如何，美国之音的节目通过短波和互联网上的网络广播节目美国人是可以接收到的，所以美国人也能听见美国之音的广播节目。美国之音在海外很流行，在美国国内其实少有人知。美国的新闻广播很自由，所以很多美国人根本没有必要购买短波收音机。短波收音机在美国价钱不低，而且也不是普通商店就可以买到。所以只有业余爱好者才会拥有短波收音机。随着互联网的日益发展，短波广播在美国是更加少有了
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%8E%E5%9C%8B%E4%B9%8B%E9%9F%B3
美国之音现在归属广播理事会下的国际广播局管辖。这使得关于美国之音新闻报道是否与政府政策相独立的争论增多起来。
根据美国法律，美国之音是禁止直接向美国广播的。制定这项法律限制的目的是为了保证政府不会垄断某个新闻媒体当喉舌向公众发声——就像某些欧洲国家那样。特例是国会在1981年批准了电视节目Let Poland Be Poland向美国国民播放。无论如何，美国之音的节目通过短波和互联网上的网络广播节目美国人是可以接收到的，所以美国人也能听见美国之音的广播节目。美国之音在海外很流行，在美国国内其实少有人知。美国的新闻广播很自由，所以很多美国人根本没有必要购买短波收音机。短波收音机在美国价钱不低，而且也不是普通商店就可以买到。所以只有业余爱好者才会拥有短波收音机。随着互联网的日益发展，短波广播在美国是更加少有了
短波收音机在美国价钱不低，而且也不是普通商店就可以买到
------------------------
不知道中国是怎么买到的?
而且还是贵重商品哦;P ;P
偶小时候拿这个红灯牌录音机满屋子转着调角度是听啥频道来着:D :D
------------------------
不知道中国是怎么买到的?
而且还是贵重商品哦;P ;P
偶小时候拿这个红灯牌录音机满屋子转着调角度是听啥频道来着:D :D
原帖由 我的南海 于 2008-9-24 06:53 发表
短波收音机在美国价钱不低，而且也不是普通商店就可以买到
------------------------
不知道中国是怎么买到的?
而且还是贵重商品哦;P ;P
偶小时候拿这个红灯牌录音机满屋子转着调角度是听啥频道来着:D :D
短波收音机在美国贵不贵？是否容易在普通商店购买？
恐怕你没资格在这偷笑。:D :D :D
还是问问一刀吧。
原帖由 我是文盲 于 2008-9-24 00:03 发表无法证实,因为中国随便可以买到.
问题是，如果有一天在中国买不到一部短波收意机，你以为美国之音会怎么说。:D
this is the voa news
www.voa.gob
大学时非常熟悉的声音 听的要吐
不过911我就是通过这个知道的 当时整个宿舍楼都沸腾了！！
www.voa.gob
大学时非常熟悉的声音 听的要吐
不过911我就是通过这个知道的 当时整个宿舍楼都沸腾了！！
俺上初中那会常听，不过现在信息泛滥时代，美国之音那种老掉牙宣传方式过时了！应该改进改进了！！
]]
原帖由 bluesun 于 2008-9-24 08:14 发表
this is the voa news
www.voa.gob
大学时非常熟悉的声音 听的要吐
不过911我就是通过这个知道的 当时整个宿舍楼都沸腾了！！
我得知911是通过www.wenxuecity.com,大概在事件发生10分钟以后:D
美国之音被指控“反共宣传已被冲淡”而被调查，后多名雇员辞职，甚至有一人自杀。
原帖由 什么吗 于 2008-9-23 22:14 发表
汗 :L
原来美国之音不能在美国国内播放！！！
请CHE同学考证，如果是真的，这可是个非常好的论据
米国之音只用短波播放的，你弄不到你短波收音机怪谁，这算什么论据。
只不过它不批评米国政府。
“据不愿意透露姓名的官员称” “据知情者说”:D
很老的消息了，这故事应该两方都喜欢
一方说原来VOA是洗脑工具，某些人被洗脑了
另一方说美国法律不允许政府对美国民众洗脑，比某国好
据说VOA已经跟不上时代了，和中宣部一样
一方说原来VOA是洗脑工具，某些人被洗脑了
另一方说美国法律不允许政府对美国民众洗脑，比某国好
据说VOA已经跟不上时代了，和中宣部一样
原帖由 我的南海 于 2008-9-23 23:13 发表
光华广播电台
偶听了一年有余,当时还特地弄了根六米的软天线.
结果就是,成了HKC.:') :')
汉声广播公司
关收音机鸟事。
主要是那个法案是假的真的
主要是那个法案是假的真的
美国之音英语还是很好的啊 英语老师都推荐
倒是自由亚洲 呵呵
不过很多群体性事件自由亚洲都有报道
中央人民广播以前是在这些电台挨着的频率放新闻 后来改成放敲锣声音了 :D
倒是自由亚洲 呵呵
不过很多群体性事件自由亚洲都有报道
中央人民广播以前是在这些电台挨着的频率放新闻 后来改成放敲锣声音了 :D
关于美国禁止VOA对美国国内广播的Smith-Mundt法案的真实性考察
其法案内容：
Section 501(a) of the Act provides that
information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States … but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.
Smith-Mundt法案全文可以在以下网址查到
http://vlex.com/source/1021/toc/19
美国信息部（U.S. Information Agency）对于类似政策的一篇质询与回复信也反映了该问题
这里只摘录一部分，全文请看
http://lists.essential.org/1995/info-policy-notes/msg00135.html
THE U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY ON THE INTERNET
NOT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS?
April 26, 1995
by James Love (202/387-8030; love@tap.org)
(this may be freely disseminated on the Internet)
- Federal Agency with budget of $1.4 billion and 7,600 employees produces television, radio, and text news services for dissemination in foreign countries, but not in U.S.
- In 1994 the USIA launched new Internet services, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from radio programs. These services are provided at various
Internet ftp, gopher and World Wide Web sites.
- Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) has reportedly objected to the Internet services, as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits USIA from disseminating information in the
United States.
- In response to objections, USIA recently moved large amounts of its WIRLESS FILE text dispatches from the USIA "domestic" gopher (gopher.usia.gov) and Web (www.usia.gov) sites, to other sites with addresses that are "secret" from U.S. citizens. TAP has identified one "foreign" site containing the East Asia/Pacfic WIRELESS FILE text reports (hk.net), a portion of the files that were removed from the "domestic" interest sites.
- The USIA continues to provide access to transcripts and audio files from its Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts from the gopher server, gopher.voa.gov, but the agency claims it
cannot tell Americans the URL for the site.
- U.S. citizen access to USIA information is blocked by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (22 USC 1461), which prohibits USIA from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, or to be "available for examination only to Members of congress." [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
- According to USIA officials, U.S. commercial television and radio interests have lobbied to retain the Smith-Mundt Act restrictions on U.S. citizen access to the information, in order to limit "competition" from this U.S. government information service.
USIA RESTRICTS U.S. ACCESS TO NEW INTERNET SERVERS
TAP was recently contacted by Peter Ide, an American who now works for a foreign government aid program. Peter had been following the USIA WIRELESS FILE dispatches, which were available on GOPHER.USIA.GOV, searchable by keyword. A few weeks ago the WIRELESS FILE data and other USIA information disappeared from the USIA gopher. After inquiring, Peter received the following letter:
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95
From: "McGregor, James" <jmcgrego@usia.gov>
Subject: Disappearing USIA Gopher
Mr. Ide,
You received a cryptic message from my colleage Neil Lehrer about the reason for the changes in our Gopher. The "Smith-Mundt" act he referred to is legislation that prohibits USIA from distributing materials intended for overseas audiences within the U.S. We split our servers into an overseas portion (which contained the "latest items") and a domestic version, which is far less interesting but more legal.
I assume from your domain name that you are in the U.S. We are not permitted to give you the address of the server that contains the "latest items" and other material you saw in
the original version. If you are overseas, please let me know.
Regards.
James P. McGregor
USIA
Mr. Ide, advised USIA's McGregor that he was working for a foreign government, but failed to obtain the name of the "foreign" internet site from USIA. In an April 25, 1995 email
message, Mr. McGregor said:
We are under strict prohibition from giving out the name of the site in the U.S. However, your office in . . . can contact the information section at the U.S. Embassy and get the overseas address. . .
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT
TAP contacted USIA staff and reviewed the agency's authorizing statutes to understand the nature of the problem. Under a 1948 statute, known as the "Smith-Mundt" act, (22 USC
1461), USIA is prohibited from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, and should be "available for examination only to Members of Congress." The Act makes an exception for "Problems of Communism," and "English Teaching Forum," both of which may be made available through the Government Printing Office. [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
There are two current reasons for the dissemination prohibition. First, Congress did not want the USIA to subject the American public to government controlled news broadcasts.
Second, commercial broadcasters, who have lobbied to keep the Smith-Mundt Act bar to U.S. dissemination of USIA information in place, do not want competition from a free source of news.
The USIA Internet service began in early 1994. On January 14, 1995, the Washington Post ran an article written by John Schwartz which was critical of the USIA decision to provide information on the Internet, because of the Smith-Mundt Act. Schwartz described the USIA information as "forbidden fruit" or "propaganda," which "has been carefully withheld from Americans lest it brainwash them." Schwartz quoted Carl Malamud of the Internet Multicasting Service as saying:
They're [the USIA] winking at those very fundamental mandates from the U.S. Congress -- Ye shall not do news to the American Public. . . It's important that we understand that cyberspace is part of the real world . . . Just because it's on a computer, it doesn't mean that the basic rules don't apply.
Schwartz also quoted from an article by former FCCCommissioner Newton Minow and Annenberg Fellow Alvin Snyder, whom expressed support for eliminating the legal barrier to
dissemination of USIA information to U.S. citizens.
Shouldn't we have the opportunity to know what the United States is saying to people in Bosnia, Russia or South America . . . Yesterday's fear that such programs will 'brainwash' the American public is senseless. We get a steady stream of government views in speeches, briefings and press releases, and we are capable of reaching our own conclusions.
According to USIA officials, after the Washington Post article appeared, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the chair of the Senator Foreign Relations committee, began to press the agency to rein in the Internet program. Senator Helms is also said to favor the elimination of many USIA services, to be replaced by the private sector. Senator Helms' office indicated that Foreign Relations Committee staffer, Chris Walker, is working on this issue. Mr. Walker did not return telephone calls from TAP.
其他联结请参考
http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/audiences-targeted-by-voa-and-smith.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act
美国安全政策中心（Center for Security Policy）对1948年该法案的详细解释也值得一看。
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/OCC%20Smith%20Mundt.pdf
综上所述：
美国的确存在该法案，VOA因为隶属于美国国际广播局，被禁止向美国公民广播。
另外从相关条款也可以看出，该广播直接服务于美国对外关系政策，是美国对外宣传工具。
其法案内容：
Section 501(a) of the Act provides that
information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States … but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.
Smith-Mundt法案全文可以在以下网址查到
http://vlex.com/source/1021/toc/19
美国信息部（U.S. Information Agency）对于类似政策的一篇质询与回复信也反映了该问题
这里只摘录一部分，全文请看
http://lists.essential.org/1995/info-policy-notes/msg00135.html
THE U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY ON THE INTERNET
NOT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS?
April 26, 1995
by James Love (202/387-8030; love@tap.org)
(this may be freely disseminated on the Internet)
- Federal Agency with budget of $1.4 billion and 7,600 employees produces television, radio, and text news services for dissemination in foreign countries, but not in U.S.
- In 1994 the USIA launched new Internet services, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from radio programs. These services are provided at various
Internet ftp, gopher and World Wide Web sites.
- Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) has reportedly objected to the Internet services, as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits USIA from disseminating information in the
United States.
- In response to objections, USIA recently moved large amounts of its WIRLESS FILE text dispatches from the USIA "domestic" gopher (gopher.usia.gov) and Web (www.usia.gov) sites, to other sites with addresses that are "secret" from U.S. citizens. TAP has identified one "foreign" site containing the East Asia/Pacfic WIRELESS FILE text reports (hk.net), a portion of the files that were removed from the "domestic" interest sites.
- The USIA continues to provide access to transcripts and audio files from its Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts from the gopher server, gopher.voa.gov, but the agency claims it
cannot tell Americans the URL for the site.
- U.S. citizen access to USIA information is blocked by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (22 USC 1461), which prohibits USIA from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, or to be "available for examination only to Members of congress." [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
- According to USIA officials, U.S. commercial television and radio interests have lobbied to retain the Smith-Mundt Act restrictions on U.S. citizen access to the information, in order to limit "competition" from this U.S. government information service.
USIA RESTRICTS U.S. ACCESS TO NEW INTERNET SERVERS
TAP was recently contacted by Peter Ide, an American who now works for a foreign government aid program. Peter had been following the USIA WIRELESS FILE dispatches, which were available on GOPHER.USIA.GOV, searchable by keyword. A few weeks ago the WIRELESS FILE data and other USIA information disappeared from the USIA gopher. After inquiring, Peter received the following letter:
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95
From: "McGregor, James" <jmcgrego@usia.gov>
Subject: Disappearing USIA Gopher
Mr. Ide,
You received a cryptic message from my colleage Neil Lehrer about the reason for the changes in our Gopher. The "Smith-Mundt" act he referred to is legislation that prohibits USIA from distributing materials intended for overseas audiences within the U.S. We split our servers into an overseas portion (which contained the "latest items") and a domestic version, which is far less interesting but more legal.
I assume from your domain name that you are in the U.S. We are not permitted to give you the address of the server that contains the "latest items" and other material you saw in
the original version. If you are overseas, please let me know.
Regards.
James P. McGregor
USIA
Mr. Ide, advised USIA's McGregor that he was working for a foreign government, but failed to obtain the name of the "foreign" internet site from USIA. In an April 25, 1995 email
message, Mr. McGregor said:
We are under strict prohibition from giving out the name of the site in the U.S. However, your office in . . . can contact the information section at the U.S. Embassy and get the overseas address. . .
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT
TAP contacted USIA staff and reviewed the agency's authorizing statutes to understand the nature of the problem. Under a 1948 statute, known as the "Smith-Mundt" act, (22 USC
1461), USIA is prohibited from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, and should be "available for examination only to Members of Congress." The Act makes an exception for "Problems of Communism," and "English Teaching Forum," both of which may be made available through the Government Printing Office. [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
There are two current reasons for the dissemination prohibition. First, Congress did not want the USIA to subject the American public to government controlled news broadcasts.
Second, commercial broadcasters, who have lobbied to keep the Smith-Mundt Act bar to U.S. dissemination of USIA information in place, do not want competition from a free source of news.
The USIA Internet service began in early 1994. On January 14, 1995, the Washington Post ran an article written by John Schwartz which was critical of the USIA decision to provide information on the Internet, because of the Smith-Mundt Act. Schwartz described the USIA information as "forbidden fruit" or "propaganda," which "has been carefully withheld from Americans lest it brainwash them." Schwartz quoted Carl Malamud of the Internet Multicasting Service as saying:
They're [the USIA] winking at those very fundamental mandates from the U.S. Congress -- Ye shall not do news to the American Public. . . It's important that we understand that cyberspace is part of the real world . . . Just because it's on a computer, it doesn't mean that the basic rules don't apply.
Schwartz also quoted from an article by former FCCCommissioner Newton Minow and Annenberg Fellow Alvin Snyder, whom expressed support for eliminating the legal barrier to
dissemination of USIA information to U.S. citizens.
Shouldn't we have the opportunity to know what the United States is saying to people in Bosnia, Russia or South America . . . Yesterday's fear that such programs will 'brainwash' the American public is senseless. We get a steady stream of government views in speeches, briefings and press releases, and we are capable of reaching our own conclusions.
According to USIA officials, after the Washington Post article appeared, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the chair of the Senator Foreign Relations committee, began to press the agency to rein in the Internet program. Senator Helms is also said to favor the elimination of many USIA services, to be replaced by the private sector. Senator Helms' office indicated that Foreign Relations Committee staffer, Chris Walker, is working on this issue. Mr. Walker did not return telephone calls from TAP.
其他联结请参考
http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/audiences-targeted-by-voa-and-smith.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act
美国安全政策中心（Center for Security Policy）对1948年该法案的详细解释也值得一看。
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/OCC%20Smith%20Mundt.pdf
综上所述：
美国的确存在该法案，VOA因为隶属于美国国际广播局，被禁止向美国公民广播。
另外从相关条款也可以看出，该广播直接服务于美国对外关系政策，是美国对外宣传工具。
关于美国禁止VOA对美国国内广播的Smith-Mundt法案的真实性考察
其法案内容：
Section 501(a) of the Act provides that
information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States … but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.
Smith-Mundt法案全文可以在以下网址查到
http://vlex.com/source/1021/toc/19
美国信息部（U.S. Information Agency）对于类似政策的一篇质询与回复信也反映了该问题
这里只摘录一部分，全文请看
http://lists.essential.org/1995/info-policy-notes/msg00135.html
THE U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY ON THE INTERNET
NOT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS?
April 26, 1995
by James Love (202/387-8030; love@tap.org)
(this may be freely disseminated on the Internet)
- Federal Agency with budget of $1.4 billion and 7,600 employees produces television, radio, and text news services for dissemination in foreign countries, but not in U.S.
- In 1994 the USIA launched new Internet services, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from radio programs. These services are provided at various
Internet ftp, gopher and World Wide Web sites.
- Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) has reportedly objected to the Internet services, as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits USIA from disseminating information in the
United States.
- In response to objections, USIA recently moved large amounts of its WIRLESS FILE text dispatches from the USIA "domestic" gopher (gopher.usia.gov) and Web (www.usia.gov) sites, to other sites with addresses that are "secret" from U.S. citizens. TAP has identified one "foreign" site containing the East Asia/Pacfic WIRELESS FILE text reports (hk.net), a portion of the files that were removed from the "domestic" interest sites.
- The USIA continues to provide access to transcripts and audio files from its Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts from the gopher server, gopher.voa.gov, but the agency claims it
cannot tell Americans the URL for the site.
- U.S. citizen access to USIA information is blocked by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (22 USC 1461), which prohibits USIA from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, or to be "available for examination only to Members of congress." [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
- According to USIA officials, U.S. commercial television and radio interests have lobbied to retain the Smith-Mundt Act restrictions on U.S. citizen access to the information, in order to limit "competition" from this U.S. government information service.
USIA RESTRICTS U.S. ACCESS TO NEW INTERNET SERVERS
TAP was recently contacted by Peter Ide, an American who now works for a foreign government aid program. Peter had been following the USIA WIRELESS FILE dispatches, which were available on GOPHER.USIA.GOV, searchable by keyword. A few weeks ago the WIRELESS FILE data and other USIA information disappeared from the USIA gopher. After inquiring, Peter received the following letter:
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95
From: "McGregor, James" <jmcgrego@usia.gov>
Subject: Disappearing USIA Gopher
Mr. Ide,
You received a cryptic message from my colleage Neil Lehrer about the reason for the changes in our Gopher. The "Smith-Mundt" act he referred to is legislation that prohibits USIA from distributing materials intended for overseas audiences within the U.S. We split our servers into an overseas portion (which contained the "latest items") and a domestic version, which is far less interesting but more legal.
I assume from your domain name that you are in the U.S. We are not permitted to give you the address of the server that contains the "latest items" and other material you saw in
the original version. If you are overseas, please let me know.
Regards.
James P. McGregor
USIA
Mr. Ide, advised USIA's McGregor that he was working for a foreign government, but failed to obtain the name of the "foreign" internet site from USIA. In an April 25, 1995 email
message, Mr. McGregor said:
We are under strict prohibition from giving out the name of the site in the U.S. However, your office in . . . can contact the information section at the U.S. Embassy and get the overseas address. . .
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT
TAP contacted USIA staff and reviewed the agency's authorizing statutes to understand the nature of the problem. Under a 1948 statute, known as the "Smith-Mundt" act, (22 USC
1461), USIA is prohibited from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, and should be "available for examination only to Members of Congress." The Act makes an exception for "Problems of Communism," and "English Teaching Forum," both of which may be made available through the Government Printing Office. [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
There are two current reasons for the dissemination prohibition. First, Congress did not want the USIA to subject the American public to government controlled news broadcasts.
Second, commercial broadcasters, who have lobbied to keep the Smith-Mundt Act bar to U.S. dissemination of USIA information in place, do not want competition from a free source of news.
The USIA Internet service began in early 1994. On January 14, 1995, the Washington Post ran an article written by John Schwartz which was critical of the USIA decision to provide information on the Internet, because of the Smith-Mundt Act. Schwartz described the USIA information as "forbidden fruit" or "propaganda," which "has been carefully withheld from Americans lest it brainwash them." Schwartz quoted Carl Malamud of the Internet Multicasting Service as saying:
They're [the USIA] winking at those very fundamental mandates from the U.S. Congress -- Ye shall not do news to the American Public. . . It's important that we understand that cyberspace is part of the real world . . . Just because it's on a computer, it doesn't mean that the basic rules don't apply.
Schwartz also quoted from an article by former FCCCommissioner Newton Minow and Annenberg Fellow Alvin Snyder, whom expressed support for eliminating the legal barrier to
dissemination of USIA information to U.S. citizens.
Shouldn't we have the opportunity to know what the United States is saying to people in Bosnia, Russia or South America . . . Yesterday's fear that such programs will 'brainwash' the American public is senseless. We get a steady stream of government views in speeches, briefings and press releases, and we are capable of reaching our own conclusions.
According to USIA officials, after the Washington Post article appeared, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the chair of the Senator Foreign Relations committee, began to press the agency to rein in the Internet program. Senator Helms is also said to favor the elimination of many USIA services, to be replaced by the private sector. Senator Helms' office indicated that Foreign Relations Committee staffer, Chris Walker, is working on this issue. Mr. Walker did not return telephone calls from TAP.
其他联结请参考
http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/audiences-targeted-by-voa-and-smith.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act
美国安全政策中心（Center for Security Policy）对1948年该法案的详细解释也值得一看。
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/OCC%20Smith%20Mundt.pdf
综上所述：
美国的确存在该法案，VOA因为隶属于美国国际广播局，被禁止向美国公民广播。
另外从相关条款也可以看出，该广播直接服务于美国对外关系政策，是美国对外宣传工具。
其法案内容：
Section 501(a) of the Act provides that
information produced by VOA for audiences outside the United States shall not be disseminated within the United States … but, on request, shall be available in the English language at VOA, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to Members of Congress.
Smith-Mundt法案全文可以在以下网址查到
http://vlex.com/source/1021/toc/19
美国信息部（U.S. Information Agency）对于类似政策的一篇质询与回复信也反映了该问题
这里只摘录一部分，全文请看
http://lists.essential.org/1995/info-policy-notes/msg00135.html
THE U.S. INFORMATION AGENCY ON THE INTERNET
NOT FOR AMERICAN CITIZENS?
April 26, 1995
by James Love (202/387-8030; love@tap.org)
(this may be freely disseminated on the Internet)
- Federal Agency with budget of $1.4 billion and 7,600 employees produces television, radio, and text news services for dissemination in foreign countries, but not in U.S.
- In 1994 the USIA launched new Internet services, providing access to the text of news dispatches, and audio feeds from radio programs. These services are provided at various
Internet ftp, gopher and World Wide Web sites.
- Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC) has reportedly objected to the Internet services, as a violation of the Smith-Mundt Act, which prohibits USIA from disseminating information in the
United States.
- In response to objections, USIA recently moved large amounts of its WIRLESS FILE text dispatches from the USIA "domestic" gopher (gopher.usia.gov) and Web (www.usia.gov) sites, to other sites with addresses that are "secret" from U.S. citizens. TAP has identified one "foreign" site containing the East Asia/Pacfic WIRELESS FILE text reports (hk.net), a portion of the files that were removed from the "domestic" interest sites.
- The USIA continues to provide access to transcripts and audio files from its Voice of America (VOA) broadcasts from the gopher server, gopher.voa.gov, but the agency claims it
cannot tell Americans the URL for the site.
- U.S. citizen access to USIA information is blocked by the 1948 Smith-Mundt Act (22 USC 1461), which prohibits USIA from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, or to be "available for examination only to Members of congress." [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
- According to USIA officials, U.S. commercial television and radio interests have lobbied to retain the Smith-Mundt Act restrictions on U.S. citizen access to the information, in order to limit "competition" from this U.S. government information service.
USIA RESTRICTS U.S. ACCESS TO NEW INTERNET SERVERS
TAP was recently contacted by Peter Ide, an American who now works for a foreign government aid program. Peter had been following the USIA WIRELESS FILE dispatches, which were available on GOPHER.USIA.GOV, searchable by keyword. A few weeks ago the WIRELESS FILE data and other USIA information disappeared from the USIA gopher. After inquiring, Peter received the following letter:
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95
From: "McGregor, James" <jmcgrego@usia.gov>
Subject: Disappearing USIA Gopher
Mr. Ide,
You received a cryptic message from my colleage Neil Lehrer about the reason for the changes in our Gopher. The "Smith-Mundt" act he referred to is legislation that prohibits USIA from distributing materials intended for overseas audiences within the U.S. We split our servers into an overseas portion (which contained the "latest items") and a domestic version, which is far less interesting but more legal.
I assume from your domain name that you are in the U.S. We are not permitted to give you the address of the server that contains the "latest items" and other material you saw in
the original version. If you are overseas, please let me know.
Regards.
James P. McGregor
USIA
Mr. Ide, advised USIA's McGregor that he was working for a foreign government, but failed to obtain the name of the "foreign" internet site from USIA. In an April 25, 1995 email
message, Mr. McGregor said:
We are under strict prohibition from giving out the name of the site in the U.S. However, your office in . . . can contact the information section at the U.S. Embassy and get the overseas address. . .
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT
TAP contacted USIA staff and reviewed the agency's authorizing statutes to understand the nature of the problem. Under a 1948 statute, known as the "Smith-Mundt" act, (22 USC
1461), USIA is prohibited from disseminating information "within the United States, its territories, or possessions," except for limited onsite inspection at USIA offices by members of the press or scholars, and should be "available for examination only to Members of Congress." The Act makes an exception for "Problems of Communism," and "English Teaching Forum," both of which may be made available through the Government Printing Office. [The full text of the statutory provision is given below.]
There are two current reasons for the dissemination prohibition. First, Congress did not want the USIA to subject the American public to government controlled news broadcasts.
Second, commercial broadcasters, who have lobbied to keep the Smith-Mundt Act bar to U.S. dissemination of USIA information in place, do not want competition from a free source of news.
The USIA Internet service began in early 1994. On January 14, 1995, the Washington Post ran an article written by John Schwartz which was critical of the USIA decision to provide information on the Internet, because of the Smith-Mundt Act. Schwartz described the USIA information as "forbidden fruit" or "propaganda," which "has been carefully withheld from Americans lest it brainwash them." Schwartz quoted Carl Malamud of the Internet Multicasting Service as saying:
They're [the USIA] winking at those very fundamental mandates from the U.S. Congress -- Ye shall not do news to the American Public. . . It's important that we understand that cyberspace is part of the real world . . . Just because it's on a computer, it doesn't mean that the basic rules don't apply.
Schwartz also quoted from an article by former FCCCommissioner Newton Minow and Annenberg Fellow Alvin Snyder, whom expressed support for eliminating the legal barrier to
dissemination of USIA information to U.S. citizens.
Shouldn't we have the opportunity to know what the United States is saying to people in Bosnia, Russia or South America . . . Yesterday's fear that such programs will 'brainwash' the American public is senseless. We get a steady stream of government views in speeches, briefings and press releases, and we are capable of reaching our own conclusions.
According to USIA officials, after the Washington Post article appeared, Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), the chair of the Senator Foreign Relations committee, began to press the agency to rein in the Internet program. Senator Helms is also said to favor the elimination of many USIA services, to be replaced by the private sector. Senator Helms' office indicated that Foreign Relations Committee staffer, Chris Walker, is working on this issue. Mr. Walker did not return telephone calls from TAP.
其他联结请参考
http://voanewsblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/audiences-targeted-by-voa-and-smith.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith-Mundt_Act
美国安全政策中心（Center for Security Policy）对1948年该法案的详细解释也值得一看。
The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948: Comments, Critiques, and the Way Forward
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Modules/NewsManager/Center%20publication%20PDFs/OCC%20Smith%20Mundt.pdf
综上所述：
美国的确存在该法案，VOA因为隶属于美国国际广播局，被禁止向美国公民广播。
另外从相关条款也可以看出，该广播直接服务于美国对外关系政策，是美国对外宣传工具。
相比下CCTV4，9，西法要和谐多了:D
PS：教主真专业
PS：教主真专业
美国法律禁止由政府控制的媒体向美国公民宣传，这一点我认为值得我们学习。
的确是真的。作为政府主办和出资的媒体，不会在美国国内播出。美国人的媒体观，对直接发自政府的宣传声音是十分警惕和厌恶的。当然，美国政府对舆论的控制是通过大财团，大财团控制几大传媒巨头。
美国的PBS（公共广播电视公司）也是公共运营，不会有政府直接干预。
美国的PBS（公共广播电视公司）也是公共运营，不会有政府直接干预。
原帖由 f22 于 2008-9-24 08:02 发表
无法证实,因为中国随便可以买到.
你怎么能证明美国就没有人想买到一部短波收音机。
专门服务于中国的