mewcomm

Real Hams Real Radios (No Coders need not apply)

Cruising Ham Radio outlet today in Burbank, Ca. Saw the new Icom  7600 xcvr.  An elegant radio. And beautiful in style.  Yes, I want one.

 

As a kid the KWM-2 was "the" transciever to own. Of course I couldn't. Hell it wasn't even a consumer product like the Kenwood/Yaesu/Icom lines of today.  It was Mil-Spec!

Though I did operate an S-Line in the Army a few times. I "volunteered" at the MARS station at Ft. Benning a few weekends. They were happy to have me, after they saw I could run traffic. The  Mars Ops would take off for a few hours on Sat. and let the kid from the Infantry Scout Dog Handler school across the street run traffic.

When I came back to Ham  Radio in the early 80's it was the Kenwood TS-830 I bought. Considered by many to have been the finest vacuum tube transceiver ever made. The perfect platform for a pair of 6146's.

   

And then by the late 80's real hams moved on to the Kenwood TS-940 as the ultimate base station. They weren't perfect, but supremely fun to operate and actually took a basic understanding of RF concepts and electronics.

  

Looking back there is one thing these descendants of the KWM-1/KWM-2 shared. Even today the design of the 7600 has evolved from the Collins S-line in physical layout, center tune VFO knob, af gain placement, xmit tuning etc.   The seductive allure of the emerging  SDRs, not withstanding. I'll take these hard wired boxes every time.

Non Profit Journalism? Maybe, but it's hard to see.

Can "non profit" models of journalism be effective?  This concept is being offered up to fill the void of newspapers that are laying off investigative reporters "left and right". I'm doubtful.

Blogger and media observer Jaclyn Schiff asks,  "What are the limitations" of non profit journalism (serious journalism that is)?

In an online editorial  Charles Lewis & Bruce Sievers   "All the News that's fit to Finance" accurately describe the dire straits ad supported journalism faces.   The business is imploding faster than most of us could have imagined.  The Non-Profit model as called for by various news thinkers is a good option.  But here's where I'm skeptical.

One of the greatest investigative journalism stories of my generation (I'm not talking about  Watergate!  :) ) was the Pentagon Papers crisis. An event Jaclyn surely studied as a student at GWU!  The story was broken by Neil Sheehan of the NY Times and subsequent releases by Daniel Schorr of CBS news. It caused a "Firestorm" in Washington. It was a domestic crisis of enormous magnitude over the Vietnam war  involving the White House, DoD and the Justice department and the press itself. And it challenged the very rationale of a free press and it's role in our nation.

I remember watching Schorr ( I had to go to the library for the NY Times in those days) on TV reporting  the story in the summer of 1971 as a just home from Vietnam student at the University of Texas. It was stunning to watch and read.  In  that analog era, to hear the story reported by Daniel Schorr of CBS news gave it a powerful thrust! This wasn't just anyone it was CBS News and the NY Times!   

So why couldn't a Non-Profit vehicle report such a story now?  They could.  But without the institutional infrastructure of the "Grey Lady" or the huge impact of being one of only three TV networks I believe the story would have far less impact.  With respect to Naomi Klein (Branding matters!).  I knew even then that the NY Times was staffed with serious journalists and a commitment to the highest ethical standards. And moreover they would risk jail to publish such a story!

Could a non-profit news vehicle develop a reputation of journalism excellence? Maybe. And with a wide following?  Unknown.  I think that niche/non-profit reporting while valid will struggle to be heard above the high velocity cacophony of information out there. And the last issue: "Is serious journalism even valued any longer?" Valued enough for citizens to voluntarily pay for it?  I think we know the answer.

I don't know how this plays out. (Like you I'm watching!).  But there is a supreme irony in that we now have more information choices than ever and we're wondering whether the nation is better served. 

Neil Sheehan went on to write "A Bright and Shinning Lie" about Vietnam (and for which he won a Pulitzer prize).  It was a mesmerizing read from a world class reporter. Will we have "world class" reporters anymore? Can they "break out" and be heard? And recognized for their work? Or will they drown in the torrent of words, images and sounds that flood into our lives each day?

I'm not 'cool' enough for Facebook.

I joined Facebook today. My son said I was "late to the party". I dutifully looked around. Even checked out some acquaintances and former colleagues. What I saw just isn't for me.

Observer of Digital culture, Andrew Keen has written extensively about  the Narcissism of the all connected  era.  Facebook  is certainly a place for that. Yet Facebook is not pretentious.  It's a "SOCIAL" network. Good for them!  And clearly they do what they do very well.

No doubt many people find useful engagement on the platform.  But Facebook is not my cup of tea .

Analog Photographer in the Digital Era

If you're a student of photojournalism or a member of the Washington DC press Corps in the 70's and 80's you will  recognize Pulitzer Prize winning photographer David Hume Kennerly . Kennerly is often referred to as a "Political Photographer" after his many years in Washington.  Other American Political Photographers include PF Bentley, Dirck Halstead Wally McNamee, and Diana Walker.  These were huge visual journalists in the Pre-Digital era.  A photo by one of these photographers on the  cover of Time, Life or Newsweek could shape events in a way 1000 images cannot in the visually flooded world of the Internet.  There will not be another group like them. And I was lucky enough to have met all in the group.

Today as I walked through the media compound at the Michael Jackson Memorial service I was surprised to see  a prominent "analog' photographer from the Pre-Digital Era  shooting  images with his CELL PHONE!!!  I pulled up my camera and squeezed off the image below.

Photographically it's not much. But there's much symbolism in the image. Think about it. I did!

WA4D Ham Radio 1982 "Hinckley Beach"

FLASHBACK: WA4D "Special Event Station"  1982

In June 1982 as a Cameraman for NBC News based in Washington D.C. every Saturday for a month I was assigned to stake out the U.S. Federal Courthouse where the trial of attempted Presidential assassin John Hinckley was underway. All the networks and the print media set up on the front lawn of the courthouse. (This was back when Federal Courthouse security was waaaay more lax than it is today.) Our job was to await new developments and the lawyers would periodically come out and stand in front of the microphones and update the press.  We in the Press Corps called the setting, "Hinckley Beach" since it was summer and little happened until the end of the trial.  We'd bring lawn chairs, coolers and umbrellas to beat the DC summer heat and humidity.

One weekend, I threw my Kenwood TS-130 HF rig in the microwave truck and and a Hustler Mobile Whip that I mounted on an upside down trash can (a faux ground) and set it up on the roof of the van. A Washington Post photographer thought my radio set up was interesting and shot the photo above. It didn't make it into the paper, but he sent me a copy.

My recollection is, I worked alot of DX on 15 meters that day. Foreign Hams would express surprise when I told them where I was operating from. Surely operating from the courthouse would be prohibited!  I was on the air, MC-60 mic in hand when this photo taken. It was fun.

"I don't like you! Really I don't!"

Why do so many Twitterers follow dozens and dozens of other Twitterers?  I don't get it. Yes Twitter has burst on the scene in the past year and offers some intriguing new ways of communicating socially. The truncated 140 character limit keeps the verbose reined in and the ability to link to various other forms of media is also useful. But how much of it do you really want to see?

Indeed why aren't people more selective?  I don't want to follow lots of people. When I first received a  "John Doe is following you on Twitter" I was deluded into believing that someone actually cared about what I might have to say! It was a Sally Field moment:  "I can't deny the fact that you like me! You really really like me!"  It's ridiculous!  Take a random look at active Twitterers. Many follow dozens and dozens of other Twitterers! 

When I receive a "following alert", I take a peek at the person's postings. If I feel they are especially bright, perceptive, witty or unique, I follow. The majority don't make the cut. I don't like them. Further, I dump those whose postings fail to live up to their initial promise.

Why would one just follow anyone else just because they're following you? Is there some sense of reciprocity? Do you feel "guilty" for not following someone who follows you? (I don't)   Do you like everyone you meet walking down the street? Of course not. (FYI for you Ham Radio operators, I have never  sent a QSL card  just because someone requested one.I send  cards only to those who I engage with in some form of meaningful/amusing or interesting discourse.)

Most Twitterers need to cleanse their "following" box and cull down to a few that fit their interests or curiosity and discard the many who bring so little creativity to the party.  Engage with a small group on an intellectually stimulating level.   The rest are just noise.