I am deeply troubled by your assertion that anyone could learn the history of television in a weekend. My entire life is now a lie.
I fear the same. I am currently researching the second 25 years of television in New Zealand (1985-2010) and, one year into it, I feel I need another 5 or so years to do it full justice (policy shifts, programming, technological change, audiences etc etc). So, it is not so much that we disagree with you holus bolus, Gordon. I reckon it is individuals responding to particular assertions you make, which tend to undermine the good stuff.
That's defeatist talk, Geoff.
You misunderstand me. I was suggesting that they wouldn't wash with the current bozos we have in power. Personally, I find much to admire in ideas from Finland and other other chilly parts of the globe.
Apologies 2000 words is too much for you, Giovanni.
Well, initially I found it rather daunting, but I persisted as you have an easy, conversational style of writing, Gordon.
Re Finland. In the past I too have used it as a model for various things eg its broadcasting system, whereby the commercial channels MTV cross-subsidise the psb channels of YLE1 and 2. Nevertheless, the Finns have an attitude to public responsibility and state intervention that would never wash here--in fact, Rodders would choke on his low-cal meusli bar, even to contemplate it (and Sir Rog might have a heart attack--but say no more). When I visited there some years (in the dead of winter), they were contemplating legislation that would mean that wealthier traffic offenders would pay proportionately higher for their transgressions than lower paid Finns. ( Maybe that would be a good idea--or base it on size of vehicle, with Hummer drivers having to pay X10 what a Honda Civic driver would pay!)
telling RNZ their budget could be frozen for the next 5 years.
The current activities and soundings-off of Coleman look very much like political interference in broadcasting. I agree that NatRad is essential to the NZ broadcasting mix but I sometimes wonder who their audience is. Increasingly, I don't think it is me. I turned off over summer, not wanting to hear more of an extended joke that has worn thin (Matinee Idle), and the 'guests' they bring for the weekday pm Panel are just too much The Usual Suspects ie people who already have ample access to the public discourse, or are just too predictable. RNZ needs to be braver, take more risks, call on opinion outside the usual circles. liven up Sunday mornings. The programming on Saturday (am and pm) is the sort of stuff they should be doing more of, IMHO.
Two teams from Tiraspol, the capital of Transnistria, play in the Ukraine Rugby League: Dynamo-Center and Olimp-Electronmash.
Paul: Your scholarship continues to astound me. How many teams played in the Oompa-Loompa League?
Quoth the raven, 404, dude.
Sorry about that. If you go directly to www.theory.org.uk/
Trading Cards pops up immediately, in the middle of the front page. There is other good stuff too.
Hang on, who said the top 5% are necessarily privileged?
I thought someone might ask. By being identified as "gifted"
She said the top, gifted children and the bottom, worst-performing children
What a bloody stupid proposition. So, we will see this top 5% chauffeured to Auckland Grammar and the bottom 20% put on a bus to some already over-crowded school? Why should the already privileged 5% get more privileges?
What bothers me most is that the Maori Party seems to be part of this extremely stupid idea.
Take a look at what David Gauntlett is offering on his media theory site, at www.theory.org.uk/cards.htm
they were giving an aggressive positive spin to viewer numbers.
In wake of the Beijing Olympics, there were all kinds of viewing figures being tossed around. I read, variously, of claims of 87% and 94% of the Chinese population tuning into the event. But I couldn't find how such claims were constructed--nor who were the 6% allegedly not tuning in (the deaf, blind and the incarcerated?)
With all such audience claims, I think you need to add a whole bag of salt!