While we're ragging on 3news, how about that plane crash-landing the other night. The promo advised "find out how many people got out".
The answer?: all of them.
3 News seems to be progressively adopting every annoying tic of One News circa five years ago -- in this case, pointless and irritating teasers.
Dunno yet about Merhtens, but perhaps there's a first five thing happening. If they're any good they're good at reading the game and what is going to happen next.
I think one welcome thing Mehrts is doing is asking questions in interviews -- rather than barking a proposition at the subject and looking for a nod. John Preston is the worst offender. We've sometimes sat through whole interviews waiting for him to ask an actual questions, and he never does.
Quite liking James Ryan too. But did anyone else think for a while that the TV3 watermark was a silver fern logo he'd shaved in his bonce?
I know it's shooting fish in a barrel, but someone at TV3 "News" needs to be smacked hard on the head with a frying pan: the third or fourth item in this evening's news was some crap about whether Paris Hilton might like an NZer for a boyfriend.
Just saw it. An example of everything that's wrong with TV news. Having bagged the Herald's Derek Cheng for a silly Wikipedia beat-up that turned out to be not his idea at all, I'm charitably assuming that Leanne Malcolm was instructed to take that line of questioning.
So how did this success/failure (choose your spin) lead to the decision to fund programming for cellphones and youTube? Is this not another example of where bureaucracies create work for themselves in order to continue to feed at the trough?
I think it was a very reasonable use of an innovation fund to try a new format, although my guess is that the killer video on mobile is going to be user-generated. Vodafone's Self Central -- which allows kids to sell each other short clips for 25 cents -- is surprisingly big.
The amendment introduced by Maharey plugs a significant gap in programme funding: only the broadcast component of a programme can be supported at present, not any web or mobile collateral that might be attac hed to it. This is actually starting to hurt New Zealand programmes in overseas markets.
The interesting part will be where the intellectual property in an associated website lies. It seems terribly fiddly to have the kind of rights split that applies to programmes themselves, but you don't want either broadcasters or producers capturing something the public is paying for.
How much money will she have left over after flying in the Ingham Twins, paying Paul's salary, and paying TVNZ for all that archive footage?
I think Julie's quite good at having plenty left over.
Whatever will NZOA think of next? Funding programming specificly for cellphones? Didn't Vodafone already do that? And wasn't it a ratings loser when rebroadcast on C4?
MyStory? NZ On Air funded it from their Innovation fund (but it still had to screen first on TV to stay inside the Broadcasting Act). Vodafone managed to come up with a workable deal, Telecom couldn't.
It wasn't a big commercial success, but I actually thought the series itself was pretty good. Interesting point: now screening again on C4 in conventional 30 min blocks -- and rating much better.
Imagine if they funded the news?
The news being funded out of TVNZ's commercial activity is the bulwark of its political independence. If that was to change -- say, in the case of TV2 being sold and One being made non-commercial -- there would have to be huge changes in governance to keep it clean.
With you there, Simon. Have you seen a three-part doco called Pump Up the Volume? It really illuminates the original Chicago house scene and what made it tick.
You might also add the reggae sound systems (the original hip hop DJ, Kool Herc, was a Jamaican), which were the source of ideas about sound that predated hip-hop and house.
Oh, and I do still love standing in front of a guitar band that has something happening ...
BRING IT ON, I SAY!
OTOH, there's the likes of Damian Christie's intelligent and informative (that's a pinot gris, thanks Damian) take on the PC's 'Asian Angst' decision. TV reporting can be good, it just quite often isn't. I like to think Damian's stuff is a bit different because he haz teh blog knowledge ...
Does anyone know how to indent this? HOw come everyone else can do this? Anyway, from Craig's post:
See in the little instructions in grey to the left of the box you're typing in? Where it says "Quote:". Type that formatting and put your text where it says "text".
I find 6pm is the ideal time to cook dinner. If I time it right, it's cooking but not yet ready to be served by sports news time, which is increasingly the only bit worth watching.
A bit tragic that , but yeah. I sometimes arrange the cooking so I can sit down for the sports news and don't watch of the rest. With the 7pm current affairs shows, I'm almost always time-shifting -- either with the PVR or later on the respective websites -- because a certain member of the household has to watch Shortie.
One of the things that annoyed me about Ralston's column was its focus on personality and celebrity. That's a scenario of TVNZ's own making -- it was a deliberate ploy when TV3 launched to remake presenters as personalities -- and one that it can perhaps unmake. A TVNZ executive actually told me this year that the focus in news was shifting to facts, rather than the person delivering them. Hey, that just might be crazy enough to work ...