“To find out more, let’s cross live to a junior journo who’s somewhere less than ten kilometres from the place where the incident actually occurred several hours earlier.”
Honestly if you wanted to save bucks on the news etc you'd kill almost all those live crosses.
Sure if there is actually something to see then a camera on site makes sense but really we've all seen what the outside of a supermarket look like so the reporter standing in the rain outside added nothing to the news.
I assumed you meant taking the afternoon off to physically go to the ground and watch?
And I assumed that with online multi-player games there was some advantage in being among the first in?
But then, I don’t do sport (other than my annual ski trip), I don’t watch telly and I don’t do games.
Far be it from me to stop you judging others, that's perfectly acceptable :).
As for the cricket, I went home to specifically watch it on TV, all by myself. Weird yes but I wanted to. I could have gone to Eden Park but I enjoy ODIs more on TV but "live".
As for WoW, actually the reverse, at the time of release the game is usually buggy and the servers so overloaded the experience is less than optimal - but somehow weirdly fun.
I threw in the soccer game because it was what "normal people" do :)
Do so many people really take GoT so seriously that they take time off work to watch it immediately on release?
No different to taking the afternoon off to watch cricket
Or to play WoW on the day they release new content
Or to go to your child’s first soccer game
Ergo, the rights that Sky, TVNZ, MediaWorks, and Lightbox pay for directly contribute to the ongoing production of content.
And then they charge me double or triple or ten times that. All for the privilege of buying from them what I could just as easily buy direct.
Sure I get that Netflix is probably getting more traffic than they paid for, that should not be my problem.
The thing is back when these systems were set up local distributors actually contributed something to the chain. Now that simply is not true, Lightbox and their ilk contribute nothing. Why should I give them any money at all.
And as for paying VPN services I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they are cheaper than Lightbox and co by a country mile.
Sure they consolidate - but frankly I don't need another set of steak knives - I already have the best ones in the world
Surely they pay content licenses which in theory go to the creators (though more likely the producers)? That’s no different to what say Netflix US do.
As far as I can tell, I could buy from Netflix who pay the creators (the producers who pay the creators) and pay $X
Or I can buy from Lightbox who pay Netflix who pay the creators (the producers who pay the creators) and pay $X+$Y
That $Y goes where? Certainly not to the creators.
For me as a consumer the question is pretty simple
How do I ensure that the money I pay to view, actually results in the creation of content I enjoy?
Back in the day local book distributors served a purpose, they got books to NZ that I would have no other way of accessing, same for TV/movie distribution companies. They were the ONLY way I could pay the creator for the product.
That they all clipped the ticket as it went past was a pain, but it was just the only way it could work.
So what does lightbox contribute to the path from my bank account to the creator?
The answer would appear to be nothing. They are manipulating a legacy distribution structure for their own profit. Capitalists amongst us would pat them on the back, good effort spotting the opportunity to make a buck off me.
But for me, wanting to pay the creator, they just stole some of the creator's money for no benefit.
Frankly the vague threats for the local content creation community just highlight how morally bankrupt Lightbox and co are, sorry Ms Niblock that's a harsh judgement and comes across as nastier than I would personally like to be but I didn't force you to take up the role you chose.
I accept that legally Lightbox an co might be in the right, that isn't necessarily something you should be proud of.
I also wonder about how rarely National MPs appear on the show, as if there was some directive to only appear on shows where the questions make National look good.
In what reality is describing aid to a country hit by disaster = fluff?????
In other words, he’s a good journalist.
You are right.
The problem is that when compared to the wittering sycophants Hosking and Henry, Campbell’s lack of bias comes across as being left wing.
Wouldn’t it be almost certainly more cost-effective to turn TVNZ into a proper public service broadcaster?
Certainly. But then you get Hosking not Campbell