Posts by Marcus Turner
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
@Wammo. I've observed a tendency with subscription models, in order to increase (or maintain) profitability, to include advertising, too. I think it would take a certain determination on the part of somebody running a subscription TV company to resist this trend. And they'd be acting against their own financial interest.
-
@Andin: I don't think most New Zealanders are more careworn than those of previous generations; possibly less-so than those who lived in times of war or depression.
I think television - like theatre, movies and band gigs - is mostly used for recreation.
What makes you think that personal interactions are worse now than they have been?
@Kyle: To "break even on the broadcast" is a considerable challenge. Television programmes are so expensive to make that many of them (including some of those mentioned by other subscribers as numbering among their favourites) can only be made with funding from a number of different broadcasters - each with different needs. Each needs to recoup the amount that it invested in the programme or series. Some may not have gained any rights to DVD sales or other forms of dissemination for their investment.
-
This is a big topic, about which a number of subscribers seem to have very firm opinions. I can't tell what evidence many of these opinions are based on.
The point of "an argument" - for me - is not at all to win; simply to test my ideas. I go into discussions with a genuine preparedness to have my mind changed, based on verifiable evidence.
To begin with, I'd refer everyone ot a collection of articles in the Economist about 2 weeks ago. There's clear evidence that many people are watching television: I think that one of the articles produced evidence that more people (in the US, I think) are watching television than getting similar programming by other means.
"Television" to me is more like "publishing" than like "books". It consists of the equivalent of magazines, novels and newspapers.
I think most people use free-to-air broadcasting when they want to rest from the cares of their day. They're not looking for education or enlightenment, particularly, but rather for entertainment. The fact that you or I might not be using television in this way might simply mean that we're in a minority ("a" minority rather than "the" minority).
If the future of television in New Zealand follows that of the US, we'll have many many more channels, each claiming a much smaller portion of the viewing audience than the three free-to-air channels that once monopolised television. Advertising revenue is now split three hundred ways instead of three. This affects the amount per minute that can be spent on programming.
If a television station/channel is run as a business, then it's obliged to please shareholders. If those shareholders demand increased returns, then even a subscription channel is tempted run advertisements, and move "down-market", where the audiences are larger.
The future of television, and the future of programming seem to me to be tied but not joined at the hip: other subscribers have already referred to the internet and other means of dissemination.
Newspapers have shown that there is a "market" for "good" journalism. Book publishers have shown that there is a "market" for "good" literature.
The present television funding model suits certain sorts of programming - much of which clearly doesn't suit some subscribers here. And I think something like it will continue to exist, 'cos there's money to be made.
The challenge - whether within "television" or other media - is to find funding models which suit "minority" tastes.
-
This seems apposite. I came across it in the Futility Closet this morning:
“A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.” — William James
-
@Kate
My friend Clive used to like "The Israelites" when he was a kid, but he misheard the words; he'd sing "OOOOOOoooooh my ears are alight".
It definitely has something.
-
Is "==" some "C" thing that I've missed again?
-
@Hilary
My understanding about where the energy comes from is this:
The earth's continents are floating, and move around on currents generated by heat rising from within the earth.
If you've ever made jam, you may have seen the "scum" moving around as the jam underneath bubbles. I think of the continents as doing this: moving at about the same speed your fingernail grows.
The continents will eventually stop moving when the earth's heat is used up, I guess.
-
Sorry if this has been posted before.
It seems relevant: http://propr.ca/2010/thornley-fallis-new-online-communications-policy/
-
I sometimes think, whenever "public interest" is discussed, that there's misunderstanding about what the term means.
As I understand it, "public interest" doesn't mean what is "of interest" to the public but what is in the interest(s) of the public; i.e. concerning the welfare of the public.
(I think the roots of the word are something about making a difference.)
That indicates to me that: just because something is interesting doesn't necessarily mean you have a right to tell the public. To qualify for that, it must be something that concerns the welfare of the public.
I can't see any way that someone's sexual orientation affects public welfare (though it might be argued that a politician's infidelity to a partner is an indication of lack of honesty).
On another point, I note that people buy and read newspapers that have gossip in them. I'm not always clear that the fact that there's a market for something is enough reason to make a product available (I know there's a market for marijuana, snuff movies, homeopathic remedies and cocaine - but not at all sure which of these should be made available to the public.)
(And I've learned to be wary of anyone who is sure about this sort of thing....) -
Here's an interesting perspective from Utah.