Posts by Eddie Clark
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Gareth, that simply isn't the case. Criminal law is not private - the police are free to prosecute without a complaint from a victim. Consider the alternative - if a complaint was required, the attacker of someone left in a coma could never be prosecuted.
The problem here is a lack of evidence. Saying "I lashed out" isn't the same as saying "I broke her back in 4 places". Absent a full confession from Veitch, or evidence from his ex, it'll be difficult to get a conviction.
-
James, the house you're talking about is on the corner of Karori Rd and Flers St in Wellington. I grew up 3 minutes down the road from it, and due to its uninterest with the street outlook - its actually quite ugly to look at from the outside. The only time I ever saw the inside was at that exhibition at the city gallery, and I could finally see what all the fuss is about!
-
You post makes it sound as though Sky has actually performed a public service. I may be wrong, but I reckon the residents in the households who cannot receive Sky would beg to differ; about half the population.
Furthermore, Sky recently reported 40 per cent increase in half year net profit...I wonder if they will use this money to launch more re-run channels. They might get in some quality progamming from Canada for you.
Cheap shot re the Canada thing, Simon. I'm a New Zealander, lived there for 25 years, and am back in September. Does the fact that I'm currently spending a year overseas render me incapable of commenting on NZ issues?
Also since when is it impossible for 50% of the population to receive Sky? The satellite coverage is pretty much 100%. If you mean only 50% in fact have it then yes, that's true. But that is not always a matter of "can't". I could afford Sky but decided my life wouldn't end if I couldn't see live sport, so didn't waste the money. And yes I do see it as a waste of money. Sky's programming is average and overpriced for what it is.
But this isn't about whether Sky is performing a public service. Anti-siphoning and must carry requirements are one thing (there may be some merit to these, I don't know enough about them), structural separation is another. This isn't a Telecom-style situation where the government sold a complete network to a private company who then mercilessly exploited that for the next 20 years. Sky built its network from the ground up with no government assistance whatsoever. What sort of incentive is that for infrastructure investment if you sink hundreds of millions only to have it yanked away from you?
-
As a nice soft lefty it horrfies me to be saying this, but TVNZ is completely talking out its arse. As I think one of the panelists noted, TVNZ waffles on time and again about being a public service broadcaster, which is bollocks. It's a commerical broadcaster, and the charter / public service funding it receives seems to have no relationship to it showing any better nz-related programming. It also shoehorns all sorts of complete crap (Dancing with the Stars, anyone?) with no cultural value whatsoever into the "charter" bucket, just so it can use said charter funding however it likes.
SKY spent millions and millions of dollars developing its UHF network. Then more millions buying satellite space and digital broadcast capability. This allowed it to have way more channels (and specialist channels) that the main FTA players, which meant it could afford to show more sports more frequently. Because it'd get more use out of sport rights, it can, in general afford to spend more buying them. This strategy involved them spending at least a decade in the red. It seems a little unfair to complain about the fact that they actually invested in broadcast platform.
This isn't a function of Sky being the big icky boogyman, its a function of TVNZ not getting off its ass and investing in improving its broadcast platform. Instead it followed its usual pattern of waiting for a great honking government subsidy (which it got) before it could be bothered moving. Now that it has the capacity to broadcast more sport more often on a digital channel, I'd suspect it might be prepared to bid more for sports rights, which would mean more FTA sport. We'll see, it might just try complaining until it get what it wants.
As for the Prime issue... well, I'd just note that the Commerce Commission, the people who think that Woolies or New World buying the Warehouse is going to Destroy The World were quite happy to let Sky buy Prime.
Wow, that was a bit of a rant. But TVNZ pisses me off. They started with a massive incumbency advantage, they have money thrown at them by the government (especially by Steve Maharey), and yet they still feel threatened by both Sky and CanWest.
-
Oh this is gold. Well done, David.
...I also had visions of this sort of thing being conducted in the context of an Ibsen realist drama. "Absolute Power: the Master Builder Edition."
-
Ummm...
Its on the Media 7 main page, about half way down and on the right. A little picture with you and Simon smiling, with "Video!" above it. Right next to the Media7 blog link.
-
I/S, does that for me in Firefox. Works fine on IE. "Fine" meaning that it brings up a short video telling me I can't watch it, but I'd assume it would work for you lot in NZ.
-
I found it after much looking and yes, thanks, DC red, it worked.
Russell, it's this page http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1684742
From the context, I think it's a first episode sampler/teaser thingy.
-
As seems to be standard whenever I try to watch anything on TVNZ on demand, I'm told that it is for "New Zealand viewers only". Well I'm a New Zealander and I can't view it here in the wilds of Canada. I joke, but it is quite annoying. I assume that the youtube channel and/or the podcast will be expat-viewable?
-
And if we're doing awards, how about the Garth George Prize for Creative Use of Scripture in Journalism?