All 62 entries tagged Media

They're not all scum

I think the Telegraph, and others, have gone too far with MP’s expenses now.

Yes, some of them are money-grabbing little sh*ts who deserve the marching orders they’ll be given at the next election.

But some of the MPs who’ve had their expenses splashed across the newspapers really have done nothing wrong.

The Daily Mail have the news that Oliver Letwin claimed £2,000 to replace a leaking pipe under his tennis court. His response that:

I was served a statutory notice by the water company to repair the leaking pipe, which runs underneath the tennis court and garden. No improvements were made to the tennis court or garden.”

seems to have been pretty much ignored – the paper’s still run the story and painted him as an expenses cheat in the process.

Another overblown example is the Prime Minister – yes his cleaner seems to be flipping expensive, but suggesting he was siphoning off public money to line his brother’s pockets is pretty close to an outright lie, and yet it’s the impression most people will now have.

I’m not too worried about individual MPs being slandered though – their electorate will see through the media bluster at the next election.

But I think the general ‘they’re all at it’ mood of the press is going to be really damaging. With a change of government more than likely, you’d expect turnout at the next election to be higher than 2001 and 2005.

But if the public think politicians are universally a breed of tight-fisted, public money-stealing good-for-nothings then it wouldn’t surprise me if turnout actually dropped. What, after all, is the point of voting for anyone if every politician is bent?

Gordon Brown’s claim that the system is at fault is nearly half-right, but it takes a certain kind of person to exploit that system.

However, the media’s completely over-the-top wall-to-wall coverage of the 650+ liars, cheats and bastards will do nothing for the public’s faith in democracy. And if that breaks down, we really are screwed.

Christopher Doidge : 11 May 2009 12:54 |  Tags: Media Mps Expenses Newspapers Politics |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Jack Bauer – A shadow of his former kick–ass self

Oh Jack Bauer, how much I loved you in the old days when you were blonde and had a daughter that kissed you goodnight and a wife who wasn’t, you know, dead.

I started watching Season 1 of ‘24’ again yesterday. The wave of nostalgia emanating from the TV screen was awe-inspiring. Remember the days of Standard Definition? Of dodgy sound editing? Of bad haircuts?

Remember when 24 was actually good?

The experience was depressing. Because it made me remember just how face-crunchingly abysmal 24 has become. We’re now on Season 7, and the show should be on a life-support machine.

Every plot twist is recycled from an earlier season. Even characters Just. Won’t. DIE. and keep making miraculous returns, presumably to cut down on the need for casting directors.

But worst of all, the show just doesn’t know where it’s going, what it’s doing or what it’s about.

Villains come and go faster than Jack can say ‘sonofabitch’. Their dastardly plan changes from one minute to the next. Civilians die in their hundreds and the fictional CNN seems to forget about it ten minutes later. And Jack has to defeat his arch enemy Every Fricking Hour just to keep the audience happy.

Well I’m not an American simpleton with a thirst for blood and a desire for Jack to win every round.

There is literally a scene in the first episode of that first season when a character tells Jack exactly what will happen for the whole season. Terrorists will try and kill a Presidential Candidate. That’s it.

Now, the writers would be hard pressed to sustain an idea that simple for ten minutes, let alone 24 hours.

In Season 1, Jack had a team. Yes, two of them were moles, but he had relationships with people. Now he is, to quote Judi Dench’s M, a “blunt instrument”.

24 was revolutionary, and not just because of the way it was told in real-time. It led to hundreds of drama serials which rejected the traditional one-episode, one-story format of CSI, ER and Law & Order. Lost and Prison Break were just two of the more successful attempts to tell one story across six months of television.

And it was also the show that gave us hacksaw decapitations.

24’s not just a lurking shadow of its former self.

It’s as blunt as a spoon.

Christopher Doidge : 24 Feb 2009 09:00 |  Tags: 24 Abc Fox Lost Media Television United States |  Comments (3) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

BBC and the DEC

Another week, another “BBC in crisis” news story.

Should the Beeb have broadcast the DEC’s emergency appeal on Gaza? Probably.

But Israel/Palestine is, following the Balen Report, a very soft spot for the Corporation.

In the recent crisis, the BBC seems to have done fairly well. Its coverage was criticised equally by Jews, Muslims and neutrals, which is an unreliable, but slightly useful guide to where any bias might lay.

But, I can’t bring myself to fully lay into the BBC on their decision not to broadcast tonight’s appeal.

Take a look at this list of appeals that the DEC has made since its inception.

Famine in Africa, Darfur, Chad, Niger, the Asian tsunami, cyclones, hurricanes, floods and earthquakes.

I just don’t think the crisis in Gaza quite compares.

Don’t get me wrong. Over one and a half million people live in the Strip, many of them without running water, electricity or heating. More than a thousand have just died.

But help is already on its way. Western governments are throwing resources at Gaza. The problem is not a lack of resources, but a lack of access. Israel has blocked the borders to the strip for all but humanitarian aid, making the long-term rebuilding of Gaza all but a dream.

Yes, it will cost billions, but the will to succeed there is much higher at government level than the many naturally-occuring disasters the DEC has raised money for in the past.

So, let me repeat, this is a worthy charitable cause.

But when the BBC is already under pressure for bias in the region, and the effectiveness of the aid is under question, I can’t entirely blame them for what does, at first glance, look like an inhumane decision.

Mark Thompson, the Beeb’s Director-General, does have a habit of coming across as an autobot, especially when he’s under fire.

But his case that the BBC has done more than most to make us aware of the suffering is a good one.

Click here to donate to the DEC appeal

=====

MP Blogger Tom Harris makes another great point:

The demonstration and occupation by the Stop The War Coalition at the BBC’s Glasgow headquarters actually makes it harder for objective editorial decisions to be made: do we really want to institute a new editorial system at the nation’s most prestigious broadcaster, whereby the loudest, most aggressive and persistent protesters always have their way?

No, we don’t. I hope MPs who vote for the Early Day Motion condemning the BBC are aware of this argument.

Christopher Doidge : 26 Jan 2009 13:00 |  Tags: Aid BBC Broadcasting Charity Dec Gaza Israel Journalism Media Palestine |  Comments (2) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Deja View

There’s been much oxygen expended recently on the question of the future of the BBC.

And all of it seems to have missed the obvious. The £100m question.

What is the point of BBC Three?

The channel feels like a box-ticker. It’s designed to appeal to that audience that the BBC doesn’t cater to particularly well. And yet, it doesn’t do the job much better.

Ratings

Firstly, how many people watch it? Well, each week, around a third of people living in ‘Digital’ homes (those with Freeview, Sky etc.) see something on it. Which doesn’t sound too bad. BBC One, for comparison, is at 85%. But when you look at share (how much of the week’s television is made up of watching BBC Three) the numbers are less good.

Its weekly share is just 1.5%, lower than ITV2 and even ITV3.

Now, BBC Three is only on from 7pm each night, so perhaps this isn’t a fair comparison. But with the massive promotion the channel gets on BBC One and BBC Two, you’d expect it to beat ITV2 for the number of people it reaches it week. It doesn’t.

Quality

Is this because the programs are rubbish? Well, not particularly. The channel’s boosted by the amount of high-quality material like Doctor Who, EastEnders and Gavin and Stacey. Much of what they show is far superior in quality and appeal than what you get on other digital channels.

Repeats

So that leads us to the real reason it doesn’t do as well as it should.

It’s full of repeats.

I looked through the TV guide yesterday and was genuinely astonished at the number of repeats. Last night (Sunday) had one new programme, which was actually a retrospective of a previous series. Tonight has just one hour of ‘newness’ – “My 22 Stone Dad And Skinny Me”. Not exactly ground-breaking or original. Tomorrow’s schedule has another hour of new programmes. And Wednesday has precisely none.

Across my sample 40 hours of viewing, the channel is showing 37 hours of repeats.

Believe it or not, the BBC is trying to extend the channel’s hours.

Now, let’s be clear. I’m not against the BBC having a repeats channel. It might be quite a good idea. But why market BBC Three to the one age-group least likely to be tempted by repeats? Why claim the channel is a test-bed for programmes before they hit other channels when they’re not making anything original (Gavin & Stacey and Little Britain being extremely rare exceptions)?

And why suck up around £90m a year when 90% of your output has, largely, already been paid for?

The BBC ought to admit that BBC Three is a pointless luxury it can’t afford right now.

Christopher Doidge : 19 Jan 2009 10:11 |  Tags: BBC BBC Three Media Television |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The wacky world of newspaper ownership

Ordinarily, the news that a Russian billionaire is buying one of Britain’s best-known newspapers, the Evening Standard, would be cause for surprise, and maybe even concern.

But Alexander Lebedev is no ordinary Russian billionaire.

True, he is ex-KGB, as almost any successful Russian seems to need to be nowadays.

But Lebedev also owns Novaya Gazeta – the newspaper that Anna Politkovskaya was reporting for before her assassination in 2006.

Lebedev’s fought back against a suffocating regime in Russia – he should have no problem dealing with City Hall and Westminster.

His bigger challenge will be trying to make money out of the Standard, whose finances apparently resemble a leaky bucket.

Christopher Doidge : 15 Jan 2009 15:12 |  Tags: Evening Standard Journalism Media Newspapers |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

BBC–ITV marriage is probably a good thing

It’s looking more likely that the BBC and ITV are going to merge some of their regional TV news operations.

In a year or two, it’s more than possible that your local BBC and ITV bulletins will come from the same building, using many of the same pictures and one or two of the same staff.

I think this is probably the only way the duopoly of regional television news can be saved.

ITV is trying to shed some of its responsibility for producing public service television. I feel that’s partly because they’ve got a good point that in a country with 700 television channels, the iPlayer and the internet, ITV can’t maintain the level of service they had in the 1970s. But I think it’s also because they’re trying to be a bit cheeky and squeeze more profit out of what remains a privileged position.

This deal, if it goes ahead, could well prop up the status quo, and might even improve bulletins. There should be more pictures to go around. More small-scale events will find a cameraman is available, and you’re more likely to be featured twice on the telly, rather than once.

But some staff – particularly, I would guess – cameramen, will probably go as a result of this.

That’s more bad news for journalism – an industry that’s shrinking faster than Northern Rock’s share price did last year.

But the deal to share resources will give us two competing bulletins until 2016 at least. That’s good news – and should give us better news.

^{P.S. The technical aspects of this are hilarious. I’d imagine a merger of their operations will only work if they’re using the same systems. ITV use something called iNews. The BBC use something called ENPS. Both are completely different, and I’m not sure they can share things very easily while using two. In the short term, this deal could be more expensive than it looks.}

^{P.P.S. The deal will be a bigger culture shock for the BBC than for ITV staff, I reckon. The number of press conferences that the BBC still sends three teams to is mind-boggling.}

Christopher Doidge : 13 Jan 2009 17:13 |  Tags: BBC Itv Journalism Media |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

All hail homogeneity

It’s a sad day for radio today. The first of several dozen local radio stations are losing their identity and becoming Heart.

Global Radio bought GCap Media last year, and today some of the former GCap stations start using the new name.

I’ll be particularly sad to see Chiltern FM go. I grew up listening to it in the years that Radio 1 was full of loud rubbish. From today, it’s just Heart.

The changes go beyond the name though. There’ll be less local news, fewer local presenters and more ‘networked’ programming. The long and short of it is that it’s less likely the next Chris Moyles or Scott Mills will come from commercial radio.

Moyles presented a brilliantly funny show on Chiltern around ten years ago. Today a presenter on the station wouldn’t be allowed to talk for more than thirty seconds between songs, let alone try to be funny.

I’m not upset that Heart, as a national brand, is coming into being. It should have happened years ago. Commercial radio would have had a much more successful decade if it had a national, contemporary music station broadcasting on FM. All it has had up to now is Classic FM.

But using local radio frequencies to create this national brand is sad, and not what they were designed for. They might have been full of local people trying to imitate Radio 2, but at least they were local.

Christopher Doidge : 05 Jan 2009 07:00 |  Tags: Broadcasting Gcap Media Global Radio Media Radio |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

The future of news… BYOB

Time for a gaze into my crystal ball.

I think I’ve seen the future of television news… and it’s called BYOB.

Nothing to do with beer, though. It’s my acronym for Build Your Own Bulletin.

The more TV news bulletins I watch, the more frustrated I get. There’s next to never any technology news, increasingly little foreign affairs and too much speculative ‘cure for cancer’ health news.

TV news is also frustrating because I’ve got a fair idea how expensive it is to produce. The number of people sat in a room behind Huw Edwards or Fiona Bruce would beggar belief. Running a 24-hour news channel is a mammoth undertaking. BBC News 24 costs somewhere between £40-50m per year, Sky News a little less.

So, what’s the alternative?

Rather than a linear, 24-hour operation with 30-minute showcase ‘bulletins’ at regular intervals, the televisual equivalent of RSS feeds. Seamlessly stitched together in a Flash video (like BBC iPlayer), a series of news reports, pre-recorded two-ways and interviews selected according to your tastes. You choose the type of story you’re interested in (UK, Politics, Health, Sport) and rank them according to importance. Then a broadcaster (let’s call it the BBC) makes stories for each of those categories, and ranks them according to their editorial importance. Some sort of algorithm works out how to order your news bulletin, and with the help of some recorded studio links for each piece, a 5, 15 or 30 minute news bulletin is delivered to your computer screen or TV. The unfussy could just choose a generic ‘top stories’ bulletin.

The best bit of all of this is the cheap method of distribution means there’s more money to go out and do journalism. Lengthy news packages might come back into fashion, and consumers would have far greater choice. Imagine a world where every Premiership football game has its own TV preview, every major speech in Parliament gets the analysis it deserves and every important judicial decision is explained in full.

My idea would have seemed a bit implausible a couple of years ago. But things have changed. IPTV (internet protocol television) is a reality, and works. It’s like YouTube on your telly, and it’s not sci-fi. I’ve got it at home and it’s great. It’ll be popular within a year, and widespread within five.

So after 75 years, linear TV channels could become a thing of the past. But surely the news channel, with its enormous costs, small audiences and one-size-fits-all model to news, should be the first to go.

Christopher Doidge : 02 Jan 2009 09:00 |  Tags: BBC Broadcasting Future Journalism Media News Television |  Comments (1) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

How many TV execs does it take to waste £945m?

Reading Andy Duncan’s (the boss of Channel 4) reaction to the BBC’s post-Media Apocalypse plans, you kind of have to respect the guy’s nerve.

[Their proposals are] overdue recognition from the BBC that it should be using its privileged position to help support the broader public service ecology.

Andy Duncan, you see, seems to view Channel 4 not as a commercial broadcaster, owned by the nation, but as a charity.

How the company makes £945m in revenue each year and only manages to generate a profit of £1.6m* is beyond me. Is it being run like a 1960s cannabis-filled temple of peace and love, or a business?

Its public service obligations aren’t an enormous burden – a few hours on just one of its four channels. So how are they managing to drag the whole company down to the point where it’s only just breaking even?

One possible solution being bandied around is to give them BBC Worldwide. It, in stark contrast to C4, makes £916m in revenue each year, of which £112m is profit.

Based on Channel 4’s financial performance to date, it would be a bit like letting Zippy, George and Bungle take over Google.

^{*Yes, I know they’re a publicly-owned company and so don’t make profit in the traditional sense, but the figure suggests they’re only just about scraping by.}

Christopher Doidge : 11 Dec 2008 15:52 |  Tags: Broadcasting Channel 4 Media |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Up the Thames without a paddle

The organisers of the Boat Race look a bit silly now that ITV has, not altogether surprisingly, lost interest in broadcasting it.

They sneakily fled the BBC back in 2004, in order to try and cash in on greater sponsorship opportunities (oh, and more money).

Now, ITV’s said it’s bored of the race, which doesn’t fit with its football, football and boxing approach to sport.

It’ll almost certainly go back to the Beeb.

Barney Ronay at the Guardian reckons it shouldn’t though. He says:

Taken purely as a sporting event it’s not immediately clear why the BBC would have any interest in broadcasting the race. The perception that the crews themselves are a bunch of itinerant third-raters may be out of date; but this is still not a spectacle that demands, on its merits, to be broadcast live on terrestrial TV.

Maybe this is true.

But then it’s also true of ‘International Bowls’, the Great North Run, cross country horse prancing (I’m going to get a kick from the missus for that one), and if we’re honest, any kind of rowing full-stop.

And yet, how many millions stayed up until 2am to watch Pinsent and Redgrave?

How many millions watch the London Marathon as if it’s not just pictures of sweaty people jogging?

TV sport has never been about showing events that are entertaining or exciting. Just look at bowls.

At least in its brevity, the Boat Race offers a Red Bull shot of sporting aggression and 100% effort.

Which is more than can be said for darts.

Christopher Doidge : 09 Dec 2008 08:58 |  Tags: Media Sport Television The Boat Race TV |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Strangling the Kangaroo

First the BBC’s local video service. Now Project Kangaroo has been throttled by the powers-that-be.

You might not have heard of Kangaroo (its working title), but it’s basically a British iTunes for video, that was put together by the BBC, ITV and Channel 4. It would work online (like the iPlayer) and eventually through TV set-top-boxes.

Some of the programmes would be paid for by ad breaks, others would be pay-per-episode (like iTunes).

But the Competition Competition, in its infinite wisdom, has said it would restrict competition in the VoD (video-on-demand) market.

As the five-year-old child in BBC sitcom Outnumbered said last week: “Beeping, beeping, beeping, beeping, beeping, beeping, bollocks.”

Is there something with this country about throttling innovation?

I’ve got the Microsoft-powered BT Vision which is pretty good, but has some flaws that Kangaroo would rectify. For instance, there isn’t the option to watch something free, but with adverts. I’d rather do that than pay my £14 a month subscription.

And surely the presence of services like BT Vision, Tiscali TV and the Sky Player all suggest competition is already healthy? What’s more, in the case of BT Vision, the Beeb, ITV and Channel 4 are all putting their shows on there, with no indication they’ll disappear when/if Kangaroo launches.

I guess Kangaroo’s problem is that it’s too close to the BBC, ITV and C4. If an independent had made it, and licenced programmes from the broadcasters, there wouldn’t be a problem. But we’re only a small country. There aren’t the billions of dollars available to make your own iTunes unless you’re established, and in all likelihood, a broadcaster.

BBC iPlayer took aeons to happen because of competition worries and the anti-innovation mindset at the BBC Trust. It’s still not as brilliant as it could be because of arbitrary limits placed on what it’s allowed to offer.

The likely delay, or perhaps cancellation of Kangaroo, is a massive shame and says something about this country today. Skippy probably wouldn’t mind pushing the Competition Commission down a mine-shaft. And I wouldn’t blame him.

P.S. As if proof were needed that Britain’s losing its innovators, the Project Kangaroo boss, Ashley Highfield, recently left… for Microsoft.

Christopher Doidge : 03 Dec 2008 10:18 |  Tags: BBC Channel 4 Itv Kangaroo Media Television Video On Demand |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

What the f**k?

Check out tonight’s Inside Out England on BBC iPlayer later.

How many people must have watched the programme through before broadcast without noticing the ‘f’ word, clear as day, five minutes in?

Lesson One: If sampling Fatboy Slim songs, don’t use this one. (They used the first five seconds of it.)

Christopher Doidge : 26 Nov 2008 19:43 |  Tags: BBC Inside Out Journalism Media News Television TV |  Comments (8) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

If Charlie Brooker was a newspaper…

...it’d probably be the best newspaper in the world

Christopher Doidge : 19 Nov 2008 17:29 |  Tags: Charlie Brooker Guardian Mashups Media Newspaper |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

A List

I’m going to start a list. In fact, it’s more of a league table of moronism. Added to it will be MPs who jump on a ludicrous bandwagon.

1. Chris Mole

Chris Mole is the Labour MP for Ipswich.

He’s called on the BBC to sack Jeremy Clarkson for comments he made on this weekend’s Top Gear.

Clarkson was driving a lorry, and in a moment of humour suggested that lorry drivers might occasionally kill a prostitute.

Ipswich, of course, is particularly sensitive to the killing of prostitutes.

There’s only one problem – the Ipswich murders were carried out by a forklift truck driver. Which last time I checked, was quite different.

Anyone with a modicum of a smidgen of a sense of humour would realise Clarkson was taking the piss – even lorry drivers found it funny.

This is obviously all to do with the Brand/Ross, and if Adrian Chris Mole thinks this will get him taken seriously, he’s quite a bit wrong.

Christopher Doidge : 06 Nov 2008 17:22 |  Tags: Jeremy Clarkson Media Politics Top Gear TV |  Comments (3) |  Close comments |  Report a problem

Swearing on TV

What exactly is the problem with Sachsgate – the abusive message left on Andrew Sachs’ answerphone, or the use of the ‘F’ word on a public service radio station?

If it’s the latter, then there’s a big debate to be had.

Swearing on TV (and actually not radio, so much) has exploded over the past few years.

The Brand/Ross affair went out at night on a radio station listened to almost exclusively by adults.

On the other hand, Jamie Oliver’s Ministry of Food programme was jam-packed with f-words, c-words and other verbal vomit.

For a programme that’s trying to appeal to as many people as possible – families especially – how is that a good idea?

I think the 9pm watershed should be scrapped – swearing, offensive behaviour, sex, drugs and alcohol should be shown or not shown depending on who the audience really is, not just when the programme’s shown.

Ministry of Food was the sort of programme that should have been played in schools – with the kind of language that Channel 4 left in, it never will be.

==

Listening to BBC Radio 5 Live, it’s interesting how people who support Brand and Ross are flooding out of the woodwork now they’ve been suspended. I’m on their side, I have to say.

Christopher Doidge : 29 Oct 2008 12:02 |  Tags: BBC Channel 4 Media TV |  Comments (0) |  Close comments |  Report a problem