We have had an explosive day at the Leveson Inquiry, and quite frankly, this one damages not just James Murdoch, who continues to sound like an executive trying to get round claims of dodgy dealings by claiming incompetence, in which case he shouldn't have been in the role in the first place; it not only damages the Con-Dem government, by showing that Jeremy Hunt and his office and advisers had had contacts with BSkyB, News International and James Murdoch, and thus also damages the credibility and position of Jeremy Hunt to the point where he has no option but to resign; but also damages the whole newspaper industry and the Conservative Party.
Not surprisingly, Conservative Central Office have sent out the party loyalists to both BBC and Sky to defend Jeremy Hunt, but quite frankly, what we are talking about is indefensible. Before he went into DCMS, he was pro-BSkyB, aggressively so, and his actions during the NewsCorp bid to gain full control of BSkyB do absolutely nothing to change the perception that he was a Murdoch puppet, and as such, he was the wrong person to rule on the takeover.
JEREMY HUNT MUST RESIGN!
Tuesday, 24 April 2012
Thursday, 19 April 2012
Guernsey Elections 2012
Well, last night in Guernsey saw one of the more interesting and unpredictable elections we've had in a long time. No political parties, 78 candidates vieing for 45 seats in 7 parishes in the States of Deliberation, Guernsey's political assembly.
Of the 45 previous deputies who had been in the States, 10 decided not to run again, so we were guaranteed 10 new deputies. We got 22. Almost half the seats went to new deputies. And there were some high profile casualties including the Deputy Chief Minister and the Father of the House.
The fact that 6 of the 7 top polling candidates in this election were new deputies, also adds to the perception that the people of Guernsey, voted for change.
In fact, since the 2004 States, only 13 of those deputies remain. Such radical voting patterns have not been seen before. It's leaving even seasoned political observers somewhat surprised and baffled.
Even the current Chief Minister, Lynden Trott, came close to losing his seat in the parish of St Sampson, as he came 6th out of the 11 candidates in the 6 seat parish, beating Jane Stephens by just 73 votes.
Can he claim a mandate to remain as Chief Minister? You might think so when you consider the fact the Deputy Chief Minister did not retain his seat. But coming in as the final elected deputy in St Sampson in 6th place? Hardly a ringing endorsement from the voters.
May 1st is when we will find out who will become Chief Minister in the new States of Deliberation. And there are two recounts happening Friday.
In the parish of Vale, the margin between success and failure was 42 votes, and the losing candidate there, James Symons, has asked for and been granted a recount. But in St Peter Port North, the margin there between success and failure was just 3 votes. Rhoderick Matthews could be the beneficiary there challenging Lester Queripel, although I imagine that Elis Bebb, who is just 7 votes ahead of Queripel, will also be watching with interest.
Hopefully we'll find out the results of the recount Friday afternoon.
Of the 45 previous deputies who had been in the States, 10 decided not to run again, so we were guaranteed 10 new deputies. We got 22. Almost half the seats went to new deputies. And there were some high profile casualties including the Deputy Chief Minister and the Father of the House.
The fact that 6 of the 7 top polling candidates in this election were new deputies, also adds to the perception that the people of Guernsey, voted for change.
In fact, since the 2004 States, only 13 of those deputies remain. Such radical voting patterns have not been seen before. It's leaving even seasoned political observers somewhat surprised and baffled.
Even the current Chief Minister, Lynden Trott, came close to losing his seat in the parish of St Sampson, as he came 6th out of the 11 candidates in the 6 seat parish, beating Jane Stephens by just 73 votes.
Can he claim a mandate to remain as Chief Minister? You might think so when you consider the fact the Deputy Chief Minister did not retain his seat. But coming in as the final elected deputy in St Sampson in 6th place? Hardly a ringing endorsement from the voters.
May 1st is when we will find out who will become Chief Minister in the new States of Deliberation. And there are two recounts happening Friday.
In the parish of Vale, the margin between success and failure was 42 votes, and the losing candidate there, James Symons, has asked for and been granted a recount. But in St Peter Port North, the margin there between success and failure was just 3 votes. Rhoderick Matthews could be the beneficiary there challenging Lester Queripel, although I imagine that Elis Bebb, who is just 7 votes ahead of Queripel, will also be watching with interest.
Hopefully we'll find out the results of the recount Friday afternoon.
Wednesday, 11 April 2012
Friday, 6 April 2012
My "Countdown" of today's top stories.
In homage to Keith Olbermann, who has filed a lawsuit against Current TV for wrongful termination, I present to you my "Countdown" of the top stories. So I suppose I ought to begin with the immortal words...
...Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
5: George Zimmerman's lawyers and a forensic audio expert, both claim that Zimmerman used the word "punks" on that now infamous cellphone call. CNN aired the "cleaned-up" audio, which if I'm honest, as an audio man myself, didn't sound that different to the original, but on listening back to it myself, I can't hear the word punk. What I do distinctly detect is an "ooo" sound, that might come from a particular racial slur, and that "ooo" sound definitely is not present when you pronounce the word "punk". Listen to it yourself, and see if you agree.
4: Sky News has become the latest part of the NewsCorp clan to have been caught up in hacking. Now we know why James Murdoch resigned this week. Sky News today confirmed that two email accounts, one belonging to a suspected paedophile,and one belonging to 'canoe man' John Darwin were hacked. Both resulted in information that was passed onto the police. Sky News claimed the hacking was done in the public interest, but hacking emails is a crime under the Computer Misuse Act, and that act does NOT have a public interest defence attached to it.
With Ofcom investigating British Sky Broadcasting, there is a number of possibilities now rearing their heads, and I'll talk about them in a future post.
3: Rick Santorum obviously doesn't know when to quit, or indeed how to lose with good grace. The Republican Party establishment has been telling him to leave the race, but Santorum, much like Newt Gingrich, has stuck two fingers up to the establishment. And he met with supporters to discuss the way forward.
Mathematically, it's getting beyond the realms of possibility, especially given that the only remaining state with a winner takes all race, California, looks like a certainty for Mitt Romney. But it does appear right now that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both in line for a fairly major Republican Party smackdown, before we get to Tampa, maybe even before we get to the end of the primary process.
2: Is it ethical for a journalist to express their own political viewpoints through signing a petition? Apparently, some TV stations in Milwaukee don't think it is. WTMJ, WISN and WITI have confirmed that journalists on their payrolls have signed the recall petition against controversial Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. WTMJ went as far as to say that they took this matter seriously and would be dealing with it internally. Apparently, one of the people who signed the petition was an on-air anchor at WTMJ.
One thing is for certain, Scott Walker has done incredible damage to Wisconsin. Any attempt by these stations to censure their staff for signing the petition would be a direct contravention of the First Amendment. And no news station, no matter how good their checks and balances are, could ever claim to be totally unbiased.
1: Current maybe now being sued by Keith Olbermann, but they may soon have bigger problems. A report from Reuters indicates that Current needs to hit ratings benchmarks every quarter. Should they miss those benchmarks two quarters in a row, they could be dropped by Time Warner Cable. So far they have not missed those benchmarks, thanks to Keith Olbermann, but with his sudden departure last week, Current's ability to hit those benchmarks consitently maybe in doubt.
...Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow?
5: George Zimmerman's lawyers and a forensic audio expert, both claim that Zimmerman used the word "punks" on that now infamous cellphone call. CNN aired the "cleaned-up" audio, which if I'm honest, as an audio man myself, didn't sound that different to the original, but on listening back to it myself, I can't hear the word punk. What I do distinctly detect is an "ooo" sound, that might come from a particular racial slur, and that "ooo" sound definitely is not present when you pronounce the word "punk". Listen to it yourself, and see if you agree.
4: Sky News has become the latest part of the NewsCorp clan to have been caught up in hacking. Now we know why James Murdoch resigned this week. Sky News today confirmed that two email accounts, one belonging to a suspected paedophile,and one belonging to 'canoe man' John Darwin were hacked. Both resulted in information that was passed onto the police. Sky News claimed the hacking was done in the public interest, but hacking emails is a crime under the Computer Misuse Act, and that act does NOT have a public interest defence attached to it.
With Ofcom investigating British Sky Broadcasting, there is a number of possibilities now rearing their heads, and I'll talk about them in a future post.
3: Rick Santorum obviously doesn't know when to quit, or indeed how to lose with good grace. The Republican Party establishment has been telling him to leave the race, but Santorum, much like Newt Gingrich, has stuck two fingers up to the establishment. And he met with supporters to discuss the way forward.
Mathematically, it's getting beyond the realms of possibility, especially given that the only remaining state with a winner takes all race, California, looks like a certainty for Mitt Romney. But it does appear right now that Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are both in line for a fairly major Republican Party smackdown, before we get to Tampa, maybe even before we get to the end of the primary process.
2: Is it ethical for a journalist to express their own political viewpoints through signing a petition? Apparently, some TV stations in Milwaukee don't think it is. WTMJ, WISN and WITI have confirmed that journalists on their payrolls have signed the recall petition against controversial Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. WTMJ went as far as to say that they took this matter seriously and would be dealing with it internally. Apparently, one of the people who signed the petition was an on-air anchor at WTMJ.
One thing is for certain, Scott Walker has done incredible damage to Wisconsin. Any attempt by these stations to censure their staff for signing the petition would be a direct contravention of the First Amendment. And no news station, no matter how good their checks and balances are, could ever claim to be totally unbiased.
1: Current maybe now being sued by Keith Olbermann, but they may soon have bigger problems. A report from Reuters indicates that Current needs to hit ratings benchmarks every quarter. Should they miss those benchmarks two quarters in a row, they could be dropped by Time Warner Cable. So far they have not missed those benchmarks, thanks to Keith Olbermann, but with his sudden departure last week, Current's ability to hit those benchmarks consitently maybe in doubt.
Tuesday, 3 April 2012
James Murdoch resigns as Chairman of BSkyB
When this broke in the 1pm BST hour today, I was stunned. I was not expecting this to have happened today. In fact, I wasn't expecting it at all. James wil stay on as a member of the board, but he's no longer Chairman.
Ofcom is investigating whether NewsCorp is a fit and proper company to hold a broadcasting licence. There are many investigations in the UK, the USA and Australia right now. But I cannot honestly see how NewsCorp can continue to own assets like British Sky Broadcasting, Foxtel and Fox Broadcasting Company.
I also think the FCC should take this as an opportunity to finally regulate the cable broadcasting market in the US.
Of course, James's resignation is another line of firewall, designed to protect Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp's investments across the world. Just last week, Panorama on BBC1 reported how NewsCorp subsidiary company NDS had been invloved in breaking the Canal Plus encryption system that On/ITV Digital was using. Then the Australian Financial Review released emails detailing NDS's involvement in breaking other encryption systems of competitors. Currently, Cisco Systems is seeking to acquire NDS Group.
No matter how many levels of firewalls Rupert Murdoch puts in, everything goes back to him, one way or another. Murdoch is well known for handling things himself and being very hands on. Because of that reputation, he will not be able to wash his hands of all the controversies that now dog him.
Ofcom is investigating whether NewsCorp is a fit and proper company to hold a broadcasting licence. There are many investigations in the UK, the USA and Australia right now. But I cannot honestly see how NewsCorp can continue to own assets like British Sky Broadcasting, Foxtel and Fox Broadcasting Company.
I also think the FCC should take this as an opportunity to finally regulate the cable broadcasting market in the US.
Of course, James's resignation is another line of firewall, designed to protect Rupert Murdoch and NewsCorp's investments across the world. Just last week, Panorama on BBC1 reported how NewsCorp subsidiary company NDS had been invloved in breaking the Canal Plus encryption system that On/ITV Digital was using. Then the Australian Financial Review released emails detailing NDS's involvement in breaking other encryption systems of competitors. Currently, Cisco Systems is seeking to acquire NDS Group.
No matter how many levels of firewalls Rupert Murdoch puts in, everything goes back to him, one way or another. Murdoch is well known for handling things himself and being very hands on. Because of that reputation, he will not be able to wash his hands of all the controversies that now dog him.
Friday, 30 March 2012
Current TV fires Keith Olbermann
I seriously wonder what's been going on between Current TV and Keith Olbermann.
Back in January there was a lot of stories appearing about problems between the two parties. It seemed to me that the information was being leaked out by someone within Current TV itself, and the slant being given by the stories was very anti-Keith Olbermann. How much of it was true and how much was spin was quite frankly open for discussion.
But today, came official word from Current that they had indeed fired Keith Olbermann, in an open letter written by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt.
"To the Viewers of Current:
We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.
Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.
We are moving ahead by honoring Current's values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily -- especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.
As we move toward this summer's political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press ("Full Court Press" at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller ("Talking Liberally" at 9 am ET/6 pm PT).
We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Gov. Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.
All of these additions to Current's lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal -- the goal that has always been central to Current's mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voices are too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.
Sincerely,
Al Gore & Joel Hyatt
Current's Founders"
Keith Olbermann responded to this via his twitter account.
"My full statement:
I'd like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.
It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it. "
I imagine this story will continue to play out for a while yet. I especially wonder if Current will be able to maintain the audience levels they had at around 50,000 during Keith's tenure. Neither The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur nor The War Room with Jennifer Granholm got anywhere close to Olbermann's numbers and it's very unlikely that their new show with Eliot Spitzer will match the Olbermann numbers.
Current have been trying to position themselves as the new news network with progressive leanings. Now they've fired Keith Olbermann, have they got the firepower to be successful? Time will tell, but I will not hold my breath waiting for them to spring up the ratings charts, because I don't see it happening.
Back in January there was a lot of stories appearing about problems between the two parties. It seemed to me that the information was being leaked out by someone within Current TV itself, and the slant being given by the stories was very anti-Keith Olbermann. How much of it was true and how much was spin was quite frankly open for discussion.
But today, came official word from Current that they had indeed fired Keith Olbermann, in an open letter written by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt.
"To the Viewers of Current:
We created Current to give voice to those Americans who refuse to rely on corporate-controlled media and are seeking an authentic progressive outlet. We are more committed to those goals today than ever before.
Current was also founded on the values of respect, openness, collegiality, and loyalty to our viewers. Unfortunately these values are no longer reflected in our relationship with Keith Olbermann and we have ended it.
We are moving ahead by honoring Current's values. Current has a fundamental obligation to deliver news programming with a progressive perspective that our viewers can count on being available daily -- especially now, during the presidential election campaign. Current exists because our audience desires the kind of perspective, insight and commentary that is not easily found elsewhere in this time of big media consolidation.
As we move toward this summer's political conventions and the general election in the fall, Current is making significant new additions to our broadcasts. We have just debuted six hours of new programming each weekday with Bill Press ("Full Court Press" at 6 am ET/3 am PT) and Stephanie Miller ("Talking Liberally" at 9 am ET/6 pm PT).
We’re very excited to announce that beginning tonight, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer will host “Viewpoint with Eliot Spitzer,” at 8 pm ET/5 pm PT. Eliot is a veteran public servant and an astute observer of the issues of the day. He has important opinions and insights and he relishes the kind of constructive discourse that our viewers will appreciate this election year. We are confident that our viewers will be able to count on Gov. Spitzer to deliver critical information on a daily basis.
All of these additions to Current's lineup are aimed at achieving one simple goal -- the goal that has always been central to Current's mission: To tell stories no one else will tell, to speak truth to power, and to influence the conversation of democracy on behalf of those whose voices are too seldom heard. We, and everyone at Current, want to thank our viewers for their continued steadfast support.
Sincerely,
Al Gore & Joel Hyatt
Current's Founders"
Keith Olbermann responded to this via his twitter account.
"My full statement:
I'd like to apologize to my viewers and my staff for the failure of Current TV.
Editorially, Countdown had never been better. But for more than a year I have been imploring Al Gore and Joel Hyatt to resolve our issues internally, while I've been not publicizing my complaints, and keeping the show alive for the sake of its loyal viewers and even more loyal staff. Nevertheless, Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt, instead of abiding by their promises and obligations and investing in a quality news program, finally thought it was more economical to try to get out of my contract.
It goes almost without saying that the claims against me implied in Current's statement are untrue and will be proved so in the legal actions I will be filing against them presently. To understand Mr. Hyatt’s “values of respect, openness, collegiality and loyalty,” I encourage you to read of a previous occasion Mr. Hyatt found himself in court for having unjustly fired an employee. That employee’s name was Clarence B. Cain. http://nyti.ms/HueZsa
In due course, the truth of the ethics of Mr. Gore and Mr. Hyatt will come out. For now, it is important only to again acknowledge that joining them was a sincere and well-intentioned gesture on my part, but in retrospect a foolish one. That lack of judgment is mine and mine alone, and I apologize again for it. "
I imagine this story will continue to play out for a while yet. I especially wonder if Current will be able to maintain the audience levels they had at around 50,000 during Keith's tenure. Neither The Young Turks with Cenk Uygur nor The War Room with Jennifer Granholm got anywhere close to Olbermann's numbers and it's very unlikely that their new show with Eliot Spitzer will match the Olbermann numbers.
Current have been trying to position themselves as the new news network with progressive leanings. Now they've fired Keith Olbermann, have they got the firepower to be successful? Time will tell, but I will not hold my breath waiting for them to spring up the ratings charts, because I don't see it happening.
Galloway wins Bradford East: Lessons for all parties
So, George Galloway from the Respect party won the Bradford West by-election. He won it on a 50.8% turnout, which is pretty high for a by-election, with a majority of 10,100. That's a pretty impressive performance, no question about it. In fact, George Galloway's 18,341 votes is just 60 less than Marsha Singh got for Labour in 2010, when the turnout was 64.9%, 14% higher.
So, what does this result tell us?
Well, it shows that George Galloway definitely got his vote out. His Respect team in Bradford worked their socks off and proved that in a contest invloving the major parties, a minor party can still win. And it also proved that the other parties didn't really try, including Labour, as they assumed it would be a safe Labour seat. I remember a work colleague once telling me that when you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'. The major parties assumed it was going to go to Labour and the voters made asses of them all.
But it also shows the value of getting your message out there in any number of different ways. He's had a show on talkSPORT for a number of years, but that show has come to an end, not because of the election result, but because talkSPORT is totally removing the remaining non-sport programming from its schedule.
In New York, George does a 1-hour show on WBAI, on a Wednesday morning. The show is produced out of London, like all of George Galloway's shows.
But the shows that are most controversial are the ones that are aired on the Iranian international news channel, Press TV. One is a Press TV original show, called Comment, where viewers phone in to speak to George and his guests. The other is a show that originally aired on Raj TV before being transfered over to Press TV, George's own news commentary TV show, The Real Deal.
The shows are now only available online in the UK after Ofcom revoked Press TV's licence.
Without a doubt, these shows have helped keep George Galloway in the public eye, and kept his viewpoint in people's minds.
But in a sense, this victory also confirms that George Galloway is a political opportunist. In 1987, George Galloway unseated Roy Jenkins, who had been with Labour before becoming one of the gang of 4 that formed the Social Democratic Party back in 1981. In the 1997 General Election, the constituencies had changed, and George had to fight to be nominated for the Glasgow Kelvin seat. But he won that nomination and served another two terms, firstly with Labour, then when he was expelled from the party in late 2003, he joined a newly formed party, known only as Respect. But he was not going to be able to contest Glasgow Kelvin again, as the constituency was split amongst three new constituencies for the 2005 General Election; Glasgow Central, Glasgow North and Glasgow North West.
And it was then he began his run as a 'parliamentarian of fortune'. He would challenge and defeat Labour's Oona King in the Bethnal Green and Bow constitiuency. He chose not to contest the seat again, and instead contested a newly created seat of Poplar and Limehouse in 2010, but came in 3rd.
It does leave me feeling that George Galloway is a political opportunist, looking for seats that he feels he can make a strong challenge in, because either the sitting MP is seen as weak, or maybe because it is not felt that there will be any strong challengers so the main parties don't spend a lot of money on the campaign, and then Galloway comes in and organises a grass roots campaign that wins out.
And George Galloway does make a reasonable point in saying that was disenfranchisement with the 3 major parties, and he was able to capitalise on that. But then so should any minor party, or indeed independent candidate.
Overall, there is a lot for all parties and candidates to learn from this. I hope this makes other elections in future much more unpredictable.
So, what does this result tell us?
Well, it shows that George Galloway definitely got his vote out. His Respect team in Bradford worked their socks off and proved that in a contest invloving the major parties, a minor party can still win. And it also proved that the other parties didn't really try, including Labour, as they assumed it would be a safe Labour seat. I remember a work colleague once telling me that when you 'assume' you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'. The major parties assumed it was going to go to Labour and the voters made asses of them all.
But it also shows the value of getting your message out there in any number of different ways. He's had a show on talkSPORT for a number of years, but that show has come to an end, not because of the election result, but because talkSPORT is totally removing the remaining non-sport programming from its schedule.
In New York, George does a 1-hour show on WBAI, on a Wednesday morning. The show is produced out of London, like all of George Galloway's shows.
But the shows that are most controversial are the ones that are aired on the Iranian international news channel, Press TV. One is a Press TV original show, called Comment, where viewers phone in to speak to George and his guests. The other is a show that originally aired on Raj TV before being transfered over to Press TV, George's own news commentary TV show, The Real Deal.
The shows are now only available online in the UK after Ofcom revoked Press TV's licence.
Without a doubt, these shows have helped keep George Galloway in the public eye, and kept his viewpoint in people's minds.
But in a sense, this victory also confirms that George Galloway is a political opportunist. In 1987, George Galloway unseated Roy Jenkins, who had been with Labour before becoming one of the gang of 4 that formed the Social Democratic Party back in 1981. In the 1997 General Election, the constituencies had changed, and George had to fight to be nominated for the Glasgow Kelvin seat. But he won that nomination and served another two terms, firstly with Labour, then when he was expelled from the party in late 2003, he joined a newly formed party, known only as Respect. But he was not going to be able to contest Glasgow Kelvin again, as the constituency was split amongst three new constituencies for the 2005 General Election; Glasgow Central, Glasgow North and Glasgow North West.
And it was then he began his run as a 'parliamentarian of fortune'. He would challenge and defeat Labour's Oona King in the Bethnal Green and Bow constitiuency. He chose not to contest the seat again, and instead contested a newly created seat of Poplar and Limehouse in 2010, but came in 3rd.
It does leave me feeling that George Galloway is a political opportunist, looking for seats that he feels he can make a strong challenge in, because either the sitting MP is seen as weak, or maybe because it is not felt that there will be any strong challengers so the main parties don't spend a lot of money on the campaign, and then Galloway comes in and organises a grass roots campaign that wins out.
And George Galloway does make a reasonable point in saying that was disenfranchisement with the 3 major parties, and he was able to capitalise on that. But then so should any minor party, or indeed independent candidate.
Overall, there is a lot for all parties and candidates to learn from this. I hope this makes other elections in future much more unpredictable.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
And so, the homogonisation begins...
Yes, the dreaded process of assimilating Atlantic FM into the Heart network has begun. By comparing the output of Heart Plymouth on DAB and Atlantic FM on FM, I can tell that they are playing excatly the same songs, in exactly the same order.
I am reminded of Star Trek's The Borg in all this. "We are Heart. Resistence is futile. You will be assimilated." Central playlists, one of the scourges of great radio, going back to days of GWR Group. Yeuch!!!
Still, this is the reality we have right now, but to know that commercial radio can do so much better, but they seem to only want to do just about adequate, which doesn't cut it with lots of listeners. There is an old joke that rings so true here. "Good enough? Good enough is not good enough, Goodenough!"
Why should listeners put up with good enough, when they can do so much better, and we can hear so much better on the internet. Content is still king, despite what the big commercial radio groups think.
I am reminded of Star Trek's The Borg in all this. "We are Heart. Resistence is futile. You will be assimilated." Central playlists, one of the scourges of great radio, going back to days of GWR Group. Yeuch!!!
Still, this is the reality we have right now, but to know that commercial radio can do so much better, but they seem to only want to do just about adequate, which doesn't cut it with lots of listeners. There is an old joke that rings so true here. "Good enough? Good enough is not good enough, Goodenough!"
Why should listeners put up with good enough, when they can do so much better, and we can hear so much better on the internet. Content is still king, despite what the big commercial radio groups think.
Monday, 26 March 2012
A Rebuttal to Radio Today's Stuart Clarkson
Radio Today is supposed to be a radio news site. But last week's commentary from Stuart Clarkson about brands, which although spoke a lot of truth, asked one really stupid question. Was anybody missing Plymouth Sound?
Yes, people are missing Plymouth Sound, and Gemini FM, and Lantern FM, and South Hams Radio, and Orchard FM and Westward Radio and all the other local names. Listeners miss that feeling of a local friend they can turn to. Because of the lack of localness, there are implications for things like flood warnings and weather warnings. Local radio stations would be able to give detailed warnings of flooding risk, the kind that are released by the Environment Agency. A network operation even with split links, cannot provide that same degree of localness. The reason for this is simple, it's impossible to talk about any area like you have a local knowledge, if you are not from that area. You can't buy the local knowledge that comes from having lived for a while in that area. That kind of local knowledge cannot be duplicated from a network hub.
But, this week, Stuart Clarkson exposed his own lack of local knowledge when writing a commentary on the aftermath of Global buying Atlantic. Time to debunk some myths, and translate the rest of it back into actuality.
But first, an actual piece of truth.
"In many cases, small stations are struggling to make ends meet, and for some the only option is to consider whether there’s a better option than handing back the licence and depriving local advertisers of a marketing outlet that’s needed more than ever in these tough economic times."
Yes, this is true, small stations are struggling to make ends meet, and they don't make it any easier for themselves when they do things wrong, like trying to promote a station with a marketing budget of exactly £0. Social media is helpful as part of a marketing strategy, but it cannot be the entireity of the marketing strategy.
And for a small station that is struggling, asking presenters to help the sales team in selling advertising is a trick that needs to be done. Even if it's only for an hour or so a day, every little thing that can be done to help a station, should be done. Unfortunately, far too many stations don't do everything they can to make things work.
"So-called radio fans and industry folk took to social media sites and our own comments box to demonstrate their outrage at the ‘big bad Heart’ and wish bad things to happen to Global."
When listeners realise that the station they used to like is gone, there is a backlash and a drop off in listenership. Global is basically nothing than GWR version 3.0, combined with the worst of the attitudes that ITV exhibited between about 1993 and 2005. That's a hell of a lot of negative baggage to be carrying around. The only way Global could shift that excess baggage is to totally reverse course and it is impossible to see that happening in the current conditions, but it is still extremely unlikely to happen even if the economy improves, because it does not seem to be in Global's heart, pardon the pun, to produce radio that makes people sit up and listen. They're not making radio that would enthuse people, they are creating aural wallpaper. Is it any wonder that listeners actually don't like what Global and Heart represent? Bland maybe safe, but it's not a winner, it's merely a way to avoid losing badly. Unfortunately, this means that people who are looking for more interesting radio are having to look around for something better. Hence why the BBC does so well. BBC Radio right now is just a better worked product. If commercial radio was more prepared to put more content into their product, they might find it better liked by listeners, and by advertisers.
"Which got me thinking. Isn’t it time we stopped the whinging, and just accepted that the state of the economy and the legacy of licensing decisions down the years means we are where we are? And that we should focus on the future of our industry instead of harping back to a ‘golden era’ that will never return? Just a thought."
No, because factually that does not hold true. Whilst it may be true that regulatory approval was required to create GWR from the combination of Radio West and Wiltshire Radio, the attitude that became prevalent in that company was a product of greed and ambition. The fact that so many stations have been bought up to create these networks that we see now, is also partially a fault of the radio stations themselves. The inability to adapt to changing situations is ultimately what allowed a lot of these stations to be bought out. Also, newer stations that came on stream didn't actually plan things out properly, with non-existent marketing budgets and no back-up plans in case of problems. If you can't respond to change, expect to not be around for long.
And by the way, all this talk of harping back to a golden era that will never return, just came from you, Stuart Clarkson. Nobody is harping back to any so called golden era, which in fact didn't exist. What we are looking for is for stations to have an attitude towards providing a service that people truly want, something that will enthuse them, rather than providing something bland and uninspiring that they just accept because it's about as good as it currently gets.
"Stop and think for a second about your own radio listening habits. And then think about how a friend or family member who doesn’t work in radio (or have an unhealthy interest in the medium) consumes it. "
Oh, now this is just a humungous insult to radio listeners. For far too long, anybody who had an interest and expressed a point of view about television was denigrated in the same way. It is just an insult to people's intelligence, and demonstrates that the only view you're interested in, is the one that agrees with you. I've heard opinions from a lot of people over the years who would not fit that description, and they have expressed the exact same concerns, the exact same worries, the exact same issues. Unfortunately it seems that most radio stations seem to be chasing a C2DE audience exclusively, which leaves the ABC1 audience looking elsewhere. Far too often, you get the sense that your intelligence is being insulted by what you're listening to, that the station is not trying to appeal to a broader market, say BC1C2D, and you're left feeling like they're not speaking to you, and since radio's main benefit is it's ability to speak to people on a 1 to 1 basis, you feel that radio stations are disobeying the first commandment of radio. Thou shalt always make a connection with your audience. So not only is this whole idea of someone who has an unhealthy interest in the medium not only an insult, but a deliberate lie. It says "you'll get what we give you and like it, and if you don't, we're not going to listen to you." Surely no bigger cardinal sin exists in broadcasting.
"In an age of the internet, smartphones and multi-channel TV, listeners are far less bothered about where their favourite radio station is based than they were in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s."
There is a grain of truth here, but the reason for it is a direct result of the GWR/GCap/Global slow erosion of local radio and radio content. Over the years, radio companies, primarily led by GWR and Capital, fought against all the regulations that the IBA, Radio Authority and Ofcom have been required to enforce, and it's a battle they've been slowly winning. Now, if they'd put as much effort into winning listeners over, as they had into fighting the regulator, it's very likely, they wouldn't be fighting for survival, they'd be doing bloody well, making plenty of profits and the BBC would probably be struggling to justify its existence. If commercial radio was a much better product than it is now, the BBC would not be as successful.
In other words, they're not so bothered about where they get their radio content from, because they've been disenfranchised by commercial radio in this country, which has forced them to look further afield.
Ironically one of the few stations that has bucked the downmarket trend is one that was originally set up to compete with the highbrow BBC Radio 3. Classic FM had to go slightly down from the Radio 3 level, but could not afford to go too far downmarket, as the audience for classical music, was at a higher demographic level than popular music. And Classic FM is the most popular national commercial radio station in the country. It just goes to show that if you go for higher demographics with content, you can win.
Now do that at a local level, and promote and market your station effectively, and anything is possible.
"In many markets, Radios 1, 2 and 4 still knock the local commercial competition into oblivion. Which tells me this: big name DJs (yes I know that contradicts my point above, thanks), a professional sound, and content that has no local relevance are all still a massive hit with listeners."
I'm afraid that that is purely a reflection of how bad the local commercial stations, and in some cases, the local BBC stations, are in those markets. Any good national product, will defeat any local product that is mediocre or worse, but a good local product beats a good national product every time. Just ask listeners in Cornwall and Devon.
"So will Atlantic’s change to Heart lose audience for the frequency? I very much doubt it. If anything it’ll go up. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. A core audience of listeners love it – and that’s good for business, and good for the survival of our industry."
This segment is doubly wrong. I'll take the second one first. "A core audience of listeners love (Heart) - and that's good for business, and good for the survival of our industry." Whilst a core audience may like it, and I have seen first hand evidence that that is actually true, just maintaining your core audience, is not good for your station, in neither the present, nor the future. Every CEO of any major company the world over, will tell you that you need to grow your business, and for radio, the only way is to increase the listenership, and the only way to do that, is to provide a product that is less aural wallpaper, and more attention seeker.
Now, for his prediction that Heart's audience will rise from Atlantic's levels. Evidently, he has never spent time in Cornwall or Devon, or actually spoken to anybody round here about radio. So clearly he doesn't understand the market. I'll give him an idea just how wrong he is. There are still major intertown and intercity rivalries, across both Devon and Cornwall. Plymouth vs Exeter, Truro vs Falmouth, St Austell vs Bodmin, Camborne vs Redruth, and that is not just restricted to the sporting fields. There is a local saying that comes to mind. 'Redruth is Redruth, Camborne is Camborne, and never the twain shall meet, except at Pool Market on Sundays.' The whole of the South West, is very much locally driven, locally focused. When Plymouth Sound and DevonAir back in 1990, said they were going to air joint evening and overnight output, there was hell up from listeners around Plymouth, saying how dare you give us programming from Exeter. My prediction is to expect a major drop off in listenership, from the current 71,000 down to around 17,000 or even 7,000 within about a year or so. You already have the Heart Plymouth signal relayed in Cornwall on DAB, along with Capital, XFM and Kiss 100 all relayed from London, and I guarantee you none of the stations have very significant listenerships, not merely because of only being transmitted down here on DAB, but also because they don't connect with listeners down here. If you expect Heart to connect with listeners, in a market which is strongly local, when they shown no interest in anything strongly local to anywhere, then I'm afraid your logic is very flawed, and your expectations are far too high.
"We must not forget that commercial radio is a business. Yes, in the early days it was about ensuring local democracy, doing ‘lost pets’ features and promoting the bring-and-buy sale at your local town hall. But times have changed. All around the UK, small local stations – whether part of groups or stand-alones – are struggling. And why should those owners carry on throwing money at something that’s showing no signs of returning to the heyday of the 90s when single town stations were changing hands for upwards of three or four million pounds a pop?"
Yes, Commercial Radio is a business, and yet, that is exactly why they need to do more to get back to profitability. The lower you set your targets, the harder it is to get there. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but how often have we seen in sports, teams set a low target and they can't get there, and yet the same team gets set a much higher target in a different game, and they make it with ease. There is a saying. 'Aim for the moon. Even if you miss, you will still be among the stars.' Yes, times are difficult, the money is tight, but if you aim high and truly believe you can get there, then even if you miss by a little bit, you'll still be doing much better than you are now.
"I’ve heard comments before along the lines of “Ofcom should just give Heart and Capital a national frequency and let local groups have the local frequencies back to do proper local radio.” If that thought has entered your head then you need to sell your house and move into the real world – and fast. Global don’t want a national licence for Heart or Capital. They might want to share all programming 24/7 on the stations one day, but they don’t want to give up the ability to sell local ads in local markets. That’s their business model and it seems to be doing pretty well for them right now. Programmes of a standard worthy of national radio with a mix of national, regional and local sponsors and advertisers – plus the ability to do just the right amount of local news, sport, travel, weather and what’s ons that the listeners say they want. What’s not to like?"
Quite a lot really. First of all, they are blocking other competition from getting into the market, and that's enough of a reason. If they want to do national radio, let then do it on a second national multiplex, which by the way, there's enough demand out there from both sides, from both listeners and from other stations. Put Heart on there, put Capital on there, put Kiss on there, put XFM on there, and that will free up space on many local multiplexes for other local stations, including those that are still currently FM only, to join the digital revolution, ready for the switch off of analogue radio, a switch off that frankly I don't believe should be happening, but realistically, it looks like it is going to be happening, so the industry needs to get on board, because the train is leaving the station and it seems there will be no delaying it.
And how can you say their business model is working for them, when they haven't made a profit in the last 2 years?
"We’re in the middle of a defining period in our industry and I expect the next few weeks will bring more change too. So let’s try to embrace that change, look for the positives and pull together as an industry to ensure a secure future for radio in the UK."
A defining period??? What we are seeing here is the same thing we have been seeing for the past 20+ years, a slow painful decline in an industry that has forgotten how to go on the offensive, and only play defensive. If you truly want to secure a future for commercial radio that has the degree of loyalty that we have seen recently from listeners of BBC Local Radio with the cuts that were threatened, then the commercial radio industry needs to buck its ideas up, offer a better product than just aural wallpaper, and get people interested again.
Yes, people are missing Plymouth Sound, and Gemini FM, and Lantern FM, and South Hams Radio, and Orchard FM and Westward Radio and all the other local names. Listeners miss that feeling of a local friend they can turn to. Because of the lack of localness, there are implications for things like flood warnings and weather warnings. Local radio stations would be able to give detailed warnings of flooding risk, the kind that are released by the Environment Agency. A network operation even with split links, cannot provide that same degree of localness. The reason for this is simple, it's impossible to talk about any area like you have a local knowledge, if you are not from that area. You can't buy the local knowledge that comes from having lived for a while in that area. That kind of local knowledge cannot be duplicated from a network hub.
But, this week, Stuart Clarkson exposed his own lack of local knowledge when writing a commentary on the aftermath of Global buying Atlantic. Time to debunk some myths, and translate the rest of it back into actuality.
But first, an actual piece of truth.
"In many cases, small stations are struggling to make ends meet, and for some the only option is to consider whether there’s a better option than handing back the licence and depriving local advertisers of a marketing outlet that’s needed more than ever in these tough economic times."
Yes, this is true, small stations are struggling to make ends meet, and they don't make it any easier for themselves when they do things wrong, like trying to promote a station with a marketing budget of exactly £0. Social media is helpful as part of a marketing strategy, but it cannot be the entireity of the marketing strategy.
And for a small station that is struggling, asking presenters to help the sales team in selling advertising is a trick that needs to be done. Even if it's only for an hour or so a day, every little thing that can be done to help a station, should be done. Unfortunately, far too many stations don't do everything they can to make things work.
"So-called radio fans and industry folk took to social media sites and our own comments box to demonstrate their outrage at the ‘big bad Heart’ and wish bad things to happen to Global."
When listeners realise that the station they used to like is gone, there is a backlash and a drop off in listenership. Global is basically nothing than GWR version 3.0, combined with the worst of the attitudes that ITV exhibited between about 1993 and 2005. That's a hell of a lot of negative baggage to be carrying around. The only way Global could shift that excess baggage is to totally reverse course and it is impossible to see that happening in the current conditions, but it is still extremely unlikely to happen even if the economy improves, because it does not seem to be in Global's heart, pardon the pun, to produce radio that makes people sit up and listen. They're not making radio that would enthuse people, they are creating aural wallpaper. Is it any wonder that listeners actually don't like what Global and Heart represent? Bland maybe safe, but it's not a winner, it's merely a way to avoid losing badly. Unfortunately, this means that people who are looking for more interesting radio are having to look around for something better. Hence why the BBC does so well. BBC Radio right now is just a better worked product. If commercial radio was more prepared to put more content into their product, they might find it better liked by listeners, and by advertisers.
"Which got me thinking. Isn’t it time we stopped the whinging, and just accepted that the state of the economy and the legacy of licensing decisions down the years means we are where we are? And that we should focus on the future of our industry instead of harping back to a ‘golden era’ that will never return? Just a thought."
No, because factually that does not hold true. Whilst it may be true that regulatory approval was required to create GWR from the combination of Radio West and Wiltshire Radio, the attitude that became prevalent in that company was a product of greed and ambition. The fact that so many stations have been bought up to create these networks that we see now, is also partially a fault of the radio stations themselves. The inability to adapt to changing situations is ultimately what allowed a lot of these stations to be bought out. Also, newer stations that came on stream didn't actually plan things out properly, with non-existent marketing budgets and no back-up plans in case of problems. If you can't respond to change, expect to not be around for long.
And by the way, all this talk of harping back to a golden era that will never return, just came from you, Stuart Clarkson. Nobody is harping back to any so called golden era, which in fact didn't exist. What we are looking for is for stations to have an attitude towards providing a service that people truly want, something that will enthuse them, rather than providing something bland and uninspiring that they just accept because it's about as good as it currently gets.
"Stop and think for a second about your own radio listening habits. And then think about how a friend or family member who doesn’t work in radio (or have an unhealthy interest in the medium) consumes it. "
Oh, now this is just a humungous insult to radio listeners. For far too long, anybody who had an interest and expressed a point of view about television was denigrated in the same way. It is just an insult to people's intelligence, and demonstrates that the only view you're interested in, is the one that agrees with you. I've heard opinions from a lot of people over the years who would not fit that description, and they have expressed the exact same concerns, the exact same worries, the exact same issues. Unfortunately it seems that most radio stations seem to be chasing a C2DE audience exclusively, which leaves the ABC1 audience looking elsewhere. Far too often, you get the sense that your intelligence is being insulted by what you're listening to, that the station is not trying to appeal to a broader market, say BC1C2D, and you're left feeling like they're not speaking to you, and since radio's main benefit is it's ability to speak to people on a 1 to 1 basis, you feel that radio stations are disobeying the first commandment of radio. Thou shalt always make a connection with your audience. So not only is this whole idea of someone who has an unhealthy interest in the medium not only an insult, but a deliberate lie. It says "you'll get what we give you and like it, and if you don't, we're not going to listen to you." Surely no bigger cardinal sin exists in broadcasting.
"In an age of the internet, smartphones and multi-channel TV, listeners are far less bothered about where their favourite radio station is based than they were in the 70s, 80s or even the 90s."
There is a grain of truth here, but the reason for it is a direct result of the GWR/GCap/Global slow erosion of local radio and radio content. Over the years, radio companies, primarily led by GWR and Capital, fought against all the regulations that the IBA, Radio Authority and Ofcom have been required to enforce, and it's a battle they've been slowly winning. Now, if they'd put as much effort into winning listeners over, as they had into fighting the regulator, it's very likely, they wouldn't be fighting for survival, they'd be doing bloody well, making plenty of profits and the BBC would probably be struggling to justify its existence. If commercial radio was a much better product than it is now, the BBC would not be as successful.
In other words, they're not so bothered about where they get their radio content from, because they've been disenfranchised by commercial radio in this country, which has forced them to look further afield.
Ironically one of the few stations that has bucked the downmarket trend is one that was originally set up to compete with the highbrow BBC Radio 3. Classic FM had to go slightly down from the Radio 3 level, but could not afford to go too far downmarket, as the audience for classical music, was at a higher demographic level than popular music. And Classic FM is the most popular national commercial radio station in the country. It just goes to show that if you go for higher demographics with content, you can win.
Now do that at a local level, and promote and market your station effectively, and anything is possible.
"In many markets, Radios 1, 2 and 4 still knock the local commercial competition into oblivion. Which tells me this: big name DJs (yes I know that contradicts my point above, thanks), a professional sound, and content that has no local relevance are all still a massive hit with listeners."
I'm afraid that that is purely a reflection of how bad the local commercial stations, and in some cases, the local BBC stations, are in those markets. Any good national product, will defeat any local product that is mediocre or worse, but a good local product beats a good national product every time. Just ask listeners in Cornwall and Devon.
"So will Atlantic’s change to Heart lose audience for the frequency? I very much doubt it. If anything it’ll go up. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. A core audience of listeners love it – and that’s good for business, and good for the survival of our industry."
This segment is doubly wrong. I'll take the second one first. "A core audience of listeners love (Heart) - and that's good for business, and good for the survival of our industry." Whilst a core audience may like it, and I have seen first hand evidence that that is actually true, just maintaining your core audience, is not good for your station, in neither the present, nor the future. Every CEO of any major company the world over, will tell you that you need to grow your business, and for radio, the only way is to increase the listenership, and the only way to do that, is to provide a product that is less aural wallpaper, and more attention seeker.
Now, for his prediction that Heart's audience will rise from Atlantic's levels. Evidently, he has never spent time in Cornwall or Devon, or actually spoken to anybody round here about radio. So clearly he doesn't understand the market. I'll give him an idea just how wrong he is. There are still major intertown and intercity rivalries, across both Devon and Cornwall. Plymouth vs Exeter, Truro vs Falmouth, St Austell vs Bodmin, Camborne vs Redruth, and that is not just restricted to the sporting fields. There is a local saying that comes to mind. 'Redruth is Redruth, Camborne is Camborne, and never the twain shall meet, except at Pool Market on Sundays.' The whole of the South West, is very much locally driven, locally focused. When Plymouth Sound and DevonAir back in 1990, said they were going to air joint evening and overnight output, there was hell up from listeners around Plymouth, saying how dare you give us programming from Exeter. My prediction is to expect a major drop off in listenership, from the current 71,000 down to around 17,000 or even 7,000 within about a year or so. You already have the Heart Plymouth signal relayed in Cornwall on DAB, along with Capital, XFM and Kiss 100 all relayed from London, and I guarantee you none of the stations have very significant listenerships, not merely because of only being transmitted down here on DAB, but also because they don't connect with listeners down here. If you expect Heart to connect with listeners, in a market which is strongly local, when they shown no interest in anything strongly local to anywhere, then I'm afraid your logic is very flawed, and your expectations are far too high.
"We must not forget that commercial radio is a business. Yes, in the early days it was about ensuring local democracy, doing ‘lost pets’ features and promoting the bring-and-buy sale at your local town hall. But times have changed. All around the UK, small local stations – whether part of groups or stand-alones – are struggling. And why should those owners carry on throwing money at something that’s showing no signs of returning to the heyday of the 90s when single town stations were changing hands for upwards of three or four million pounds a pop?"
Yes, Commercial Radio is a business, and yet, that is exactly why they need to do more to get back to profitability. The lower you set your targets, the harder it is to get there. I know that sounds counter-intuitive, but how often have we seen in sports, teams set a low target and they can't get there, and yet the same team gets set a much higher target in a different game, and they make it with ease. There is a saying. 'Aim for the moon. Even if you miss, you will still be among the stars.' Yes, times are difficult, the money is tight, but if you aim high and truly believe you can get there, then even if you miss by a little bit, you'll still be doing much better than you are now.
"I’ve heard comments before along the lines of “Ofcom should just give Heart and Capital a national frequency and let local groups have the local frequencies back to do proper local radio.” If that thought has entered your head then you need to sell your house and move into the real world – and fast. Global don’t want a national licence for Heart or Capital. They might want to share all programming 24/7 on the stations one day, but they don’t want to give up the ability to sell local ads in local markets. That’s their business model and it seems to be doing pretty well for them right now. Programmes of a standard worthy of national radio with a mix of national, regional and local sponsors and advertisers – plus the ability to do just the right amount of local news, sport, travel, weather and what’s ons that the listeners say they want. What’s not to like?"
Quite a lot really. First of all, they are blocking other competition from getting into the market, and that's enough of a reason. If they want to do national radio, let then do it on a second national multiplex, which by the way, there's enough demand out there from both sides, from both listeners and from other stations. Put Heart on there, put Capital on there, put Kiss on there, put XFM on there, and that will free up space on many local multiplexes for other local stations, including those that are still currently FM only, to join the digital revolution, ready for the switch off of analogue radio, a switch off that frankly I don't believe should be happening, but realistically, it looks like it is going to be happening, so the industry needs to get on board, because the train is leaving the station and it seems there will be no delaying it.
And how can you say their business model is working for them, when they haven't made a profit in the last 2 years?
"We’re in the middle of a defining period in our industry and I expect the next few weeks will bring more change too. So let’s try to embrace that change, look for the positives and pull together as an industry to ensure a secure future for radio in the UK."
A defining period??? What we are seeing here is the same thing we have been seeing for the past 20+ years, a slow painful decline in an industry that has forgotten how to go on the offensive, and only play defensive. If you truly want to secure a future for commercial radio that has the degree of loyalty that we have seen recently from listeners of BBC Local Radio with the cuts that were threatened, then the commercial radio industry needs to buck its ideas up, offer a better product than just aural wallpaper, and get people interested again.
Friday, 23 March 2012
TV programming: too many repeats?
I spend a great deal of time examining both television and radio output. At times, I wonder just who the television broadcasters think they're serving.
Quite often, shows will be put on a repeat cycle, repeating the same shows or seasons of shows several times in a row. And this is proportedly cheaper than producing new material. Also, studios are getting used less and less for programme production outside of live programming, news and sport.
Most drama are shot film-style using as many locations as is required. Comedy is also increasingly being shot on location with the laughter added in a preview theatre showing.
The thing is, if you look around the world, there isn't really a lack of production going on. There are thousands of new episodes of programmes produced around the world airing everyday, And it seems a shame that most of it doesn't get aired outside the market or country it was produced in.
Of course, there is the argument of relevance, such as NY1's Inside City Hall, which is very relevant in New York City but have absolutely no relevance in Madrid, Spain.
But there is so much material out there that would be relevant even in other countries. And yet, we never get to see it.
Quite often, shows will be put on a repeat cycle, repeating the same shows or seasons of shows several times in a row. And this is proportedly cheaper than producing new material. Also, studios are getting used less and less for programme production outside of live programming, news and sport.
Most drama are shot film-style using as many locations as is required. Comedy is also increasingly being shot on location with the laughter added in a preview theatre showing.
The thing is, if you look around the world, there isn't really a lack of production going on. There are thousands of new episodes of programmes produced around the world airing everyday, And it seems a shame that most of it doesn't get aired outside the market or country it was produced in.
Of course, there is the argument of relevance, such as NY1's Inside City Hall, which is very relevant in New York City but have absolutely no relevance in Madrid, Spain.
But there is so much material out there that would be relevant even in other countries. And yet, we never get to see it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)