Recently in Media Category

From Mike Carlton in Saturday's SMH ...

Bastard Boys, the ABC's drama about the 1998 waterfront war, has aroused the entirely predictable fury of the ABC-haters. Their attack has been two-pronged. One, to sneer that the show was a turgid melodrama and a waste of money. Two, to screech that the whole thing was a nefarious left-wing conspiracy to damage the Howard Government in this election year.

Me, I thought it was terrific. On a technical level, it was elegantly directed and shot: for one thing, it takes high cinematographic art to light an entire dockyard at night. The script hummed along, with appropriate moments of tension and light relief. Writers and actors did a masterful job of capturing the authentic cadences of Australian dialogue.

Having spent some time covering that brawl between Patrick and the Maritime Union, I'm also prepared to say that, allowing for reasonable dramatic licence, Bastard Boys got the story about right. If anything, the Howard Government escaped rather lightly.

I too thought the ABCs production was an excellent depiction that caught the nuances fairly accurately. It certainly captured the irony of the union winning the conspiracy court battle at every stage through to the high court, only to lose the war when they had to bend and provide realistic workplace reforms.

Shows of this calibre prove the value of an independent ABC.

Anyone with an interest in AFL footy knows knows channels Seven and Ten have a problem with their new five year agreement to broadcast all eight weekend games into Sydney and Brisbane. Quite simply, the free to air channels in the rugby dominated eastern states won't be able to absorb that many AFL games.

It seems the broadcasters thought Foxtel would stump up some (well, a lot, actually) cash to televise four of the games, but Fox wouldn't accept the asking price. So the "free to airs" are now committed to telecast the code at peak viewing times into eastern cities that have little interest in the seven games that aren't featuring the local team.

(Note: As an AFL tragic, I'm an exception to the above generalisation.)

Solutions are being sort by the broadcasters to relieve themselves of their obligation, including showing the matches on little watched community TV stations. But there's an easy to implement, "available right now" solution to their problem, and it's only government regulation that's standing in the way.

It's called digital multi-channelling.

Every free to air broadcaster has enough bandwidth to simultaneously broadcast at least two digital channels simultaneously. The ABC and SBS are already doing this. It only takes an inexpensive set top box to allow a standard analogue TV to show the additional channels.

As I understand it, the commercial broadcasters fought against multi-channelling, and the government, ever mindful not to upset media barrons, agreed to disallow the service. It's ironic that the system they fought against could offer a solution to their AFL rights dilemma.

Digital TV has a low take up rate, unsurprisingly when one considers that there's no real advantage in acquiring the technology. High definition is hardly a "must have," and the lame programming on the ABC's and SBS's second channels hardly makes the effort worthwhile.

Perhaps the AFL and Seven / Ten should get together and try to get the restrictions on multi-channelling lifted.

If they were successful, I'd be racing to buy a digital set top box the next day.

Happy 50th birthday Auntie. You are an oasis in the midst of the commercial media desert.

Long may you retain your upper middle class Liberal voting audience to keep you safe from those far right government conservatives who wish you (more) harm.

Bastards!

Looks like the video recorder's in for more of a workout.

What was Steve Irwin doing to get his chest so close to the barbs on a stingray's tail? We'll have to wait for the inevitable enquiry and subsequent examination of the film to find out, but it's likely he was doing what he did best. Getting close and personal with dangerous creatures.

Whatever the circumstances of this tragic incident, Australia has lost an overseas icon and a tireless advocate for environmental issues.

It would surprise many of Irwin's overseas fans that he was a household name in the US long before he was generally noticed here. I first heard of Irwin on a radio program when it was explained how he was a runaway success on US TV.

Steve who?

Those same fans would also be surprised to find that a section of the Australian community has always been uncomfortable with his 'over the top' Australian-ness, ie, his 'ockerism.' Irwin himself acknowledged this.

When I see what's happened all over the world, they're looking at me at as this very popular wildlife warrior Australian bloke and yet back here in my own country, some people find me a little bit embarrassing. You know there's this ... they kind of whoah! cringe, you know, because I'm coming out with "crikey!" and "have a look at this little beauty!"

You know is it a cultural cringe? Is it, you know, they actually see a little bit of themselves when they see me and that they find that a little embarrassing?

Although I've heard his on and off screen persona's were similar, I suspect the local media did not initially take to him because of it. It was only when his overseas fame became so large it couldn't be ignored, that the local Australian media started to give him exposure.

I have to admit I'm one of those who found his boyish ocker enthusiasm a little disconcerting. It worries me that the ocker images of Irwin and others, like Paul Hogan, are ones so associated by many foreigners to be quintessentially Australian. Let me assure any foreign readers who stumble over this corner of the net that Australians are a lot more complex than portrayed by our more famous media exports.

That been said, nothing should be taken away from Irwin's genuine enthusiasm for the environment, conservation and promoting Australia.

He was a great Australian; one who died far too young, at a time when the environment needs all the advocates it can muster.

SBS TV's "Nerds FC" would be one of the better reality TV shows, except for one minor omission ... it hasn't shown much of our unlikely bunch of heroes learning to play the game.

Yes, the team building session, singing and dancing lessons, adventure training and fashion makeover were entertaining, but I would find the show more interesting if it concentrated more on soccer and less on the character building.

The government recently announced changes to copyright laws that seemed to contain an element of common sense. Optimism soon changed to disappointment after reading the fine print.

The proposed changes to consumer copyright law aren't so generous after all. Time shifting TV programs and ripping your legally bought CD so you can listen to it on your MP3 player won't be as straight forward as it first sounded. It's hardly surprising. The politicians don't appear to understand the technology, and the media companies want to maximise profits by forcing consumers to buy the same movie / song / program more than once for different media formats.

The legislators haven't grasped the difference between 'content,' ie the song, movie, etc, and the 'media,' ie, the format on which the content is stored. Existing copyright law doesn't differentiate between the content and the media, and allows the producers to control both.

When a CD or DVD is bought, the major cost is for the content. The cost of the media is minimal. Purchasing a CD or DVD buys a licence that allows the purchaser to privately use the content in perpetuity, but as things stand, only on the original media.

Consumers are not allowed to make backup copies of digital content that they've paid for, but if the media is damaged, or in time becomes obsolete, they have to buy the content again. It is scandalous that the producers expect, and the law tries to enforce, consumers to pay for the same thing more than once.

In the absence of being able to create legal backups, media companies should have to honour the paid licence by replacing the damaged / obsolete media for the cost of the media only. In addition, as a licence fee has been paid, there should be no restriction on shifting the content from one format to another as long as it is for personal use.

Of course, we all know the sentiments expressed above aren't going to happen.

What will happen is that consumers will ignore the largely unenforceable copyright laws and use whatever available technology it takes to backup the original media and shift the content to other formats.

The producers will respond by introducing new Digital Rights Management (DRM) media formats that contain encryption, making copying more difficult.

Consumers will be reluctant to throw out their perfectly serviceable media players. Uptake of the new formats will be slow.

Even if DRM players become entrenched, it won't stop the piracy that content producers have lost sleep over for decades. When playing DRM content, it is decrypted and can therefore be copied. File sharing networks will utilise encryption themselves and control of the network itself will be decentralised, making them very difficult to monitor and shut down.

It's about time that content producers realised that once the recorded media is with the public they have effectively lost control of it. They should acknowledge users will do what they like with the content they have bought, and stop trying to lobby governments to make criminals out of the general population.

Producers would be better off concentrating on making their money early on in the release cycle. The enjoyment of a live music performance or seeing a movie for the first time in a theatre can't be copied.

Providing easily obtained, inexpensive content with realistic restrictions later in the release cycle would do more to prevent piracy than convincing governments to increase copyright surveylance and penalties.

Spotted around 6.00pm on the afl.com.au website. Click the images to enlarge.

Note the Bulldogs vs Melbourne score. It certainly wasn't a draw.

"Pressas?" Should that be there?

And on the game's summary page we have the above unbelievable scoreline!

15 goals to the Doggies in the third quarter, and 20 in the fourth. I'd like to see that!

For the record, the Dogs beat the Demons 20.17 to 12.18 .

Update: "Pressas" appears to be correct, although I'm not sure what it means. Press Ass?

There's noises emanating from elements of the Federal Liberal party back bench about blocking unsavoury content from the Internet.

This is not new, of course, they've already tried it before. Memory serves me that a regulatory framework was devised as an attempt to buy Brian Harradine's vote on some issue or other. This temporarily certailed a lot of local adult content, but the site owners simply moved to servers off shore and out of reach of the Australian authorities.

So now the censorship proponents want to block the content before it reaches us.

I have mixed feelings on this issue. As a parent, I don't want my kids accessing this sort of material and we have a strict regime of control over the home PCs to prevent this. As an adult, I don't want to be told what I can and can't watch. As an engineer, I don't want regulatory measures effecting the performance of the Internet, especially measures that I suspect will not be effective.

The details of how the proponents of censorship propose to block the content are sketchy. I assume it will use some sort of blacklist at the ISP level. How they expect to keep track of the shifting sands of the millions of questionable sites is beyond me. They could use keywords, I suppose, but that would eliminate half the Blogosphere let alone your average porn site.

The may propose the Chinese method and funnel all external traffic through a handful of gateways. Expect 'broadband' to be not so 'broad' if they take that path.

In my experience, blocking sites comes with unintended consequences. An innocent site with a link to a blocked one may make the innocent site unreachable.

Another danger is that once a regulatory framework is in place, it doesn't take much to control other information. Just look at the way the Chinese authorities filter content to their population.

Control will never stop the nasties, it will just push them underground. Suspect sites will not be on DNS, and encryption will make the traffic difficult for the authorities to monitor.

Hopefully, Helen Coonan will resist the zealots and not introduce measures that are ineffective and will cripple the net.

Freedom of information has advantages that far outweigh the disadvantages. It's up to individuals to control what they and their dependents access.

You'd have to wonder after reading an article on the state of the ABC by Michael Duffy in Saturday's SMH.

Duffy states that the ABC's charter needs to change, based on the performance of the TV service.

... ABC viewers now watch some of the worst television in Australia.

Of course, what constitutes "quality" is a matter of opinion, but there's no argument that ABC TV has deteriorated over the last five years. What I did find strange is that Duffy seems to think the "Educated Middle Class" (EMC) are captured by the ABC and are devoid of rational reasoning to the extent that they are incapable of watching anything else.

The ABC is the most important broadcaster for the educated middle class around Australia, many of whom listen to and watch little else.

and ...

The audience has stuck with the ABC for various reasons, but much of what it sees now is dross, such as The Bill and the endless cooking shows promoting prat British chefs and their books.

Perhaps they like "The Bill" and cooking shows? If not, it's strange that they haven't moved, since ...

... for a long time now, the most successfully innovative programs have come from American commercial television.

Duffy even goes so far to say ...

It can even be argued that businesses have the right to reach the educated middle class through broadcast media, which the ABC's near-monopoly largely denies them.

Those poor commercial networks! Being shunned by the EMC despite producing "successfully innovating" TV. What can they do?

I have a couple of suggestions.

They could review advertisement spacing. The problem with watching commercial TV is the advertisements. Average shows can cope, but quality programs are unwatchable when interrupted every 10 minutes.

Then there's program scheduling. Surely they can arrange programs to start and stop at the advertised time?

Or maybe there's nothing the commercial networks can do to lure away those rusted on EMCs, who regard most what they broadcast as mindless crap. Sure, there is good stuff amongst the crap, but can they be bothered to find it?

So, the EMC keep watching the ABC / SBS or switch off altogether. They hope that one day the ABC will have enough funds to produce some local drama worth watching.

Which leads us to where the ABC goes from here. Duffy states the ABC charter should be amended ...

[To allow] the limited funds available [to the ABC] ... [to] be devoted to areas where the free market arguably fails: regional radio, high-quality local drama and documentaries, and commercial-free news and current affairs and children's programs.

Alternatively, the ABC should consider running advertising in entertainment programs. As SBS has shown, much of the opposition to advertising is no more than dated fundamentalism.

Duffy states, quite correctly in my view, that the SBS has survived the imposition of advertising without too much damage. Of course, the adds are only shown between the shows and don't interupt the actual programs.

It would be preferable if the government just increased the ABC's funding to somewhere near past levels.

However, I'm relaxed about advertising on the ABC if it followed the SBS example.

I fear, though, that the government will use its Senate majority to alter the ABC much more radically than Duffy suggests. Only the EMCs, mostly conservative voters, stand in their way.