Recent Posts
Political ads are annoying at the best of times, but the latest campaign by Family First, in the lead up to the Victorian election, really takes the cake. In one of these ads a young woman tells us not to vote for the “extreme” Greens because “it’d be chaos”. Another ad depicts an angry looking man, snarling that he wants to vote for someone “who’ll put my family first”. Presumably the late night version includes some choice expletives. Yet I feel I know the Greens better than I do Family First. In the lead up to this Saturday’s election in Victoria, four of Family First’s last five media releases have been generalising pot-shots at the Greens.
One such attack tells us that “The extreme Greens want to take us back to the days of riding horseback”. I wonder if they would be aware of the opinion of Sir Winston Churchill who described the switch from horseback to the motor car as one of the great calamities of modern times. Family First has long campaigned for lower petrol prices and generally supported the unabated use of the car. So why do they even bother having a link to a so-called “environmental policy” on their web site?
I won’t be voting for the Greens, but if Family First think they’ll win my vote – or sympathy – by attacking that party, they’re wrong. They should focus on telling us what their own policies are and how they will improve Victoria. Or is that once they’ve told us they’ll ban pokies and lower the cost of petrol, they are fresh out of ideas?
Family First seem to have gone for a catchy and superficially appealing name, and not much else. After two years I still don’t think I really know what Steve Fielding stands for. He’s all for the family, but what about families that don’t look like his? What if you don’t have kids? What if you’re gay? What if you’re not Christian? Perhaps his party should be called the Middle-Class, Christian Families First.
The internet, clearly, is the new frontier for advertisers. With the prevalence of Email and the ever-rising prevalence of internet-based news services, advertisers are looking greedily to the internet. The newest trend seems to be towards pop-up, floating ads. These ads don’t pop-up in the traditional, computer-speak sense: they don’t open a new window. They come up right over the window you’re currently viewing. Already today, I’ve experienced two examples of this most annoying media phenomenon.
The first was relatively minor. Looking at the ninemsn.com.au website, an ad popped-up right over the text I was trying to read. Annoyingly, I had to close it manually using the mouse. However, this was nothing compared to what was awaiting me. A few minutes later, an ad popped-up over the top of an email I was attempting to open. Again I had to close it manually. It would be interesting to know if this ad came with the email; that is did the newsletter I was trying to open receive money for this particular ad opening in the way it did? I don’t know.
Advertisers should be weary, though, that they don’t cut off their noses despite their faces. While complain about annoying TV and radio ads with stupid – yet catching – jingles, nothing could be so annoying as an ad that gets in your way, and your face – literally. Banner and sideline ads are an easily accepted part of the internet; at the end of the day we live in a commercial society and it is driven by commercial imperatives. But if these advertisers think they will achieve anything with ads that block our use of our computers, they’re fools. All that will happen to the majority of these ads is that they will be closed as quickly as is humanly possible. Moreover, they will create a consumer backlash. So, if they expect to get anywhere with these pop-up, floating ads, they’re wrong. They are just too damned irritating.
The news that Marcus Trescothick will be returning to England without facing a ball in the up-coming Ashes series is a shame; the news that he is suffering from depression a tragedy. Unfortunately, though the coverage of his illness and his departure from Australia has been sub-par.
One of the first Australian reports came from Channel Nine’s (it seems I’m always getting stuck into them, sorry guys!) Christine Ahern. In her report she said that “Trescothick’s wife also suffers from post-natal depression”. The “also” being the bane of that particular sentence. While this might reasonably be described as relatively minor and an honest mistake, it is, nevertheless, of concern. Why is it that depression, and other mental health issues, are still so taboo? Why is it that reporters have to tippy-toe around the issues, in a way that they no long have to with, say, cancer? Of greater concern, however, is the treatment of the story by the English cricket team itself. The press release apparently cited “a stress-related illness”. English coach Duncan Fletcher seemed to have that old attitude of “pull up your socks, you’ll be right” and “stiff-upper lip”.
Is it that we still can’t discern between the clinical depression that affects some members of the community and the disappointment, or sadness, that affects us all from time to time? Let’s hope the recent spate of footballers who’ve publicly announced their battles with depression goes some way to raising awareness of the issue. If we can all now talk about cancer so openly, and if the various cancer charities around the world have got such a high profile, then why can’t the same be true of depression? It is time to wake up: depression is an illness and it should be treated with the legitimacy it deserves.
An ad for this week’s 60 Minutes is similarly perplexing. It appears to be about some film called The Bridge. According to the ad we will “be haunted” for the rest of our lives by what happens in this film. Now talk about hype. What could possibly happen in this film that could so neatly eclipse any other film ever made? If it were possible for a film to be so “haunting” then we would all be walking around with images of Silence of the Lambs and Red Dragon playing on our minds all day.
Where – and when – did 60 Minutes go so wrong? Last Sunday they had two particularly worthless stories. One featured Russell Crowe. Stories about celebrities are fine when they’re actually interesting people. See the recent stories about Owen Wilson or Billy Crystal. Then there’s the ever-growing list of celebrities who seem hell-bent on changing the world: Bono, Bob Geldoff, Madonna, Angelina Jolie. All of whom have surely been on before. The problem is that 60 Minutes seems to be doing more and more celebrity interviews. When did this seriously qualify as quality current affairs?
The other story featured Peter Overton having a colonoscopy. A worthwhile cause, sure. But are we really expected to believe that it would be a good thing if everyone who didn’t have any symptoms decided to get their colon checked? Certainly when symptoms are present the check should be made ASAP. When they’re not, however, it’s really a waste of everyone’s time. Imagine if everyone suddenly decided to get checked out for diseases they had no symptoms of
[ Click here to read more ]
An ad for tonight’s A Current Affair features reporter Simon Bouda chasing one of the big wigs from the Nigerian Email scam. Mr Bouda is seen crouching in the back of a speeding ute – and hanging on – as he breathlessly reports that “Boy, can this guy run!”. A worthy story, sure, as this particular scam apparently caught a lot of people out. But do the people at ACA think they’re journalists or film makers? Surely the ratings war hasn’t become so intense that we’re forced to endure drama dressed up as journalism?
Yes, it may be rocketing good television, but as investigative journalism it doesn’t actually achieve anything. If the ad is anything to go by – and let’s hope that it’s not – tonight’s story won’t provide any real evidence of the man’s guilt or tell us at what stage the investigation into his activities is at.
Interesting, then that Channel Nine’s own Ellen Fanning was so desperate to distance herself from ACA when interviewed in the Green Guide on November 9. Fanning said she would “never have a career doing stories that I didn’t think were important.” When it was pointed out that she sometimes fronts ACA she somewhat curtly replied, “It’s not something I’ve ever done full time.” When Channel Nine’s own stable of reporters are trying to distance themselves from one of their flagship current affairs programs, you know there’s something wrong
[ Click here to read more ]
News that Mark Stephens (journalist, The Herald Sun) had his flight to Ireland (to cover the International Rules Series) paid for by the AFL is disappointing. The Herald Sun, apparently, is covering his other costs. So why isn’t his employer paying his air fare? He’s not employed by the AFL, is he? The implication is obvious and inescapable. Clearly the AFL is assisting journalists to go to Ireland in the hope that they will write favourable accounts of the floundering International Rules Series. To hear Stephens talk about it provides no assurances to the contrary. On SEN this morning (Melbourne time) Stephens talked about the concept in glowing terms – terms the series does not deserve.
The hybrid game has been roundly criticised in many corners. And it’s hard to believe that Channel Ten takes broadcasting the games seriously. The first game, played at 5am Melbourne time, was not shown live, but replayed the next afternoon at midday. The Brendan Fevola “incident” merely confirms suspicions about the players attitude. They can not expect us to believe they take it seriously if they are spending most of their time in Ireland at the pub. Moreover, consider why State of Origin has fallen by the wayside. It’s because the clubs are terrified of their best players getting injured. That concern doesn’t seem to be hampering the hybrid game at all. Why? Because the players don’t play the game with anything approaching the intensity of State games.
Ultimately, the problem is that it’s International Rules. Not football. When they represent Australia, Rugby League players play Rugby League. Cricketers, cricket. Soccer players play soccer. And footballers play…a hybrid game. It doesn’t really make sense when you stop and think about it. With the Dublin Demons and the Boston Demons among the teams leading the “international” charge, who knows, maybe in decades to come the AFL will be able to pick a side to represent Australia against another country – and actually have them play Australian Rules
[ Click here to read more ]
So, it’s to be the last year for the Glass House. Unfortunately for me, I only got into it quite recently. The official party line is that it has nothing to do with any potential changes in “editorial policy”. Of course, being one of the few – or only – effective political satire shows on television made it a pretty soft target. By comparison, the comedies on the commercial networks are inane and weak.
Any claims of a Labor Party bias on the Glass House are quite clearly unfounded. As Wil Anderson said, “I’ve got a whole lot of fat jokes just waiting to be used (if Kim Beazley becomes Prime Minister).” The conspiracy theorists are simply assuming that the office of the Prime Minister was somehow involved in the shows axing. It’s a less than convincing, yet tempting, theory. More and more the Howard Government seems intent on silencing critics.
Of course there was something of a left-wing feel to the Glass House. At the risk of jumping to incorrect conclusions, Anderson’s political leanings don’t come across as any sort of a mystery. And news that Corinne Grant was involved in a campaign against the government’s new IR laws didn’t come as a surprise, somehow. Any revelation that the hosts had left-wing leanings would hardly have been a revelation at all. But it shouldn’t matter anyway: they were (and are, until November 29) there to be funny. Perhaps those on the right just aren’t making political satire. At least we have the Chaser’s War on Everything to look forward to in 2007. Now there’s a show that can’t legitimately be accused of any sort of bias. Let’s see what the government has to say about it
[ Click here to read more ]
Journalistic independence is a funny thing. It is easy to see the importance of having media that is free of government control / ownership / interference. What may not be so obvious is the importance of having media that is free of commercial interference. Just ask News Ltd. As reported on Media Watch, the Herald Sun, the Courier Mail and the Hobart Mercury all published an article recently that claimed that ANZ had its main call centre in Bangalore. How wrong they were. ANZ were happy to admit they had staff in India, just not in call centres. As they told the reporter, “ANZ has committed to retaining customer facing roles, including call centres, in Australia.
The following day the journalist, Luke McIlveen, wrote that “ANZ has led the charge to India” with 1,300 “mainly” IT staff located in Bangalore. The big bank wasn’t happy. So unhappy, in fact, that they removed (according to Media Watch) $4 million worth of advertising from News Ltd newspapers (and other outlets) before the end of the day. The move had the desired affect – the next day at least one of the papers concerned published an apology, explicitly stating that they were wrong to say that ANZ has call centres in India. How did the mistake happen? According to the Daily Telegraph – in classic journalese – “in production”.
This is just one example of why it is critical that the ABC retain its’ commercial independence. Otherwise it is a slippery slope. While advertising shouldn’t necessarily affect the work of good journalists, it can become problematic. The ABC is slave to no master – no, not even the government. Just look at the Howard Government’s concern about “left-wing bias” in the ABC. So let’s hope the ABC remains ad free: how awful it would be to have no (truly) independent media outlets in Australia. In the meantime, we can only trust that ANZ really is keeping its’ call centres in Australia
[ Click here to read more ]
It was almost inconceivable that Helen Coonan could fail to see the link between her new media laws and the media ownership frenzy that occurred about the same time the laws passed. Before the laws were passed she told us she didn’t think they’d lead to such moves. Now she tells the Australian that “clearly the new media laws are a catalyst” for such action. Talk about a back-flip.
The need for diversity of ownership in the media sector is crucial – and should be self-evident. However, ownership and control now appear to be two separate things. The PBL sale of assets (including Channel Nine) is a concern because James Packer will retain control of the assets that he has sold. Thus, in the interests of diversity, the laws surely need to prevent PBL from buying a majority stake in another media company – say, Fairfax. Luckily, it seems that Mr Packer is more interested in the gaming and entertainment sector.
If the people of Perth are worried about Kerry Stokes’ purchase of a significant number of shares in West Australian Newspapers, Rupert Murdoch’s move on Fairfax is far more troubling. Murdoch already sells 68 per cent of newspapers in Australia, including the Herald Sun and the Australian
[ Click here to read more ]
In recent weeks, Australia’s free-to-air television networks have launched a joint advertising campaign entitled “Save my Sport”. Essentially, we are told that our rights to watch live sport of free-to-air TV are under threat like never before. Anti-siphoning laws are designed to maintain a certain level of sport on free-to-air television. Essentially, the law lists a certain number of sporting events that should be televised free to the general public. So, at least we know (for the time being) that our Melbourne Cup barbecue won’t suddenly become a fair bit more expensive. But there are other issues here. The demise of Fox Footy is a serious concern for the AFL. As the only football code to have an exclusive pay TV network, it provided the League with great exposure in less traditional markets.
However, the free-to-air stations need to realise this is a two-way street. They need to redouble their commitment and effort to live sport if they are serious about winning this fight. Last year, 9 decided not to show the Ashes contest between Australia and England. Eventually, it was a ratings winner for SBS. That networks 9, 10 and 7 are now all campaigning to save “live” sport on free-to-air beggars belief when you consider how they’ve treated it when they have had it. Rugby League and Rugby Union are so often treated shabbily by those who broadcast it in Melbourne that it is not even worth mentioning; when Shane Warne took his record-breaking wicket a few years ago, 9 were showing an episode of The Price is Right instead; and 10 has a catalogue of misdemeanours relating to motor sport
[ Click here to read more ]
|
|
|
Add Comments
Comments (3)
Read More
Comment by Andrew
on Banned GoDaddy Commercials
Watching the Media