Tuesday 11 December 2007
Gaurdian Story..
YouTubers to get paid
December 11, 2007 7:10 PM
YouTube has finally done the honest thing and announced that regular, everyday average Joes could be paid for their hard work with a share of the advertising revenue generated alongside their videos.
Officially, YouTube is doing this by extending its partners programme which shares revenues with its most loyal 'power' users. And with the 100 new partners announced alongside this, that means the legendary Tay 'Chocolate Rain' Zonday finally seeing some money from all that YouTube traffic he's been hustling.
The partners programme is only open in the US and Canada for now, and YouTubers need to be approved for the scheme before they will see any cash, presumably to stop people trying to chuck illegally copied music videos on the site for a quick buck.
"We feel it's important to reward our most dedicated community members: those who are regularly uploading original content to YouTube. In evaluating applications, we will focus on the users who have built a significant audience on YouTube (as measured by video views, subscribers, etc.) and who consistently comply with the YouTube Terms of Use."
As Read/Write Web points out, this might put an end to criticism that YouTube's founders made themselves rich off the back of other people's creativity and hard work (not to mention the piracy), but also show that the site is managing to monetise its impressive traffic. Those data bandwidth costs don't pay for themselves, but maybe this is a sign that advertising is starting to pay off.
Monday 3 December 2007
GAURDiAN ST0RY...
The internet is set to overtake magazines to become the world's third largest advertising medium in 2010, according to a new report.
Media planning and buying agency ZenithOptimedia's global advertising report estimates that in 2010 the internet ad market will be worth almost $61bn (29.5bn), compared with the magazine market at around $60.5bn (29.3bn).
By 2010 the internet will account for 11.5% of global ad spend, trailing just TV, at a 37.5% share, and newspapers with 25.4% of an estimated $530bn (£257bn) total spend, according to Zenith.
Internet ad spend is currently ranked behind radio globally but will surpass the medium's share next year. In the more developed UK market digital ad spend passed radio last year.
The largest single internet ad market in money terms is the US, although the overall media spend share held by digital advertising in America is relatively low.
Digital ad spend growth will come from markets such as western Europe, says Jonathan Barnard, head of publications at ZenithOptimedia, a region which will go from £10bn this year to almost £20bn by 2010.
Other rapidly growing markets, while currently small, include China, which is predicted to grow from about £1.3bn now to £3.7bn in 2010.
In the more developed digital ad market in the UK, online already accounts for more than 15% of total advertising spend across all media.
However, ZenithOptimedia's report predicts that globally the medium will only break into a double-digit share of media spend - 10.4% - by the end of 2009.
Regions such as Latin America, for example, have been slow to shift spend online, accounting for around 2% of all media spend in the continent.
By 2010, however, internet ad spend as a share of all media will break the 15% mark in 10 regional markets around the world, according to ZenithOptimedia.
Currently just four markets have reached this milestone - Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.
In these four markets the internet is predicted to top 20% of all media spend by 2010.
Media planning and buying agency ZenithOptimedia's global advertising report estimates that in 2010 the internet ad market will be worth almost $61bn (29.5bn), compared with the magazine market at around $60.5bn (29.3bn).
By 2010 the internet will account for 11.5% of global ad spend, trailing just TV, at a 37.5% share, and newspapers with 25.4% of an estimated $530bn (£257bn) total spend, according to Zenith.
Internet ad spend is currently ranked behind radio globally but will surpass the medium's share next year. In the more developed UK market digital ad spend passed radio last year.
The largest single internet ad market in money terms is the US, although the overall media spend share held by digital advertising in America is relatively low.
Digital ad spend growth will come from markets such as western Europe, says Jonathan Barnard, head of publications at ZenithOptimedia, a region which will go from £10bn this year to almost £20bn by 2010.
Other rapidly growing markets, while currently small, include China, which is predicted to grow from about £1.3bn now to £3.7bn in 2010.
In the more developed digital ad market in the UK, online already accounts for more than 15% of total advertising spend across all media.
However, ZenithOptimedia's report predicts that globally the medium will only break into a double-digit share of media spend - 10.4% - by the end of 2009.
Regions such as Latin America, for example, have been slow to shift spend online, accounting for around 2% of all media spend in the continent.
By 2010, however, internet ad spend as a share of all media will break the 15% mark in 10 regional markets around the world, according to ZenithOptimedia.
Currently just four markets have reached this milestone - Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK.
In these four markets the internet is predicted to top 20% of all media spend by 2010.
Tuesday 27 November 2007
Checkpoiints..
Audience Profiling - Checkpoints
1. Demographic profiling is the most basic form of identifying the target audience. They can be grouped together based on age,class,gender etc.
2. Psychographic profiling is used often by advertisers. This is when the audience instead of being grouped in groups difficult to target is grouped based on their needs and motivations.
3. Avertisers nickname niche groups as it is an easier method of defining their target audience for example DINKYS (double income no kids yet).
Uses and gratifications - Checkpoints
1. Blumer and Katz suggested four motivations.
- Diversion - escape from daily life.
- Personal relationships - using media for emotional interaction.
- Personal identity - contructing their own identity from characters in media texts, and learning behaviour and values.
- Surveillance - information gathering.
2. Cultural code is when a particular text will appeal to A/B audience and another text to a C/D audience. This is based on the importance of socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which an audience interprets a text.
1. Demographic profiling is the most basic form of identifying the target audience. They can be grouped together based on age,class,gender etc.
2. Psychographic profiling is used often by advertisers. This is when the audience instead of being grouped in groups difficult to target is grouped based on their needs and motivations.
3. Avertisers nickname niche groups as it is an easier method of defining their target audience for example DINKYS (double income no kids yet).
Uses and gratifications - Checkpoints
1. Blumer and Katz suggested four motivations.
- Diversion - escape from daily life.
- Personal relationships - using media for emotional interaction.
- Personal identity - contructing their own identity from characters in media texts, and learning behaviour and values.
- Surveillance - information gathering.
2. Cultural code is when a particular text will appeal to A/B audience and another text to a C/D audience. This is based on the importance of socio-economic differences in shaping the ways in which an audience interprets a text.
GUARDiAN ST0RY!
Bobbie Johnson, technology correspondent
Tuesday November 27 2007
Companies could be infringing privacy if they dig up information about job applicants from social networking websites, an internet expert has warned.
John Carr, chairman of the UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, believes that employers and education officials could be crossing the line when they look up information about applicants on the web.
"There are lots of rumours about young job applicants being screened on Google or even university tutors looking at people applying for further education," he said.
"If that really is happening, then it could be illegal - when the kids are posting a picture of a party, they are only doing it to let their mates look. They are not doing it for an application form."
Britain's data protection laws are intended to prevent private information about individuals from being used without their knowledge or control. Regulators say that accessing publicly available information over the internet would not necessarily breach the law, and that it remains the duty of the individual to protect information they put online.
"Essentially if an individual - a potential employer or university tutor - looked at someone else's profile on a social networking site, it would not be a breach of data protection," said a spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Britain's privacy watchdog.
However, it remains unclear whether organisations covertly accessing people's private web pages or email accounts would constitute a breach of the law. Last week the ICO issued guidance to users of social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo, urging them to take their privacy more seriously. A survey found that although 71% of 14- to 21-year-olds did not want their future employers to look at their profiles on social networking sites, only 40% realised that their online activities could be traced indefinitely.
The trend for potential employers to look to the web to find out more about applicants is growing, while officials are cracking down more heavily on social networking activities. More than 1,700 public sector employees have been sacked or disciplined for their use of the internet or email in the past three years.
Earlier this year the owner of data search company Infofind was found guilty of impersonating officials from the Department for Work and Pensions to gather information about 250 people. The data was sold to debt collection agencies for as much as £1,000 a time. The company was fined £3,200 and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.
Tuesday November 27 2007
Companies could be infringing privacy if they dig up information about job applicants from social networking websites, an internet expert has warned.
John Carr, chairman of the UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, believes that employers and education officials could be crossing the line when they look up information about applicants on the web.
"There are lots of rumours about young job applicants being screened on Google or even university tutors looking at people applying for further education," he said.
"If that really is happening, then it could be illegal - when the kids are posting a picture of a party, they are only doing it to let their mates look. They are not doing it for an application form."
Britain's data protection laws are intended to prevent private information about individuals from being used without their knowledge or control. Regulators say that accessing publicly available information over the internet would not necessarily breach the law, and that it remains the duty of the individual to protect information they put online.
"Essentially if an individual - a potential employer or university tutor - looked at someone else's profile on a social networking site, it would not be a breach of data protection," said a spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), Britain's privacy watchdog.
However, it remains unclear whether organisations covertly accessing people's private web pages or email accounts would constitute a breach of the law. Last week the ICO issued guidance to users of social networking sites such as Facebook and Bebo, urging them to take their privacy more seriously. A survey found that although 71% of 14- to 21-year-olds did not want their future employers to look at their profiles on social networking sites, only 40% realised that their online activities could be traced indefinitely.
The trend for potential employers to look to the web to find out more about applicants is growing, while officials are cracking down more heavily on social networking activities. More than 1,700 public sector employees have been sacked or disciplined for their use of the internet or email in the past three years.
Earlier this year the owner of data search company Infofind was found guilty of impersonating officials from the Department for Work and Pensions to gather information about 250 people. The data was sold to debt collection agencies for as much as £1,000 a time. The company was fined £3,200 and ordered to pay £5,000 in costs.
Tuesday 20 November 2007
Effects Theory...
What is the culture industry?
The culture industry refers to the rise of the media industries on society. The Frankfurt school argued that the rise in "culture industry" resulted in increased standardisation within society. Under capitalism, society controls almost everything and even culture is processed through the mass media as something which is bought and sold.
What do we mean by "desensitised"?
Critics have reffered to audiences becoming less sensitive to a text which has been over exposed as desensitised. It also refers to the changing social attitudes and expectations for example if a previously banned film was to be shown years later many people would no longer understand why it was initially banned.
The culture industry refers to the rise of the media industries on society. The Frankfurt school argued that the rise in "culture industry" resulted in increased standardisation within society. Under capitalism, society controls almost everything and even culture is processed through the mass media as something which is bought and sold.
What do we mean by "desensitised"?
Critics have reffered to audiences becoming less sensitive to a text which has been over exposed as desensitised. It also refers to the changing social attitudes and expectations for example if a previously banned film was to be shown years later many people would no longer understand why it was initially banned.
Saturday 17 November 2007
The Conversation..
The audience is now able to manipulate the media and make up their own mind, as Halloran said the audience can "conform, accomodate or reject" ideologies filtered to them.
Adorno explained how the media is dumbed down so even as individuals who can make up their own minds we become passive and collude in own opression. This helps to maintain the hegemony ideology in the media.
Even if the media is "dumbed down", media as a fourth estate still informs the pubic - as no one group has power. As the media questions decisions that have been made for the benefit of the general public.
Hoe can the position of the media be seen as "dumbing down" when infact its position of importance is rising? There is a clear contradiction in saying the media has "dumbed down" to then call it the fourth estate. The conflict in ideas here shows that the media is controlled by an elite group of society because...
The media simply presents ideas to its audience it tells no one to believe anything. Audience have several options to what they watch and read. The audience are active enough to make their own decisions.
Whilst this is true it has been proven in the past what kind of impact the media can have on a person. Rap music, a lot of criminals have admitted influence from music and in some cases video games.
I agree with the comment above. There is a heavy influence of the media especially if it became a fourth estate- it has a very high status.
The audience has the ultimate choice, so no matter what ideologies being fed by media moguls like Murdoch, we wont believe, its upto us. My choice, we are active and media literate.
Adorno explained how the media is dumbed down so even as individuals who can make up their own minds we become passive and collude in own opression. This helps to maintain the hegemony ideology in the media.
Even if the media is "dumbed down", media as a fourth estate still informs the pubic - as no one group has power. As the media questions decisions that have been made for the benefit of the general public.
Hoe can the position of the media be seen as "dumbing down" when infact its position of importance is rising? There is a clear contradiction in saying the media has "dumbed down" to then call it the fourth estate. The conflict in ideas here shows that the media is controlled by an elite group of society because...
The media simply presents ideas to its audience it tells no one to believe anything. Audience have several options to what they watch and read. The audience are active enough to make their own decisions.
Whilst this is true it has been proven in the past what kind of impact the media can have on a person. Rap music, a lot of criminals have admitted influence from music and in some cases video games.
I agree with the comment above. There is a heavy influence of the media especially if it became a fourth estate- it has a very high status.
The audience has the ultimate choice, so no matter what ideologies being fed by media moguls like Murdoch, we wont believe, its upto us. My choice, we are active and media literate.
GAURDiAN ST0RY...
The BBC has received more than 1,000 complaints about violence and references to the Hillsborough disaster in Tuesday night's episode of EastEnders.
The broadcaster has received 663 emails and phone calls about violent scenes of thugs attacking drinkers in the Old Vic with baseball bats, shown before the 9pm watershed. Character Honey Mitchell, who is heavily pregnant, was thrown to the floor.
A further 389 complaints were made about a reference in the same episode to the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy, in which 96 Liverpool fans died as a result of crowd congestion at an FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield.
John Beyer, the director of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said the representation of violence was "beyond the pale" for the timeslot and audience."It's a ratings game and they seem to be prepared to do anything to attract controversy," he said.
The BBC defended the episode, which started at 7.30pm after a warning and was seen by an average of 9.6 million people. However, the broadcaster has decided to edit some sequences for the Sunday afternoon omnibus.
"The climax to the storyline shown on Tuesday night was absolutely in line with our editorial guidelines for pre-watershed viewing," a BBC spokeswoman said.
"EastEnders, however, is aware that the audience mix on a Sunday afternoon can be different and is therefore is undertaking some editing while retaining the drama for this time slot."
She added that the BBC had edited the omnibus in the past, most recently in April when it removed a scene with a crying baby.
The BBC's response, published on its website, acknowledged that this was "a particularly dramatic episode", but argued the violence was "in the main, implied rather than explicit" and "in no way glamorised or glorified".
The broadcaster said the scene was over relatively quickly, with the rest of the episode focusing on the fallout, which saw Honey rushed to hospital. The BBC added that viewers were warned of the nature of the content through pre-programme announcements, billings and programme publicity.
The complaints about the reference to the Hillsborough tragedy were prompted by a comment by character Minty Peterson.
He told northerner and reformed soccer hooligan Jase Dyer: "Five years out of Europe because of Heysel, because they penned you lot in to stop you fighting, and then what did we end up with - Hillsborough."
The BBC response said Minty was actually reminding Jase that football hooliganism, such as that at Heysel in 1985, led directly to the fencing-in of fans at football matches and that this had tragic consequences for the innocent spectators at Hillsborough. The BBC added that it apologised if these remarks were misinterpreted or caused any offence.
The spokeswoman told MediaGuardian.co.uk the complaints tally did not include any phone calls from the early hours of this morning because of a technical problem.
The broadcaster has received 663 emails and phone calls about violent scenes of thugs attacking drinkers in the Old Vic with baseball bats, shown before the 9pm watershed. Character Honey Mitchell, who is heavily pregnant, was thrown to the floor.
A further 389 complaints were made about a reference in the same episode to the 1989 Hillsborough tragedy, in which 96 Liverpool fans died as a result of crowd congestion at an FA Cup semi-final in Sheffield.
John Beyer, the director of pressure group Mediawatch UK, said the representation of violence was "beyond the pale" for the timeslot and audience."It's a ratings game and they seem to be prepared to do anything to attract controversy," he said.
The BBC defended the episode, which started at 7.30pm after a warning and was seen by an average of 9.6 million people. However, the broadcaster has decided to edit some sequences for the Sunday afternoon omnibus.
"The climax to the storyline shown on Tuesday night was absolutely in line with our editorial guidelines for pre-watershed viewing," a BBC spokeswoman said.
"EastEnders, however, is aware that the audience mix on a Sunday afternoon can be different and is therefore is undertaking some editing while retaining the drama for this time slot."
She added that the BBC had edited the omnibus in the past, most recently in April when it removed a scene with a crying baby.
The BBC's response, published on its website, acknowledged that this was "a particularly dramatic episode", but argued the violence was "in the main, implied rather than explicit" and "in no way glamorised or glorified".
The broadcaster said the scene was over relatively quickly, with the rest of the episode focusing on the fallout, which saw Honey rushed to hospital. The BBC added that viewers were warned of the nature of the content through pre-programme announcements, billings and programme publicity.
The complaints about the reference to the Hillsborough tragedy were prompted by a comment by character Minty Peterson.
He told northerner and reformed soccer hooligan Jase Dyer: "Five years out of Europe because of Heysel, because they penned you lot in to stop you fighting, and then what did we end up with - Hillsborough."
The BBC response said Minty was actually reminding Jase that football hooliganism, such as that at Heysel in 1985, led directly to the fencing-in of fans at football matches and that this had tragic consequences for the innocent spectators at Hillsborough. The BBC added that it apologised if these remarks were misinterpreted or caused any offence.
The spokeswoman told MediaGuardian.co.uk the complaints tally did not include any phone calls from the early hours of this morning because of a technical problem.
Saturday 10 November 2007
GAURDiAN ST0RY
News media feels force of Musharraf crackdown
Declan Walsh in Islamabad
Thursday November 8, 2007
(Geo Logo)
Last Tuesday the owner of Geo, Pakistan's largest television station, sent an email to his senior editors.
"I have received [a] threatening telephone call last night from ISI," wrote Mir Shakil ur Rahman, referring to the powerful Inter Services Intelligence agency. "They have taken me to a house in Islamabad."
Mr Rahman did not describe what happened at the spy safe house, but the following sentence suggested it was not pleasant. "I would like to advise you to please follow the laws specially [sic] the newly promulgated law."
He also attached an email from "Sabir".
"Pakistan Army is the backbone of Pakistan, don't try to damage it, if u do, u and your family who have looted billions would be hunted down like rats," it read. "It will just take a few hundred people to smash ur studios, offices, vans."
(General Pervez Musharraf & George Bush)
As General Musharraf's emergency rule slides towards a second week, Pakistan's media barons are coming under intense pressure from his heavy-handed security forces - officially and unofficially.
Private TV channels have been pulled off air, stringent new laws prohibit stories that "ridicule" the president, and many journalists are wondering if the country's television revolution is over.
"News has become a contraband item," said Imran Aslam, president of Geo, whose four sister stations are off air. "Now it's like the old days when we used to tune into the BBC radio to find out what's happen in our own backyard."
Journalists and proprietors complain of threatening calls and emails, some by people claiming to be the Taliban. They are continuing to broadcast, sending stories by satellite and high-speed internet to a minority of wealthy viewers.
But with satellite dish prices soaring, most Pakistanis are in the dark, blind to the great dramas of the past week - clashes between police and lawyers, human rights activists behind bars, or the sight of their deposed chief justice, Muhammad Iftikhar Chaudhry, under house arrest in Islamabad.
(The Chief Justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry)
"The government's goal is to consolidate their position in the courts and not to allow protests grow," said veteran journalist Zaffar Abbas. "At the moment they seem pretty satisfied."
Film, cartoon and sports channels are allowed, as is Pakistan Television, the state news station, which presents an alternate reality.
The channel airs Musharraf speeches, anti-Indian propaganda and chat shows hosted by regime loyalists.
"Gen Musharraf is finally doing what President Putin did for Russia - stop democracy from turning into total chaos," wrote PTV presenter Ahmed Quraishi, who on his website this week blames the CIA for Gen Musharraf's woes.
Television has become hugely popular and politically influential in Pakistan. Newspapers have a small circulation, selling just 3m copies in a country of 165 million people, but the plethora of new TV stations offering 24-hour news and lively debate reaches tens of millions.
They came of age last March, when live coverage of anti-Musharraf rallies led by Justice Chaudhry stoked public outrage and brought floods of protesters onto the streets.
"It was a huge force in the restoration of the chief justice. It really motivated the public," said lawyer Kashif Ali Malik.
Now the government is leaning on owners like Mr Ur Rahman, demanding they adhere to a new "code of ethics" that effectively bars any criticism of Gen Musharraf, who used to boast of his love for the free press.
Journalists at the stations worry that they will be next to be arrested. In recent days, security forces have jailed thousands of lawyers, human rights activists and opposition figures.
"They have a hit list of six or seven senior journalists they want to arrest," said Hamid Mir, a popular presenter with Geo.
Newspapers are still being published, many carrying detailed reports of state brutality and angry comment, despite a new law prohibiting anything that defames or brings into disrepute Gen Musharraf or his government.
The editor of Dawn, a respected newspaper established by Pakistan's founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah, said he would not be cowed.
"We are not in the business of ridicule, we are in the business of reporting the facts," said Abbas Nasir. "And if the facts make someone look ridiculous, so be it."
Tuesday 6 November 2007
In What Ways Do I Agree With Pluralism?
I agree with pluralism, despite there being many conglomorates and certain elitists such as Rupert Murdoch, there are a wide range of media resources for the audience to gain their information from to form an uninfluenced opinion.
These days audiences are more active so are able to manipulate the media and make their own minds up rather than accept ideologies filtered through shows. As Halloran said they are able to "comform, accomodate or reject" texts and ways of thinking.
Guardian Story
Channel 4 has been cleared of breaching broadcasting regulations over its decision to transmit an incident in which a Big Brother contestant used a racially offensive word to describe another housemate.
Nineteen-year-old Emily Parr was axed from the show by producers after making the comment to Charley Uchea early in this summer's Big Brother series.
Ofcom said Channel 4's decision to broadcast the incident was justified by the context of the show, adding that it had made clear that the language was "offensive and unacceptable".
Around 450 complaints were made after Parr's comment was broadcast in a Channel 4 highlights episode of Big Brother on June 7 this year.
Parr, from Bristol, was dancing with two of her fellow contestants on the night of June 6-7 when she said to Uchea: "You pushing it out, you nigger."
When she was challenged by the pair, Parr said she was joking, adding that she had black friends who called her that.
Parr was removed from the house the following morning, June 7. At the time of her disqualification, Channel 4 said Parr had used a "racially offensive word" and that she had acknowledged she should have been "more careful with her words".
But some viewers complained that Channel 4 had over-reacted by removing Parr from the house, and had failed its its duty of care to the reality TV contestant.
Channel 4 was also cleared today by Ofcom of any wrong-doing in a similar incident on this year's series of the reality show when a contestant was called a "poof".
The behaviour of the housemates and Channel 4 was under close scrutiny in the wake of the Celebrity Big Brother race row when the treatment of the Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty by Jade Goody, Danielle Lloyd and Jo O'Meara prompted 54,000 complaints and led to effigies being burnt on the streets of India.
"Ofcom has made clear in previous adjudications and findings that the broadcasters' right to broadcast such material and the audience's right to receive it is an important principle," said the regulator in its ruling today.
"It has been established over many series that the Big Brother audience expects to see all aspects of the housemates' characters exposed during their stay in the house.
"Channel 4 would not have been expected to keep key character information from viewers, since it is the viewers who decide who to vote for.
"By including these scenes, Channel 4 offered viewers an insight into all the housemates' characters, not just Emily Parr's. In Ofcom's view this context is in line with the editorial content of the series and audience expectations."
The regulator said the programme had made clear that the use of that particular word was "offensive and unacceptable ... Ofcom therefore considered that there was appropriate justification and there was no breach of the code".
Separately, around 200 viewers complained after two incidents in which another Big Brother contestant, Laura Williams, called housemate Liam McGough a "poof".
Viewers who complained said the word was as offensive to the gay community as the word used by Parr was to the black community.
Channel 4 told Ofcom that "very careful consideration" had been given to its inclusion in the show.
But the broadcaster said that it had underestimated the offence it caused viewers after the first comment was aired.
When it was repeated, Big Brother called Williams into the diary room to reprimand her for her language, and she was later evicted from the house by viewers.
Channel 4 said the decision to broadcast the comment had been considered at senior levels in both the channel and the production company, Endemol.
In its ruling, Ofcom said: "For the broadcaster, the important distinction had been made that Laura Williams, in contrast to Emily Parr, had not used this term directly against a gay housemate (Liam McGough is not gay) and it had been very clear that the gay housemate whom it had been used in front of had not been offended by her use of the term, unlike Charley Uchea in the Emily Parr incident."
The regulator said there was "insufficient or no evidence to suggest that Laura Williams used the word ... in a denigratory way".
The comments were included in Big Brother updates on Channel 4 broadcast on July 1 and July 4.
Ofcom said it was "not possible or appropriate at present to establish definitively the degree of offence use of the world 'poof' can cause in all contexts".
But it said it was "sympathetic" to the concerns voiced by complainants about the use of the word, and reminded broadcasters to "exercise care about the frequency with, and context in, the word is broadcast".
Tuesday 30 October 2007
Checkpoint 1: What is the difference between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie?
The proletariat are the working class, who sell their labour and are not well off and are usually exploited by the other class group. The bourgeoisie are upper class and hire the proletariat, they fall into two groups. The wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work and the petty bourgeoisie who do employ others as well work themselves too.
Checkpoint 2: what is the difference between the ISAs and the RSAs?
Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) feed their ideologies through authoritive figures such as the military,police etc. Whereas Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) feed their ideologies subconsciencly through religion, education, family values, legal and political system etc.
The proletariat are the working class, who sell their labour and are not well off and are usually exploited by the other class group. The bourgeoisie are upper class and hire the proletariat, they fall into two groups. The wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work and the petty bourgeoisie who do employ others as well work themselves too.
Checkpoint 2: what is the difference between the ISAs and the RSAs?
Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA) feed their ideologies through authoritive figures such as the military,police etc. Whereas Ideological State Apparatus (ISA) feed their ideologies subconsciencly through religion, education, family values, legal and political system etc.
Tuesday 16 October 2007
A: I dont understand why everyone is concerned with cultural homogenisation. What exactly is it?
B: well, cultural homogenisation is to receive the values and ideologies of the media, for example the monopoly run by Rupert Murdoch, he owns so much of the media, newspapers and channels, and is highly influential to the extent that when Tony Blair became PM the first person he went to see was him, just to get his support and backing due to his ability to enforce his ideas through his newspapers. With one man running so much of the media from the Sun to Sky, it leaves the audience without an alternative choice, and leads them to believe the ideologies and values he supports.
A: audiences arent passive any longer though. There are so many different sources of information, even if Murdoch owns alot. Theres the internet, BBC News, other newspapers, other news channels etc. Theres enough resources for them to make their own choice rather than believe whatever Murdoch thinks.
B: But some people rely on his newspapers and his channels. Your not going to change what you read or watch just for a unbiased version of the news are you? Many people dont have the time to look at other sources. Thats why cultural homogenisation is dangerous as the audiences accept the beliefs due to reputation these monopolies have built. The audience is slowly turning into an example of the hypodermic needle model and changes a pluralistic society.
A: ok fine hes viewpoint may be obvious but its not neccessarily a bad thing for someones ideologies to be visible if it doesnt cause any real harm, hes just helping people make up their mind.
B: its harmful as it challenges the pluralistic society, the audience is no longer given a neutral viewpoint and can be influenced by negative media such as this. Look at the cultural imperialisation of the US media, US culture is dominate and influential for us, and look as Bush's terrorism campaign, its just a form of propaganda and from this propaganda everyone across the world is in a state of worry, its a perfect example of the global village.
The likes of Murdoch may be successful in what they do but we have to keep in mind that we need a pluralistic society which gives us a range of opinions and sum sources of unbiased news so that audiences do not take on the monopoly owners ideologies and values and are left to make their own decisions.
B: well, cultural homogenisation is to receive the values and ideologies of the media, for example the monopoly run by Rupert Murdoch, he owns so much of the media, newspapers and channels, and is highly influential to the extent that when Tony Blair became PM the first person he went to see was him, just to get his support and backing due to his ability to enforce his ideas through his newspapers. With one man running so much of the media from the Sun to Sky, it leaves the audience without an alternative choice, and leads them to believe the ideologies and values he supports.
A: audiences arent passive any longer though. There are so many different sources of information, even if Murdoch owns alot. Theres the internet, BBC News, other newspapers, other news channels etc. Theres enough resources for them to make their own choice rather than believe whatever Murdoch thinks.
B: But some people rely on his newspapers and his channels. Your not going to change what you read or watch just for a unbiased version of the news are you? Many people dont have the time to look at other sources. Thats why cultural homogenisation is dangerous as the audiences accept the beliefs due to reputation these monopolies have built. The audience is slowly turning into an example of the hypodermic needle model and changes a pluralistic society.
A: ok fine hes viewpoint may be obvious but its not neccessarily a bad thing for someones ideologies to be visible if it doesnt cause any real harm, hes just helping people make up their mind.
B: its harmful as it challenges the pluralistic society, the audience is no longer given a neutral viewpoint and can be influenced by negative media such as this. Look at the cultural imperialisation of the US media, US culture is dominate and influential for us, and look as Bush's terrorism campaign, its just a form of propaganda and from this propaganda everyone across the world is in a state of worry, its a perfect example of the global village.
The likes of Murdoch may be successful in what they do but we have to keep in mind that we need a pluralistic society which gives us a range of opinions and sum sources of unbiased news so that audiences do not take on the monopoly owners ideologies and values and are left to make their own decisions.
Fury at Bremner's McCann sketchLeigh HolmwoodTuesday October 16, 2007
Dozens of viewers have complained about a sketch on Channel 4's Bremner, Bird and Fortune on Sunday that suggested that Gordon Brown would find Madeleine McCann on the eve of an election.
Media regulator Ofcom said it had received 32 complaints, while Channel 4 also confirmed it had received "a number" of complaints, although it would not release a figure.
Viewers complained over what they saw as insensitivity while the search for Madeleine - who was taken from her Portuguese hotel room in May - continues.
The sketch, which was performed on Rory Bremner's Channel 4 satirical comedy show on Sunday night, suggested that Mr Brown was so desperate for an election win that he would produce Madeleine on the eve of a poll in order to secure votes.
Sunday's episode, which aired at 7pm, was watched by 1.3 million viewers - a 6% share of the audience.
One viewer who complained, David Cairnie, said he found the sketch "despicable".
"I wish to register my abhorrence at a supposed 'joke' proffered by Bremner, Bird and Fortune," he added.
"They suggested that Gordon Brown might produce and hold up Madeleine McCann on the eve of an election as a vote-winning move. It seems that Channel 4 has reached a new level in despicable taste."
A Channel 4 spokesman defended the sketch, saying it was not aimed at the McCanns but at politicians.
"The sketch satirised the lengths to which politicians would go to win public support, following press criticism of the timing of Gordon Brown's visit to Iraq in the run up to a snap general election," the spokesman added.
"We can assure you the sketch was not aimed at the McCann family, but was clearly directed at politicians and their opportunistic publicity stunts. It was certainly never Channel 4's intention to offend or cause distress to the family or to our viewers."
Dozens of viewers have complained about a sketch on Channel 4's Bremner, Bird and Fortune on Sunday that suggested that Gordon Brown would find Madeleine McCann on the eve of an election.
Media regulator Ofcom said it had received 32 complaints, while Channel 4 also confirmed it had received "a number" of complaints, although it would not release a figure.
Viewers complained over what they saw as insensitivity while the search for Madeleine - who was taken from her Portuguese hotel room in May - continues.
The sketch, which was performed on Rory Bremner's Channel 4 satirical comedy show on Sunday night, suggested that Mr Brown was so desperate for an election win that he would produce Madeleine on the eve of a poll in order to secure votes.
Sunday's episode, which aired at 7pm, was watched by 1.3 million viewers - a 6% share of the audience.
One viewer who complained, David Cairnie, said he found the sketch "despicable".
"I wish to register my abhorrence at a supposed 'joke' proffered by Bremner, Bird and Fortune," he added.
"They suggested that Gordon Brown might produce and hold up Madeleine McCann on the eve of an election as a vote-winning move. It seems that Channel 4 has reached a new level in despicable taste."
A Channel 4 spokesman defended the sketch, saying it was not aimed at the McCanns but at politicians.
"The sketch satirised the lengths to which politicians would go to win public support, following press criticism of the timing of Gordon Brown's visit to Iraq in the run up to a snap general election," the spokesman added.
"We can assure you the sketch was not aimed at the McCann family, but was clearly directed at politicians and their opportunistic publicity stunts. It was certainly never Channel 4's intention to offend or cause distress to the family or to our viewers."
Tuesday 9 October 2007
TIME WARNER
Time Warner Inc. is the world's largest media and entertainment conglomerate headquartered in New York City, with major operations in film, television, publishing, Internet service and telecommunications. Among its subsidiaries are AOL, Home Box Office, New Line Cinema, Time Inc., Time Warner Cable, Turner Broadcasting System, The CW and Warner Bros. Entertainment.
*Conglomerates: a conglomerate is a collection of companies owned by a single institution. These need not all be within the same industry. This diversification allows protection against a single part of the conglomerate failing.
Origins
Warner Communications was established in 1972 when Kinney National Company spun off its non-entertainment assets, due to a financial scandal over its parking operations.
It was the parent company for Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Music Group during the 1970s and 1980s. It also owned DC Comics and Mad, as well as a majority stake in Garden State National Bank (an investment it was ultimately required to sell pursuant to requirements under the Bank Holding Company Act). Warner's initial divestiture efforts led by Garden State CEO Charles A. Agemian were blocked by Garden State board member William A. Conway in 1978; a revised transaction was later completed in 1980. Warner made considerable profits (and later losses) with Atari, which it owned from 1976 to 1984. In 1976, Nolan Bushnell sold his Atari company to Warner Communications for an estimated $28 - $32 million. While part of Warner, Atari achieved its greatest success, selling millions of Atari 2600s and computers. At its peak, Atari accounted for a third of Warner's annual income and was the fastest-growing company in the history of the United States at the time.
In the 1970s, Warner expanded under the guidance of CEO Steve Ross and formed a joint venture with American Express, named Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment, which held cable channels including MTV, Nickelodeon and Showtime. Warner bought out American Express's half in 1984, and sold the venture a year later to Viacom, which renamed it MTV Networks.
In February 1983, Warner expanded their interests to baseball. Under the direction of Ceasar P. Kimmel, executive vice president, bought 48 percent of the Pittsburgh Pirates for $10 million. It then put up its share for sale in November 1984 following losses of $6 million. The team's elderly majority owner, John W. Galbreath, soon followed suit after learning of Warner's actions.
Turner Broadcasting logo
1999 Time Warner logo
In 1984, due to the video game crash of 1983, Warner sold the consumer division of Atari to Jack Tramiel. It kept the arcade division and renamed it Atari Games. They sold Atari Games to Namco in 1985, and repurchased it in 1994, renaming it Time-Warner Interactive, until it was sold to Midway Games in 1996. Meanwhile, In 1987, it was announced that Warner Communications and Time Inc. were to merge. The last thing Warner did before the merger closed in 1989 was to buy out Lorimar-Telepictures. In early 1990, the combined companies were named Time Warner. This company subsequently acquired Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting System in October 1996.
Time Warner had also been owner of the Six Flags Theme Parks chain during the 1990s after near bankruptcy. It sold all Six Flags parks and properties to Oklahoma based Premier Parks on April 1st, 1998. Some theme park insiders argue that Six Flags was much better off under Time Warner ownership.
America Online merger
In 2000, a new company called AOL Time Warner was created when AOL purchased Time Warner for US$164bn. The deal, announced on 10 January 2000 and officially filed on 11 February 2000, employed a merger structure in which each original company merged into a newly created entity. The Federal Trade Commission cleared the deal on December 14, 2000, and gave final approval on January 11, 2001; the company completed the merger later that day. The deal was approved on the same day by the Federal Communications Commission, and had already been cleared the European Commission on 11 October 2000. The shareholders of AOL owned 55% of the new company while Time Warner shareholders owned only 45%, meaning that the smaller AOL had in fact bought out the far larger Time Warner.
There has been some speculation about the motivations of each party. Some observers believed that Time Warner was struggling to integrate "new media" into its business. At the time of the announcement, Time Warner executives spoke of the need to "digitize their business." They were also eager to be attached to a dot-com company, as the dot-com bubble was near its peak. A merger with AOL provided a huge subscriber base of Internet users, along with online marketing know-how. While some business journalists have reported that AOL executives felt that AOL stock was severely overvalued and that a big merger was the only way to avoid a collapse in valuation, it this could merely have been a small part of AOL executives' desire to diversify the assets of the company beyond the Internet and online sectors. In addition, executives at AOL were quite concerned about the prospect of increased competition with Microsoft and sought to enlarge the company as a defensive measure. Finally, AOL executives believed that the integration of AOL's Internet distribution and Time Warner's content would create a tremendous amount of value for both sides of the company.
Media companies felt that the vertically integrated AOL Time Warner would unfairly promote its own content within its outlets. This fear existed before the merger, but Time Warner was thought to be a conglomeration of very independent divisions. It was feared that this would change with the influence of AOL executives.
Consumer advocates were concerned with the threat of product tying between Time Warner's cable TV systems and AOL's Internet service. Some consumer groups saw a possible attempt to corner the Internet-over-TV market, whereby AOL could force all of the Time Warner cable subscribers to use AOL branded Internet-TV. Smaller internet service providers feared that AOL would tie its Internet service to Time Warner's cable modem service. Some ISPs wanted the opportunity to use Time Warner's cable network as a common carrier for their services, which competed with AOL. AOL and Time Warner pledged not to violate any antitrust regulations.
Many observers were shocked that a large, diversified media conglomerate was being acquired by a much smaller company. Market conditions at the time of the merger placed a greater premium on Internet-related stocks than on traditional media stocks. AOL's high market capitalization relative to that of Time Warner made the acquisition possible. The deal has since become a symbol of the Dot com bubble and is widely regarded as a disaster for shareholders of the original Time Warner, with a $2.4 billion shareholder settlement, a further $600 million set aside and a $5 billion price boosting share buyback program announced on August 3, 2005.
AOL CEO Steve Case became executive chairman of the new company, while Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin retained the CEO title.
Financials
In 2004, Time Warner's market capitalization was $84 billion. When the AOL-Time Warner merger was announced in January 2000, the combined market capitalization was $280 billion.
For fiscal year 2002 the company reported a $99 billion loss on its income statement because of $100 billion in non-recurring charges, almost all from a writedown of the goodwill (intangible asset) from the merger in 2000. (The value of the AOL portion of the company had dropped sharply with the collapse of the Internet boom, in the early 2000s.)
Competition
Time Warner faces industry competition from traditional media companies such as CBS Corporation, News Corporation, and Viacom, as well as online search portals such as Yahoo!, and Google for competition of viewer attention which translates to ad sales. According to the recent 10Q, in order to remain competitive, Time Warner and AOL must keep pace with rapid technological changes on the internet. Time Warner's business may be severely impacted by the increasing 'piracy' of feature films, television programming and other content which decreases company revenues.
AOL's subscriber base is declining, and declines are expected to continue, adversely affecting subscription and advertising revenue. As more individuals are using non-PC devices to access the Internet, AOL is under pressure to secure placement of its services and applications on mobile devices.
Box office receipts and the growth rate of DVD sales have recently been declining, which adversely affects Warner Brothers' growth prospects and revenues.
Controversy
Time Warner has been criticized for its funding associated with Planned Parenthood, listed as a boycott target by Life Decisions International.
*Conglomerates: a conglomerate is a collection of companies owned by a single institution. These need not all be within the same industry. This diversification allows protection against a single part of the conglomerate failing.
Origins
Warner Communications was established in 1972 when Kinney National Company spun off its non-entertainment assets, due to a financial scandal over its parking operations.
It was the parent company for Warner Bros. Pictures and Warner Music Group during the 1970s and 1980s. It also owned DC Comics and Mad, as well as a majority stake in Garden State National Bank (an investment it was ultimately required to sell pursuant to requirements under the Bank Holding Company Act). Warner's initial divestiture efforts led by Garden State CEO Charles A. Agemian were blocked by Garden State board member William A. Conway in 1978; a revised transaction was later completed in 1980. Warner made considerable profits (and later losses) with Atari, which it owned from 1976 to 1984. In 1976, Nolan Bushnell sold his Atari company to Warner Communications for an estimated $28 - $32 million. While part of Warner, Atari achieved its greatest success, selling millions of Atari 2600s and computers. At its peak, Atari accounted for a third of Warner's annual income and was the fastest-growing company in the history of the United States at the time.
In the 1970s, Warner expanded under the guidance of CEO Steve Ross and formed a joint venture with American Express, named Warner-Amex Satellite Entertainment, which held cable channels including MTV, Nickelodeon and Showtime. Warner bought out American Express's half in 1984, and sold the venture a year later to Viacom, which renamed it MTV Networks.
In February 1983, Warner expanded their interests to baseball. Under the direction of Ceasar P. Kimmel, executive vice president, bought 48 percent of the Pittsburgh Pirates for $10 million. It then put up its share for sale in November 1984 following losses of $6 million. The team's elderly majority owner, John W. Galbreath, soon followed suit after learning of Warner's actions.
Turner Broadcasting logo
1999 Time Warner logo
In 1984, due to the video game crash of 1983, Warner sold the consumer division of Atari to Jack Tramiel. It kept the arcade division and renamed it Atari Games. They sold Atari Games to Namco in 1985, and repurchased it in 1994, renaming it Time-Warner Interactive, until it was sold to Midway Games in 1996. Meanwhile, In 1987, it was announced that Warner Communications and Time Inc. were to merge. The last thing Warner did before the merger closed in 1989 was to buy out Lorimar-Telepictures. In early 1990, the combined companies were named Time Warner. This company subsequently acquired Ted Turner's Turner Broadcasting System in October 1996.
Time Warner had also been owner of the Six Flags Theme Parks chain during the 1990s after near bankruptcy. It sold all Six Flags parks and properties to Oklahoma based Premier Parks on April 1st, 1998. Some theme park insiders argue that Six Flags was much better off under Time Warner ownership.
America Online merger
In 2000, a new company called AOL Time Warner was created when AOL purchased Time Warner for US$164bn. The deal, announced on 10 January 2000 and officially filed on 11 February 2000, employed a merger structure in which each original company merged into a newly created entity. The Federal Trade Commission cleared the deal on December 14, 2000, and gave final approval on January 11, 2001; the company completed the merger later that day. The deal was approved on the same day by the Federal Communications Commission, and had already been cleared the European Commission on 11 October 2000. The shareholders of AOL owned 55% of the new company while Time Warner shareholders owned only 45%, meaning that the smaller AOL had in fact bought out the far larger Time Warner.
There has been some speculation about the motivations of each party. Some observers believed that Time Warner was struggling to integrate "new media" into its business. At the time of the announcement, Time Warner executives spoke of the need to "digitize their business." They were also eager to be attached to a dot-com company, as the dot-com bubble was near its peak. A merger with AOL provided a huge subscriber base of Internet users, along with online marketing know-how. While some business journalists have reported that AOL executives felt that AOL stock was severely overvalued and that a big merger was the only way to avoid a collapse in valuation, it this could merely have been a small part of AOL executives' desire to diversify the assets of the company beyond the Internet and online sectors. In addition, executives at AOL were quite concerned about the prospect of increased competition with Microsoft and sought to enlarge the company as a defensive measure. Finally, AOL executives believed that the integration of AOL's Internet distribution and Time Warner's content would create a tremendous amount of value for both sides of the company.
Media companies felt that the vertically integrated AOL Time Warner would unfairly promote its own content within its outlets. This fear existed before the merger, but Time Warner was thought to be a conglomeration of very independent divisions. It was feared that this would change with the influence of AOL executives.
Consumer advocates were concerned with the threat of product tying between Time Warner's cable TV systems and AOL's Internet service. Some consumer groups saw a possible attempt to corner the Internet-over-TV market, whereby AOL could force all of the Time Warner cable subscribers to use AOL branded Internet-TV. Smaller internet service providers feared that AOL would tie its Internet service to Time Warner's cable modem service. Some ISPs wanted the opportunity to use Time Warner's cable network as a common carrier for their services, which competed with AOL. AOL and Time Warner pledged not to violate any antitrust regulations.
Many observers were shocked that a large, diversified media conglomerate was being acquired by a much smaller company. Market conditions at the time of the merger placed a greater premium on Internet-related stocks than on traditional media stocks. AOL's high market capitalization relative to that of Time Warner made the acquisition possible. The deal has since become a symbol of the Dot com bubble and is widely regarded as a disaster for shareholders of the original Time Warner, with a $2.4 billion shareholder settlement, a further $600 million set aside and a $5 billion price boosting share buyback program announced on August 3, 2005.
AOL CEO Steve Case became executive chairman of the new company, while Time Warner CEO Gerald Levin retained the CEO title.
Financials
In 2004, Time Warner's market capitalization was $84 billion. When the AOL-Time Warner merger was announced in January 2000, the combined market capitalization was $280 billion.
For fiscal year 2002 the company reported a $99 billion loss on its income statement because of $100 billion in non-recurring charges, almost all from a writedown of the goodwill (intangible asset) from the merger in 2000. (The value of the AOL portion of the company had dropped sharply with the collapse of the Internet boom, in the early 2000s.)
Competition
Time Warner faces industry competition from traditional media companies such as CBS Corporation, News Corporation, and Viacom, as well as online search portals such as Yahoo!, and Google for competition of viewer attention which translates to ad sales. According to the recent 10Q, in order to remain competitive, Time Warner and AOL must keep pace with rapid technological changes on the internet. Time Warner's business may be severely impacted by the increasing 'piracy' of feature films, television programming and other content which decreases company revenues.
AOL's subscriber base is declining, and declines are expected to continue, adversely affecting subscription and advertising revenue. As more individuals are using non-PC devices to access the Internet, AOL is under pressure to secure placement of its services and applications on mobile devices.
Box office receipts and the growth rate of DVD sales have recently been declining, which adversely affects Warner Brothers' growth prospects and revenues.
Controversy
Time Warner has been criticized for its funding associated with Planned Parenthood, listed as a boycott target by Life Decisions International.
Tuesday 2 October 2007
"Jo Whiley show used fake caller"
http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2177466,00.html
Jo Whiley show used fake caller
Jemima Kiss and Leigh HolmwoodTuesday October 2, 2007
Jo Whiley's Radio 1 show is the latest BBC programme to become embroiled in the broadcasting fakery scandal, after producers admitted that a member of staff posed as an audience member during a phone-in competition.
The incident was not highlighted by the recent internal BBC review that identified a series of editorial blunders, and was omitted from the report handed to the BBC Trust at its last meeting on September 19.
Several members of staff have been disciplined, the BBC said in a statement. "A pre-recorded section of Radio 1's Jo Whiley Show on April 20, 2006 featured a phone competition in which a member of BBC staff posed as a caller from the audience," the BBC said.
"The incident came to light following the recent publication of further editorial breaches. A number of staff members have been disciplined.
"We would like to make clear that Jo Whiley was unaware that the caller was not a genuine member of the public. The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee has been informed of this today."
The Trust confirmed it had received the new report concerning Radio 1.
"The Trust is satisfied that BBC management is taking appropriate action in light of this finding and that the breach raises no new issues which require any change to the director-general's action plan," the Trust said in a statement.
"The Editorial Standards Committee will continue to receive regular reports on progress before the director-general concludes his work and reports to the Trust in January."
A BBC spokeswoman said the incident happened when two hours of Whiley's usual three-hour show had to be pre-recorded, because the presenter was attending the opening by the Queen of the new Broadcasting House.
However, listeners were not informed that part of the show was pre-recorded.
"The show is always live," the spokeswoman said. "This was an exceptional occasion."
The BBC said the fact that the competition was pre-recorded did not mean that Whiley knew the winner was faked, as listeners telephoned Radio 1 all the time and one of them could have been asked to participate in the pre-record.
Whiley will apologise on her show tomorrow for the competition incident, in which the "winner" bagged CDs.
The BBC spokeswoman confirmed that "more than two" staff members had been disciplined, although would not say whether they had been sacked.
It is thought their punishment is stronger than that meted out to other staff involved in previous fakery scandals because they did not come forward during the BBC's trawl for audience deceptions.
"It didn't come to light in the last trawl because no one told us about it," the spokeswoman said. "We take that seriously."
The original investigation had uncovered incidents of fakery on the digital radio stations Asian Network and 6Music and on children's TV show Blue Peter, where staff ignored the results of a web poll to decide the name of the show's new cat.
The programme's editor was later sacked and a new kitten named Cookie - the real name
Jo Whiley show used fake caller
Jemima Kiss and Leigh HolmwoodTuesday October 2, 2007
Jo Whiley's Radio 1 show is the latest BBC programme to become embroiled in the broadcasting fakery scandal, after producers admitted that a member of staff posed as an audience member during a phone-in competition.
The incident was not highlighted by the recent internal BBC review that identified a series of editorial blunders, and was omitted from the report handed to the BBC Trust at its last meeting on September 19.
Several members of staff have been disciplined, the BBC said in a statement. "A pre-recorded section of Radio 1's Jo Whiley Show on April 20, 2006 featured a phone competition in which a member of BBC staff posed as a caller from the audience," the BBC said.
"The incident came to light following the recent publication of further editorial breaches. A number of staff members have been disciplined.
"We would like to make clear that Jo Whiley was unaware that the caller was not a genuine member of the public. The BBC Trust's Editorial Standards Committee has been informed of this today."
The Trust confirmed it had received the new report concerning Radio 1.
"The Trust is satisfied that BBC management is taking appropriate action in light of this finding and that the breach raises no new issues which require any change to the director-general's action plan," the Trust said in a statement.
"The Editorial Standards Committee will continue to receive regular reports on progress before the director-general concludes his work and reports to the Trust in January."
A BBC spokeswoman said the incident happened when two hours of Whiley's usual three-hour show had to be pre-recorded, because the presenter was attending the opening by the Queen of the new Broadcasting House.
However, listeners were not informed that part of the show was pre-recorded.
"The show is always live," the spokeswoman said. "This was an exceptional occasion."
The BBC said the fact that the competition was pre-recorded did not mean that Whiley knew the winner was faked, as listeners telephoned Radio 1 all the time and one of them could have been asked to participate in the pre-record.
Whiley will apologise on her show tomorrow for the competition incident, in which the "winner" bagged CDs.
The BBC spokeswoman confirmed that "more than two" staff members had been disciplined, although would not say whether they had been sacked.
It is thought their punishment is stronger than that meted out to other staff involved in previous fakery scandals because they did not come forward during the BBC's trawl for audience deceptions.
"It didn't come to light in the last trawl because no one told us about it," the spokeswoman said. "We take that seriously."
The original investigation had uncovered incidents of fakery on the digital radio stations Asian Network and 6Music and on children's TV show Blue Peter, where staff ignored the results of a web poll to decide the name of the show's new cat.
The programme's editor was later sacked and a new kitten named Cookie - the real name
chosen by viewers - was introduced.
( This article relates to recent BBC scandals regarding phone ins and competitions for example the naming of the Blue Peter cat. I decided to use this article as it is part of an issue which is being looked into within the media and television channels. This also relates to my chosen channel as channel 4 too had a similar incident regarding phone ins during their day time TV show "Richard&Judy".http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,,2177466,00.html This article corresponds to this topic and charts recent phone in scandals. )
Thursday 27 September 2007
[[ Channel 4 Notes ]]
Channel 4
Channel 4 is a public-service British television station, broadcast to all areas of the United Kingdom (and also the Republic of Ireland), which began transmissions in 1982. Though entirely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned: Originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the station is now owned and operated by the Channel Four Television Corporation, a public body established in 1990 for this purpose and which came into operation in 1993, following the abolition of the IBA.
The station was established to provide a fourth television service to the UK that would break the duopoly of the BBC's two established television services and the single commercial broadcasting network, ITV, then the only services broadcast there. Though having seen new competition through the subsequent availability and growth of cable, satellite and digital terrestrial stations, Channel 4 still enjoys almost universal coverage, and a significant audience share.
Channel 4 was established with, and continues to hold, a remit of public service obligations which it must fulfil. The remit changes periodically, as dictated by various broadcasting and communications acts, and is regulated by the various authorities Channel 4 has been answerable to; originally the IBA, then the ITC and now Ofcom.
The preamble of the remit as per the Communications Act 2003 states that:
"The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular:
demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;
appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; andexhibits a distinctive character."
The remit also involves an obligation to provide Schools Programming, and a substantial amount of programming produced outside of Greater London, Initially Channel 4 was not intentionally broadcast to Wales. Prior to its establishment, a significant demand for a dedicated Welsh language service for Wales lead to the creation of S4C, that is Sianel Pedwar Cymru or Channel 4 Wales, which carried Welsh spoken programmes as well as some programmes as also broadcast on Channel 4. Limited frequency space meant that Channel 4 proper could not be broadcast alongside S4C, though carriage on digital cable, satellite and digital terrestrial television means that the station is now available to over 70% of Welsh viewers. Following the completion of switchover to digital broadcasting in Wales in 2009, Channel 4 should become available to all Welsh TV viewers, alongside S4C. Consequently S4C does not carry Channel 4 programming on the digital variant of its channel[7], resulting in S4C Digidol broadcasting for fewer hours than its analogue counterpart.
Channel Four Television Corporation
As an organisation, Channel 4 is known as the Channel Four Television Corporation, though this form is more recent than the station itself, having previously been the Channel Four Television Company, a subsidiary of the IBA, between 1982 and 1993.
Towards the end of the 1980s, the government began a radical process of re-organisation of the commercial broadcasting industry, which was written onto the statute books by means of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Significantly, this meant the abolition of the IBA, and hence the Channel Four Television Company. The result lead to the creation of a corporation to own and operate the channel, which would have a greater deal of autonomy and would eventually go on establish its other operations. The new corporation, which became operational in 1993, remained publicly owned and was regulated by the new Independent Television Commission (ITC), created under the same act. The ITC and its duties were later replaced by Ofcom, which like its predecessor is responsible for appointing the Corporation's board, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
In terms of the station's remit and other duties, the creation of the corporation meant little change, however the new corporation would have to manage its own advertising, rather than this being carried out on its behalf by the local ITV contractors.
History
Conception
Before Channel 4 and S4C, Britain had three terrestrial television services: BBC1, BBC2, and ITV. The Broadcasting Act 1980 began the process of adding a fourth, and Channel 4, along with its Welsh counterpart, was formally created by an Act of Parliament in 1982. After some weeks of test broadcasts, it began scheduled transmissions on 2 November 1982.
The notion of a second commercial broadcaster in the UK had been around since the inception of ITV in 1954 and its subsequent launch in 1955; the idea of an 'ITV2' was long expected and pushed for. Indeed television sets sold throughout the 1970s and early 1980s had a spare channel called 'ITV/IBA 2'. Throughout ITV's History and until Channel 4 finally became a reality, a perennial dialogue existed between the GPO, the government, the ITV companies and other interested parties, concerning the form such an expansion of commercial broadcasting would take. It was most likely politics which had the biggest impact in leading to a delay of almost three decades before the second commercial channel became a reality. With what can crudely be summed up as a clash of ideologies between an expansion of ITV's commercial ethos and a public service approach more akin to the BBC, it was ultimately somewhat of a compromise that eventually led to the formation of Channel 4 as launched in 1982.
One clear benefit of the 'late arrival' of the channel was that its frequency allocations at each transmitter had already been arranged in the early 1960s, when the launch of ITV2 was highly anticipated. This led to very good coverage across most of the country and few problems of interference with other UK based transmissions; a stark contrast to the problems associated with Channel 5's launch a decade and a half later.
The future
Channel 4 has in recent years raised concerns over how it might finance its public service obligations after digital switch-over. However, some certainty lies in the announcement in April 2006 that Channel 4's digital switch-over costs would be paid for by licence fee revenues.On March 28, 2007, Channel 4 announced plans to launch a music channel as a joint venture with UK media company EMAP which would include carriage on the Freeview platform. Channel 4 has since acquired a 50% stake in EMAP's TV business for a reported £28 million.
Funding
Channel 4 has never received any public funding. During the station's formative years, funding came from the ITV companies in return for their right to sell advertisements in their region on the fourth channel.Nowadays it pays for itself in much the same way as most privately run commercial stations, i.e. through the sale of on-air advertising, programme sponsorship, and the sale of any programme content and merchandising rights it owns, such as overseas sales and video sales. It also has the ability to subsidise the main network through any profits made on the corporation's other endeavours, which have in the past included subscription fees from stations such as E4 and Film4 (now no longer subscription services) and its 'video-on-demand' sales. In practice, however, these other activities are loss-making, and are subsidised by the main network. According to Channel 4's last published accounts, for 2005, the extent of this cross-subsidy was some £30 million.
The change in funding method came about by the Broadcasting Act 1990 when the new corporation was afforded the ability to fund itself. Originally this arrangement left a 'safety net' guaranteed minimum income should the revenue fall too low, funded by large insurance payments made to the ITV companies. Such a subsidy was never required, however, and these premiums were phased out by government in 1998. After the link with ITV was cut, the cross-promotion which had existed between ITV and Channel 4 also ended.
Programming
Channel 4 share of viewing 1992-2007 BARB figuresChannel 4 is a "publisher-broadcaster", meaning that it commissions or "buys" all of its programming from companies independent of itself, and was the first broadcaster in the United Kingdom to do so on any significant scale. This had the consequence of starting an industry of production companies that did not have to rely on owning an ITV licence in order to see their programmes air, though since Channel 4, external commissioning has become regular practise on the numerous stations that have launched since, as well as on the BBC and in ITV. Somewhat ironically, (and against the wider trend) being used to outsourcing its core function - programming - it is the only terrestrial broadcaster that has kept its transmission and playout operation in-house.
The requirement to obtain all content externally is stipulated in its licence. Additionally, Channel 4 also began a trend of owning the copyright and distribution rights of the programmes it aired, in a manner that is similar to the major Hollywood studios' ownership of television programs that they did not directly produce. Thus, although Channel 4 does not produce programmes, many are seen as belonging to it.
Channel 4 also pioneered the concept of stranded programming, where seasons of programmes following a common theme would be aired and promoted together. Some would be very specific, and run for a fixed period of time; the 4 Mation season, for example, showed innovative animation. Other, less specific strands, were (and still are) run regularly, such as T4, a strand of programming aimed at teenagers, on weekend mornings (and weekdays during school/college holidays); Friday Night Comedy, a slot where the channel would pioneer its style of comedy commissions, 4Music and 4Later, an eclectic collection of offbeat programmes transmitted to a cult audience in the early hours of the morning.
In its earlier years, Red Triangle was the name given to the airing of certain risqué art-house films, dubbed as being pornographic by many of Channel 4's critics, whilst general broadcasting of films on the station for many years came under the banner of Film on Four prior to the launch of the FilmFour brand and station in the late 1990s.
Its critically acclaimed news service, Channel 4 News, is supplied by ITN whilst its long-standing investigative documentary, Dispatches, causes perennial media attention.
Other Services
November 1998 saw Channel 4 expand beyond its remit of providing the 'fourth service' in a significant way, with the launch of FilmFour. Since then the corporation has been involved in a range of other activities, all in some way associated with the main channel, and mainly using the '4' brand.
Corporate Structure
Management
Channel 4 is run by a chief executive, whose role can be compared to that of the Director-General of the BBC. The chief executive is appointed by the chairman, which is a part-time position appointed by Ofcom.
Chairmen
Edmund Dell (1982–87)
Richard Attenborough (1987–92)
Michael Bishop (1993–97)
Vanni Treves (January 1998 – December 2003)
Luke Johnson (January 2004– )
Chief executives
Jeremy Isaacs (1981–87)
Michael Grade (1988–97)
Michael Jackson (1997–2001)
Mark Thompson (March 2002 – June 2004)
Andy Duncan (July 2004– )
Financial information
Channel 4's total revenue for the year to 31 December 2005 was £894.3 million, of which £735.2 million was generated by its main channel, and the remainder by its subsidiaries channels, sales of programming rights to other broadcasters, Film Four and "new media". Operating profits for the year to 31 December 2006 fell 70% to £14.5 million from £56.9 million in 2005.
Channel 4 is a public-service British television station, broadcast to all areas of the United Kingdom (and also the Republic of Ireland), which began transmissions in 1982. Though entirely commercially self-funded, it is ultimately publicly owned: Originally a subsidiary of the Independent Broadcasting Authority (IBA), the station is now owned and operated by the Channel Four Television Corporation, a public body established in 1990 for this purpose and which came into operation in 1993, following the abolition of the IBA.
The station was established to provide a fourth television service to the UK that would break the duopoly of the BBC's two established television services and the single commercial broadcasting network, ITV, then the only services broadcast there. Though having seen new competition through the subsequent availability and growth of cable, satellite and digital terrestrial stations, Channel 4 still enjoys almost universal coverage, and a significant audience share.
Channel 4 was established with, and continues to hold, a remit of public service obligations which it must fulfil. The remit changes periodically, as dictated by various broadcasting and communications acts, and is regulated by the various authorities Channel 4 has been answerable to; originally the IBA, then the ITC and now Ofcom.
The preamble of the remit as per the Communications Act 2003 states that:
"The public service remit for Channel 4 is the provision of a broad range of high quality and diverse programming which, in particular:
demonstrates innovation, experiment and creativity in the form and content of programmes;
appeals to the tastes and interests of a culturally diverse society;makes a significant contribution to meeting the need for the licensed public service channels to include programmes of an educational nature and other programmes of educative value; andexhibits a distinctive character."
The remit also involves an obligation to provide Schools Programming, and a substantial amount of programming produced outside of Greater London, Initially Channel 4 was not intentionally broadcast to Wales. Prior to its establishment, a significant demand for a dedicated Welsh language service for Wales lead to the creation of S4C, that is Sianel Pedwar Cymru or Channel 4 Wales, which carried Welsh spoken programmes as well as some programmes as also broadcast on Channel 4. Limited frequency space meant that Channel 4 proper could not be broadcast alongside S4C, though carriage on digital cable, satellite and digital terrestrial television means that the station is now available to over 70% of Welsh viewers. Following the completion of switchover to digital broadcasting in Wales in 2009, Channel 4 should become available to all Welsh TV viewers, alongside S4C. Consequently S4C does not carry Channel 4 programming on the digital variant of its channel[7], resulting in S4C Digidol broadcasting for fewer hours than its analogue counterpart.
Channel Four Television Corporation
As an organisation, Channel 4 is known as the Channel Four Television Corporation, though this form is more recent than the station itself, having previously been the Channel Four Television Company, a subsidiary of the IBA, between 1982 and 1993.
Towards the end of the 1980s, the government began a radical process of re-organisation of the commercial broadcasting industry, which was written onto the statute books by means of the Broadcasting Act 1990. Significantly, this meant the abolition of the IBA, and hence the Channel Four Television Company. The result lead to the creation of a corporation to own and operate the channel, which would have a greater deal of autonomy and would eventually go on establish its other operations. The new corporation, which became operational in 1993, remained publicly owned and was regulated by the new Independent Television Commission (ITC), created under the same act. The ITC and its duties were later replaced by Ofcom, which like its predecessor is responsible for appointing the Corporation's board, in agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
In terms of the station's remit and other duties, the creation of the corporation meant little change, however the new corporation would have to manage its own advertising, rather than this being carried out on its behalf by the local ITV contractors.
History
Conception
Before Channel 4 and S4C, Britain had three terrestrial television services: BBC1, BBC2, and ITV. The Broadcasting Act 1980 began the process of adding a fourth, and Channel 4, along with its Welsh counterpart, was formally created by an Act of Parliament in 1982. After some weeks of test broadcasts, it began scheduled transmissions on 2 November 1982.
The notion of a second commercial broadcaster in the UK had been around since the inception of ITV in 1954 and its subsequent launch in 1955; the idea of an 'ITV2' was long expected and pushed for. Indeed television sets sold throughout the 1970s and early 1980s had a spare channel called 'ITV/IBA 2'. Throughout ITV's History and until Channel 4 finally became a reality, a perennial dialogue existed between the GPO, the government, the ITV companies and other interested parties, concerning the form such an expansion of commercial broadcasting would take. It was most likely politics which had the biggest impact in leading to a delay of almost three decades before the second commercial channel became a reality. With what can crudely be summed up as a clash of ideologies between an expansion of ITV's commercial ethos and a public service approach more akin to the BBC, it was ultimately somewhat of a compromise that eventually led to the formation of Channel 4 as launched in 1982.
One clear benefit of the 'late arrival' of the channel was that its frequency allocations at each transmitter had already been arranged in the early 1960s, when the launch of ITV2 was highly anticipated. This led to very good coverage across most of the country and few problems of interference with other UK based transmissions; a stark contrast to the problems associated with Channel 5's launch a decade and a half later.
The future
Channel 4 has in recent years raised concerns over how it might finance its public service obligations after digital switch-over. However, some certainty lies in the announcement in April 2006 that Channel 4's digital switch-over costs would be paid for by licence fee revenues.On March 28, 2007, Channel 4 announced plans to launch a music channel as a joint venture with UK media company EMAP which would include carriage on the Freeview platform. Channel 4 has since acquired a 50% stake in EMAP's TV business for a reported £28 million.
Funding
Channel 4 has never received any public funding. During the station's formative years, funding came from the ITV companies in return for their right to sell advertisements in their region on the fourth channel.Nowadays it pays for itself in much the same way as most privately run commercial stations, i.e. through the sale of on-air advertising, programme sponsorship, and the sale of any programme content and merchandising rights it owns, such as overseas sales and video sales. It also has the ability to subsidise the main network through any profits made on the corporation's other endeavours, which have in the past included subscription fees from stations such as E4 and Film4 (now no longer subscription services) and its 'video-on-demand' sales. In practice, however, these other activities are loss-making, and are subsidised by the main network. According to Channel 4's last published accounts, for 2005, the extent of this cross-subsidy was some £30 million.
The change in funding method came about by the Broadcasting Act 1990 when the new corporation was afforded the ability to fund itself. Originally this arrangement left a 'safety net' guaranteed minimum income should the revenue fall too low, funded by large insurance payments made to the ITV companies. Such a subsidy was never required, however, and these premiums were phased out by government in 1998. After the link with ITV was cut, the cross-promotion which had existed between ITV and Channel 4 also ended.
Programming
Channel 4 share of viewing 1992-2007 BARB figuresChannel 4 is a "publisher-broadcaster", meaning that it commissions or "buys" all of its programming from companies independent of itself, and was the first broadcaster in the United Kingdom to do so on any significant scale. This had the consequence of starting an industry of production companies that did not have to rely on owning an ITV licence in order to see their programmes air, though since Channel 4, external commissioning has become regular practise on the numerous stations that have launched since, as well as on the BBC and in ITV. Somewhat ironically, (and against the wider trend) being used to outsourcing its core function - programming - it is the only terrestrial broadcaster that has kept its transmission and playout operation in-house.
The requirement to obtain all content externally is stipulated in its licence. Additionally, Channel 4 also began a trend of owning the copyright and distribution rights of the programmes it aired, in a manner that is similar to the major Hollywood studios' ownership of television programs that they did not directly produce. Thus, although Channel 4 does not produce programmes, many are seen as belonging to it.
Channel 4 also pioneered the concept of stranded programming, where seasons of programmes following a common theme would be aired and promoted together. Some would be very specific, and run for a fixed period of time; the 4 Mation season, for example, showed innovative animation. Other, less specific strands, were (and still are) run regularly, such as T4, a strand of programming aimed at teenagers, on weekend mornings (and weekdays during school/college holidays); Friday Night Comedy, a slot where the channel would pioneer its style of comedy commissions, 4Music and 4Later, an eclectic collection of offbeat programmes transmitted to a cult audience in the early hours of the morning.
In its earlier years, Red Triangle was the name given to the airing of certain risqué art-house films, dubbed as being pornographic by many of Channel 4's critics, whilst general broadcasting of films on the station for many years came under the banner of Film on Four prior to the launch of the FilmFour brand and station in the late 1990s.
Its critically acclaimed news service, Channel 4 News, is supplied by ITN whilst its long-standing investigative documentary, Dispatches, causes perennial media attention.
Other Services
November 1998 saw Channel 4 expand beyond its remit of providing the 'fourth service' in a significant way, with the launch of FilmFour. Since then the corporation has been involved in a range of other activities, all in some way associated with the main channel, and mainly using the '4' brand.
Corporate Structure
Management
Channel 4 is run by a chief executive, whose role can be compared to that of the Director-General of the BBC. The chief executive is appointed by the chairman, which is a part-time position appointed by Ofcom.
Chairmen
Edmund Dell (1982–87)
Richard Attenborough (1987–92)
Michael Bishop (1993–97)
Vanni Treves (January 1998 – December 2003)
Luke Johnson (January 2004– )
Chief executives
Jeremy Isaacs (1981–87)
Michael Grade (1988–97)
Michael Jackson (1997–2001)
Mark Thompson (March 2002 – June 2004)
Andy Duncan (July 2004– )
Financial information
Channel 4's total revenue for the year to 31 December 2005 was £894.3 million, of which £735.2 million was generated by its main channel, and the remainder by its subsidiaries channels, sales of programming rights to other broadcasters, Film Four and "new media". Operating profits for the year to 31 December 2006 fell 70% to £14.5 million from £56.9 million in 2005.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)