« Too Wasted(2) | Main | Cab Hazards »

Comments

The problem with for-profit media is that they report what sells (violence, crime, corruption, incompetence, sex, etc. etc.) which often gives people an unrealistic, overly pessimistic view of reality.

I don't know if government funding is a solution to that problem but converting ABC to for-profit might not create an improvement in programming - depending on your taste, I suppose.

If you're in the commercial sector you're certainly not going to sit around and wait for 2 penguins to bonk. You're going to make a load of quick, cheap crap and fling it to air to provide some padding for the ads instead.

Bin gov't funded TV and kiss goodbye to quality TV forever.

Herman8, so penguins bonking is quality television?

What resolution was the documentary? I'm betting it wasn't broadcast quality. As I'm sure your aware, during transmission, according to the niquest sampling therom, you need twice the quality broadcast to what you receive. However, if you'd like to watch your TV with all the resolution of a youtube video, that's your choice.

Also how do you account for this report that shows the ABC is efficient then?
http://www.crikey.com.au/Media/20061121-Leaked-KPMG-report-ABC-is-efficient-needs-more-funding.html

Then again, that is the difference between a blogger and a real journalist. Journalists do what is called real research, rather than just having an opinion and a whine.

TAXI!

D

"Real research" - by that you mean distributing leaks do you ?

Adrian is looking at 2 practical examples of inefficiency, Crikey is parroting a tame report leaked by the ABC.

I have worked for KPMG - they are no authority on efficiency.

Goose.

Bonking penguins for only 8c a day?
Bargain!

Penguins only bonk once a year...so make the most of it!

Herman, what about independant docos on cable, are they not quality ? How does one define quality in nature docos ? Would the ABC give a start to the next 'Steve Irwin' ?

D, didn't ask about the doco resolution but obviously for maximum broadcast quality, studio or electronic news gathering resolution is the ideal. However for an in-vehicle shoot on location, a quality digital handy-cam is surely adequate, with extra lighting and steady operation.

Amateur videos viewed on YouTube is at the extreme and always look lousy on that medium. However with the high standard of digital cameras now available the gap between broadcast standard is no longer ‘night and day’ and translates okay on television. Granted, digital cams may never breach that gap but they’ve narrowed it enough to be considered adequate in certain locations/situations.

For example, last night on ABC TV's Today Tonight a segment featured school children in remote locations preparing for the annual Schools Spectacular. The vision was supplied by the kids using digital handy cams and, despite host Kerry O’Brien’s apology for the 'wobbly cam’, the footage was quite acceptable. If anything I thought it added to the charm of the piece.

Therefore I reckon interesting content properly framed and focussed is always watchable, regardless of format or less than ideal resolution.

Unfortunately Adrian the food would most likely have been thrown out as in these days of legal liability if they donate the food and someone gets sick thru food poisoning they can be sued and as such they don't bother.

Sad but true.

Anthony - LOL. I suppose it might depend on what floats your boat.

Adrian - IMHO the quality of commercial docos is nowhere near as high as the sort of stuff made by the BBC in particular. Also I would argue that non-commercial stations can afford to take risks that no-one else would take; you mention Steve Irwin but there are plenty of examples the other way round of great programmes that would have no chance on a Channel 9 where one duff ratings result gets you pulled - the office for example.

The comments to this entry are closed.