This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
So you're a whining television executive chatting with some Government idiot. Let's pick Andy Burnham, Minister for Mascara, for example."Young Lady," you say to him, "We can't compete with the internet! They can say what they like... we can't! We have rules to follow... they don't! We have to make programmes in the 'public good', they don't. We have to pay millions upon millions to you for the privilage of staying in business.. they don't. We can't compete. The internet's killing us and we're being made to look like dinosaurs."
"I agree," says the Minister. "It's outrageous. The Internet's got away with being unregulated for far too long."
Right, look, I really wanted to lighten up a bit, to move on to less weighty topics and I really wanted to avoid the dreaded 'S' word, but please: This has to stop. The dinosaurs of commerical television are unable to compete with the internet. Sure the Government could help by taking their hands from around the commerical broadcaster's necks for a couple of minutes, but why stop choking commercial television when you could just as easily choke the internet as well?
The world is changing rapidily, and Labour is retreating to a very old principle of protecting those who 'were here first' rather than let these old dinosaurs be made extinct by better and more successful rivals. Which is funny, because the way that the writing is on the wall for companies like ITV is pretty much how I see Labour. They do not belong to this age. They are the party of the pits, of tractor production, of the last century. They are the past and their desire to stop everything, to prevent the world changing, to keep things exactly as they are forever more - "stability" - should, I hope, inspire those of us that wish to get these idiots out of office as fast as possible.
Labour: Holding Britain Back
You want a narrative for the Liberal Democrats?
Liberal Democrats: Britain Unleashed*
*Well, I can dream about an economically liberal party can't I?
This blog is closed and has moved to http://Charlottegore.com. See you there!
Posts
6 comments:
So where do you stand on the healthy eating debate?
ITV dropped all children's programming because it couldn't afford to produce specialised content once the ban on junk food advertising came in.
Obviously ITV was only bothered in entry into this sector because it was lucrative for the shareholders and wouldn't have cared what its' shows were being used as a vehicle to market to 'vulnerable' groups (ie those with immature consciences and incomplete political sensibilities).
But that hasn't ever stopped them if the price is right (don't you believe they'd advertise drinking sewage if they were paid enough?)
So for me the problem of regulation isn't the content per se, but it is the confusion over priorities and what is the primary content - the shows which get the audiences or the adverts and other funding sources which pay for them.
So maybe instead the watchdog should look at pre-approving the tie-ins and products advertised and let the programme makers do what they will.
Parents are responsible for what they feed their children. Adults are responsible for what they feed themselves. I have no other opinion on that.
Personally I think advertising directly to children is grotesque, but I think it is on parents to decide what television their kids are exposed to, so I have no sympathy with people who claim they have been 'helpless' against 'pester power'. They have the power to restrict access to television and the power to say no.
Ultimately for commercial television, it is the viewers that are the product - not the television programmes, they're just bait. ITV doesn't care about anything except maximising the number of viewers to sell.
It's a shitty, slimy business despite the gloss and romance of it.
You look at the depravity of ITV Play and you realise that deregulation of television based on this advertising funded model would make the content even worse. Perhaps it could be shamelessly exploitative and save itself somehow. Can't see anyone voting for that.
If people want good quality content without seeing adverts they need to be prepared to pay for it. Sadly people want great content, for free, without advertising or without a licence or subscription fee.
Yeah good luck making *that* model work, but that's the challenge for television if it wants to compete with the internet. Otherwise they need to work out how to embrace the internet themselves. :)
I don't know if that model is so bad - cigarettes have lost their preapproval for advertising retrospectively, and I'd have thought than the number of credit offers should be shrunk at this time rather than continuing to see their exposure increase.
Adverts are an interesting indicator of cultural mood albeit confused by the fact that companies advertise out of both desperation and security.
They are the party of the pits, of tractor production, of the last century.
I think a lot of Labour supporters wish this were true!
Any move to regulate teh interwebs will be strangled at birth. The net transcends national boundaries.
If the government wants to demonstrates its complete impotence, then it's free to try.
I hope you're right, Aaron, sadly I see the Spin machine against the Free Internet getting noisier and noisier...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7683259.stm
Post a Comment