Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Filed under: Television

We're sorry for claiming Captain Kirk was in command of Captain Picard's starship - News.com.au

117968-star-trek
YESTERDAY, a news.com.au article incorrectly stated that the Star Trek starship USS Enterprise-E, otherwise known as model NNC-1701-E, was the successor to Captain Kirk's original USS Enterprise.

It has since been brought to our attention that the NNC-1701-E in fact came two models after Captain Kirk retired and was under the command of Captain Jean Luc Picard.

Read the original, poorly-researched article here

User "Your Mum's Lunch" led the charge of those who correctly pointed out that after losing the original Enterprise to the Klingons, Captain Kirk was given the Excelsior Class Enterprise-B as a stop-gap measure until the refit of the Enterprise-A was completed.

Once again, News Ltd's - news.com.au website is at it again. Its an article about one of its own articles! It may only be a "tech" story, but indeed, its a news article about one of the online news services own articles.

Of course it involves "Trekkies". Hence, it had to be run over two days with two different stories revolving around mistaken identity.

Since the second article, hoping to correct a mistake, would resolve the issue outlined in the reader comments, news.com.au will be disappointed. The second article itself incorrectly references some "trekkism" and one has to wonder if they will run a third article just as a matter of course.

Would they? No, surely not, well, maybe ;)

Sylvestor

AFL rights could be block to Packer - WAToday

Afl2
JAMES Packer's $245 million raid on the Ten Network may be blocked because it would reduce competition for AFL broadcast rights.

And because two key shareholders have thrown their weight behind the casino king's plans to shake up the TV network, his 17.88 per cent stake will be treated as a controlling interest in a review by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.

I enjoy watching my football (AFL).

One of the most frustrating things, particularly in terms of broadcasting, is the fact I live in Western Australia, where, in most cases, AFL match broadcasts are shown delayed, or not shown at all.

If the lack of competition in the AFL broadcasting rights resulted in a better deal for the viewer, then, really, where is the problem? Surely broadcast rights are about providing viewers with the best possible outcome.

I am not so naive to understand this is business. There is a product, and it is being traded. I understand competition law. But. But we currently have a situation where there is no interest, no driver for anyone to truly take on a better broadcasting deal for the viewer.

Deals between the Foxtel group and commercial stations has not fixed it. The FTA services are not interested unless they meet critical mass in order to maintain advertising and viewer-ship. Come on ACCC open it up. It should be a free market for the likes of pay television to pick up where FTA is failing the viewer! Maybe its a good thing, maybe not. But the current model is not working for the consumer.

The issue here is not with Packer, Murdoch or the broadcasting services. The issue here is the AFL. It needs the money, sure, well let them pay for it! I do, I am willing and as a result of ACCC rules and the AFL I am left high and dry every season. That's my view, at least.

Sylvestor

What should have been a sensible recognition of reality was turned into a "grubby bribe" by Senator Conroy

By Alan Kohler

News Ltd splashed on Conroy skiing with Kerry Stokes, part-owner of the Seven Network, in Colorado.

News Ltd splashed on Conroy skiing with Kerry Stokes, part-owner of the Seven Network, in Colorado. (Barrie Cassidy)

The $235 million tax cut for commercial TV networks announced three weeks ago was indeed a bribe, as alleged by Opposition Leader Tony Abbott, but not for what he thinks.

It's also a perfect demonstration of why legislators and regulators should never hobnob with those whom they regulate.

Reducing it this year and next and then having another look at whole fee regime was a sensible decision - in fact, in my view it was the only possible decision in the light of the Government's need for the networks' cooperation in the digital switchover and the freeing up spectrum.

The Government desperately needs the networks to drive digital take-up and to help with a number of complex technical issues involved in the digital switchover - due to take place in 2013.

But what should have been a sensible recognition of reality was turned into a "grubby bribe" by Senator Conroy hobnobbing with billionaires on the slopes.

Alan Kohler is Publisher of Business spectator and Eureka Report, as well as finance presenter on ABC News and presenter of Inside Business.

via abc.net.au  <-- read the full post (this has been heavily edited to suit my own purposes!)

"Grubby bribe" indeed.

If the Government was truly looking at the best interests of our broadcast system, and looking at the future digital switch-over with nothing but good intentions, then it has backfired in a major way.

It seems much of this current Federal Government's methods of implementing policy rely on hidden agenda's, rushed procedures, intimidation and ego.

Its about time we saw more moving forward rather than this continual - "we saved the country from economic collapse" rants....the fact that the economy was one of the strongest in the world going into the whole GFC seems to continually be forgotten!

When will we actually see something positive come from this Government? When will we actually see a positive outcome to policy put forward by this Government? When will we see some level of stability within the ranks of this Government?

Don't let 2010 be Kevin again! Time is up. Time to move on!

Sylvestor