Reader Comments on Aardvark Daily 15 January 2002
Note: the comments below are the unabridged
submissions of readers and do
not necessarily reflect the opinions of the publisher.
From: Kyle Scott For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: News & Sky TV coverage Yes, the internet is marvelous for gathering more information than could be seen on the telly at 6 o'clock. But your article pointed out some polarised views - there is more news available than just TVNZ. Remember the feelings of disappointment when the mainstream media announce that "all internet content is just pornography and stolen software" - well, perhaps a bad exagerated example, but appropriate. Generalisations help no-one. Some people cannot receive TV3, sure. Some people cannot receive TVNZ. Nor Sky, and if you're lucky, Prime TV is off the scope too. As a behind the scenes comment, there has been some discussion on if the Sky TV digital debacle is a worthwhile story, or should the resources be placed on something else. The Sky TV debacle is important to us - those that use it, or try to! But for the 90% of the country that don't use it, the story is unimportant to them. The internet has a fantastic niche in being able to deliver news and information targetted to specialised groups - something tv news simply doesn't have the luxury. But, and this IS my personal opinion only, to critique those who doesn't act on something that affects only 10% of the population, is, I feel, somewhat misguided. Let's become an angry mob instead, and march with pitchforks and burning sticks. And finally, the Sky TV digital system upgrade is one massive cockup - those responsible should be shot!! I hate it, it's too slow, and I'm paying for worse service now than what I had before. Aardvark says: Sky digital claim a subscriber base of 300,000 households which, if we assume that the average family unit is two parents and 2.5 children, represents an audience of 1,350,000 individuals. That makes this problem something that affects over a third of the country's population -- not at all insignificant. From: Grant For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: Sky TV reporting The Listener magazine also reported the Sky TV problems. I think Sky may not be too worried about the amount of publicity so far - after all what are you going to do - switch to the competition? Didn't think so. Even if they lose a few customers its still probably cheaper to lose a few than to pay for hardware upgrades. No one seems to have noticed that Southern Cross Healthcare are also having 'computer problems' that has caused months of grief for me and others, but then Southern Cross is another govt sanctioned monopoly <sigh> From: Allister Jenks For : The Editor (for publication) Subj: TV News coverage A few points: 1) It is not just the internet that highlights the flaws in TV reporting. Watch any item on a subject you have some expertise in and all manner of errors and inconsitencies are obvious. I'm an aviation enthusiast and I absolutely cringe when I hear "A tyre burst on landing, but nobody was hurt." (Tyres frequently burst and the aircraft are designed such that this is rarely an issue.) 2) The TV News is still part of the ratings game. It's not whether it is important that dictates coverage, but how well it will rate. It is a simple fact that missing the *very* important stories will be bad for ratings. After all, why else would we be deluged with Christine Rankine's wardrobe night after night? ;-) 3) It's not just news sites on the web that can be of value. After the recent crash of an American Airlines Airbus A300-600 (shortly after the terrorist attacks), there was some coverage on the TV but I found each bulletin contradicted the one before it or omitted certain details that had previously been included. So I visited www.airbus.com and there, right on their homepage, was a clear but discreet link to a page which had (at the time) three versions of a report on the accident. Each was dated and timed and each version stuck strictly to the facts. By reading successive versions you got an idea of how the information was unfolding. And there was basic data on the airliner type in question including build and in-service dates for the specific example that crashed.Hit Reload For Latest Comments
Now Have Your Say
Home | Today's Headlines | Contact | New Sites | Job Centre | Investment Centre