Friday, July 13, 2007
Mohammed Haneef
I loathe terrorists. They are subhuman due to their irrational behaviour, and because this behaviour threatens the human way of life and everything we represent then i believe that we should do all we can to detain terrorists and eradicate terrrorist threats. At the same time, however, when the human rights of decent men are confiscated in ridiculous circumstances, then we are no more virtuous than the terrorists. I refer specifically to the charging of Dr Mohammed Haneef with the embarrassingly LOL-worthy charge of: 'recklessly supplying a mobile phone sim card to a terrorist organisation'. A news report on the ABC website stated that: 'The offence carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison'. I don't want to defend Haneef's innocence without having seen a just trial, but the multiple extensions of his detention highlight both the ineptitude of the AFP and the human consequences of this ineptitude. When we, as free and democratic Australians, are forcefully detaining our own kind without trial because of the reckless use of SIM cards, then the fear-mongering terrorists have won.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Grey's Soundtrack
Okay, I must first make the disclaiming addmittance that I am addicted to Grey's and am therefore disgustingly biased in any judgement of the show's soundtrack; but I just couldn't go without commenting on it! I am yet to encounter a show with a more appropriate soundtrack. Appropriation is not simply in terms of lyrical content - although with song titles such as 'how to save a life', 'monster hospital' and 'this is how we operate' there is clearly no question as to lyrical aptness - but in terms of emotional content. Most of the songs feature haunting and pulling piano melodies, with gripping vocal lines that are torn with feeling and expression. 'Cosy in the rocket', by Psapp, is such a perfect choice for the theme song, as it is obscure enough that it is associated with nothing but the show, but it also fits in with the style of the rest of the soundtrack, in addition to containing lyrics that almost anyone - but in particular the show's characters - would be able to relate to. I love love love love it! Now I just have to find my Christina Yang...
p.s. when writing this post i had in fact forgot the reason and inspiration behind the subject of it, which was that mika's song 'happy ending' was such a gorgeous track to use for the preview for the "will meredith survive" episode. have a listen, its sweet as sugar. ciao
p.s. when writing this post i had in fact forgot the reason and inspiration behind the subject of it, which was that mika's song 'happy ending' was such a gorgeous track to use for the preview for the "will meredith survive" episode. have a listen, its sweet as sugar. ciao
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Beggars
Part of my role and duty as an Adelaide cosmopolitan is to frequently enjoy the tastes and smells of our very own and very trendy (in its own alternative-chic way) East End. I was doing so today in a coffee break with my dear friend/colleague Candice as we coffeed in the quaint Italian cafe Al Fresco. We had a splendid time sharing thoughts on music and on university life, but our peaceful bubble was burst for a brief moment when a beggar interrupted our conversation, asking for financial aid. I have always been sceptical of beggars and their true intentions, as throughout my young adult life I have come across a variety of shonky conmen, of whom TT or ACA would be proud. Whilst attending PAC I would regularly pass the train station (a known incubator of the bacteria-like begging scum), and I would frequently be approached by impoverished persons asking money for a train ticket. However, I was well aware that they wanted no such ticket and would rather spend my generously donated money on heroin with which to feed their monkey-children, so in a cunning ploy I would always offer them my own train ticket rather than money. At this point they would always trip up, often fumbling their words as they tried to explain that a ticket just wouldn’t do, and that they in fact needed the cash. The more desperate would occasionally try changing their story, but in each case they were aware of their defeat. I have always been reluctant to donate.
Today’s experience led me to ponder the system of giving and begging, and the consequences of donation. The drawn conclusion was that giving to beggars is essentially financing poverty. This is based on the argument of dependency, in that by providing a hand-out we are merely discouraging independent thought and action on the part of the recipient to alleviate their situation of hardship. I remember as a young child my grandmother would leave food for young native birds that would frequent her garden. Over time the birds learnt to come every day, always at the same time, and eventually this became their only source of food. At the time of my grandmother’s passing we thought very little of the impact this would have on birds, and we were accordingly surprised to find dead and dying birds in her garden over the few weeks immediately following her death. Their dependency killed them.
Poverty is cyclical, and the key to alleviating it is to break the cycle at whichever link possible. For instance: a poor man’s lack of employment results in a lack of income, which in turn results in a lack of education, rendering him unemployable, and so the cycle continues. To employ him as a relatively unskilled worker, say at Hungry Jack’s (within walking distance of café Al Fresco), would provide him with income, which could in turn allow him education in a trade, giving him greater employability and the likelihood of a long term source of income. But to provide him with a one-off payment – barely enough to buy his next bottle of bourbon – does nothing but to reinforce his position at the bottom of the socio-economic food chain. He will become dependent on these donations, and they will never be enough to provide any financial stability. So next time you are approached by a beggar, think to yourself, ‘Do I really want to fund poverty?’
Today’s experience led me to ponder the system of giving and begging, and the consequences of donation. The drawn conclusion was that giving to beggars is essentially financing poverty. This is based on the argument of dependency, in that by providing a hand-out we are merely discouraging independent thought and action on the part of the recipient to alleviate their situation of hardship. I remember as a young child my grandmother would leave food for young native birds that would frequent her garden. Over time the birds learnt to come every day, always at the same time, and eventually this became their only source of food. At the time of my grandmother’s passing we thought very little of the impact this would have on birds, and we were accordingly surprised to find dead and dying birds in her garden over the few weeks immediately following her death. Their dependency killed them.
Poverty is cyclical, and the key to alleviating it is to break the cycle at whichever link possible. For instance: a poor man’s lack of employment results in a lack of income, which in turn results in a lack of education, rendering him unemployable, and so the cycle continues. To employ him as a relatively unskilled worker, say at Hungry Jack’s (within walking distance of café Al Fresco), would provide him with income, which could in turn allow him education in a trade, giving him greater employability and the likelihood of a long term source of income. But to provide him with a one-off payment – barely enough to buy his next bottle of bourbon – does nothing but to reinforce his position at the bottom of the socio-economic food chain. He will become dependent on these donations, and they will never be enough to provide any financial stability. So next time you are approached by a beggar, think to yourself, ‘Do I really want to fund poverty?’
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Damn You, Food!
As we move into the Winter months I cannot help but fear the oncoming onslaught of hunger cravings. I am a genuine sucker for hot food in any season, but when the thermometer heads south I just throw myself at anything that steams. Unfortunately, most of the hot food available to me has a high fat content, or is cooked in a fat-filled process. The second bane to my fitness cause is the temptation of chocolate, made only worse as Easter approaches. Already I’m being subjected to barrages of chocolate advertising, and it is oh so hard to resist. I really want to achieve and maintain fitness with a two-pronged regime of exercise and healthy eating, but I’m officially warning everyone that if you offer me food I will accept without hesitation.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Political Statement or Entertainment?
A radio national correspondent’s report that aired this morning claimed that “the Internet is becoming increasingly influential in what's already a long US presidential campaign season” and suggested that the Australian election campaigns due this year will be similarly influenced by the possibilities presented by the internet. The main focus of the report was on an anti-Clinton ad posted on the online video-sharing network YouTube (shown below).
“[The ad]’s a clear sign that voter-generated content will affect the course of the 2008 Presidential election.”
But how great will the effect be? The average user-generated (and I would particularly like to distinguish between users and voters, as not all YouTube users are voters) YouTube video does not make any strong political statement – in fact, the majority of “political” videos document George Bush’s blunders, or take ever-increasingly generic jabs at conservative Christian principles. Videos such as “Evil Monkey a.k.a. George Bush” (shown below) or “George Bush Saves a Baby” (a cartoon in which George Bush eats a baby). Are voters (and bear in mind that 40% of Americans didn’t vote in the last presidential election) really so impressionable that their votes are based on cheap, home-made parodies. Please, give the Americans some credit.
The anti-Clinton video was created by a website designer who worked for the company that created Barack Obama’s website; however the Obama camp denies its involvement with the video’s creation. I wonder as to whether the issue of the ad, regardless of his denial of affiliation with it, will reflect poorly on Obama. Would voters be deterred by that kind of slanderous knock-out-the-competition advertising? Again, I point out that Americans are not necessarily as simple-minded as the George Bush Monkey video would have you believe.
The actual content of these ads is comparable to the political cartoons that appear in most newspapers. Just as different cartoonists choose to represent politicians differently, so will online-video makers. YouTube and other such programs allow for a greater expression of political statements, and each one will be slightly different. We will see a great quantity of these videos as we come closer to elections. In fact, it is likely that we will become swamped with such videos. But their main purpose is entertainment. Viewers are not swung this way or that by what they see on YouTube. If anything, the overwhelming number of videos will turn people off of political videos long enough for them to make up their own minds.
“[The ad]’s a clear sign that voter-generated content will affect the course of the 2008 Presidential election.”
But how great will the effect be? The average user-generated (and I would particularly like to distinguish between users and voters, as not all YouTube users are voters) YouTube video does not make any strong political statement – in fact, the majority of “political” videos document George Bush’s blunders, or take ever-increasingly generic jabs at conservative Christian principles. Videos such as “Evil Monkey a.k.a. George Bush” (shown below) or “George Bush Saves a Baby” (a cartoon in which George Bush eats a baby). Are voters (and bear in mind that 40% of Americans didn’t vote in the last presidential election) really so impressionable that their votes are based on cheap, home-made parodies. Please, give the Americans some credit.
The anti-Clinton video was created by a website designer who worked for the company that created Barack Obama’s website; however the Obama camp denies its involvement with the video’s creation. I wonder as to whether the issue of the ad, regardless of his denial of affiliation with it, will reflect poorly on Obama. Would voters be deterred by that kind of slanderous knock-out-the-competition advertising? Again, I point out that Americans are not necessarily as simple-minded as the George Bush Monkey video would have you believe.
The actual content of these ads is comparable to the political cartoons that appear in most newspapers. Just as different cartoonists choose to represent politicians differently, so will online-video makers. YouTube and other such programs allow for a greater expression of political statements, and each one will be slightly different. We will see a great quantity of these videos as we come closer to elections. In fact, it is likely that we will become swamped with such videos. But their main purpose is entertainment. Viewers are not swung this way or that by what they see on YouTube. If anything, the overwhelming number of videos will turn people off of political videos long enough for them to make up their own minds.
Friday, March 23, 2007
New YouTube Competitor
It has been reported that media empires News Corp and NBC are collaborating on a project to counter Google’s YouTube website[1] – the number 4 most visited site as of Friday 23rd of March, 2007[2]. Clearly there is a huge market, into which the new video website will hope to tap. One potential problem facing the project is YouTube’s current popularity and its associated assimilation into popular culture. The brand is known by arguably all internet users, and is becoming more and more part of the new internet vernacular. The process of uploading videos onto YouTube is now referred to as ‘tubing’, in much the same way as using the search engine Google is called ‘googling’. So strong is YouTube’s hold on their audience that the success of the rival website will depend so vitally on its proper marketing. There will be very little room to differentiate the two websites, as both perform the same role free of charge, so marketers for the new website must attain a certain ‘cool’ factor if they are to thieve the loyal YouTubers. However, this loyalty to YouTube may begin to dwindle somewhat, as Google consider the possibility of advertising on YouTube, using 15 second pre-roll ads. A survey conducted by Harris Interactive found that 73% of frequent YouTube users said they would visit the site less if pre-roll advertising was used[3]. Google will somehow have to pay off the US$1.65 billion that it spent in acquiring YouTube, and unless Larry Page and Sergey Brin consider the suicidal possibility of user paid access, then it is likely the YouTube bill will have to be financed by advertising. Another weight on Google/YouTube’s back is the current lawsuit presented against them by Viacom, on grounds of massive copyright infringement[4]. Is it possible that all this trauma could bury YouTube, leaving the door open for the News Corp/NBC project to take over? Or is it more likely that the new project will actually push YouTube over the edge? Either way, it will be far more entertaining than any of the featured videos on YouTube!
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879375.htm
[2] http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
[3] http://www.lostremote.com/2007/01/30/survey-one-third-youtube-users-watch-less-tv/
[4] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf
[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200703/s1879375.htm
[2] http://www.alexa.com/site/ds/top_500
[3] http://www.lostremote.com/2007/01/30/survey-one-third-youtube-users-watch-less-tv/
[4] http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/ViacomYouTubeComplaint3-12-07.pdf
Sunday, March 18, 2007
TV: Broadcast vs. Narrowcast
In all the discussions I have so far read on the conflict between broadcasting and narrowcasting in terms of television, each method has been defined by its examples: free-to-air television in the case of broadcasting and pay-per-viewing television in the case of narrowcasting. The argument mounted in most of these articles was that narrowcasting is becoming highly popular, thanks primarily to websites such as YouTube, but also due to the ever-growing efficient internet culture, encapsulated so clearly by the phrase: ‘I want it and I want it now’. Video on demand, as provided over the internet in narrowcasting form, allows users to access the content at will. This is also seen in conventional non-internet television narrowcasting in the form of pay-per-viewing television on pay-tv networks. I began to wonder, however, as to whether this system should be exclusively for pay-tv networks. Are there any reasons why free-to-air TV could not use a selective system, whereby individual viewers choose their desired programs but do not necessarily pay for it?
I immediately come to the problem of costing when I ponder the possibility of free-to-air selective viewing. The foremost and obvious difference between pay-tv and free-to-air is that the former generate their income from subscriptions and from actual viewers, whereas the latter’s income is generated by selling advertising time. Narrowcasting presents an interesting and potentially problematic issue with regards to advertising. Because viewers are not necessarily viewing at a particular time of day, advertisers cannot – as they would have been able to in broadcasting – select a time slot that would be most effective for advertising their product. In broadcast TV advertisers choose particular time slots to target a particular group of people who would be viewing at this time, such as late-night advertisements for SMS match-making companies, who target lonely men who watch TV at this time. These viewers are not defined by what they watch, rather by when they watch. In narrowcast TV the audience cannot be targeted in this way, and so advertisers may seek other methods, outside the realm of television. However, most viewers can be classified by what they watch, which could in turn allow advertisers to target even more specific groups. For instance, different shows may attract different demographics of viewers. The average viewer of Bert’s Family Feud may come from a lower socio-economic standing than the average viewer of 60 Minutes. In such a case, advertisers of high-cost products would prefer to advertise during 60 Minutes rather than during Bert’s Family Feud. In broadcast TV, advertisers could also take advantage of particular emotions felt at specific times. For example, in the 10 minutes or so leading up to a season finale or some other type of climactic program, there will be many viewers feeling a lot of tension and anticipation. They will be more alert than at other times of viewing, and will therefore be an attractive audience for advertisers. However, if this program were narrowcast then it is impossible to advertise in the same way.
Overall, a shift from broadcast to narrowcast television would result in less interest from advertisers as the effectiveness of tv advertising would dwindle. The loss of revenue in this way would need to be made up somewhere else, and the obvious avenue for this would be to charge viewers per program that they view. In such a way, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of selective viewing on free-to-air television anytime soon.
I immediately come to the problem of costing when I ponder the possibility of free-to-air selective viewing. The foremost and obvious difference between pay-tv and free-to-air is that the former generate their income from subscriptions and from actual viewers, whereas the latter’s income is generated by selling advertising time. Narrowcasting presents an interesting and potentially problematic issue with regards to advertising. Because viewers are not necessarily viewing at a particular time of day, advertisers cannot – as they would have been able to in broadcasting – select a time slot that would be most effective for advertising their product. In broadcast TV advertisers choose particular time slots to target a particular group of people who would be viewing at this time, such as late-night advertisements for SMS match-making companies, who target lonely men who watch TV at this time. These viewers are not defined by what they watch, rather by when they watch. In narrowcast TV the audience cannot be targeted in this way, and so advertisers may seek other methods, outside the realm of television. However, most viewers can be classified by what they watch, which could in turn allow advertisers to target even more specific groups. For instance, different shows may attract different demographics of viewers. The average viewer of Bert’s Family Feud may come from a lower socio-economic standing than the average viewer of 60 Minutes. In such a case, advertisers of high-cost products would prefer to advertise during 60 Minutes rather than during Bert’s Family Feud. In broadcast TV, advertisers could also take advantage of particular emotions felt at specific times. For example, in the 10 minutes or so leading up to a season finale or some other type of climactic program, there will be many viewers feeling a lot of tension and anticipation. They will be more alert than at other times of viewing, and will therefore be an attractive audience for advertisers. However, if this program were narrowcast then it is impossible to advertise in the same way.
Overall, a shift from broadcast to narrowcast television would result in less interest from advertisers as the effectiveness of tv advertising would dwindle. The loss of revenue in this way would need to be made up somewhere else, and the obvious avenue for this would be to charge viewers per program that they view. In such a way, it seems unlikely that we will see any kind of selective viewing on free-to-air television anytime soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)