Editorial Echoes #3

Great topic for Editorial Echoes today Samuel.

Senator Coonan has had her finger in the dyke for a while now. While the discussion paper she released does not appear to pave the way for advertising on the ABC, the idea has once again been mooted. She claims that until at least 2009 there will be no advertising on the ABC but after that it will be looked at again. Is she buying more time for the media barons to merge then purge their staff?

While she claims her discussion paper lays out a clear map until 2009 of how to handle cross-media ownership laws and the deregulation of current laws, I think it is more of a mud map that could not even get us out of the driveway.

Senator Conroy seems to have his finger on the pulse, albeit a weak one. He would like to leave the laws the way they are and thinks that the model Senator Coonan puts forward will put more power into less hands. Again no clear alternative policy from the ranks of the Labour party.

Advertising may help fund the ABC in the future when we ‘eventually’ switch from analogue to digital. The problem is on ABC2 there are too many genre restrictions on what can be shown. So we are not getting the full potential of our tax payer funded broadcaster. You are right. How are we going to fund ABC channels 2,3,4,5,6 and so on without advertising?

Senator Coonan points to the huge archive the ABC has at its disposal. But how many re-runs of GP can we handle. What about the production of local drama?

The problem with having advertising on the ABC, even if is a small amount, is that the commercial stations and the barons that own them will cry foul. Another problem is that even if the government or as Senator Coonan’s discussion paper states the ACCC, regulated what type and how much advertising was on the ABC, this would over regulate an already over regulated area.

Also if you give advertisers an inch they will take a mile.

Fair enough is the ABC truly independent? I think they may shoot themselves in the foot sometimes and bite the hand that feeds them in showing unfair bias. But let’s face it. Who’s side are PBL and News Ltd on? I put my money on Howard’s side.

Very “tinny” and full of echoes . Introduction music is too loud . (needs to be reduced in volume ) .

The echo appears to be a symptom of two things. It is there because of the relatively low quality recording of the digital notetaker, but is mostly hidden by the background noise. Noise reduction makes the echo much more noticeable and appears to make the audio a bit more tinny as well.

Leaving the background noise in is probably a better idea, as shown in episode four.

Sounds ok to me.

I agree with Chuck’s huge post.

I would be hoping that you agree with yourself Chuck.

It sounds eerily like the rabbit in Donnie Darko … as a matter of fact just yesterday morning I woke up on a golf green after falling asleep listening to this instalment of Editorial Echos …

Heatseeker, ever since listening to the first episode my life has been flowing in reverse, and I have been experiencing the events in my life backwards.

Possibly it’s because Editorial Echoes with Samuel Gordon-Stewart was ranked behind The Paranormal Podcast at number 17 on Apple’s website, and ‘the flow’ has been disrupted.

I want to know where Chuck, if his name really is Chuck, copy and pasted those words from.

Yes Wonko, just behind Howard Stern.

Chuck, are you asking yourself questions about your own comments again?

Yes Samuel. And Chuck those words are my own opinion. I did not cut and paste them.