Hard News: In the Game
141 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
there is a huge amount that you just can't follow at all unless you speak the language.
That argument only applies if the play-by-play commentary is going to be in Maori. Which I understand it will not be. Also, as I said above - radio commentary. Radio Sport would love the advertising revenue from us monolingual whiteys tuning into them with the TV on mute.
The fact that most of the small towns in New Zealand won't be able to see it unless they pay for it is the thing that peeves me off the most about the issue though. And the feeling that we are being screwed over by politicians for their own vanity.
Oh FFS with the faux populism. TV is not and has never been free. Astonishingly, you have to buy a TV in order to be able to view even FTA broadcasts. Up until a few years ago, even small TVs were quite expensive. How much was a nice colour TV to watch the ABs in the 1987 world cup final? And how much more is the outlay for the cheapest Freeview Satellite box and a Freeview sat dish today?
Also, rugby isn't a human right. As I said, my understanding is that TVNZ and TV3 are unwilling to pay what the IRB wants for the FTA rights... absent MTS' bid, what is your solution to getting it on FTA TV?
-
The fact is that the Maori TV bid for the RWC will disenfranchise many kiwis.
I don't think disenfranchise means what you think it does. Unless 'seeing the RWC for free' somehow got inserted into the Bill of Rights Act when I wasn't looking.
Aside from the dodginess of the funding that Russell has pointed out, I don't have too much of a problem with it being on MTS. I've caught a few of their Breaker games which have some te reo, and it's literally them having 'word of the period' such as defence, shoot, steal, rebound etc. Never felt very meaningful to me, but certainly doesn't interfere with your ability to follow the commentary.
And I think some sort of national right to view rugby games is an outdated concept. NZ has moved on and is now a more diverse society. We're not going to get to see either of the next summer and winter olympics without having Sky. 15% of the population having to shell out a few hundred for a freeview box doesn't seem so harsh, it's just an advance on digital shutoff anyway.
-
Also, rugby isn't a human right. As I said, my understanding is that TVNZ and TV3 are unwilling to pay what the IRB wants for the FTA rights... absent MTS' bid, what is your solution to getting it on FTA TV?
The smartest move would probably have been to let realistic bids stand. The IRB would have had to cave. But now it has a substantially higher take, thanks to the use of the TPK money.
-
We're not going to get to see either of the next summer and winter olympics without having Sky. 15% of the population having to shell out a few hundred for a freeview box doesn't seem so harsh, it's just an advance on digital shutoff anyway.
Actually, I understand they're basically going to dump the whole lot on Prime for at least 12 hours a day. That's what they've proposed for the Comm Games, anyway. Again, Prime only has 90% coverage like MTS, but once you've bought your TV you don't need anything else to watch it.
In general, though, I heartily agree that "Rugby as a human right" is an outdated concept - encapsulated by the fact that the idea's leading proponent in Parliament is the obsolete Jim Anderton.
Now if I could only get better NHL coverage without huge torrent downloads... (go Bruins!)
-
anth,
The WC quarterfinal loss in 2007 was on a Sunday morning around 8am on free to air TV (TV3) and had 1,000,000 viewers.
And the numbers have been going down since then. All Blacks v Wallabees a month and a half ago had 444k viewers, and Sky's annual presentation from around the same time said they have 779k subscribers. I would have thought that rugby was the main reason for getting Sky so was surprised that even amongst that group only a slight majority watched one of the biggest games of the year. Super whatever-number-they're-up-to matches get much lower ratings than that.
-
Every Montreal Canadiens game is broadcast on TV in French only.
Some Canadiens games are also broadcast in English on CBC. They'll also be broadcast by the other team's provider in English for all games.
-
Kyle - my bad, you're right. I should have said that quebec and eastern ontario residents can't get Canadiens games in English unless they're one of the (relatively infrequent) HNiC games.
-
but how is the headline or anything else about the story you linked to racist?
Hey, I never said it was racist. I implied it was racist. Just like the article implies something by stating that thousands of people will miss out if 'the Maoris' get the rights to broadcast the World Cup. I really don’t think the Herald would’ve used that angle if it was TVNZ doing the exact same thing. Why not use the money angle like Russell? Why is it all about who misses out because of more Maori hand-outs (“tax-payer funded”, “public money”)? It really is the least-relevant part of the story, and they chose to use it as a headline on the front page, in my view, simply because they knew it would rile their base. The Herald has a history of front-page race-baiting like this.
-
@ DeepRed
French language still seems to be a bone of contention in Canada
Huh? Haven't seen or heard much in the way of contention for a long time. The fact that some Canadians speak French, while others speak English (and a lucky few speak both), is not really grounds for contention.
No trouble accessing Canadiens games with English commentary throughout Western Canada (where they have a pretty big following).
-
Gah, I've created an off topic monster.
DC Red, as kyle pointed out to me, I made too general a point. RDS, the French language broadcaster, broadcasts the vast majority of Canadiens games east of Ottawa. Elsewhere, of course, its up to the home franchise's broadcaster to provide commentary, which will be in English. Plus those games that are on CBC nationwide.
-
Hey, I never said it was racist. I implied it was racist. Just like the article implies something by stating that thousands of people will miss out if 'the Maoris' get the rights to broadcast the World Cup.
You mean Maori Television? Darling, I seldom miss a chance to put my Christian Louboutins into the Herald's soft parts but I also don't like playing the racist card without good reason. At best, you can ping 'em for mindless populism -- like the delicious irony of the foreign-owned APN ranting about the "Australian-owned" Prime or Sky stealing our sports. (As I said up-thread, one might think the only daily newspaper in New Zealand's largest media market would STFU on that score. Also, the last time I looked the Herald's majority shareholder is based in Dublin, and the CEO is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland NOT New Zealand.)
I agree with you that MTS's coverage is the least relevant part of this whole schemozzle, but front-page race-baiting? Come on, its not as if there's not plenty of real shit the Herald should be pimp-slapped for without going there.
-
Gah, I've created an off topic monster.
Giovanni and I have a mission to lead all things PAS to ice hockey. In such a mission, there is no such thing as off topic.
You will all be assimilated.
-
Giovanni and I have a mission to lead all things PAS to ice hockey. In such a mission, there is no such thing as off topic.
Oh well in that case: Original 6 final this year? Bruins/Hawks?
-
For all its multiculturalism, French language still seems to be a bone of contention in Canada, apparently more so than Maori language in NZ.
It's not so much a bone of contention, rather, a fact of life. Canada recognises two official languages. From this point down, it's up to the feds and provinces how they want to deal with this recognition.
So, Quebec has only one language (French), the ROC (rest of Canada) has one (English), with the exception of New Brunswick which is officially bilingual.
The Federal level is bilingual as well - which explains why cereal boxes feature two languages - federally mandated information has to be bilingual so make the whole box bilingual. (Actually, tri-lingual now given NAFTA).
Within provinces there are significant French speaking populations so those municipalities are entitled to adopt French e.g. St Boniface in Winnipeg, some parts of Nova Scotia, and some in Ontario.
So it's more of a patchwork of languages across the country. If you travel to a area known to be French, you just deal with it. Most French are bilingual, most Anglos aren't.
Every Montreal Canadiens game is broadcast on TV in French only. While the majority of Montreal residents are fluent in French, a significant minority are not (the city has a large immigrant population, both from elsewhere in Canada and overseas).
Montreal is fascinating linguistically speaking. The existing historic population is Quebecois and English so that forms the basis of language divisions (West Island is English, East, North, and South Montreal is French). The anglos in Montreal are significant minority; they descend from the existing stock of English settlers in the 1700/1800s. The majority are bilingual with a few hold-outs against the Quiet Revolution of the 60s that made French the official language.
Then there are anglophone immigrants and francophone immigrants - so Jamaicans are anglophone but Haitians are francophone. Lebanese are francophone or anglophone. Vietnamese are francophone. Everyone else just becomes francophone.
There is no immigrant population into Montreal from the ROC - if anything the population flow is one way, down the 501 to Toronto.
Which is a long way of saying that the idea of French language being a bone of contention is not true. It's more of a fact of life.
-
Oh well in that case: Original 6 final this year? Bruins/Hawks?
Meh. Your team will be lucky to get past the second round. Once it goes to game 7 you're pretty much an automatic loss based on recent history. Three in a row going back six years?
I'm picking Ducks-Detroit in the western final. Penguins - Capitals in the east.
-
Huh? Haven't seen or heard much in the way of contention for a long time. The fact that some Canadians speak French, while others speak English (and a lucky few speak both), is not really grounds for contention.
Bill 101 (Charter of the French Language), which made French the only official language in Quebec, comes to mind. It got passed in the late 70s in wake of the FLQ attacks and the subsequent political victory of the Parti Quebecois. It was ruled unconstitutional some 10 years later, but by then a lot of Anglophones had crossed the border to Toronto.
-
I'm picking Ducks-Detroit in the western final.
I say this every year, but the Sharks are looking good... and substantially different from last year. If D Heatly takes time off from being a complete ass and actually plays hockey, they might actually have some playoff success this year.
I also agree on the likelihood of Caps/Pens in the east, but I do think the Bruins could upset the applecart there. Also picking Atl to finally make the playoffs again this year.
-
and section 16 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms trumps that 'unconstitutional' ruling...
-
Te Rugger - or not Te Rugger...?
Broadcast Rugby ceased being the inalienable property of the huddled masses when the Rugby©TM-powers-that-be adopted the corporate business model.Perhaps like other Operas there could be sur- or sub-titles to aid translation - then we'd learn a few words and know what was actually said in the haka, too... :- )
It does seem it has fallen to Maori TV to pick up the mantle of Quality Cultural Public Broadcaster, perhaps TV1 & TV2 are being groomed for sale...
(True TV6 & 7 have their highlights, but I don't see them - due to lack of devices and bandwidth...)
But taking the money for rugby from Maori development coffers does seem to send a wrong signalI am tending towards the Groucho Marx take on Television "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book."
and now, in the immortal words of Tom Waits,
I'm gonna make like a hockey player
and get the puck out of here...PS: out of interest was the "Scientology/Psychiatry Documentary in Maori?
and shouldn't someone tell John Travolta they're just cans he's holding... -
I agree with you that MTS's coverage is the least relevant part of this whole schemozzle, but front-page race-baiting? Come on, its not as if there's not plenty of real shit the Herald should be pimp-slapped for without going there.
Like I said, it fits a pattern. I've lost count of the number of front-page headlines against Maori the Herald's run over the years that amount to little more than hysteria. To me, there is a clear agenda (even if that agenda is simply 'this sells newspapers') in placing these anti-Maori, lightweight articles on the front page instead of buried somewhere inside the paper (or not published at all).
I don't want to be someone who yells racist and shuts down all debate, and I'm not sure the Herald editors are racist, but I do believe they have a motive when it comes to Maori issues and their choice of headlines and placement is evidence of that.
-
.............. I'm thinking and I could be wrong that the $3 million paid for the rugby will actually provide a return ............. whether its a return of $3 million I wouldn't know but its not like they are burning the money.
The supposed coverage of MTV is a total red herring, I've never heard anyone complain about Sky's exclusivity.
And while Russell is taking a look at the issue in a non-racist way thats not how its playing out in bigot land ( talk back etc ).
Expect the nats to play this in a Orewa style
Theres votes in it
-
@nz native:
.............. I'm thinking and I could be wrong that the $3 million paid for the rugby will actually provide a return ............. whether its a return of $3 million I wouldn't know but its not like they are burning the money.
Nah. They're giving it to the rich old white guys who control the International Rugby Board, via the wheelers and dealers at IMG.
Sharples' latest rationale:
"Te Puni Kokiri is in fact buying a package deal of programming that will wrap around the rugby broadcasts during the two years of build-up as well as the games," he said.
"This promotion of Maori development is part of Te Puni Kokiri's role and the programming will celebrate New Zealand identity in a much more interesting way than advertisements for fast food, cars or home appliances."
I'm actually much more comfortable with this than the previous explanations -- it's an interesting way to market the culture. But Sharples really does seem to be making this shit up as he goes along.
Couple more thoughts:
- If this is how it flies, then there's going to be some real cost pressure on Maori Television. I'm presuming the $3m is basically the bid -- in which case, having sold $3m worth of advertising time during games to TPK, MT's ability to cover production costs, let alone turn a profit, without doing yet another sly deal (eg: TPK agreeing to pay over the odds to free up some time for sale), or finding even more public funding, is very constrained. If I was TVNZ or TV3, I wouldn't be leaping to help MT spread the cost.
- Has Sharples stopped saying he'll give the audio rights (which he doesn't have) to iwi radio?
-
The supposed coverage of MTV is a total red herring, I've never heard anyone complain about Sky's exclusivity.
Because they've never had it. The Rugby World Cup has always had a free-to-air broadcaster, TV3 or TVNZ.
This thread seems to consist of people who have access to coverage, or don't need it, airily dismissing the concerns of those who want to watch it, but won't be able to. No, it isn't a "human right" to watch the All Blacks in the Rugby World Cup, but it is an expectation based on a clear promise, and people are entitled to ask how that promise will be kept.
"Let them eat satellite"?
-
"Let them eat satellite"?
Sharples also says in the link above that MT will have to cover 100% of New Zealand viewers.
Problem is, they don't control their own network. Who will pay for Kordia to build out UHF (which includes Freeview) to those difficult areas? Sharples seems to have placed responsibility with MT.
-
Actually, I'd really prefer you didn't waltz in here and use your first post to accuse me and others of being racist.
Woh. Sorry Russell. I really am genuinely very very sorry. I've followed your good works over many years in many media and have read PA for a long time. I have never thought of you, or for that matter the other posters of PA to be racist.
In my first, and on reflection badly written post, I was referring in more general terms, to the broo-haha that came up over this. Not your post. I'm sorry if you thought I was saying that of your post, or of you. I really wasn't meaning to.
I do think, that at times, "Maori news stories" (for want of a better term) do get reported in, well "different" ways than other news. Again not by you, or here, but by some in the MSM on talkback etc.
I stand by the bit about coverage though. I live in rural and regional NZ. The only TV I can get is via Sky (which I choose not to use) or freeview sat (which I do). I watch MTS often. With rugby being on PRIME and not (until recently) on Freeview, I watched rugby never. I think I'd really like the FTA covergae to be on MT - it'd be kinda cool... and very NZ.
I take your point about this being $3 that could have and should have been spent on other more useful and worthy causes.
Where I wrote about Pita Sharples trying to maybe shaft the nats - this was just me talking smack. I have no idea about this at all. Just opinionated drivel. If I were him, I'd be getting pretty pissed by the way things have gone so far with the nats (supercity seats etc), and maybe he thought he could get a little moral victory. Or maybe the thought was to increase the cultural exposure to a lot of NZrs who would otherwise not be not so inclined.
Once again I am very sorry, and rightfully chastised, I will not waltz in here again.
Peace out and hugs
Post your response…
This topic is closed.