Hard News: We invented everything
107 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
"Really cheap"
-
Did I say something wrong? TV editors don't get enough credit in general.
Usually there is a cut to the money-shot, the fired-on giving a facial reaction, the wincing narrowing of the eyes and slight turn, the look of disbelief, rapidly resolving through hurt and then relief that the suffering is over,
filmed the previous day, a reaction to something else altogether. It made for better viewing. I don't know Sacha, maybe that's a cheap thing to say, but it's usually what I look out for when I watched those shows, especially the ones where the audience votes... Or perhaps I misunderstood.....again...actually I think I may have, I'm really not sure, it's the quotation marks, they're freaking me out man.
-
. . . feisty hard-drinking nouveau-riche mum Noeline . . .
-
Sorry, Chris, let's try that again:
The 'reality' in reality TV is a euphemism for
... "really cheap"
s'all
-
phew, thanks Sacha. I'm having my annual 'straight Friday'. 4:55 to go. That Noeline looks all class Joe.
-
Did you get caught out by Chris' edits? Chris, use carefully!
-
Sorry guys. I invited Jones over. I'm a little more unglued than usual, chatlive on mormon.org is down, and after thorough research I haven't been able to find a single clue as to why Heaven always looks like Switzerland on the Watchtower cover.
-
Good god, Noeline became such a 'star' she even put out a music video...
-
That Noeline looks all class Joe.
She's still dining out on her 15 minutes. I'd be careful, though - her Sylvania Waters partner Laurie once knocked out a few of a neighbour's teeth with a garden hose.
-
Russell… Good show on climate change reporting in the media.
I think Prof Gluckman’s repeated point that the science is sorted to the extent that we as a community can start working on our response is well made.
However, I just about fell off my chair when you finished the show with a throw away line something to the effect that it’d be nice if journalists were as scientifically literate as they are economically literate.
I have been harping on to my friends for the past year or more (after I saw some particularly dodgy analysis in print), that the economic cost of climate change and climate change responses seems to me to get pitiful coverage and no critical analysis! I think the coverage is much worse than the science ‘debate’ coverage.
Most of the stuff we see in the press is about how much it will all cost and how much damage climate change responses will do to the economy. We hear very little about how these estimates are modelled.
Clearly, if you cut CO2 emissions to pre-industrial revolution levels tomorrow, there’s going to be a massive shock and cost. But that’s not how change is likely to occur.
The experience I’ve had at changing businesses processes to use less energy is that the first slab of reduction is profitable!
Reductions in greenhouse gas pollution for most places in the world entails reduction in the energy input required to manufacture, store and dispose of all that consumer stuff. If a company can make its production facility more energy efficient or cunningly reduce the transport component of distribution, it’ll probably make more money, not less.
Every time I’ve heard someone say, “we need to cut X out of our process” and apply some brainpower to the problem, the result has been the same: Modest cuts can be achieved quickly and profitably. Quite a lot can be achieved at very low cost. Further reductions are difficult and expensive.
It doesn’t matter if “X” is electricity, water, paper or fleet vehicle kms. And there’s CO2 in all that stuff. Reduce your electricity bill, save money and reduce CO2. Ditto water, etc. Where’s the economic vandalism?
In NZ we need to look at different problems. Again, there may be relatively costless solutions. Selective breeding of cattle and sheep for millennia has paid attention to the efficiency of turning feed into meat, milk and wool. Breeders have not been interested in the fart output. It may well be that we can achieve dramatic reductions in methane pollution at little or no cost to productivity.
I guess it all depends on how far down the cost curve we need to go to get to 40% below 1990 emissions (or whatever the ultimate goal is). I haven’t seen any analysis of this from a global or NZ perspective. Are we in the “quickly and profitably” range or the “difficult and expensive” range?
What does 40% below 1990 emissions by 2050 mean? Assuming a 1% population growth rate, our emissions would need a 35% reduction per capita to get to 1990 levels. So we’d need something like a 60% reduction per capita to get to a 40% overall reduction.
How might we get to a 60% reduction per capita?
A lot of the new population is going to be in the inner city. They’ll walk and use public transport to far greater degree than the current average New Zealander. The suburbanites are going to be driving more efficient cars on their commutes and there’ll be growth in public transport use for commuters too. How much does that save? What is the economic cost? Very low, is my guess.
Then there’s direct energy use. NZ generation portfolio of hydro, combined cycle gas, wind, geothermal and a small amount of coal is pretty low in emissions by international standards. We probably can’t improve that enormously. But perhaps there are opportunities here… the world may be looking for low CO2 energy for energy intensive production. The most globally efficient solution may be to move some of that production here. Could that work under currently proposed trading mechanisms? Would it be a net economic benefit to NZ?
Land use will clearly be important. What is the economic cost of reducing rural emissions? If we converted the 25% most marginal diary farms to their next best economic use, what would the benefit in emissions be? What is the cost? Like the energy industry, it may be that NZ can produce the lowest emission diary fat in the world, so maybe the world will pay us to keep producing it… What would the emission advantage (CO2e/tonne of milk solids) need to be to give NZ a net economic gain from a given global tax/price on emissions ($/tonne C02e)?
I assume people have been bright economists working on estimates of costs post the Stern review but I’ve heard very little about it in the media. If all these media folk are economic experts, where’s the story of the economic cost of climate change response? Where’s the critique of whether the best approach is a carbon tax or a tradable entitlement?
</rant>
-
Touchdown had a horrifying record during the reality show boom.
Or Unscripted Television as Julie Christie has taken to calling it now.
Citing Candid Camera as the original unscripted television sheew. -
My memory is that Ihug was involved and doing the streams.
Arrgh! Yes, I think that was the one. I will see if I can eke out more from some old 'Hug dudes.
-
Charlie Brooker had a very informative report once on the various techniques used by Big Brother et al to create atmosphere and deliver a narrative. He showed how you could make the exact same scene covey a completely different story depending on how it was edited.
Here's the clip in question:
He also mentions that advances in digital editing in the 1990s are really what allowed the boom in reality shows to happen. For the first time hours and hours of footage could be condensed into a highlights package in time for the next day's broadcast.
-
Here's the clip in question:
You really are very good at Internet.
-
Charlie Brooker had a very informative report once on the various techniques used by Big Brother et al to create atmosphere and deliver a narrative. He showed how you could make the exact same scene covey a completely different story depending on how it was edited.
Sorry Russell, I hadn't noticed that before I posted on the topic. I've occasionally had queries of this nature with regards to Media 7. One of the first things I noticed when I watched it was that it seemed from the observed comfort of the audience that it must be a much longer event, How long is the shoot generally and what percentage of discussion is omitted?
Also bearing in mind that although a reaction shot may be genuine, sometimes it just doesn't convey the right look (yawns, fidgeting, cleaning of teeth), is there much substitution of shots?
Oftentimes the camera shows more than one person, but I have noticed the occasional seemingly questionable cut to closeup, have there ever been any clangers that have had to be edited out in this way?
And not being aware as to how much input you have in the editorial process, has there ever been a moment when you've watched the final master and thought something has been perhaps slightly skewed or decontextualized by the editor? Or do you retain a healthy degree of control there?
-
I might be wrong -- and Lord knows I seem to have been multiply wrong in the the original post -- but wasn't that actually Flatmates? My memory is that Ihug was involved and doing the streams.
Flatmates was a show that screened when TV4 started, which went for two seasons. It was filmed by a guy called Craig (I think) who lived in the house along with the flatmates. Highlights of the first season included a trip to the Miss Howick pagent because one of the flatmates competed, and also Craig falling for a flatmate called Vanessa who played ultimate frisbee and seemed quite cool at first, but then she shaved her head and went a bit psycho.During one of their parties, the toilet got broken. Series two featured a Christian couple who had an engagement party where Deep Obsession's "Lost in Love" played quite a lot, and also a girl who was called Jessie I think, who spent a lot of time chatting on the internet to a guy in Alaska she'd never met, who sent her an engagement ring in the mail. I wonder if they're still together.
Kiwi Flatmates meanwhile was first a website, modeled on the Dutch Big Brother show, which wanted you to pay for access to shower cams - even though there was almost no broadband at the time, and yes, it got "hacked". They screened a TV version of it later, that included highlights like Joe Cotton coming to dinner in an attempt to make things more interesting.
Oh yes, I know far too much about television...
-
Sorry Russell, I hadn't noticed that before I posted on the topic. I've occasionally had queries of this nature with regards to Media 7. One of the first things I noticed when I watched it was that it seemed from the observed comfort of the audience that it must be a much longer event, How long is the shoot generally and what percentage of discussion is omitted
We record very much as-live, and it's rare for us to go more than about 90 secs over. The producer will make that call if he thinks there's something that'll need tightening up the next day. So you'll see a little bit of magic-of-television, but only a little bit.
Otherwise, the whole show is directed by the studio director. I've got a lot better at giving him him cues for where I'm going next -- addressing a panelist by name before asking the question -- and he's getting really good at anticipating where I'm going next.
And not being aware as to how much input you have in the editorial process, has there ever been a moment when you've watched the final master and thought something has been perhaps slightly skewed or decontextualized by the editor? Or do you retain a healthy degree of control there?
No, for the reason above, but also, I trust the people i work with.
-
Oh yes, I know far too much about television...
I am in your debt: clearly, the two programmes merged into my mind.
So was it Kiwi Flatmates that Jacqui Brown flashed her boobs on?
-
Today is turning into a rather heavy news day for reality stars. Bret Michaels has suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage, and Terry Serepisos is in financial crisis due to the breakdown of the Christian motion picture industry.
I wish them both a speedy recovery so we can all go back to not enjoying them on our televisions that we hate.
Personally, I rather enjoy hating reality tv.
ANTM, Project Runway and Top Chef are the best.
NZs Hottest Baker was just so unjustifiably bad. I had to watch every episode.
-
So was it Kiwi Flatmates that Jacqui Brown flashed her boobs on?
Ummm possibly, or perhaps Celebrity Treasure Island ? I must admit, I don't know. Okay I will turn over my Knowledge Bro membership card now...
-
I'm not a great fan of reality but I do like television, especialy Gameshows like this.
-
We record very much as-live, and it's rare for us to go more than about 90 secs over. The producer will make that call if he thinks there's something that'll need tightening up the next day. So you'll see a little bit of magic-of-television, but only a little bit.
Intriguing, when I watch, I always sense from the brief glimpses that the audience is/has just enjoyed a meal and drink in the studio for some reason, I imagined it must have been more like 90 minutes culled.
-
Intriguing, when I watch, I always sense from the brief glimpses that the audience is/has just enjoyed a meal and drink in the studio for some reason,
No, that happens earlier, outside the studio, and very good it is too.
;-) -
NZs Hottest Baker was just so unjustifiably bad. I had to watch every episode.
Which was probably a lot more fun than actually being a contestant, I hear.
-
Great episode btw. Ondemand is working much better now.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.