noggin's posts, page 123

15,946 search results, most recent first

NG
noggin Founding member

YouTube Gold

Steve Williams posted:
scottishtv posted:
RE holiday shows, I remember Holiday having a spin-off called "Holiday: You Call The Shots" and it tended to feature more short break/city break type destinations with tips and advice on what to do sent in by email or phone calls (!) from other viewers. Quite an innovative format for the time and took advantage of some off-the-beaten-track travel tips.


There were about ten trillion Holiday spin-offs in the late nineties, You Call The Shots as you say plus also Fasten Your Seatbelt (celebs doing holiday-related jobs), Summer Holiday, Holidays Out, Holiday Memories. Holiday was pretty much a year-round series at the turn of the century with all these spin-offs.


Yep - ISTR 'Departure Lounge' too...

Quote:

Watchdog had a load as well - Weekend Watchdog, of course, plus also Value For Money, The Big Dinner, Face Value and umpteen others.

Including 'Health Check'...

Quote:

People complain about The One Show being on every day but before that 7pm was usually just Holiday or Watchdog anyway.


Yes - or repeats of daytime shows...
NG
noggin Founding member

7.0 Earthquake Hit Anchorage Alaska

Mouseboy33 posted:

Also the station doesnt have a chopper but within hours they were able to get a chopper and used the new Dejero-style tech to broadcast live pics back to the station. Simply amazing. Well done to everyone at KTVA.


I thought using cellular radio systems (GSM, CDMA, LTE etc.) from aircraft to terrestrial base-stations was prohibited (by the FCC in the US?) because it massively compromises the frequency re-use based nature of cellular systems?

I guess a low-flying chopper (lower than tall buildings) will not cause this issue - but I think it still remains legally tricky?
NG
noggin Founding member

BBC One Christmas 2018

Moz posted:
fanoftv posted:
In a way I can see why retailers release adverts online before tv, but when your business is TV shouldn’t it be held back to premiere on the screen?

Their business isn’t just TV, it’s online too. I rarely watch on TV now, mostly via iPlayer, which is an online service.


And for promotional content - sharing via social media is a key distribution method.
NG
noggin Founding member

Brexit Dramarama

Inspector Sands posted:
With the exception of the launch of digital TV and DSO which all happened during a labour government, albeit a much less socialist one.


Wasn't the DVB-T launch decision taken under Major though? (The launch happened under Blair, but the ball started to roll under the Tories?)

Wasn't the licensing process for the ONDigital stuff started before the May 1997 election?
NG
noggin Founding member

International News Presentation: Past and Present

dvboy posted:
WW Update posted:
The U.S. version of TV5MONDE (which has limited distribution) has English subtitles. I wonder why the European version doesn't -- at least as an option.


The version on Sky had English subtitles for some programmes like dramas. You would access them in the same way as subtitles on any other channel and they were indicated in the EPG as such. At least online now you have a choice between English and French subs.


Yes - I think some people assume non-English language content will have burned-in subtitles rather than optional ones.
NG
noggin Founding member

Good Morning Britain

Steve in Pudsey posted:
noggin posted:

It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear.

With respect, the way the rules are written, they are open to interpretation.


Anyone who has worked in TV journalism for any length of time will have a clear understanding of how to handle rights of reply. The rules are read from that background.

You have to offer someone the right of reply. You can chose how to offer it based on what you think is appropriate. They can chose to respond in a manner they wish to, or they may chose not to respond. You should reflect their response fairly in your output, and can report their lack of response too.

Quote:

Quote:

Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.


In those cases it's usual to have a pre-prepared full-screen graphic containing the agreed text isn't it?


No - that's not always the case. Lots of shows will just read out a normal right of reply without a graphic. That's a production decision at the end of the day.
NG
noggin Founding member

The Freeview Thread

London Lite posted:
harshy posted:
It’s my go to music channel it’s great it’s now on an aerial.


The PQ is a lot better too, compared to the low bitrate mess I've seen elsewhere.


If it's on COM8 then it will be H.264 rather than MPEG2 - which is a lot more efficient.
NG
noggin Founding member

Good Morning Britain

Steve in Pudsey posted:
noggin posted:
Steve in Pudsey posted:
I think Piers has a point, the statement offered was a totally inadequate response to the points raised, was provided in lieu of putting somebody up for interview and told us very little.

The way the BBC's guidelines are phrased implies that if they offer an interview they have fulfilled their responsibility - there is nothing in there to say that if they refuse and interview any statement they provide in lieu has to be read out https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply


That's not quite the case is it :
Quote:
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.


The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.


There is nothing in that to say that if they decline an interview they get to choose an alternative means of replying, if they were offered an interview and choose not to make themselves available that seems to be sufficient to me.


It may seem fair to you - but the rules are clear. if a response to your offer of a right to reply is received - you have an obligation to fairly reflect that response. If someone is offered a studio interview, but declines and submits a written statement instead, you can't ignore that written statement.

You can't compel someone to appear on camera, nor is it fair to ignore their response to that request. You may not agree with it - but that's an accepted way of treating people fairly.
Quote:


Nor does it say that any (unsolicited) statement they send in lieu has to be read verbatim, it can be reflected in the interview questions - I have only seen the clip linked above so I don't know if it was.


No - and it would be incredibly unusual to read a response verbatim (they are usually far too long). However it is required that you don't alter the meaning or intent when you sub, or paraphrase, a response. It is also editorially important to make it clear that you are reading their response to demonstrate you have behaved fairly.

Lots of rights of reply will have been scripted in association with a duty lawyer employed by the broadcaster for this kind of thing, and once agreed and 'legalled' you have to be very careful with any further changes.
Quote:

If the statement is just generic waffle that doesn't address what was discussed, then it isn't really a reply and explaining why you are not going to read it is arguably reflecting its content.

In reality - not really. You have a duty reflect the response fairly. You may be able to editorially reference it after reading it noting that it didn't seem to address the points you made, but you can't just bin it.
NG
noggin Founding member

26th Anniversary of the biggest shake up in ITV

Spencer For Hire posted:
Inspector Sands posted:
Nick Harvey posted:
Memories of going into Pres B before the bulletin and unbolting the vertical bit of "scenery" from the floor, turning it round to its "news" position, and bolting it back down again. Then the reverse after the bulletin.

Reminds me of this quick set change in the Southern days, at 4:30 here:
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2e7c2a


I wonder if that's where TV-am got the idea for their rotating weather cube. Smile


Those kind of things were quite common in TV set design back-in-the-day.
NG
noggin Founding member

26th Anniversary of the biggest shake up in ITV

Markymark posted:

The Hannington news opt possibly used one of the Southampton pres suites later (when that started in 1988) ?


I hadn't realised TVS split Hannington for News in the latter part of its tenure.

As you describe it as an opt (which were a bit unusual for ITV) was it an opt-out during Coast to Coast from Southampton ?
NG
noggin Founding member

What would an old cable box do now?

The only thing you could do with that box is extremely nerdy... Believe it or not, now it's possible to use 'Software Defined Radio' or SDR techniques to generate radio signals, people are writing GNU Radio (a language for driving SDR hardware) code to generate defunct analogue broadcasting standards. Some enthusiasts have got SDR-generated D-MAC running into original BSB receivers for instance Smile
Mike W, Woodpecker and jonO gave kudos
NG
noggin Founding member

Good Morning Britain

Steve in Pudsey posted:
I think Piers has a point, the statement offered was a totally inadequate response to the points raised, was provided in lieu of putting somebody up for interview and told us very little.

The way the BBC's guidelines are phrased implies that if they offer an interview they have fulfilled their responsibility - there is nothing in there to say that if they refuse and interview any statement they provide in lieu has to be read out https://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidance/right-of-reply


That's not quite the case is it :
Quote:
There is no prescribed format that a right of reply should take. For example - if it is fair to do so - we may offer an interview, request a written statement for inclusion fairly in the output or simply telephone the subject of the allegations, note their response and reflect it fairly in the relevant output.


The final element of noting their response and reflecting it fairly in the output means if you ask someone for an interview, they decline, and instead send a written response, you should still reflect that. You can't ask them for an interview and then, if they decline that offer, ignore their written response. You still have an obligation to offer a right of reply and fairly reflect that response.
scottishtv and bilky asko gave kudos