Categories
Australia Media TV

It’s All Happening In Fitzroy

So there we were, out on a sunny Saturday afternoon for a bit of a walk. we’d already been over to Brunswick Street for a bit a lunch (where there was an amusing incident with a newspaper) and then wandered up towards North Fitzroy and over to Rathdowne Street before heading back towards home. As we reached the town hall, though, we noticed that Channel 9 were there, setting up to film the series finale of their property reality show, The Block.

As we stopped to watch for a bit, we almost literally bumped into presenter Scott Cam, who was pacing up and down practising his lines:

Scott Cam learning his lines...

“Shall we get a pint and watch?” I asked Sal, and as there was a free table outside The Napier across the street, we sat down with a Mountain Goat Hightail Ale and a glass of Chardonnay and gawped for a bit as a series of cars pulled up and deposited a series of increasingly ridiculously overdressed real estate agents and their hangers on at the steps of the town hall, much to the bemusement of the hipster Fitzroy locals having a fag outside the pub.

Some of these agents were familiar faces to us: we spent the best part of a year going to open for inspections in the area before we found our piece of Collingwood, and I recognised a good few faces in the crowd from those days (including the agent who sold us our house, and who I remember having a massive phone argument with when she wouldn’t pass my offer on to the vendor…)

After the agents came the contestants, past and present, posing for photos on the steps of the town hall:

The Block Auction, Fitzroy Town

The Block Auction, Fitzroy Town

Considering how many people had apparently invaded Cameron Street for the open for inspections, there were surprisingly few members of the public hanging around: just the aforementioned bemused hipsters outside the pub, a few passers by, a couple of kids and us.

As the auction itself was held behind closed doors, we finished our drinks, wandered over to take a few photos and left them to it. As I was taking the last of my shots I turned to my left to see a Channel 9 bloke with a camera pointing it directly in my face. So should you happen to watch the show tonight keep your eyes peeled for a skinny Brit taking his photo of the day…

Josh and Jenna, The Block

Categories
Australia Media Shoddy Journalism

Lies, Damned Lies, and Exchange Rates

According to today’s The Age:

RISING living costs and a surging Australian dollar mean it is now more expensive to live in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane and Perth than in London, Vienna, Rome or New York.

A startling claim, I’m sure you’ll agree, but something doesn’t quite ring true for me about this. Why should a “surging Australian dollar” make it more expensive to live in an Australian city? A surging Australian dollar might make it expensive to visit an Australian city, but for anyone living there–earning a salary in the local currency–it should surely make the cost of living cheaper. Apart from anything else due to lower prices for imported goods.

So I downloaded the free report (from here) and of course the introduction makes clear that any conclusions you might draw from the report about the cost of living anywhere outside the US are somewhat flawed:

There are two major reasons why a city’s cost-of-living index will change over time: exchange rate movement and price movement. Since a common currency is required in making a comparative calculation, all local prices are converted into US dollars, which emphasises the role of currency
movement.

So, essentially, it’s not a cost of living survey at all. It’s a cost of visiting from the US and paying for things with US dollars survey.

Elsewhere in the introduction, we have this:

Of particular note is the rapid growth in the relative cost of living of Australian cities. Sydney and Melbourne are ranked sixth and seventh respectively and are closely followed by Perth and Brisbane in 13th and 14th place in the ranking. This is the culmination of a remarkable rise in the cost of living in Australian cities over the last decade, a period in which the value of the Australian dollar has moved from around 50 US cents to passing parity with the US dollar earlier this year.

Well yes of course, if you’re going to convert everything back into USD then it’s hardly surprising that if the Aussie goes from being worth 50 US cents to 1.07 USD that would make those Australian cities seem hugely more expensive, relative to the US. It doesn’t mean that those cities are actually that much more expensive for people who live and work there.

The article in The Age concludes with the following:

Melbourne was among the most expensive for a daily business trip at $US760 ($A711) a day – made up of one night’s hotel accommodation, two meals, two taxi trips, a daily newspaper and a drink at a bar. Sydney came in at $US627.

This I find truly baffling. Without subscribing to the detailed city information, I can’t get any more information about how these prices are broken down for Melbourne. All it tells me in the free report is that:

Daily business trip rate consists of one night’s accommodation in a hotel, one two-course meal, one simple meal, two 5km journeys by taxi, one drink in the hotel bar and one international foreign daily newspaper.

Ok, so let’s be generous and assume that the hotel costs you $300 (that’d get you into almost any of the 4/5* major CBD hotels), and let’s allocate $200 to the meals (this is for one person, remember…) The 5km taxi rides shouldn’t cost more than $15 each and even the most expensive hotel bar will probably serve you a drink for under twenty bucks.

Even staying at a top hotel and eating very well, I can’t get much above $550. Where’s the rest of that cost coming from? Unless it costs $150 to buy a “foreign daily newspaper”, it just doesn’t add up.

*

Of course despite the name this isn’t really a cost of living survey at all, as the report itself makes clear:

The Worldwide Cost of Living survey enables human resources line managers and expatriate executives to compare the cost of living in 140 cities in 93 countries and calculate fair compensation policies for relocating employees.

Which is fine and all, but maybe our newspapers shouldn’t just be blindly reporting on it as an example of how expensive our city is without making that clear…

Categories
Australia Media Music TV

Having The Most Successful Show On Australian TV Must Be Such A Pain

Funny. Only the other day I was reading an interview in the weekend paper with the host of Channel Ten’s long running weekend morning music video show, Video Hits, which mentioned how profitable it is for the network:

At Ten, Video Hits is seen almost as part of the furniture, having been on-air in various guises for 25 years.

“It’s one of the most profitable shows on the network”, she says.

[The Age Life And Style, July 2, 2011]

Two days later, up pops new Ten CEO Lachlan Murdoch to cancel it.

It seems an odd decision to me, as surely it must have been a relatively cheap way of filling a lot of airtime. I wonder where the nation’s viewers will have to turn now to get their fix of music videos and sport.

Oh. That.

Even odder, though, is this quote at the end of that article from The Australian:

Mr Murdoch, who flagged the cuts earlier this year, blamed rising costs in news, the multi-channel Eleven and Ten’s hit show MasterChef Australia.

Quite. Having the single most successful reality ratings juggernaut on your books (which must surely pull in significant sponsorship revenue if the incessant product placement is anything to go by) must be such a burden. I’m sure the other free-to-air networks–who have been relentlessly throwing their own imitations at the TV wall in an attempt to make one stick–must feel your pain.

Categories
Australia Media Politics Shoddy Journalism

Dear World’s Media

I know I shouldn’t expect people to, like, know stuff any more and I know it doesn’t really matter, but I post this here because:

1. I can’t believe that I seem to be the only person in the world who has noticed; and
2. It’s not often that that English degree I spent three years studying for comes in handy.

According to the story on the front page of today’s The Age, and apparently every other media outlet in the world, President Obama, speaking at a white tie function at Buck House last night, “concluded his toast with a quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III“:

Obama concluded his toast with a quote from Shakespeare’s Richard III.

‘To her Majesty the Queen, to the vitality of the special relationship between our peoples and in the words of Shakespeare, ‘to this blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.”

Except he didn’t, did he, because that quote isn’t from Richard the third, it’s the John of Gaunt, “This Other Eden” speech from Richard the second:

This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England

(Funny how he left out the bit about “against the envy of less happier lands”, can’t think why…)

It’s the sort of thing you might expect a good sub editor to pick up.

Oh. Oops. This is the sort of thing that happens why you sack them all, isn’t it

Meh. Richard II, Richard III. It’s all the same thing really isn’t it?

Categories
Shoddy Journalism

£136.40? No Wonder They Paid Cash

Can’t help thinking there might be a missing word in this headline or something.

£136.40 cash paid for UK's most expensive flat ever

Either that or property prices back home have taken a massive hit…

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism teh internets UK

Google To Destroy Music Industry, World

In the olden days it was a lot easier for newspapers to pass off ridiculous claims as facts because anyone who wanted to verify them would have to go to some serious effort to do so. These days, however, we have teh internets, and fact checking has suddenly become a whole lot easier.

So if you’re going to make claims about teh internets, then you’d better be pretty sure that your claimed facts are, you know, actually true.

Case in point number 247 is this article in the Daily Mail: Google threatens to destroy not only pop sensation Adele, but Britain’s film and music industries.

Scroll down towards the end of the article and you’ll find this astonishing claim:

One only has to switch on the computer, call up the Google search engine and type in the name of a star like Adele to understand why the digital channel is such a threat to the UK’s performers, and for that matter our whole creative industry.

Nine out of the first ten websites which pop up on Google’s search engine are run by pirates who have downloaded Adele’s output and offer it online far more cheaply than official copyrighted sites and High Street retailers.

In effect, Google has granted these piracy sites a licence to steal. Instead of the proceeds going into future investment in artists, it ends up in the hands of internet buccaneers.

Really? Nine out of the top ten search results for “Adele” are “run by pirates”? Did you really think you could make a claim like that and nobody would check?

(And by “far more cheaply”, I presume you mean “free”, no? Unless you really believe your claim that any proceeds are someone ending up in the hands of “internet buccaneers”…)

Anyway. So I turned on my computer and “called up the Google search engine” and did just that. Your mileage may vary, because Google now gives you geographically specific and personalised search results, but when I try that very search I get her official website, her wikipedia page, her MySpace page, a YouTube link, her Facebook page, last.fm, a lyrics website and Amazon.com.

Hmm. No pirates there.

Now I’m not suggesting that it isn’t possible to find copies of Adele’s music by doing a Google search, but you do have to specifically go looking for it. And until someone releases an album called “BitTorrent Download”, you won’t really be able to accuse Google of promoting piracy.

Actually, that’s sort of the point of a search engine–Google’s job is to index the internet, not to pick and choose what is worthy of inclusion in their index. Blaming them for the fact that certain websites show up in their search results seems to be the very definition of shooting the messenger.

Unless you have some other specific reason to be annoyed at Google. Oh, hang on…

So dominant has it become that it has helped to destroy great swathes of other media in its wake, from regional newspapers in Britain and the United States to business directory companies.

Ah. I see.

Categories
Australia Media

Channel Nine Sucks The Big One

So there was I thinking, as I walked home from work last night with Test Match Special in my ears courtesy of Radios 4 and 5 and my iPhone’s 3G connection to teh interwebs, that with 8 or so overs still to play at the end of the first day of the first test in this year’s Ashes series, that I’d make it home in time to catch some play on the TV.

WRONG! Of course I was forgetting that this is Australia, where the TV networks have a cavalier disregard for their viewers. “That’s an awfully long ad break”, I thought to myself as I switched on Channel 9 when I got in. I remembered where I was when the ads continued even as Test Match Special started to talk me through the next over, and then Channel 9 returned from their ad break to the end of their half hour nightly news bulletin and the start of their shabby, tabloid telly evening magazine show, A Current Affair. Over on their second and third free to air channels, “Gem”, and “Go”, they were showing some even more important and unmoveable telly: The Flintstones and The Nanny.

And here was me thinking that Australia was a sports obsessed sort of place. Apparently not: cartoons, reruns of ancient sitcoms, and Tracey Grimshaw are more important than the only broadcaster with the rights to show The Ashes live actually, you know, broadcasting it live all the way to the end of play.

Australia’s free to air networks have form in this department: I’ve seen Channel 9 do it before for other cricket matches, Channel 7 just love to cut away from the Aussie Open (which, of course they also have exclusive rights to broadcast live) to show Home And Away, and heaven help the AFL fans in this country, who almost never get to see a game live on free to air telly, with most of them showing with half an hour or more delay (heaven forbid that Channel 7 might have to move Better Homes And Gardens…)

Frankly I’m amazed that the sports-mad Aussies put up with it. Of course I’m well aware that not everyone likes sport, and there would surely be plenty of people annoyed at missing their nightly news bulletin to see some blokes in white throwing a small ball at each other, but the issue is that no one else has the rights to show this stuff, because the right of the free to air networks to dick around with their coverage is enshrined in Australia’s “Anti-Siphoning Laws“, a piece of legislation designed to ensure that key events like the Melbourne Cup, the Aussie Open and the big Cricket matches remain on free to air. Unfortunately although the legislation ensures that at least one of the free to air networks will always get the rights to show these events, it doesn’t apparently require them to actually show the event, live and in full.

Not that I’m the world’s biggest fan of the Murdoch empire, but at least his channels show things live and stick with them all the way to the end…

So it looks like I’ll have to fill in the gaps with Test Match Special and whatever streams I can find on the interwebs.

[And the less said about England’s performance so far, the better…]

Categories
Media Shoddy Journalism

Logic

Curious article here from the normally sane Charles Arthur in The Guardian, which opens with:

The invitation to Apple’s event on Wednesday at the Yerba Buena centre in San Francisco shows an acoustic guitar, with a soundhole in the shape of the Apple logo. Seasoned watchers of the company know that this is the time of year when the iPod gets a refresh, yet there’s a shadow over the digital music player that turned Apple from an also-ran computer company into a force in the technology world.

The latest sales figures for the quarter to June showed 9m sold – the lowest quarterly number since 2006. In short, the iPod, launched in October 2001, looks to be in terminal decline. While Apple is unworried – sales of its iPhone and iPad are booming – the drooping figures for the digital music player market are a concern for another sector: the music companies.

Some slightly disingenuous logic there, I think. I don’t see how you can consider iPod sales in isolation and use those as a basis for doom and gloom pronouncements on the state of the music industry as a whole.

For starters, you can’t just take iPhone sales out of the equation and pretend like that doesn’t matter, given that it is essentially an iPod with phone functionality. Why would any of those people contributing to the booming sales of the iPhone bother buying an iPod too? Surely no one loves Apple that much…

But more importantly, what does a decline in sales of the iPod have to do with downloads anyway? Isn’t this an issue of market saturation? There are only so many people in the world after all. How often does Charles Arthur think you need to replace your iPod?

But as iPod sales slow, digital music sales, which have been yoked to the device, are likely to slow too.

Why? My chunky 2005 vintage iPod still does a perfectly good job of playing music downloads.

Just because there are fewer and fewer people left who don’t own some form of iPod, it doesn’t mean that digital downloads are doomed.

Of course the small matter of whether people choose to download music legally, and whether they choose to pay for it is another issue entirely…

Categories
Australia Media Politics

Oh Look, The Alliance of Australian Retailers Got Hacked…

When I saw this ad on the TV earlier this evening, my first thought was that the “Alliance of Australian Retailers” (seen here campaigning against the Australian Labor government’s proposed introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes) would almost certainly turn out to be a front for some tobacco company…

…and of course it is, as The Age confirms (BAT, Philip Morris and Imperial, to be precise).

But then I went to their website, to read that “this campaign has ended”.

Really? That’s odd, I thought, given that I had just seen their ad on TV (and I spotted a massive billboard promoting their message just yesterday).

Even stranger, for a campaign supported by three tobacco companies, was the “What We Stand For” page, because apparently they stand for:

# Emphysema
# Coronary artery disease
# Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease
# Bladder and kidney cancer
# Stomach cancer
# Bronchitis
# Peripheral artery disease
# Acute myeloid leukemia
# Colorectal cancer
# Abdominal aortic aneurysm
# Kidney cancer
# Liver cancer
# Prostate cancer
# Pancreatic cancer
# Erectile dysfunction in men
# Pneumonia
# Cataracts
# Periodontitis
# Cervical cancer

Very true. But I wasn’t expecting quite that level of honesty from the tobacco giants… Were they planning a new direction of truth in advertising, I wondered?

Elsewhere the site told me that:

You can find links here to information about why smoking is bad, common smoking myths, and why Tobacco companies love to pose as Associations

I wondered if someone had set up a fake website to counteract the campaign, but, as the whois database confirms, www.australianretailers.com.au is indeed registered to the lobbying organisation behind the campaign (“The Civic Group”, a 10 employee company without much of a website of their own).

And then, as soon as I’d finished writing my post they were back on message, with the site reverting to the version I’d found in Google’s cache.

How very odd. I guess someone hacked into their website and made a few subtle changes. I wonder who was behind that little bit of internet japery (and how long it was live…)

Categories
Australia Football Shoddy Journalism

Australians Know Their Football

Some more quality fact checking from The Age, today, where I spotted this in their “Complete Guide to South Africa 2010”:

England?

I must have missed the announcement that the home nations have now begun competing as a single unified team, under the Union Flag. I hope The Age’s knowledgeable football writers have informed the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Football Associations that they will no longer be required.

I guess it does solve that old problem about us never being able to send a team to play football at the Olympics, though, hey…