Public Address - Hard News (Home)

Paris S'Enflamme, tout la nuit | Jul 18, 2008 12:02

It says something that none of the references in the Wikipedia article about Wellington's Ladyhawke are from New Zealand media.

She (officially, Ladyhawke is the band and Pip Brown is its leader, but everyone seems to call her that anyway) is signed to a white-hot Australian label and is based in London and will probably be easily the most successful new New Zealand artist on the world stage this year. All without troubling the official cultural machinery. It would be nice if someone brought her back to play the Music Awards later in the year.

In the meantime, it was a stroke of inspiration to have re-record her flagship tune 'Paris is Burning' in French. You can hear 'Paris S'Enflamme' here, and there's a clip for the original version here.

Her video diary from Glastonbury is worth a look too.

Staying with music, there are cool mixes of Ladytron and MGMT and even more MGMT remixes.
l
But best of all, there's a big sampler swag of scandi-pop, officially free from Sweden's Labrador Records. You can download several of the tracks here, but the label's own server was swamped when the world rushed to get the full album. So they did the rational thing and put it on The Pirate Bay.

Fatty Jubbo at WFMU has found more strange and interesting imageblogs and photosets, and the blog also has a some links in tribute to the composer Raymond Scott, the designer of the Fascination machine.

Oh, and now that the Democratic primaries are over, One Good Move is back to its highly readable and diverting self. Phew.

PS: Our team won a rather truncated debate about the respective merits of "paid" and consumer-generated content yesterday, thanks to input from Peter Haynes, Steve Barnes, Emma Hart, Lyndon Hood and David Hamilton, whose words and ideas I incorporated in my speech. The big bags of Eden coffee go to Emma and David, who quipped "Paid content is to consumer generated media like Pacifier is to Shihad." David, can you email me so I can arrange delivery?

(22 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

A Taxonomy of Poo | Jul 17, 2008 11:24

David Haywood has kindly directed my attention to Clark Vader and the Helengrad Labour Lesbians, a paper submitted by Lewis Stoddart toward a graduate diploma in political science at Victoria University last year.

The paper does not aim to comprehensively examine the Helengrad phenomenon, although it notes what Stoddart believes to be the first use of some of its key terminology in blogs and comments, but to analyse it as it emerged via Radio Pacific's First Edition breakfast show under first John Banks and then Lindsay Perigo.

I am not qualified to assess its academic merit (indeed, if I do so I would be obliged to stop unfairly teasing Tze Ming about saying "discourse"), but it has an appealing dry humour, and I can recommend the paper for the insight it provides into the intellectual descent of Lindsay Perigo. (And also, at some points, the acquiescence of various conservative politicians to what Stoddart characterises as the "anti-government communist lesbian dictator discourse.")

Everyone knows that Perigo used to be a good interviewer. I can further report that he used to be a good interview subject: I spoke to him at length two or three times in my 95bFM Wire show in the mid-1990s. The result was sufficiently satisfying that Perigo was moved to suggest that perhaps I could join his merry band of libertarian freedom fighters.

I'm not sure what such an interview would draw from Perigo's mind now. Indeed, I'm not sure that Perigo can now be said to have a mind, rather than a space from which various elements of his psyche throw poos at the world.

Perigo's (and to a lesser extent Banks') commentary is explicitly paranoid, not least in its characterisation of all other media, which are in general "craven cowards" and "somewhat to the left of Joseph Stalin"; and specifically "pommie commie" (Press gallery chair Vernon Small); "bastion of Islamofascism" (Morning Report); "racist TV" (Maori Television); "communist tabloid" (The Dominion Post) and "run by National's biggest enemies" (The New Zealand Herald).

Which makes it all the more surprising that there is only one incidence of the word in the paper, which involves the government allegedly being paranoid. If the discourse isn't exactly expansive (indeed, it is as numbingly repetitive as any Soviet tract), perhaps it is, at least, consistent? Alas, no:

The communist lesbian dictator discourse, like hate discourses in general, was not particularly consistent. Although I have not analysed its inconsistencies in any detail, cracks in the edifice included anti-Islamic speech while criticising the government for being xenophobic toward Dubai [58]; objecting to government participation in markets in almost the same breath as decrying the 'silent genocide' of women from breast cancer because the government would not fund drugs [15]; and most egregiously the call for enforced sterilisation for some members of society while explicitly comparing the government to the Nazis, who implemented just such a programme. It was this last example which prompted Matt McCarten to turn the communist lesbian dictator discourse around upon its purveyors, saying with sarcasm, 'put them into camps'.

Stoddart appends a "symbolic vocabulary" compiled from his monitoring of the show: over three columns and two and a half pages, it explores every reach of hyperbolic invective, from "anilingus" to "banning sex, except between women", "child molesters of the mind", "coven of left-wing witches", "man-hating lesbians", "parasitical ignoramuses", "snivelling, whining socialists", "stench", "stooge", "stranglehold", "strident", "turning hospitals into a gulag", and, finally, sadly, "youth taking over". It is a taxonomy of poo.

Perigo, inevitably, had a hissy fit and left the show (probably blaming his "enemies") and Banks, of course is the Mayor of Auckland. I'm probably less troubled than Stoddart by the feeble nonsense he found. It is, nonetheless, remarkable that it went to air for so long. And, indeed, that something so banal, inconsistent and needy should continue to flourish in the wild.

--

If you'd like something more grown-up, our Media7 panel -- National's Broadcasting Spokesman Jonathan Coleman, SPP CEO John Barnett and Paul Norris of the Broadcasting School in Christchurch -- discussed broadcasting policy this week. You can see it via TVNZ ondemand, some Windows Media clips, the podcast and just for a change, I've embedded the YouTube version (which contains everything but Newsmash, because people are nervous about copyright issues) on this site in OurTube.

Also, try and make time to read Gordon Campbell on the Immigration Bill (whose "real purpose" is to "is to protect the spies and the bureaucrats from the exposure of their mistakes - and to narrow the channels of justice available to the vulnerable"), and No Right Turn ("no-one should be subjected to arbitrary arrest and indefinite detention, and the idea of being able to deport long-term residents, kiwis in every way bar the paperwork, is deeply abhorrent".)

Righto: I'll blog some music tomorrow, and announce the winners of the consumer-generated debate speech competition.

PS: I'm clearing a backlog of good stuff from Public Address Radio in the past two or three weeks. See here for interviews with film-makers Alister Baryy and Florian Habicht, and Science Media Centre founding manager Peter Griffin.

(209 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Relieving Ambiguity | Jul 16, 2008 11:37

The Charter is dead, and it will be replaced by -- The Charter! Well, it's possible. As I noted last week, National's Broadcasting policy one-pager does not actually say a National government would do away with TVNZ's Charter.

But once its Charter funding was removed, TVNZ would have the opportunity to draft its own mission statement. It could return to the SOE mission statement by which it operated until 2003, adapt the current Charter wording or, in theory, keep the whole damn thing -- just not the money. A National-led government would not have an opinion on the matter.

That was the word from National's spokesman, Jonathan Coleman, at the recording of Media7 last night. Coleman also clarified another "ambiguity" in the Broadcasting policy announcement. The paper says National would continue to support Radio New Zealand and Maori Television -- but it does not say it would do so at current levels. In the absence of such an assurance, a suspicious person might fear budget cuts.

I asked Coleman if he'd like to add the words "at current levels" and he agreed that he would. So that's settled, then. Also, for the avoidance of doubt, "Radio New Zealand" includes all RNZ services, and not just National.

Anyway, the discussion was quite lively and you can watch it on TVNZ 7 at 9.30pm tonight, or wait for the links tomorrow morning.

If National's Broadcasting policy was largely about continuity, then its Arts Culture and Heritage policy, released yesterday, doubles that. Chris Finlayson (who, as a former chair of the New Zealand Arts Foundation, knows the territory) is keeping everything: the PACE scheme, NZ On Air funding for "Kiwi music", the Music Industry Commission, the two main screen production funds (while reforming the Film Commission), Rockquest -- even the often-pilloried (but in reality, tightly-accounted and effective) PACE scheme.

Finlayson also does not encumber himself with "ambiguities" over funding levels:

"As I've travelled around New Zealand listening to those involved in arts, culture and heritage, the question I hear most often is, will National cut funding to the arts? I am pleased to announce today that the next National Government will be maintaining funding to this vibrant, creative, and dynamic sector at least at current levels," says National's Arts, Culture and Heritage spokesman, Chris Finlayson.

"While in these tighter economic times it is not appropriate to significantly grow funding, it would also be counter-productive to reduce funding.

The areas in which the policy does deviate are those where there is an active constituency for a change of tack. National would not pursue the Artists' Resale Royalty -- which is so loathed by many people in the visual arts business that some would vote National purely to be rid of it. And it would "reform" the Film Commission (good luck with that) and rein in the Ministry of Culture and Heritage to its "core" roles (another promise that will win some friends in screen land).

If this were The Standard, I'd doubtless be diving through Hansard to find all the occasions on which Gerry Brownlee or someone has slammed PACE as some sort of artists' dole slush fund, or otherwise damned Labour's arts policies and the ministers associated with them. But what's the point? This is essentially an endorsement of Labour's reforms and initiatives in arts policy. It's sensible and savvy.

And finally, I'm glad the judge presiding over Owen Walker's case -- and, indeed, the local police -- focused on demonstrable harm, rather than simply reciting the FBI's financial phone-number figures for the damage caused by his coding of botnets. It's very likely that Walker, an Asperger Syndrome 18 year-old, did not appreciate who or what he was dealing with, and he seems to have had no knowledge of the criminal activity being undertaken by people who were paying him to code. He was dismissed without a conviction that would have sharply curtailed his chances of using his abilities for good; but required to pay reparations of $10,000 to Pennsylvania University (where his attempt to remotely take over a server did cause damage), plus court costs; and to surrender gear obtained with the money he'd been paid. Good call, that judge.

(59 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

Radio Times | Jul 14, 2008 10:44

Noelle McCarthy has responded tartly to Bill Ralston's Listener column depicting Radio New Zealand National as a "rest home" serving "an insipid menu of stewed apple and bananas" with a side order of "smug, hand-wringing liberal contortions".

Amusingly, it's one columnist who used to wait tables at Prego slapping back at another who probably has a table there on timeshare.

I can't point you to the whole of Ralston's column, owing to The Listener's dogged policy of keeping nearly all columns off its website until they're irrelevant.

But I know what Ralston is on about: someone once described the problem at Radio New Zealand to me as one of "cardigan wearers" who would not give way to new talent or ideas. I've used that as mental shorthand ever since. But it seems odd that Ralston should be making such a case now.

As Noelle points out, she's yet to hit 30. The youngest of Radio Live's frontline hosts, James Coleman, turns 40 this year. So it's a little hard to convincingly run the "rest home" and "baby boomer" lines.

But Ralston is not exactly looking to win the argument on mere facts.

"I'm not sure if the audience has deserted the network or if the audience had abandoned its audience," he declares, apparently off the top of his head. "However, I am convinced these days RNZ National is broadcasting almost solely to itself and the few dozen people who control its funding. It is impossible to tell how many people do listen because it no longer participates in the industry ratings survey, preferring to run its own polling and surveys that invariably show it is doing its job admirably."

Well, yes, RNZ did leave the Research International radio ratings survey nine years ago (so it's hardly some Helengrad plot), but even if it was to re-enter the survey, it still would not appear in the ratings. The commercial broadcasters want it that way, because excluding the large bloc of "non-commercial listeners" makes their audience shares look bigger.

But "impossible to tell"? Really?

This page carries research conducted every 10 weeks by Nielsen Media, which finds that the "total weekly live audience for Radio New Zealand National is 525,000 or about 16% of the 15+ population." That's an increase of nearly 150,000 over 2006.

It's also more listeners than were attracted by any commercial radio station in the same period (albeit that they're being counted by two different surveys; the commercial survey is all listeners 10+, so the potential audience is slightly larger). It's nearly four times more than Radio Live.

This seems a rather extreme case of just making shit up. But if it's to be all about impressions, well and good. I work from home and I listen to a lot of radio. Here's my take:

Morning Report: There is no substitute. Whether you love or hate what you hear, it sets the daily agenda. I try and catch Mikey's chats on bFM with the political leaders, or simply to hear what Mikey's doing.

Kathryn Ryan: Consistent but unspectacular, except when it gets to break a story, when it can set an agenda. Tends to burble away in the background. You'd have to torture me to make me listen to Michael Laws or Leighton Smith.

Midday report: Sometimes. More often, I'm over with The Wire on bFM.

Afternoons: I'm enjoying Noelle being there, but the afternoon programming is an odd mix of MOR elements that will sometimes have me wondering why I'm listening. (Then I switch over to b, or occasionally Ralston on Live, or use the iPod.) But I think it probably suits many listeners well enough. The Panel? Sometimes there's Clive Matthew-Wilson or Matt Nippert and sometimes there are just more conservative blowhards blathering about their gut instinct.

Checkpoint: Not as compulsory as it used to be, and I'm not sure why, but still the best radio summary of the day's issues and arguments.

Bryan Crump: Not radio time for me, but I am sometimes pleasantly surprised when I do catch it.

Saturday morning with Kim Hill: Much as I admire the work of Chris Bourke, I think Mark Cubey's arrival in the producer's chair gave this show new places to go. Playing Favourites usually works well -- I loved the Graeme Downes one on Saturday. And she's just really good: it's like a sort of premium service having someone think for me so I can just much on my croissant and think "that's interesting". Some mornings I'll drift off to bFM or Radio Live later on, or go to Hype Machine online and see what the hot new tunes are.

Saturday afternoons: In its way, the standout in the schedule. Simon Morton's 'This Way Up' is inventive, informative and warm, and the music programming that follows is really savvy. I like hearing Trevor Reekie and (currently standing in for Nick Bollinger) Troy Ferguson talk about music, the live recordings are frequently excellent, and I like the scrupulous back and forward announcing of tracks on Music 101. The live recordings, recorded and mixed by Andre Upton I've listened for hours at a stretch some Saturdays.

[Only problem: Graeme Hill's Radio Live show, in which he has admirable freedom, is often really good too. (And, of course, Public Address Radio is totally choice at 5pm every Saturday. We're informative, warm and casual, and Craig Ranapia is a delight. No, really, you should check us out.)]

On Sunday mornings, I like to catch Mediawatch, but the rest of Chris Laidlaw's show really does answer to many of the clichés Ralston hurls about. It is often a matter of male fiftysomethings grunting agreement at each other, and Laidlaw's management of discussions is so passive I sometimes wonder if he has fallen asleep. Perhaps it's what the audience wants (Noelle might not want to face it, but the average age of RNZ listeners is remarkably high) but for me at 10am it's usually over to Radio Live for Finlay Macdonald and Andrew Patterson and guests, who include Rob O'Neill and that Smithies chap. Good show.

Sunday afternoons: For some reason, I don't listen so much. I'll sometimes catch Chris Knox and other things on Graeme Hill's show. The late afternoon programming on RNZ can be good-- the Reith lecture on China and the religious issues programme Touchstone, both from the BBC, were excellent yesterday -- but I'm often listening to the Hype Machine-friendly Sunday drive on b by then.

One more element of Radio NZ's performance warrants mention: the internet. No other broadcaster has responded to the shift online as well as Radio NZ has under the guidance of Richard Hulse. The website delivered four million "programmes or programme parts" last year. That's really pretty good.

So there you have it: thoughts?

PS: There's a public broadcasting theme in Media7 this week too. We'll be discussing National's new Charter-free broadcasting policy with its broadcasting spokesman Jonathan Coleman, South Pacific Pictures' John Barnett and Paul Norris of the Broadcasting School in Christchurch. If you'd like to come along (and even bring a friend) to The Classic tomorrow, hit "reply" and let me know.

(133 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!

User-generated Speechification | Jul 12, 2008 13:56

I'm the team leader in a debate at the Online Advertising Symposium in Auckland on Thursday, arguing against the moot "Paid content is King – Consumer Generated Media is the Foot Soldier".

My colleagues on the negative side are Oliver Driver and award-winning viral ad guy Jason Rutherford.

Given the nature of the debate, I thought it would be appropriate to involve the Public Address user community in constructing an argument in the negative.

So, have a go; hit me with some tasty rhetoric. I'll credit everyone whose lines I use on Thursday, and award some big bags of Eden Coffee for the best of them.

(41 responses)
Digg this Scoopit!