Shanahan and Mollgard (who will be our visitor on Monday) covered some of the same territory, looking at the total transformation of radio from a largely State-run system to one that say a proliferation of stations which then led to a "duopoly", a double monopoly where the two competitors, one Irish owned and one now Australian owned, pretend to compete while collaborating behind the scenes to prevent certain regulations, for example around NZ music, being imposed upon them. I have to say, I only listen to National Radio, 101.4 FM (Morning Report 7-9) and Checkpoint (5-7) both of which provide pretty good news services, to Kim Hill on Saturday mornings and to Brian Crump in the evenings, who I think is a genius at radio montage (although that is usually only if I am driving). I also like bfm, our own lovely University's radio station (95 FM) -- they have truly funny commercials, the only ones I can actually listen to. I also listen to the BBC world service at 810 AM. I'm someone who cannot listen to much talk radio which seems to me addled by racism, sexism, anti-migrant attitudes, anti-PC tirades. But given I don't listen maybe I am wrong? Recently, I was interviewed by Kiwi FM, which Mollgaard argues is a front by Mediaworks to stymie indigenous efforts by musicans, broadcaster and academics to support real youth orientated radio that assists local music and culture. It took me some time to find the office which was buried in Ponsonby. I was also interviewed by our former visitor Russell Brown, who I think is excellent, but this I think was for Radio Live -- and Brown certainly does not fit into the "talk show" format I mention above. So maybe this is the "accommodating" tendency the duoply allows -- they can point to "progressive" elements with their broader conservative stations to silence the critics. What do you think?
I'm interested too in the role of NZOA in radio which we can talk about in weeks to come, and also in the iwi stations which I don't listen too but I think do address the concerns of their listeners.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Preparation for Week 5
Hi all,
have done my reading and am focusing here on the Hesmondhalgh article (I've finally worked out how to spell his name). It seems to me he has a clear perspective that provides a deeper analysis of the "debates" around music and file sharing.
He suggests that the debates around file-sharing put forward by "the prophets of techno-capitalism" or by Left-leaning musicians miss the point -- what are their respective points or beliefs? He believes the debates in fact emerge from a clash of two powerful entities. "Unpack" his points and reflect on whether you agree with his conclusion.
Although I think he is pretty hip, the article is now older and refers to the realities on the ground (and in cyperspace) in the mid to late 2000s. Take up some of his descriptive points and "update" them. For example, he compares how Europe/North American purchased online music and Asia through mobile phones. Is that still the case do you think?
And how far, from your anecdotal position, do you think that digital sales have eroded CD and DVDs sales?
What models of controls of file sharing imposed by the music industries have you come across and are any effective to your knowledge?
Finally, if anyone understands the implications of the new copyright laws in New Zealand, it would be great to hear them spelled out.
have done my reading and am focusing here on the Hesmondhalgh article (I've finally worked out how to spell his name). It seems to me he has a clear perspective that provides a deeper analysis of the "debates" around music and file sharing.
He suggests that the debates around file-sharing put forward by "the prophets of techno-capitalism" or by Left-leaning musicians miss the point -- what are their respective points or beliefs? He believes the debates in fact emerge from a clash of two powerful entities. "Unpack" his points and reflect on whether you agree with his conclusion.
Although I think he is pretty hip, the article is now older and refers to the realities on the ground (and in cyperspace) in the mid to late 2000s. Take up some of his descriptive points and "update" them. For example, he compares how Europe/North American purchased online music and Asia through mobile phones. Is that still the case do you think?
And how far, from your anecdotal position, do you think that digital sales have eroded CD and DVDs sales?
What models of controls of file sharing imposed by the music industries have you come across and are any effective to your knowledge?
Finally, if anyone understands the implications of the new copyright laws in New Zealand, it would be great to hear them spelled out.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Preparation for Week 4
As I said yesterday, I will be arriving "fashionably late" to class, and Naomi Wallwork from NZFC will be talking to you . .she is drawing on the SOI from the NZFC, so make sure you read that material.
As far as questions for this week, I think last week's questions still pertain so have another think through these.
I hope my lecture gave you a sense of the arguments posed for the formation of of NZFC in 1978. First the need to express "national and cultural identity" (and examining what this is since "decolonization and globalization" both terms that can also be explored) and second, the possibility of financial gain and sustainability. As you saw, the actual film industry has undergone a bumpy ride, with waves of success and visibility and periods of non-productiveness generally tied to the economic, political and cultural climate. This conflict between cultural expression and economic viability has continued, even as as the notion of "New Zealandness" has expanded and globalization has opened up markets, increased the possibilities of co-production and New Zealand itself has been marketed as a location for Hollywood funded epics.
Perhaps discuss some questions you can ask Naomi, or even outline examples from other film cultures and industries that might interest here.
See you at about 10.30!
As far as questions for this week, I think last week's questions still pertain so have another think through these.
I hope my lecture gave you a sense of the arguments posed for the formation of of NZFC in 1978. First the need to express "national and cultural identity" (and examining what this is since "decolonization and globalization" both terms that can also be explored) and second, the possibility of financial gain and sustainability. As you saw, the actual film industry has undergone a bumpy ride, with waves of success and visibility and periods of non-productiveness generally tied to the economic, political and cultural climate. This conflict between cultural expression and economic viability has continued, even as as the notion of "New Zealandness" has expanded and globalization has opened up markets, increased the possibilities of co-production and New Zealand itself has been marketed as a location for Hollywood funded epics.
Perhaps discuss some questions you can ask Naomi, or even outline examples from other film cultures and industries that might interest here.
See you at about 10.30!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)