I misheard Brett as he initially spoke and thought he said that the new Nine slogan was "We are TV". I immediately thought about the promo possibilities - We are drama - then showing a clip from all their drama shows, We are crime - a montage of all the CSI type shows, We are comedy - showing Mary Louise Parker getting fucked on the bonnet of her car etc
They still get to claim a leadership position this way without all the unpleasantness about not actually being number one in the ratings anymore.

Wow. That's so much better than what they actually came up with.

But, and be honest now, did you come up with that while your hair was on fire? Was the Gynge throwing sawdust at you while you tried to think of new marketing campaigns?

I think you've had Nine at a disadvantage and it's unfair for you to come up with interesting and useful ideas without being subjected to the same traumas as their marketing team.

As always, you make a very good point Josh.

Subsidies for digital receivers? Don't make me laugh. I could see it if we paid a TV license fee like the British do. But we've always paid for our own TV sets and VCRs. When VCRs came in, very few people could afford them, but you didn't hear people calling for them to be subsidised by the government.

There is a significant cost difference between SD and HD boxes. The SD boxes are cheap enough that there's no need to subsidise it - like $30 at the supermarket. And HD is not a necessity, it's a luxury, so there's no need to subsidise that.

I think Brett has been a little disingenuos over this whole digital transition. Particularly last week, when he complained that the channel 10 ads were misleading because "you need a surround sound system to get surround sound". That's about as stupid as complaining that "you need a TV to watch TV".

I don't think anybody would think that a new HD service would cause a HDTV to instantly materialise in the living room. So why say that about surround sound or HD tuners, or anything else? People understand that new technology and features means buying more stuff.

Pie in the sky!

I made the point about surround sound, not Brett. And as we mentioned out some weeks ago the Australian people are remarkably ill-informed about digital tv, including one would assume sound.

I don’t think anybody would think that a new HD service would cause a HDTV to instantly materialise in the living room

I think you completely wrong - I think there will be many many people who say "I've got a set top box, why don't I get the HD channels?"

And I think you missed my point about subsidies. Running both digital and analogue broadcasts is ridiculously expensive. The general argument is you can't turn off analogue until everybody has the opportunity to go digital. Therefore it would be cheaper in the long run to give everybody set top boxes and turn the analogue off now.

I made the point about surround sound, not Brett

Bross strikes again!

I think you completely wrong - I think there will be many many people who say “I’ve got a set top box, why don’t I get the HD channels?”

Sure, but what does that have to do with the surround sound analogy? Re-read my post. Who thinks that an actual TV set will materialise because there is a new TV service?

That's the parallel with surround sound. Even with limited technical knowledge, nobody expects new speakers to appear in their lounge room.

The HD/SD difference is much more subtle and confusing to the layperson than things like surround sound. Plus people have been dealing with surround sound for a lot longer than HD - since DVDs basically.

Running both digital and analogue broadcasts is ridiculously expensive.

Is it? Why? Transmitters cost a lot to build, but adding a signal to an existing transmitter is pretty negligible. And again, once the service is up, it's not going to cost that much to run each month. The costs are mostly up-front.

Therefore it would be cheaper in the long run to give everybody set top boxes and turn the analogue off now.

But it's not that simple. If you live in a rural area, a digital receiver isn't going to do shit. You will likely need a new antenna as well.

With analogue broadcasts, even if you get a weak signal, you can still get picture and sound (even if it has a lot of static). With digital, once the signal drops below a certain level, you get nothing, not just a degraded signal.

ok that "We 'HEART' TV" thing... really REALLY bugs the hell out of me. That heart is a metaphor for love. So We LOVE TV. That makes sense. That HEART shit is rubbish, it makes no sense. I might as well say I TESTICALS TV because I think its a load of bollocks.

I think that was the first time I ever heard any part of "Married With Children" ever described as 'subtle'.
Hilarious, sure, but subtle!?

And I think you missed one of the more interesting aspects of Celebrity Apprentice. Tito Ortiz isn't just Jenna Jameson's boytoy, he's a former UFC champion. Along with Lennox Lewis and WWE's John Cena (also on the list I read), you have an interesting Ultimate Fighter versus Boxer versus Pro Wrestler rivalry set up.
Wanna bet they all end up at next years' Wrestlemania? Vince McMahon must be chomping at the bit.

Oh, and I echo my own comments from last week - it's a bit rich complaining about Christmas with the Kranks, given you yourselves started spuiking Xmas DVD box sets on last weeks show.
Just sayin'...

*ahem*

...I meant "spruiking"...

*slaps forehead*

I was going to jump in to defend my stance but Ross beat me to it... Yes, I actually challenged the idea that people are going to think they're going to get 5.1 surround sound with only two speakers on the show when Ross first brought it up.

I also challenged the idea of distributing set top boxes as being cheaper and being a realistic idea on this week's show. The cost of simulcasting on analogue and digital isn't that extensive once the new signal is set up. The networks are going to have to pay for the initial setup whichever way it happens. Likewise, eventually, the analogue transmission equipment is going to be made redundant at some time - December 2013 at last announcement.

As we've seen with community broadcasters, Channel 31, to not have the simulcast period is to jeopardise the very existence of the network. They're still unsure of their future because of the lack of detail on how their signal is to be transmitted, let alone how the switchover will proceed. To an extent, their campaign to discourage viewers from upgrading to digital is probably part of the problem of how they'll cross over.

David, perhaps there's a problem with the platform you're listening to the podcast in that's leading to the confusion between me and Ross. What are you running it on? Does it handle audio well generally? I can give you some tips on upgrading if you want...

David, perhaps there’s a problem with the platform you’re listening to the podcast in that’s leading to the confusion between me and Ross. What are you running it on? Does it handle audio well generally?

Oooooh, bitchy.

Well, I use either studio monitor speakers, or Sennheiser headphones for my audio monitoring needs.

But I'd say the main point of failure in my platform of choice is... ears. Damn those concerts. But I'm not the only one who has problems decoding the analogue signal in wetware. Perhaps I need to hire an 8-year-old to decipher the podcast. That would probably violate child labour laws, though.

Gentle teasing there, David - not bitchiness. We're all friends here, despite disagreements. (Or am I taking it too seriously now?)

I have nothing to add to the general discussion this week (your discussion of Aus drama was interesting and said everything I would want to say; nice point about the soapiness, Josh) - except to say, "Brett - can you PLEASE stop headbutting the mic?"

Oh, and I saw HD ABC on an HDTV on the weekend and it was AWESOME - I was surprised at how much difference there was from the last time I saw HD on an SDTV. I normally wouldn't care less about such things, but it was impressive.

The HD/SD difference is much more subtle and confusing to the layperson

So is the Brett/Ross difference . . . I'm getting the hang of it now. Brett's voice is deeper, except when he gets excited about something - then they might as well be wearing the same pants.

I think there should be a new sub-segment within Pork, called Belly Pork. This can be for all those of Brett's tidbits which are barely pork.

Hehehe. Well, I think it's funny ...

I think it's funny too, Rob.

Seems the fish aren't biting well today - well, at least not the MACkerel...

I'm actually platform agnostic but find MacEvangelists a little like the Exclusive Brethren.

On the HD/picture clarity topic, I'd heard about the new laser TV technology about 9 months ago and was keen to see the improvement there but it's been delayed. They were aiming for a pre-Xmas launch of this new Australian developed technology but now they're saying not until 2009 according to The Age

The Laser technology was a scam, when that was announced, the company who thought they could make it was about to float on the Australian stockmarket! I could be incorrect, but my understanding was that the technology wasn't close to being ready!

Also, I'll admit, I use the deeper voice as the distinction, and it would help if Brett didn't get excited :)

I’m actually platform agnostic

How are you platform agnostic, if you totally slam a particular platform, and say that its users are deluded and being ripped off? Doesn't sound anything like agnosticism to me. Particularly the way you repeat urban myths and FUD verbatim.

Hey - they've announced who's taking over from Monica Attard on Media Watch...

Click

Whaddaya know - looks like I was wrong about the fishing being no good...

Has someone been posting under my name around here or something? I don't recall ever slamming the entire Mac platform nor claiming the users are deluded or ripped off - though, now I mention it, I think the Mac has a certain premium added for the black skivvy effect.

What I did do, once, was to write a veritable essay on my complaints about iTunes on the Windows platform. It's a fairly usable application but it's a complete memory hog when it's running and Apple just keep on adding permanently running processes and services to assist peripherals that I don't own.

I find it dull when a MacEvangelist takes it upon themselves to lecture me on how fucking awesome the Mac is and how shit Windows is. Computers are simply tools - like hammers. I don't expect to be hammering away with my claw hammer and have some nork come up and rave about how great ball-peen hammers are - surely there's something psychological going on for MacEvangelists that they do exactly that.

The cult of Mac, the cult of the iPod, the cult of Steve Jobs... you'd think people that can effectively use a computer would have more questioning minds than to mindlessly defend and recruit for Apple. When Jobso comes out with the Kool-Aid, will you ask yourself exactly what it is that you're sacrificing yourself for?

And to be completely clear, none of this is slagging off all the users of a brand of computer - it is specifically about the mindless drones.

I'd detailed my experiences with iTunes on Windows in long format, I'm not interested in expending energy (and yet, look at what I'm doing) on debating it with someone that's never going to accept any of the valid arguments put forward and come back with "It works fine on my Mac". Boring!

Whaddaya know - looks like I was wrong about the fishing being no good…

So, you admit you were trolling?

Has someone been posting under my name around here or something? I don’t recall ever slamming the entire Mac platform nor claiming the users are deluded or ripped off

You must have a short memory. This is what you said in the comments section to episode #105:

I just wonder how long the sheep-like bleating of the Mac-evangelists will go on before they wake up to themselves and to what Apple are over-charging them for.

Don't you think my summary of your position was accurate? What is "sheep-like" if not deluded? What is "over-charging" if not ripped off?

As to "Mac Evangelists" - it seems that anybody who says anything positive about the platform, or corrects falsehoods about it, is immediately labelled an "evangelist".

What I did do, once, was to write a veritable essay on my complaints about iTunes on the Windows platform.

Except you went far beyond that and said many things that aren't true. If you were just talking about iTunes on Windows, why did you bring the Mac platform into it?

You were the one who started this platform war, Brett. It was never a problem before, everybody was happily using their platform of choice. You chose to cast the first stone.

So, even though you start the fight, you then choose to blame some imaginary people - and claim you are "platform agnostic" in an extraordinary effort at backpedalling.

I find it dull when a MacEvangelist takes it upon themselves to lecture me on how fucking awesome the Mac is and how shit Windows is.

Except nobody did that. In the entire history of Boxcutters, I don't remember anybody lecturing anybody on how awesome the Mac is, nor anybody saying how shit Windows is.

I think these "MacEvangelists" may be a fabrication of your imagination.

Computers are simply tools - like hammers.

Exactly. So, why did you go on about how Mac users are sheep - when everybody else was saying "Calm down, iTunes is just a tool"?

The cult of Mac, the cult of the iPod, the cult of Steve Jobs… you’d think people that can effectively use a computer would have more questioning minds than to mindlessly defend and recruit for Apple. When Jobso comes out with the Kool-Aid, will you ask yourself exactly what it is that you’re sacrificing yourself for?

And this is the heart of the nonsense. The "Cult of Mac" doesn't even exist. It's just a fabrication by haters.

And to be completely clear, none of this is slagging off all the users of a brand of computer - it is specifically about the mindless drones.

So, who in particular are you talking about here?

I’m not interested in expending energy (and yet, look at what I’m doing) on debating it with someone that’s never going to accept any of the valid arguments put forward and come back with “It works fine on my Mac”. Boring!

Again, nobody said that, so who are you talking to?

What happened was that you received very specific rebuttals and answers to you complaints - such as the "Proprietary Podcast tags" gripe. Yet you ignored all of those. You didn't reply to any of the articulate replies you received. Instead you continue deeper into this fantasy of "Mac cults" and other such nonsense.

Nobody on Boxcutters responded with "It works fine on my Mac".

ahh brett,

you knew exactly what you were doing when you mac bashed. meh. as i've said before, i've got 4 macs, but thats because fcp has me by the balls.

regardless of what you think of itunes, and for the record, it works beautifully on my macs, you must realise that without itunes you'd have 3 listeners. 4 if you include mrs ross.

podcasts were only listened to by ubergeeks til the worlds biggest jukebox platform added a podcast section.

but back to telly, i really wish i had listened to this before recording episode 6 of fulltimecasual, my review of mel and kochies election extravaganza was just a repeat of yours.

great episode boys.

BORED!

I'm talking about MacEvangelists in the outside world.

Truly, I'm platform agnostic. My work necessitates that I work in a Windows environment. Fact of my life. I've used Macs in the past - I liked them - but I didn't go around telling Windows users they're losers who are a danger to themselves and a burden to others.

What I'm really passionate is open source. I'd run all Linux if the apps of my work were all available there and my audience was on open source platform as well. (You can't QA without the same mamchine that 90% of your users are running.)

Seriously, I can't give a shit about who uses what, unlike MacEvangelists (ever meet Frank from the Mac Shop in Flinders Street?) who can't just shut the fuck up if they find out you use Windows.

If only people like that (and given the point by point rebuffs you post, David, I suspect I'm speaking to one right now) would put the same energy into pressuring Apple to cease following the M$ path of bloatware, they'd have a truly killer platform with truly killer apps and the whole world would be using it because it would be the only serious choice (apart from the great open source community contributions).

Please listen to what I'm saying. I can't be fucked having a pissing competition about platforms and I'm not going to bother entering into this anymore.

brett,

ubuntu is great, os x is great, xp is tolerable, vista is the os equivalent of Sunrise.

its ok. we can live together. but i believe you were trying to paraphrase Roy and HG but messed it up.

its "you're an embarrassment to yourself and a burden on the rest of us."

remember, us mac kids make up only 4% of the market, thats why we have to defend our platform so much. You windows kids are the privileged white guys of the market. you just dont understand the prejudice we face, and you never will.

Guys, really. Aren't there enough places on the web where people fight about who's operating system would win in a fight with Superman and Spiderman?

Let's talk TV. No Virginia for Media Watch but instead Jonathan Holmes who could bring crankiness, self-righteousness and pedantry back to the screen.

What are your thoughts?

I’m talking about MacEvangelists in the outside world.

Again, you're talking about a fantasy. For all your talk of cults, it seems to be you who has been programmed into these fairytale beliefs about Mac users. You have totally swallowed the Kool-aid here. This is especially evident in your previous rant where you believe bogus rumours about how Apple is going to force a Safari bundle on you.

What kind of sites are you reading, and who are you listening to, that you are repeating this kind of nonsense?

Truly, I’m platform agnostic. My work necessitates that I work in a Windows environment.

Bullshit. If you're agnostic, why do you have such a warped view of a particular platform? And what the hell work do you do that necessitates a Windows environment? I can't think of any job that necessitates that apart from computer game critic, perhaps.

but I didn’t go around telling Windows users they’re losers who are a danger to themselves and a burden to others.

But who does this? No Mac user that I've ever met. There are many Mac users who listen to Boxcutters. These people are fully aware that you and other boxcutters use Windows. BUT NOBODY EVER SAID ANYTHING. You were the one who came out of left field making bizarre claims about people who use Macs.

You don't have to lookm very far aroiund the 'net to see that the Mac-hating is far more vicious and widespread than any Windows bashing. People may gently rib Windows users once in a while, but it's a far cry from the hysterical lies and trolling that is typical of the Mac haters.

Seriously, I can’t give a shit about who uses what, unlike MacEvangelists (ever meet Frank from the Mac Shop in Flinders Street?) who can’t just shut the fuck up if they find out you use Windows.

No, I have never met Frank. I also tend not to base my views of the world on the behaviour of that alcoholic urine-soaked guy who hangs around outside Young & Jacksons in Flinders street.

If only people like that (and given the point by point rebuffs you post, David, I suspect I’m speaking to one right now) would put the same energy into pressuring Apple to cease following the M$ path of bloatware,

Yeah right. Like we have any power to "pressure" Apple. And the fact is that many Apple fans DO EXACTLY THIS via their blogs. Go read a decent Apple blog sometime. It's not all praise - there is a lot of incisive criticism.

This is another thing you have wrong in your assessment of Mac users - they are extremely critical of Apple, and I have never met these unthinking drones that you speak of.

Please listen to what I’m saying. I can’t be fucked having a pissing competition about platforms and I’m not going to bother entering into this anymore.

Oh, the irony! You have been the one who has not listened to us this whole time. You got some very cogent replies to your last rant, and you ignored them all.

You are the one who has been having a pissing contest about platforms. If you actually read the replies, you might see that. Instead, you seem to be making stuff up and dismissing any replies as "boring".

Myself and other boxcutters addressed many of the problems you were having - but you ignored that. You so ignored the previous conversation that you seem to have forgotten what you said, and have this strange imaginary version of what others said in reply.

Nobody responded in the way you characterised. And your rant was NOT just about the Windows version of iTunes, as you claim. Tell me - what does "proprietary podcast tags" have to do with the Windows version of iTunes? And are you ever going to admit that you were wrong about needing a separate RSS feed for iTunes?

I guess anybody who points out your errors on this topic must be a "Mac Evangelist", huh?

I'd really like to understand where all this hatred comes from, Brett. I've never understood hate of any kind, and I've never understood trolling, or those who choose to believe propaganda. I really would like to understand this phenomenon, as it fascinates me. But any time I come across this irrationality, the person has never been able to hold a proper discussion about it.

The difference is that you generally seem like a pretty rational guy, Brett. perhaps you can hold the crazy in check long enough to analyse and discuss it? or is that too boring for you?

Guys, really. Aren’t there enough places on the web where people fight about who’s operating system would win in a fight with Superman and Spiderman?

Yes, Josh. But that's not what anybody's trying to do here. As I alluded to in my last couple of paragraphs, this might be a unique opportunity to analyse this phenomenon in an intelligent person who we "know" through the podcast.

One typically doesn't get that opportunity in the vast wilds of the crazy internet platform wars.

Let’s talk TV. No Virginia for Media Watch but instead Jonathan Holmes who could bring crankiness, self-righteousness and pedantry back to the screen.

What are your thoughts?

Isn't that the guy with the huge penis?

you're right Josh...

OMG, is everyone up to date with Dexter? if you're not, catch up! Episode 9 was a balltearer.

It's like a foreign language. I have no idea what any of that means. I have a cathrode ray tube - a fairly small one - in the corner. It has a cable box and a DVD player attached to it.

Beyond that, I can barely use Outlook. And I think I have a full (enough) life!

Jonathon Holmes. Good call. Fingers crossed.

Now... has someone given me back my dots??!

Now… has someone given me back my dots??!

I think you'll find they are your balls.

*tish* *boom*

@ jimbo: if you've only got dots I guess you'd lose in a pissing competition with Jonathon Holmes (which seems to be what's going on around here at the moment).

I like the idea of Media Watch looking more at the media as a whole and its influence/how it is influenced, rather than just specific examples. Anyone with half a brain can sit back and say "tut tut" when yet another newspaper or current affairs program breaks some Code of Ethics or whatever (which doesn't apply to TV presenters, as evidenced by the recent injunction against The Chaser that referred to Anna Coren as a "performer"). I only hope it doesn't turn into a series of Media Studies lectures. (I've never understood why people who seem to really rather dislike the media in all its forms devote so much time to deconstructing it...)

I am, however, dubious about the use of the word "fun" in that Age article, although if it's "fun" like Clarke & Dawe on The 7.30 Report or 'Talking Pictures' on Insiders, I'll love it.

@ Josh: there's always been an element of pedantry and self-righteousness with MW - even Richard Ackland, who was by far the most laid-back of the lot.

PS: Fuck off with the Mac v Windows and whatever else conversations. WHAT.EVER. They should be banned from the blog. And slipping in a reference to Vista being like Sunrise doesn't make it about telly.

*stomps off*

Channel Nine could do some contra deal with Domino's and use their slogan: "I've got the hots for what's on the box with the dots!"

It'd be better than I [heart] TV.

I saw a mic at a new conference yesterday that was just dots. No Nine there at all.

Is that the new logo?

I'd like MediaWatch to be a little more like the old RRR show 'The Spin', and yes, investigate the influences as well.

PS: Fuck off with the Mac v Windows and whatever else conversations. WHAT.EVER.

It's not a Mac vs. Windows conversation. It's a Brett versus reality debate. I think Brett's the only one treating it as a platform war.

Ross, I really don't know. But I wish someone would tell me... so I can order some new stationery!

By the way, I know there are seemingly millions of puns to be made by calling them balls. But in-house they've always been the dots, and the logo's always been called the dotty Nine. As in, walking back into the newsroom wih exclusive pictures, handing over the tape to the tech boys and declaring, "Gimme a big dotty Nine on this one boys!"

Platforms? Is someone catching a train?

I saw the mic again - it's a cube deal with dots on opposite sides and 9s on opposite sides.

Unless there is something new in the works it really doesn't look that different to what has been used all year.

Like Gyngell's return in general - lots on lots of very healthy press for a seemingly minor change...

Meanwhile...

"Time Crash" anyone?

Oooh, cheers ActualChad - had forgotten it was that time of year! Looks interesting, and I always had a soft spot for Peter Davison, even if that era of the Doctor was a bit naff and we had to endure the dreadful Tegan.

AND it's a Moffat - yippee!

desktop
decorative vegetable
beard

pisser.

Moffat is the shiznit.

By the way Brett, we've got serious things to talk about. The Rainbow?? What???

Belly pork.

[i]“Time Crash” anyone?[/i]

Someone had to pull him up for 'wearing a vegetable.' Several minutes of joy.

'Time Crash' was wonderful - you could really sense the genuine emotion from Tennant. And they've effectively made it canon with its placement. Nice work.

Did I read or hear somewhere that they're getting rid of the sonic screwdriver in the next series because it's being used too conveniently (which also harks back to Peter Davison era)?