Hamilton title bid watched by 10mBen DowellMonday October 22, 2007MediaGuardian.co.uk
Hamilton: finished seventh in the Brazilian Grand Prix to narrowly miss out on the world title. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
ITV1's live coverage of the Brazilian Grand Prix peaked at 10.4 million viewers yesterday, 50% of the available television audience, as British driver Lewis Hamilton narrowly missed out on the Formula 1 World Championship.
Coverage of the race itself averaged 9 million viewers, a 47% overall share, with the whole programme from 4pm to 7pm averaging 7.3 million, or a 41% share, according to the unofficial overnight ratings.
According to ITV, the figures make it the most watched Formula 1 race since 2000.
It allowed ITV to obliterate the opposition - the omnibus edition of EastEnders averaged 1.8 million at a 15% share between 3.10pm and 5.05pm, while BBC2's coverage of the Snooker Grand Prix averaged 1.2 million at 9% between 2.30pm and 6pm.
BBC1 got back into pole position with the Strictly Come Dancing results show, which averaged 6.8 million at 29% between 6.50pm and 7.35pm.
Channel 4's best performance against the motor racing was with archive property show Location, Location, Location: Best and Worst, which drew 1 million viewers at a 5% share between 5.15pm and 6.45pm.
Channel 5's best stab at wooing an audience not interested in motor sport came with its film premiere of the Adam Sandler comedy Spanglish, which pulled in 800,000 viewers between 5.30pm and 8pm.
The channel scored better, however, later in the evening with a repeat of the Patrick Swayze favourite Dirty Dancing which pulled in 2.8 million at 12% between 8pm and 10pm.
It beat BBC2's coverage of the snooker Grand Prix, which averaged 1.8 million at 8% between 8pm and 11pm.
ITV1 rounded off a successful evening between 8pm and 9pm as hospital drama The Royal averaged 6.6 million at 27%.
However, it did less well with one-off romantic comedy Catwalk Dogs, about a woman with marital problems competing in a dog show, which had 4.8 million between 9pm and 10.30pm, a 21% share.
It was beaten by the penultimate episode of Michael Palin's travelogue New Europe, which was watched by 5.8 million at 24% in the 9pm hour on BBC1.
Channel 4's film repeat of the Hugh Grant comedy Mickey Blue Eyes pulled in 1.4 million at 7% between 9pm and 10.55pm.
Monday 22 October 2007
Marxism
Below are the answers to checkpoints 1 and 2 from the Marxism sheet:
Checkpoint 1: What is the difference between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie? The Bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production. These people fall into either of the two catergories: the wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work themselves but employ others for example Bill Gates, the petty bourgeoisie who also have high status and employ people to work for them but also do the work themselves an example of this is managing directors or team leaders. On the other hand, the Proletariat are usually working class who get expoilted by the the higher status and higher classes they are also associated to be blue collar workers or even worse scroungers.
Checkpoint 2: What is the difference between the ISA and RSA? The ISA ideological state apparatus are institutions which pass down norms and values they are usually informal and many people are unaware of them for example religion, family,education and political systems. On the other hand, RSA repressive state apparatus who still pass down norms and values but they are more formal for example the police.
How much of a Marxist am I?
Well i would like to believe that I am not much of a Marxist as i feel that your social class should not hinder any of your chances in life. However the reality is that there are major class conflict within society and as Althusser stated the working class are constantly getting expoilted. But this is obviously a good thing for the Bourgeoisie as they pay low wages but income is always on the rise therefore profits are always high. Furthermore the ISA and RSA help maintain Bourgeoisie ideologies for example the education system has a teacher who has power compared to a student. Therefore students are told from a young age that there will always be someone above them in status even when they enter the world of work. I believe to a certain extent that this is wrong however by doing this it help to keep social order but then again it does not provide equality. The ISA and their institutions like the media inforce someones iable. Overall, i dont like the fact that individuals have different chances in life due to their social status. Also, large media institutions that inforce their views on us as the consumers. There will always be a class conflict in society which will never be solved.
Checkpoint 1: What is the difference between the Proletariat and Bourgeoisie? The Bourgeoisie are the owners of the means of production. These people fall into either of the two catergories: the wealthy bourgeoisie who do not work themselves but employ others for example Bill Gates, the petty bourgeoisie who also have high status and employ people to work for them but also do the work themselves an example of this is managing directors or team leaders. On the other hand, the Proletariat are usually working class who get expoilted by the the higher status and higher classes they are also associated to be blue collar workers or even worse scroungers.
Checkpoint 2: What is the difference between the ISA and RSA? The ISA ideological state apparatus are institutions which pass down norms and values they are usually informal and many people are unaware of them for example religion, family,education and political systems. On the other hand, RSA repressive state apparatus who still pass down norms and values but they are more formal for example the police.
How much of a Marxist am I?
Well i would like to believe that I am not much of a Marxist as i feel that your social class should not hinder any of your chances in life. However the reality is that there are major class conflict within society and as Althusser stated the working class are constantly getting expoilted. But this is obviously a good thing for the Bourgeoisie as they pay low wages but income is always on the rise therefore profits are always high. Furthermore the ISA and RSA help maintain Bourgeoisie ideologies for example the education system has a teacher who has power compared to a student. Therefore students are told from a young age that there will always be someone above them in status even when they enter the world of work. I believe to a certain extent that this is wrong however by doing this it help to keep social order but then again it does not provide equality. The ISA and their institutions like the media inforce someones iable. Overall, i dont like the fact that individuals have different chances in life due to their social status. Also, large media institutions that inforce their views on us as the consumers. There will always be a class conflict in society which will never be solved.
Sunday 14 October 2007
globalisation conversation
Bill and Ben are having a conflict over the issue of globalisation
Bill: Well lets take Tesco for example if they become a monopoly then we as consumers will have no choice what happened to the whole 'pluralistic society'.. and will be forced to buy our shopping from them compared to competitors like Asda etc. So what i am saying is if Microsoft take over what we do on computers then in theory we will be conforming to the idelogies of Bill Gates....
Ben: I understand but if someone like Bill Gates is doing well and what he is doing then why dont he just carry on. If he is taking over then potentially he is catering for the mainstream audience therefore he will cater for everyones needs, as does Tesco as they now provide electricals as well as groceries....
Bill: Well the media is significant for globalisation. Mcluhan stated the 'global village' if something was happening in India we would get the news in England within seconds. There are multinationals they have an economic advantage as they give 'better audience reach and diversification....'
Ben: As you said we get news from these institutions but how can you be sure that they are not biased for example look at Murdoch who preety much owns everything his views could be implemented on the information the organisation present to the audience which again could be biased....
Bill: Well lets take Tesco for example if they become a monopoly then we as consumers will have no choice what happened to the whole 'pluralistic society'.. and will be forced to buy our shopping from them compared to competitors like Asda etc. So what i am saying is if Microsoft take over what we do on computers then in theory we will be conforming to the idelogies of Bill Gates....
Ben: I understand but if someone like Bill Gates is doing well and what he is doing then why dont he just carry on. If he is taking over then potentially he is catering for the mainstream audience therefore he will cater for everyones needs, as does Tesco as they now provide electricals as well as groceries....
Bill: Well the media is significant for globalisation. Mcluhan stated the 'global village' if something was happening in India we would get the news in England within seconds. There are multinationals they have an economic advantage as they give 'better audience reach and diversification....'
Ben: As you said we get news from these institutions but how can you be sure that they are not biased for example look at Murdoch who preety much owns everything his views could be implemented on the information the organisation present to the audience which again could be biased....
Wednesday 10 October 2007
media guardian story week 3
Censorship of the internet in China is becoming more draconian, according to new details of Beijing's online restrictions published by human rights organisations.
The claims come in a report from international journalism watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres and the China Human Rights Defenders group, which examines the way the Chinese government reacts to free speech on the internet.
Written by an anonymous author who claims to work as a technician inside a Chinese web company, the report details the expanding influence of the country's censorious approach to the internet - and its "appalling" effect on freedom of speech.
"The government monitors the internet by means of a skillful mix of filtering technologies, cyber-police surveillance and propaganda, in all of which China invests massively," writes the technician, referred to only as "Mr Tao". "Draconian censorship hunts down anything to do with human rights, democracy and freedom of belief. It nips free expression in the bud."
According to the report, censorship of the web has grown along with the increasing power of the Beijing Internet Information Administrative Bureau, the organisation that monitors internet content in China. Its hold over is particularly strong for companies based in or near the Chinese capital, warns the study.
"Either on their own initiative or on orders from above, the bureau's members remind websites of the importance of political and social stability in China as soon as a story grabs the attention of the online media or public opinion. They ask the websites to remove the story, or move it to a less prominent position, put a stop to comments and to hide or suppress any new developments in the story, or to posts an article written by the bureau.
"The ones that are not registered in Beijing are not subject to as much pressure. Tengxun, for example, which has China's biggest portal and the instant messaging service QQ, is based in Shenzhen and, as a result, enjoys more freedom."
The report also said that the punishments meted out to those who are deemed to have transgressed Beijing's rules are becoming more drastic.
China is now the world's second-largest online population, with more than 160 million web users, and pressure is building on the government to loosen its grip on the net ahead of next year's Olympic Games.But despite the controversial nature of the country's approach to the net, it is only one of a large number of countries that heavily censor online content.
This week, Burma completed an almost total shutdown of communications inside the country following mass pro-democracy protests in and around the capital, Rangoon.
After shutting down web access from inside Burma over the past week, the country's ruling junta also restricted access to mobile, landline and satellite phones in order to prevent images of the protests reaching the outside world
The claims come in a report from international journalism watchdog Reporters Sans Frontieres and the China Human Rights Defenders group, which examines the way the Chinese government reacts to free speech on the internet.
Written by an anonymous author who claims to work as a technician inside a Chinese web company, the report details the expanding influence of the country's censorious approach to the internet - and its "appalling" effect on freedom of speech.
"The government monitors the internet by means of a skillful mix of filtering technologies, cyber-police surveillance and propaganda, in all of which China invests massively," writes the technician, referred to only as "Mr Tao". "Draconian censorship hunts down anything to do with human rights, democracy and freedom of belief. It nips free expression in the bud."
According to the report, censorship of the web has grown along with the increasing power of the Beijing Internet Information Administrative Bureau, the organisation that monitors internet content in China. Its hold over is particularly strong for companies based in or near the Chinese capital, warns the study.
"Either on their own initiative or on orders from above, the bureau's members remind websites of the importance of political and social stability in China as soon as a story grabs the attention of the online media or public opinion. They ask the websites to remove the story, or move it to a less prominent position, put a stop to comments and to hide or suppress any new developments in the story, or to posts an article written by the bureau.
"The ones that are not registered in Beijing are not subject to as much pressure. Tengxun, for example, which has China's biggest portal and the instant messaging service QQ, is based in Shenzhen and, as a result, enjoys more freedom."
The report also said that the punishments meted out to those who are deemed to have transgressed Beijing's rules are becoming more drastic.
China is now the world's second-largest online population, with more than 160 million web users, and pressure is building on the government to loosen its grip on the net ahead of next year's Olympic Games.But despite the controversial nature of the country's approach to the net, it is only one of a large number of countries that heavily censor online content.
This week, Burma completed an almost total shutdown of communications inside the country following mass pro-democracy protests in and around the capital, Rangoon.
After shutting down web access from inside Burma over the past week, the country's ruling junta also restricted access to mobile, landline and satellite phones in order to prevent images of the protests reaching the outside world
media guardian story weeek2
BSkyB has been dragged into the premium rate phone-in furore after a voting irregularity in Cirque de Celebrité led to the reality programme inviting an evicted contestant back to the show.The "technical fault", in the Sunday night phone vote on the programme where celebrities learn circus tricks meant that some votes did not count toward the final result.As a result ex-footballer Dean Holdsworth, who left the show as a result of the vote, has been invited to rejoin the programme."Sky is taking immediate action to remedy the situation," the broadcaster said in a statement."Voting in Cirque de Celebrité is all about enhancing the viewer experience and all revenues received by Sky as a result of the votes on the show go to charity. We would like to apologise to our viewers."Sky is also offering all viewers who voted a refund, with the broadcaster saying it will match the amount of money made in revenue with a charity donation of its own. Sky is charging 25p per call.The voting error, while a one-off, will be an embarrassment to the Sky chief executive, James Murdoch, who only last month was scoring public relations points over the scandals that had hit rival broadcasters.In an interview he described premium-rate phone line quizzes as "pretty sleazy" and said that he was glad the satellite broadcaster had avoided them because they were "easy to abuse"."We took the view that they [premium-rate quizzes] were taking advantage of people and that our customers deserved better than that," he told the Royal Television Society's magazine, Television."Premium-rate quiz stuff always felt grubby, trying to get an extra nickel out of everyone. We didn't feel comfortable with it," he said."We knew we could make a lot of money out of it, but these kinds of programmes are very easy to abuse. They just seem unfair."This article is about sky also having problems with their phone in lines- because the programme was a competition one celebrity got evicted but due to the the votes being wrong due to technical difficulties with the phones, the celebrity was called back to the programme.It is particularly embarrasing for Sky as prevously James Murdoch had gone on about how bad it was. I chose this story becuase these phone line problems have been occuring alot recently and it is important to find out why ands how it happened and how the channel deals with it.i think this issue is becoming common for many broadcasters and is worrying and unfair on its viewers.
Tuesday 9 October 2007
Vivendi research
Vivendi SA (formerly known as Vivendi Universal) is a French media conglomerate with activities in music, television and film, publishing, telecommunications, the Internet as well as video games.
Messier's rapid expansion of the firm, during which he overpaid hugely for media assets, saddling the company with debt far in excess of its market valuation and ultimately bringing it to the brink of collapse,
Key people
Jean-Bernard Lévy, Chairman & CEOJacques Espinasse, CFO
Messier's rapid expansion of the firm, during which he overpaid hugely for media assets, saddling the company with debt far in excess of its market valuation and ultimately bringing it to the brink of collapse,
Key people
Jean-Bernard Lévy, Chairman & CEOJacques Espinasse, CFO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)