| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 124556 | 2012-05-03 21:57:00 | Unbelievable | tut (12033) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1273425 | 2012-05-03 21:57:00 | TV7 is being replaced by TV1+1 like TV3. With Maori being broadcast on several channels,endless promos,infomercials, advertorials and repeat programs sometimes three times a day I regret upgrading my TVs. TV3+1 will probably be on terrestrial only Television has ceased to become a viable intertainment option. What happened to broadcasting standards? |
tut (12033) | ||
| 1273426 | 2012-05-03 22:10:00 | I don't understand the thinking behind TV1+1. Is it just a mindless way of using a TV frequency? And to think that I bought a freeview box with the thought that I would be able to watch some good programmes. TVNZ7 has been great. That's most probably a good reason to get rid of it. $15M spent on consultants for the reorganisation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs could've saved TVNZ7. |
Ulsterman (12815) | ||
| 1273427 | 2012-05-04 00:05:00 | The reasoning if you read some of the articles is because people are busy and miss the news. Apparently no one has invented a recording device for TV, I think there might be some money in a device like that. |
psycik (12851) | ||
| 1273428 | 2012-05-04 00:29:00 | It has in the past been the case where TV One and Three have and still are presenting the news between 6pm and 7pm. Prime has news on between 5:30pm and 6pm. Why are these channels all running the news at the same time? Would it not be better if the news from each of these channels was on at different times? This would give people a better opportunity to watch the news when they are not busy. | Bobh (5192) | ||
| 1273429 | 2012-05-04 01:19:00 | That's called competition. | psycik (12851) | ||
| 1273430 | 2012-05-04 03:02:00 | That's why the invented EZTV :-) | ruup (1827) | ||
| 1273431 | 2012-05-04 07:07:00 | Chances are the 'royalties' or whatever payments they make for their media are a lot less for a simple repeat screening an hour later. They can also BS their advertisers about the 'value' of their ads being shown twice per single timeslot allocated. Then there's the savings regarding the work that goes into setting up all those ad breaks thsat doesn't have to be repeated for the other channel. All they need is a simple time-slipped copy of the original broadcast - costs them next to nothing in labour and a minimum of hardware. Yeah, it's the lazy approach. Try to get paid twice for doing the work only once. Probably learnt the strategy from the music industry. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1273432 | 2012-05-04 18:00:00 | "TV One represents the worst of television in this country. It is crass, superficial, lowest common denominator rubbish. Quote from Minister Dunne NZ herald this morning. Well said. "It is too obsessed with its own self-imagined 'stars' and the culture surrounding them than to have any credible claim on being a legitimate national broadcaster. "By contrast, TVNZ7 has always appealed to a higher standard - both in terms of quality and the range of programmes offered. "To replace TVNZ7 with the rubbish of TV One is a disgusting insult to the hundreds of thousands of regular TVNZ7 viewers." |
tut (12033) | ||
| 1273433 | 2012-05-04 21:07:00 | Dunne is far more appreciative of TV1 than I am, but he's free to do that if he wishes. I still adhere to the theory first heard around 1960 that TV would be far better if they could see and hear it in the studio each time somebody switched off. Until that feature is enabled, the offerings do not, in the main, even attempt to achieve mediocrity. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1273434 | 2012-05-04 22:45:00 | Well, I like the idea, I use TV3+1 all the time and I can see myself using TV1+1 about as much. | pine-o-cleen (2955) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||