Posts Tagged ‘tv’

I thought I would write to share what I consider to be quite a positive experience I have recently had with the Advertising Standards Authority. Last month, I complained to them about an advert by Boots which I consider sexist.

It’s updated to their YouTube channel with the caption “the girls can’t let the onset of man-flu slow them down.”

Just three days after I had made the complaint, they posted out a letter to me! While it said they wouldn’t be taking any further action, they did take the time to explain to me why they wouldn’t – in this case because they did not feel the advert caused sufficiently widespread offence for them to take action. However, given complaints so often disappear off and are never heard of again, I think the ASA deserve praise for their speedy and in depth response.

No, this isn’t another ridiculous situation at Sainsbury’s, I’m talking about the “please confirm you are ana adult” boxes that are constantly popping up on my iPhone, 4OD and BBC iPlayer.

I understand that such apps probably need to confirm that I am over 18 for legal reasons. The problem is that they ask me every time. I’m sure that my date of birth is somewhere in my profile, and even if it wasn’t, the app could prompt me to enter it once and then have done with it.

But it doesn’t, my 4OD app continues to prompt me to confirm I am old enough every time I open it.

Now, even if you accept the idea that a child could steal my iPad and decide the first thing they want to do is watch some video that isn’t appropriate for them on 4OD and hence they need to confirm it every single time, why can they broadcast such shows on TV without requiring such a mechanism.

The answer is the Watershed. After 9pm at night you can broadcast much more filth on TV. But if you’re going to argue down that line, given my device knows what time it is, why can the app not stop prompting me between 9pm and 5:30am?

Recently, I’ve been watching Nothing to Declare (aka Border Security: Australia’s Front Line). It’s about customs officers working at Australia’s airports and seaports. It’s pretty similar to UK Border Security, except that I actually find it interesting.

I use the term I because ultimately it’s trash TV. There is no real intellectual merit to either TV show but for some reason I find Nothing to Declare entertaining, while I find UK Border Security quite dull.

Indeed, we’ve been getting into it so much that last week I set a reminder in our calendars about it. Why is it so addictive?

The story gets stranger though. I randomly got an email from Gijsbert entitled “Nothing to Declare” with a message saying I’ve been watching loads of Nothing to Declare recently. Why do intelligent people, including myself, watch this rubbish?

It’s a fascinating question. It’s so predictable – it’s just people getting caught with cocaine on them and people trying to sneak into the country with the intention of working on their tourist visa, episode after episode. But we’re all addicted to it. Why?

It’s also interesting that both we, and Weili picked up on the fact that the show opens with the title caption “thousands of people dedicate their lives to protecting Australia’s border.” Not just work there – dedicate their lives.

I finally got round to watching the first episode of Secrets of the Superbrands which looks at technology.

I’ll be honest, the presenter, Alex Riley, really failed to endear himself to me with his surely attitude. I’m sure he’s an intelligent guy who on purposely plays the fool with comments like “iPhones, and iPads and 3gs and stuff like that.”

In fact, these go on and on with comments like “that’s a massive electromagnet, so if I brought in anything that was metal it would fly over there and rip Adam’s face off” or “is there any time when you think eww, it’s a brain, it’s horrible” to which the woman succinctly answers “no.”

Anyway, as we are all aware, marketing these days is brilliant. It’s amazing. Remember the last time you went round Tesco – did you buy something that wasn’t on your list? Buy an extra one because it was two for one? That isn’t an accident. You didn’t go out to buy that stuff, but you did, and it might sound like a simple thing, but millions of pounds of Tesco’s money goes into making sure it happens, every time you walk in that door.

Apple especially have some amazing marketing too. People hang off Steve’s every word.

But I really felt the show suggested that Apple were somehow tricking us into buying their products. Missing the point – that Apple produce really, really good products. So they should be – they are really expensive. But isn’t that just how the world works normally? You pay more, you get a better product? I don’t buy Apple products because it’s a cult, I buy them because I have enough disposable income to buy better products.

As for his treatment of Microsoft, there seemed to be disdain in his voice when he said they spend $5.5 billion on research and development. Of course R&D helps their profits in the long term, but it’s also giving back to the community (OpenOffice is great for example, because they just copied Microsoft Office which is great is because of all the money Microsoft spent making it great).

Also some of it was just factually incorrect. Microsoft’s income isn’t dwindling, they’re setting new quarterly records.

There is nothing wrong with his Nokia 6330 Classic but it’s just silly to take an attitude of “if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it” when new phones are adding some amazing new features bringing you better communication to those you care about and access to the sum of all human knowledge.

As for, us getting better software because they get our details to target ad at, surely that is actually a good thing? How many boring ads do you sit through on TV ad breaks? Most of them don’t target you, so there is no point you looking at them. What if you could just watch the one advert and then get back to your programme? That is what targeted ads offer.

And seriously the presenter was very, very annoying. No surprise he labels himself as an agnostic. And who asks the man behind Kinect if he was abused as a child? He’s like annoying, offensive, shit version of Louis Theroux.

Anyway, rant over lol.

I’ve turned into some kind of angry letter-obsessed old man! But to be fair I write these up pretty quickly and don’t bother checking them (there are several purposeful spelling and grammar errors in this – see if you can spot them).

But anyway, there was an advert on ITV1 tonight for Confused.com which claimed the internet was the most important invention of the 21^st century. I know, I know, it hurts on the inside. So I wrote to them about it.

To Whom It May Concern:

I have just been watching ITV1 (it is currently just before 8PM on Thursday 30 September) when I saw an advert for your website.

On the advert, the voice over woman described the internet as “the most important invention of the 21st century.”

As I am sure you will be aware, the internet was in fact not invented in the 21st century. Indeed, it was invented well before the 21st century with its foundations lying as long ago as the 1960’s.

Indeed not only does the internet date back this far but it’s wide spread adoption really occurred in the 1990’s and by the time we reached the end of 2000 the Dot-com bubble had already come and gone.

I therefore believe the claim made on the advert was erroneous.

While you could make the claim that although the internet was invented before the 21st century it is still the most important invention of the 21st century, I do not believe this makes any more sense because if you are opening it up to any invention ever then surely there are more important inventions that proceed the internet – for example the invention of computers to run the internet on, electricity to run the computers on or even the agricultural revolution which first gave us a surplus of time to expand beyond mere hunter gathers. Or going the other way, why not the world wide web which is arguably the real revolution that the internet has enabled?

I believe this kind of erroneous information is a problem for two reasons.
Firstly, it does not fill me with confidence in confused.com as I believe it looks unprofessional. Particularly a site yours, which holds large amounts of my personal data.

Secondly, I believe it could lead to a wide spead misunderstanding of history by the general population on a topic which, as your advert points out, is incredibly important.

Thank you for your time.

Best wishes,
Chris

I decided against making a pun on the idea that they may have been confused. Oh well.

Myself and Ian Abbott from Lancashire Secular Humanists at the Ummah Channel studios where we were filming a debate.

Does anyone else remember the Jonathon Creek episode where Adam Klaus is doing that reality TV show in which he has to live like a pig?

It was called “Animal Farm” and appeared in the episode “Gorgons Wood”, originally broadcast in February 2004.

I don’t know about you but I found it very amusing. The parody of reality TV, imagining our television programming would ever stoop so low was simply hilarious. I mean who would even make, let alone watch, such a ridiculous and interlectually bankrupt programme?

Anyway, it starts next Thursday on BBC Three.

I was somewhat suprised the other day when my housemates and guests began discussing the Christmas special episode of Jonathan Creek. Namely because I had no idea such an episode had been made, after all the show has been gone for five years. Gone though not forgotten apparently, wiping out it’s competition to take a 36% market share and rightly so too!

Jonathan Creek is an amazing show and news of it’s report, albeit it for only one episode was most welcome indeed. Though having read over the news articles surrounding it, perhaps there will be further specials, though not a new series, based on the warm reception this special received.

As usual the mystery was a good one, though I will admit not to the standard of brilliance that the original episodes reached. I got as far as working out that the attic room they were looking at outside was not in fact the attic room they were in while inside but that is almost a given, given it’s JC and that is as far as I got.

Fingers crossed when that there will be more specials though in any case I think I am going to have to re-watch some of the original episodes and once again bask in the splendor that is Jonathan Creek’s mind at work, even if he is a fictional character.

As I previously mentioned, I am now fully caught up with the latest adventures of Doctor Who.

I originally had a rant about the series finale, which I stand by though having talked to Rich last Tuesday I think he nailed it when he said it’s just generally a celebration, especially given it is the last series to be masterminded by Russell T Davis and you just have to talk it with a pinch of salt, sit back and enjoy it.

It’s been a good return for the show. I think the first few series really nailed it as they had consistently good episodes which I was less true of the later series though they never the less featured some very good episodes.

End of the day, it’s good to see we still produce good cult television. Only two months to the Christmas special, that’s something to look forward to in the holiday season at least.

I’m going to make a more general post about the show later but for now I want to get some thoughts of my chest. I’ve just polished off the 4th series of Doctor Who and it was, well, interesting.

I did enjoy the series. But not as much as the previous ones. It really felt like a new series and so the criticisms I have of the new series really came through in this one. I prefered the first few series of the revival because they tended, or at least felt like, they had more mini off world adventures. I know the show has always spent a lot of time on Earth but these days it feels like it’s too focused.

The problem with the revived show is that every week it’s the end of the world. There just isn’t some problem on a distant world The Doctor has to take on, he has to stop some mad invasion force from destroying the fabric of reality. Also, I think it is far too open and well known these days. There is massive news coverage of what is going on. The whole world knows that there are alien invasions and that The Doctor saves them, which I don’t think is a good thing, it kind of ruins the magic.

Also nobody dies. The problem with doing some huge world ending story lines is, it is supposed to end something. Fair enough if you have a skirmish with the Darleks or the Cybermen and then they later return, that’s fine. But when they are wiped out of existence and then come back, that is just bad storytelling.

Finally, the whole thing is just a bit cheesy. I mean, bringing everyone back for one final happy ending? Come on, it’s just awful. The Doctor has a companion for a series and then moves on. They don’t just keep getting pulled back again and again in some kind of sitcom style guest appearance, it just looks tacky.

So that is what I didn’t like. But then I guess that is to be expected with Doctor Who being a BBC One show which needs to score ratings. I suppose I can live with such flaws because, as I said, overall I have really enjoyed the new series, including series 4. And I now have something to look forward to at Christmas now.