Domnhall, thanks for the replies to my points. I had to shoot off before your replies came through. Just to touch again on the commissioning briefs , and I quote, " Proposals should:-
· be firmly rooted in contemporary Gaelic language and culture , recognising and drawing on the rich seam of humour and wit with which Gaels are identified . We invite proposals for a studio-based light entertainment format with broad audience appeal which will feature:
· elements which are culturally rooted unquote.
I`m not here to nitpick or whatever, just to reiterate that I think these points should be rethought or dropped.They give the impression..at least to me..that we have to be insular to have a chance of success.To be fair and I quote again,
"Strong writing and memorable characters are key to any successful comedy format."
You`ve hit the nail on the head there although its an obvious statement.
I think its fair enough to `give time` for things and genres to work out. I don`t think anyone is holding a gun against your head in that respect.
you mentioned that,"2. Scots who do not speak Gaelic actually appear to want the Gaelic channel to deliver programmes about matters Scottish that they are not getting elsewhere."
I really REALLY doubt people are going to watch a channel through a medium they don`t understand. Of course they might for the initial curiosity...or if they are learners. Perhaps we should ask non Welsh speaking Welsh folks how often they watch their channel. It will be a tiny percentage. Did these non Gaels specify the programmes they wanted to see in a language they don`t understand? I made a few phone calls tonight and 7 out of 10 said they would not watch even if subtitles are provided. Worrying.
As far as the competition is concerned, ie the literally hundreds of new channels coming our way, theres only one solution. Be innovative, bold and daring...set a blistering pace. TV is primarily a means of entertainment.Gaels might watch out of `loyalty` initially but you can sense that finger on the remote.
Well, thanks for your time and answers...it would have been very easy to get defensive about the whole thing. Unless I have missed something , people have been very frustrated about not having an input.Its a bit late in the day but at least we have that forum now. The new channel has the potential to be great and I`ll remain upbeat about it.However, I guarantee you the road to doom is ...sgadainn , crofting, weaving, fishing,Iolaire disaster,etc. Done to death already.No problems with Padruig Post and overdubbing a proven format.Its fine...I watch it as I am a learner.It makes no sense to make a new `postman pat` in Gaelic for the sake of it. Money talks. You will need one or two flagship programmes but people will have to get used to the fact that budgets are a fact of life.Even the terrestrial channels have a lot of filler programming.
enough for now. cheers for the forum. billy
On 29 Aug, 16:20, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> Failte. The new Gaelic television service or Gaelic Media Service - > what are your burning issues or comments? Post your queries and I'll > reply over the coming days. Mòran taing. Dòmhnall.
A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
Le deagh dhurachd, Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
On 30 Aug, 16:40, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > service.
> > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > yours?
> > On 30 Aug, 15:50, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > I haven't a clue. Please elaborate. What unions?- Hide quoted text -
Billy, thanks for your points on commissioning briefs. We will take them on board.
On the point about non-speakers watching the channel, a recent Sunday pm series on a religious/Scottish theme drew 2nd or 3rd share of audience in Scotland for that slot, with viewer numbers well over double the number of Gaelic speakers. Eorpa draws numbers well in excess of speakers. Tir is Teanga and An Caman's viewership is definitely not all comprised of speakers. I am not sure that it is such a bad result that 3 out of 10 people in your survey might watch the service even though they do not have Gaelic. Replicate that across Scotland and we will have a very healthy audience for a digital channel. And as to the other 7, I appreciate there will be a lot of work to do to persuade them to drop in on the channel from time to time and that we will need to put content on there that is not available anywhere else.
> Domnhall, > thanks for the replies to my points. I had to shoot off before your > replies came through. > Just to touch again on the commissioning briefs , and I quote, " > Proposals should:-
> · be firmly rooted in contemporary Gaelic language and culture , > recognising and drawing on the rich seam of humour and wit with which > Gaels are identified . > We invite proposals for a studio-based light entertainment format with > broad audience appeal which will feature:
> · elements which are culturally rooted > unquote.
> I`m not here to nitpick or whatever, just to reiterate that I think > these points should be rethought or dropped.They give the > impression..at least to me..that we have to be insular to have a > chance of success.To be fair and I quote again,
> "Strong writing and memorable characters are key to any successful > comedy format."
> You`ve hit the nail on the head there although its an obvious > statement.
> I think its fair enough to `give time` for things and genres to work > out. I don`t think anyone is holding a gun against your head in that > respect.
> you mentioned that,"2. Scots who do not speak Gaelic actually appear > to want the Gaelic channel to deliver programmes about matters > Scottish that they are not getting elsewhere."
> I really REALLY doubt people are going to watch a channel through a > medium they don`t understand. Of course they might for the initial > curiosity...or if they are learners. Perhaps we should ask non Welsh > speaking Welsh folks how often they watch their channel. It will be a > tiny percentage. Did these non Gaels specify the programmes they > wanted to see in a language they don`t understand? I made a few phone > calls tonight and 7 out of 10 said they would not watch even if > subtitles are provided. Worrying.
> As far as the competition is concerned, ie the literally hundreds of > new channels coming our way, theres only one solution. Be innovative, > bold and daring...set a blistering pace. TV is primarily a means of > entertainment.Gaels might watch out of `loyalty` initially but you can > sense that finger on the remote.
> Well, thanks for your time and answers...it would have been very easy > to get defensive about the whole thing. Unless I have missed > something , people have been very frustrated about not having an > input.Its a bit late in the day but at least we have that forum now. > The new channel has the potential to be great and I`ll remain upbeat > about it.However, I guarantee you the road to doom is ...sgadainn , > crofting, weaving, fishing,Iolaire disaster,etc. Done to death > already.No problems with Padruig Post and overdubbing a proven > format.Its fine...I watch it as I am a learner.It makes no sense to > make a new `postman pat` in Gaelic for the sake of it. Money talks. > You will need one or two flagship programmes but people will have to > get used to the fact that budgets are a fact of life.Even the > terrestrial channels have a lot of filler programming.
> enough for now. > cheers for the forum. > billy
> On 29 Aug, 16:20, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Failte. The new Gaelic television service or Gaelic Media Service - > > what are your burning issues or comments? Post your queries and I'll > > reply over the coming days. Mòran taing. Dòmhnall.
The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent television and radio production industries in Scotland and the promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does have specific employee or union representation because we put the obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is speculation on my part.
> A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> Le deagh dhurachd, > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> On 30 Aug, 16:40, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > service.
> > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > yours?
> > > On 30 Aug, 15:50, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > I haven't a clue. Please elaborate. What unions?- Hide quoted text -
I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on this: "It may be that our Board membership does have specific employee or union representation because we put the obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding." Could you please explain?
Le deagh dhurachd, Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein BECTU Meur Ghlaschu 1
On 3 Sep, 10:11, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. > The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more > than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by > each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent > those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as > practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent > television and radio production industries in Scotland and the > promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in > strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented > on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not > representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group > of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits > (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
> When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding > is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and > collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In > addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings > with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is > speculation on my part.
> > A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> > Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> > Le deagh dhurachd, > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> > On 30 Aug, 16:40, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > > service.
> > > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > > yours?
As constituted originally CTG and then CCG was primarily a grant giving body. Its employees were not television professionals as such and did not make programmes. The 2003 Communications Act a) changed the name to Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, b) empowered GMS to commission programmes directly and c) empowered GMS to hold a broadcast licence. Board membership was refreshed at that point, but I have no definite answer for you as to why that membership does not include someone who represents the interests of the unions. I will do a bit of digging. D
> I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on this: "It may be that our > Board membership does > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding." Could you > please explain?
> Le deagh dhurachd, > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein > BECTU Meur Ghlaschu 1
> On 3 Sep, 10:11, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Fhearchair chòir
> > The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. > > The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more > > than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by > > each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent > > those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as > > practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent > > television and radio production industries in Scotland and the > > promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in > > strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented > > on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not > > representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group > > of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits > > (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
> > When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding > > is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and > > collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In > > addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings > > with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is > > speculation on my part.
> > > A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > > > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > > > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > > > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > > > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> > > Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > > > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > > > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > > > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > > > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > > > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> > > On 30 Aug, 16:40, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > > > service.
> > > > On 30 Aug, 16:08, fearc...@lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > > > yours?
Thanks for your answers to my questions last week about Freeview. Very useful, and I look forward to seeing it appear in due course on digital terrestrial in Scotland. However, this did make me think, quite often you see quite a few of these Freeview channels (actually usually Sky channels too) that come and go - that are there one day but gone as soon as they are not profitable or funding has run out.
Who would be funding the new channel, and what would the arrangements be? Would it be a commercial channel with adverts? Also, if it didn't make money does that mean the plug could be pulled? Could that not mean all Gaelic programming could disappear overnight?
I'm a bit of a worrier, as you might be able to tell. Wouldn't want to lose a valuable service like this once established. Stuart.
On 30 Aug, 16:51, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> Freeview is not easy to explain. Half is for public service > broadcasting and its full. Half is commercial and you can buy onto it > a the cost of many millions per year. So we will need to wait until > transmitters are converted one-by-one to digital only (Borders 2008, > STV North 2010, STV Central 2011) until the full service appears on > air. When each transmitter switches off the analogue signal it will > then have spare capacity for the new service. Once the transmitter is > carrying the new service it will be on a public service multiplex and > therefore available to almost all in Scotland if they have an aerial > and Freeview receiver.
> Between launch and then, TeleG, Channel 8 Freeview may be able to > carry "the best of..." between 6pm and 7pm daily.
> On 30 Aug, 16:42, scottish_stu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > Domhnall, thanks for that. I didn't really think of it longer term. > > I guess as digital switchover nears you would be less likely to lose > > mainstream viewers as we will all be able to access many more > > channels. Can I just ask if the Gaelic channel will be available on > > Freeview then? Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
Tha ceist agam air mar a bhios daoine a' riochdachadh is a' tuigsinn "saoghal nan Gàidheal". A bheil cunnart ann fhathast gu bheil riochdairean TBh is fiolm a' creidsinn gu bheil sin a' ciallachadh na Gàidhealtachd is nan Eilean a-mhàin, ged a tha àireamh mhòr de Ghàidheil an latha an-diugh a' fuireach ann am bailtean mòra na h- Alba?
A bheil sibh smaoineachadh gum bu chòir làmh a bhith aig GMS ann a bhith ag atharrachadh bheachdan mar sin mus cuir daoine cus tìde seachad ag obair air tagraidhean prògraim?
Tha fhios gu bheil tòrr dhaoine comasach agus goireasan air a' Ghaidhealtachd/anns na h-Eileanan, ach ma dh'fhaoidte gum b'fhiach e sùil a thoirt air barrachd prògraman stèidhichte ann am baile - mar sin, bhiodh e nas fhasa a bhith a' dèiligeadh ri cuspairean a dh'fhaodadh a bhith "ro chonnspaideach" airson TBh/dràma stèidhichte ann an sgìre thraidiseanta.
Audiences - It seems that yuo are trying to appeal to a younger audience, however, a big part of your current audience are older and should be catered for. Given this, is information being gathered from older people of their stories and views?
Hi Stuart, The new service will be funded by us (GMS) and the BBC. GMS is funded by the Scottish Executive. Our current year funding is just under £12m. In rough terms the average cost of a television programme is £34k per hour in Scotland, so our current funding could just about stretch to an hour a day if we kept to average costs and spent all our money on programmes. Unfortunately we will have to spend part of our funds on running a channel. Fortunately, however, we will be in a partnership with the BBC who will contribute news, programmes and what we call distribution - that is the carriage of the signal across satellite, cable and transmitters (for Freeview). Distribution itself is relatively affordable now if you have a spare £1m or two, but its not necessarily the only cost. For Freeview you also have to obtain a share of the "spectrum" or "videostream" - which will cost many £millions from a commercial provider. Again, fortunately we are looking at a partnership with the BBC, who intend to provide a place on the public service Freeview spectrum just as soon as transmitters are enabled to do so. This will be around the time of digital switchover.
Given that this will be a partnership channel with the BBC there will be no adverts. There will be no need to make money, but there will be every need to demonstrate real value for money for the public funds invested both in us and in the BBC.
Donald
On 6 Sep, 16:33, scottish_stu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> Thanks for your answers to my questions last week about Freeview. > Very useful, and I look forward to seeing it appear in due course on > digital terrestrial in Scotland. However, this did make me think, > quite often you see quite a few of these Freeview channels (actually > usually Sky channels too) that come and go - that are there one day > but gone as soon as they are not profitable or funding has run out.
> Who would be funding the new channel, and what would the arrangements > be? Would it be a commercial channel with adverts? Also, if it > didn't make money does that mean the plug could be pulled? Could that > not mean all Gaelic programming could disappear overnight?
> I'm a bit of a worrier, as you might be able to tell. Wouldn't want > to lose a valuable service like this once established. > Stuart.
> On 30 Aug, 16:51, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > scottish_stu...
> > Freeview is not easy to explain. Half is for public service > > broadcasting and its full. Half is commercial and you can buy onto it > > a the cost of many millions per year. So we will need to wait until > > transmitters are converted one-by-one to digital only (Borders 2008, > > STV North 2010, STV Central 2011) until the full service appears on > > air. When each transmitter switches off the analogue signal it will > > then have spare capacity for the new service. Once the transmitter is > > carrying the new service it will be on a public service multiplex and > > therefore available to almost all in Scotland if they have an aerial > > and Freeview receiver.
> > Between launch and then, TeleG, Channel 8 Freeview may be able to > > carry "the best of..." between 6pm and 7pm daily.
> > On 30 Aug, 16:42, scottish_stu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > Domhnall, thanks for that. I didn't really think of it longer term. > > > I guess as digital switchover nears you would be less likely to lose > > > mainstream viewers as we will all be able to access many more > > > channels. Can I just ask if the Gaelic channel will be available on > > > Freeview then? Thanks.- Hide quoted text -
Emma, its true that we have had specific research commissioned on youth. This is because they watch a lot less television that the rest of us, and when they do watch it, they appear to have certain patterns of "consumption". Apart from seeking answers to what would draw young people to Gaelic television we were seeking to understand how much emphasis this segment of the audience should have compared to other audience groups. For example I have even heard it said that we shouldn't target the 16 - 24 age group because they prefer online and when they do watch they are as likely to watch Coronation Street than anything else. That line of argument suggests that we leave them alone and target them when they are 30 or so and are settling down and beginning to put their kids to Gaelic Medium Education. Personally I don't agree, but it sure is one big challenge trying to get that age group hooked on something Gaelic. Our other research has not been age specific, some of it genre specific, so we have gathered information from all age groups.
> Audiences - It seems that yuo are trying to appeal to a younger > audience, however, a big part of your current audience are older and > should be catered for. Given this, is information being gathered from > older people of their stories and views?
Do you think that possibly the previous discussion of a soap would incorporate a younger audience, as you stated that a TV programme like Coronation St would be something they may be interested in? Obviously this is a programme with more of a cult following, it may be something that could build up to be as popular through time and encouragement?
On 6 Sep, 17:08, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> Emma, its true that we have had specific research commissioned on > youth. This is because they watch a lot less television that the rest > of us, and when they do watch it, they appear to have certain patterns > of "consumption". Apart from seeking answers to what would draw young > people to Gaelic television we were seeking to understand how much > emphasis this segment of the audience should have compared to other > audience groups. For example I have even heard it said that we > shouldn't target the 16 - 24 age group because they prefer online and > when they do watch they are as likely to watch Coronation Street than > anything else. That line of argument suggests that we leave them > alone and target them when they are 30 or so and are settling down and > beginning to put their kids to Gaelic Medium Education. Personally I > don't agree, but it sure is one big challenge trying to get that age > group hooked on something Gaelic. Our other research has not been age > specific, some of it genre specific, so we have gathered information > from all age groups.
> > Audiences - It seems that yuo are trying to appeal to a younger > > audience, however, a big part of your current audience are older and > > should be catered for. Given this, is information being gathered from > > older people of their stories and views?- Hide quoted text -
Gordan Tha an cunnart sin ann fhathast. Agus tha mi ag aontachadh, tha làmh aig GMS ann a bhith ag atharrachadh bheachdan. Bu chòir sealladh Albanach a bhi againn air a chànan. Tha seo iomchaidh anns an t- suidheachadh poilitigeach is cultural a tha agaiinn san là an diugh ach a bharrachd air an sin, tha GMS bho uallach laghail dèanamh cinnteach gu bheil muinntir Alba a faighinn raon farsaing de dheagh phrograman. D
On 6 Sep, 16:37, "gòrdan_cànan" <gor...@canan.co.uk> wrote:
> Tha ceist agam air mar a bhios daoine a' riochdachadh is a' tuigsinn > "saoghal nan Gàidheal". A bheil cunnart ann fhathast gu bheil > riochdairean TBh is fiolm a' creidsinn gu bheil sin a' ciallachadh na > Gàidhealtachd is nan Eilean a-mhàin, ged a tha àireamh mhòr de > Ghàidheil an latha an-diugh a' fuireach ann am bailtean mòra na h- > Alba?
> A bheil sibh smaoineachadh gum bu chòir làmh a bhith aig GMS ann a > bhith ag atharrachadh bheachdan mar sin mus cuir daoine cus tìde > seachad ag obair air tagraidhean prògraim?
> Tha fhios gu bheil tòrr dhaoine comasach agus goireasan air a' > Ghaidhealtachd/anns na h-Eileanan, ach ma dh'fhaoidte gum b'fhiach e > sùil a thoirt air barrachd prògraman stèidhichte ann am baile - mar > sin, bhiodh e nas fhasa a bhith a' dèiligeadh ri cuspairean a > dh'fhaodadh a bhith "ro chonnspaideach" airson TBh/dràma stèidhichte > ann an sgìre thraidiseanta.
We would absolutely love to put a soap, maybe a post watershed soap, as an anchor to the schedule. There are a number of challenges. First it takes a long time to develop; second, even when on air it takes a long time to get established (eg River City) and many fail (eg Crossroads), and finally, its an expensive genre. If we could do a weekly Gaelic Royle Family (ie five people in one room watching telly for 30 minutes, oohing and ah-ing) it would possibly be affordable, but the quality of writing, acting, direction and camera work needs to be superb to pull it off.
> Do you think that possibly the previous discussion of a soap would > incorporate a younger audience, as you stated that a TV programme like > Coronation St would be something they may be interested in? Obviously > this is a programme with more of a cult following, it may be something > that could build up to be as popular through time and encouragement?
> On 6 Sep, 17:08, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Emma, its true that we have had specific research commissioned on > > youth. This is because they watch a lot less television that the rest > > of us, and when they do watch it, they appear to have certain patterns > > of "consumption". Apart from seeking answers to what would draw young > > people to Gaelic television we were seeking to understand how much > > emphasis this segment of the audience should have compared to other > > audience groups. For example I have even heard it said that we > > shouldn't target the 16 - 24 age group because they prefer online and > > when they do watch they are as likely to watch Coronation Street than > > anything else. That line of argument suggests that we leave them > > alone and target them when they are 30 or so and are settling down and > > beginning to put their kids to Gaelic Medium Education. Personally I > > don't agree, but it sure is one big challenge trying to get that age > > group hooked on something Gaelic. Our other research has not been age > > specific, some of it genre specific, so we have gathered information > > from all age groups.
> > > Audiences - It seems that yuo are trying to appeal to a younger > > > audience, however, a big part of your current audience are older and > > > should be catered for. Given this, is information being gathered from > > > older people of their stories and views?- Hide quoted text -
Tapadh leibh, a Dhomhnaill. Tha mi toirt fiughair don fhreagairt sin - mar a bhitheadh gach caraid do cheartas is cothromachd anns a' ghniomhachas seo.
Fearchar.
On 6 Sep, 16:00, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> As constituted originally CTG and then CCG was primarily a grant > giving body. Its employees were not television professionals as such > and did not make programmes. The 2003 Communications Act a) changed > the name to Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, b) empowered GMS to > commission programmes directly and c) empowered GMS to hold a > broadcast licence. Board membership was refreshed at that point, but > I have no definite answer for you as to why that membership does not > include someone who represents the interests of the unions. I will do > a bit of digging. D
> > I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on this: "It may be that our > > Board membership does > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding." Could you > > please explain?
> > Le deagh dhurachd, > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein > > BECTU Meur Ghlaschu 1
> > On 3 Sep, 10:11, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > Fhearchair chòir
> > > The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. > > > The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more > > > than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by > > > each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent > > > those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as > > > practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent > > > television and radio production industries in Scotland and the > > > promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in > > > strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented > > > on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not > > > representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group > > > of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits > > > (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
> > > When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding > > > is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and > > > collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In > > > addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings > > > with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does > > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is > > > speculation on my part.
> > > > A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > > > > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > > > > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > > > > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > > > > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> > > > Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > > > > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > > > > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > > > > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > > > > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > > > > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> > > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> > > > > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > > > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > > > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > > > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > > > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > > > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > > > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > > > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > > > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > > > > service.
> > > > > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > > > > yours?
DOMHNALL BEO AIR-LOIDHNE, DIARDAOIN 13mh SULTAIN DONALD LIVE ONLINE, THURSDAY 13th SEPT
PLEASE NOTE, DONALD WILL BE ONLINE A LITTLE LATER TODAY, BETWEEN 4pm AND 6pm. BIDH DOMHNALL AIR LOIDHNE BEAGAN NAS ANMOICHE AN-DIUGH, EADAR 4f AGUS 6f.
Thig a-steach agus gabh pairt sa chomhradh. Agus cuimhnich, faodaidh tu ceistean fhagail an seo air a shon aig am sam bith. Please log in and join the conversation. And remember, you can post questions for Donald at any time.
> Tapadh leibh, a Dhomhnaill. Tha mi toirt fiughair don fhreagairt sin - > mar a bhitheadh gach caraid do cheartas is cothromachd anns a' > ghniomhachas seo.
> Fearchar.
> On 6 Sep, 16:00, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Fhearchar choir
> > As constituted originally CTG and then CCG was primarily a grant > > giving body. Its employees were not television professionals as such > > and did not make programmes. The 2003 Communications Act a) changed > > the name to Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, b) empowered GMS to > > commission programmes directly and c) empowered GMS to hold a > > broadcast licence. Board membership was refreshed at that point, but > > I have no definite answer for you as to why that membership does not > > include someone who represents the interests of the unions. I will do > > a bit of digging. D
> > > I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on this: "It may be that our > > > Board membership does > > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding." Could you > > > please explain?
> > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein > > > BECTU Meur Ghlaschu 1
> > > On 3 Sep, 10:11, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Fhearchair chòir
> > > > The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. > > > > The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more > > > > than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by > > > > each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent > > > > those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as > > > > practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent > > > > television and radio production industries in Scotland and the > > > > promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in > > > > strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented > > > > on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not > > > > representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group > > > > of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits > > > > (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
> > > > When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding > > > > is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and > > > > collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In > > > > addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings > > > > with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does > > > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is > > > > speculation on my part.
> > > > Le dùrachd - D
> > > > On 31 Aug, 15:02, fearc...@lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > A Dhomhnaill, a charaid,
> > > > > A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > > > > > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > > > > > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > > > > > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > > > > > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> > > > > Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > > > > > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > > > > > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > > > > > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > > > > > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > > > > > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> > > > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> > > > > > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > > > > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > > > > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > > > > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > > > > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > > > > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > > > > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > > > > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > > > > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > > > > > service.
> > > > > > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > > > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > > > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > > > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > > > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > > > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > > > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > > > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > > > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > > > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > > > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > > > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > > > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > > > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > > > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > > > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > > > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > > > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > > > > > yours?
Seo ceist a th' agam. Tha cothrom eile ann a nochd gus 'Cuairt nam Blog' fhaicinn BBC 2 Alba 1830, dhomhsa 's e program air leth a th' ann. Am biodh a leithid sin ri fhaighinn air 'Streaming'? Bhiodh sin uabhasach fhèin feumail dhan fheadhainn a tha a' fuireach taobh a- muigh Alba.
'S e ar n'amas a leithid a bhi air an eadar lion, agus leis an t- seirbheis ùr bithidh an cothrom sin ann.
Anns an ùine ri teachd bu chòir stuth fhaighinn air-loidhne, air fòn, air tbh neo air innealan eile (m.e. Ipods). Mar sheirbheis phoblach bu chòir gum biodh an cothrom againn na programan a chuir a-mach air gach "platform" ma cheadaicheas an t-ionmhas. Tha cothrom cuideachd aig an fheadhainn a rinn na prògraman, oir 's ann aca a tha cuid de na còraichean. Faic An Caman air www.bounci.tv mar eisimpleir. D
On 13 Sep, 14:17, neach-ionnsachaidh <grai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seo ceist a th' agam. Tha cothrom eile ann a nochd gus 'Cuairt nam > Blog' fhaicinn BBC 2 Alba 1830, dhomhsa 's e program air leth a th' > ann. > Am biodh a leithid sin ri fhaighinn air 'Streaming'? Bhiodh sin > uabhasach fhèin feumail dhan fheadhainn a tha a' fuireach taobh a- > muigh Alba.
> Tapadh leibh, a Dhomhnaill. Tha mi toirt fiughair don fhreagairt sin - > mar a bhitheadh gach caraid do cheartas is cothromachd anns a' > ghniomhachas seo.
> Fearchar.
> On 6 Sep, 16:00, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > Fhearchar choir
> > As constituted originally CTG and then CCG was primarily a grant > > giving body. Its employees were not television professionals as such > > and did not make programmes. The 2003 Communications Act a) changed > > the name to Seirbheis nam Meadhanan Gàidhlig, b) empowered GMS to > > commission programmes directly and c) empowered GMS to hold a > > broadcast licence. Board membership was refreshed at that point, but > > I have no definite answer for you as to why that membership does not > > include someone who represents the interests of the unions. I will do > > a bit of digging. D
> > > I'm afraid I don't follow your reasoning on this: "It may be that our > > > Board membership does > > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding." Could you > > > please explain?
> > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein > > > BECTU Meur Ghlaschu 1
> > > On 3 Sep, 10:11, Domhnall <domhn...@gms.org.uk> wrote:
> > > > Fhearchair chòir
> > > > The composition of the Board of GMS was arrived at before my time. > > > > The Communications Act of 2003 stipulated that there should be no more > > > > than 12 members, and that Ofcom must appoint a member nominated by > > > > each of Bòrd na Gàidhlig, HIE and BBC. Those members do not represent > > > > those organisations. In addition, Ofcom have to ensure so far as > > > > practicable that the interests of Channel 3 in Scotland, independent > > > > television and radio production industries in Scotland and the > > > > promotion in Gaelic are represented in the membership. Therefore, in > > > > strict terms, no single body or organisation is formally represented > > > > on the Board of GMS as they are either nominees (and not > > > > representatives) of organisations, represent interests of a wide group > > > > of people/interests/organisations, or are appointed on other merits > > > > (eg broadcasting experience, finance, board skills).
> > > > When we commission or fund programmes one of the conditions of funding > > > > is that the producer adheres to relevant agreements with unions and > > > > collecting societies and follows standard industry practice. In > > > > addition GMS have terms of trade with PACT which apply to our dealings > > > > with independent producers. It may be that our Board membership does > > > > have specific employee or union representation because we put the > > > > obligations onto the producer as a condition of funding, but that is > > > > speculation on my part.
> > > > Le dùrachd - D
> > > > On 31 Aug, 15:02, fearc...@lycos.com wrote:
> > > > > A Dhomhnaill, a charaid,
> > > > > A major problem for the development of Gaelic television, as for all > > > > > television broadcasting, is that services tend to be casualised and > > > > > insecure. (This is at least in part because of lack of organisation, > > > > > whether into service facilities that have clout in the market or as > > > > > self-employed providers within a union or trade organisation.)
> > > > > Is GMS support for producers dependent on producers adhering to > > > > > industry-standard conditions (e.g. safety standards and minimum pay > > > > > rates) such as those negotiated by BECTU, PACT and the BBC, or even > > > > > GMS-devised standards? Is it not ill-advised to exclude the input of > > > > > trades unions from GMS board membership when the interests of > > > > > directors and employers are directly represented on the board?
> > > > > Le deagh dhurachd, > > > > > Fearchar I MacIllFhinnein.
> > > > > > Ok fearc...@lycos.com, I understand where you are coming from. I have > > > > > > never heard a complaint that GMS does not respect the various unions > > > > > > or associations. Gaelic programmes funded by GMS as far as I know > > > > > > alway pay the going rates agreed with the assocations representing > > > > > > actors, musicians, writers etc. Undoubtedly we will be looking to > > > > > > reduce the average cost of making television programmes, but I cannot > > > > > > contemplate GMS riding roughshod over agreements with the unions or > > > > > > assocations unless the terms of those unions and associations are > > > > > > unreasonable or unsuitable for a minority language television > > > > > > service.
> > > > > > > The main broadcasting union is BECTU (www.bectu.org.uk), while the NUJ > > > > > > > also plays a part in the industry. I hope that your reply doesn't > > > > > > > reflect a lack of awareness of efforts to prevent this industry from > > > > > > > becoming just another low-wage, low-skill industry: that danger is > > > > > > > ever-present, and we only have to look acrosss the Atlantic to see the > > > > > > > result. It's no secret that media employees have a younger age-profile > > > > > > > than the general population, because of low salaries to individuals > > > > > > > and pressure on employers' budgets. Because broadcasting seems > > > > > > > attractive from the outside, young people are frequently exploited > > > > > > > (sometimes even being taken on to work for nothing!), while older > > > > > > > employees leave the industry, taking their skills with them, and the > > > > > > > training provisions of major employers are being cut repeatedly (such > > > > > > > as in the BBC, previously the industry's main source of skilled > > > > > > > staff). Obviously, the repeated cost-cutting exercises of BBC > > > > > > > management are a major influence on quality of output in the industry > > > > > > > as well as numbers of employees, while the increasing numbers of > > > > > > > freelancers reduce employees' say in their industry too. So who will > > > > > > > stand up for them, if the unions are not represented on boards such as > > > > > > > yours?
Emma, good question indeed. We are having a debate on two other discussion threads on this very topic. The BBC will be in the lead on this, but we would hope to see stories and issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere, and are being picked up by dedicated Gaelic newsgatherers locally and nationally. The question of whether international news should be covered is interesting. Some would say why? Ch 4, Sky News, News 24, CNN etc are all available in a digital multi channel environment. Why compete in Gaelic? Somehow I doubt there will be a Beijing Gaelic News bureau, but personally I would like to see some international features, perhaps well chosen and in depth. D
Would it be something that you would feature quite regularly - as in more local news being daily, and touching on more international stories on a news special report?
I think that having an overload of irrelevant news would just make people turn off, but perhaps a more structured news timetable could allocate timings for regional, national, international bulletins.
> Would it be something that you would feature quite regularly - as in > more local news being daily, and touching on more international > stories on a news special report?
> I think that having an overload of irrelevant news would just make > people turn off, but perhaps a more structured news timetable could > allocate timings for regional, national, international bulletins.
|
