Case (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
case) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
fandomsecrets2013-02-26 06:43 pm
case) wrote in fandomsecrets2013-02-26 06:43 pm
[ SECRET POST #2247 ]
⌈ Secret Post #2247 ⌋
Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.
01.
__________________________________________________
02.
__________________________________________________
03.
__________________________________________________
04.
__________________________________________________
05.
__________________________________________________
06.
__________________________________________________
07.
__________________________________________________
08.
__________________________________________________
09.
__________________________________________________
10.
__________________________________________________
11.
__________________________________________________
12. [tb]
__________________________________________________
13.
__________________________________________________
14.
__________________________________________________
15. [repeat]
__________________________________________________
16.
__________________________________________________
17.
__________________________________________________
18.
__________________________________________________
Notes:
Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 056 secrets from Secret Submission Post #321.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 1 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - troll ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.
Re: Question!
(Anonymous) 2013-02-27 01:28 am (UTC)(link)We have a few problems though: first, the executive power of all of these TV channels is chosen directly by the country's president (that reform passed alongside the no ads law, and it caused lots and lots our frictions. The last president had many friends in the media (think: his son's godfather's friends) and was repeatedly accused of using the media for his own political advantage, thus refraining journalistic freedom. Now that the president has changed, there have been talks about changing this law. There are budget troubles with France 3 regional broadcasts, since they have HQs in each department (think of it as a county) and the national HQ is more and more reluctant to keep them all.
Method of paying: revenue off adverstisements, State subventions, and taxes. Every household with a TV must pay 131€/year, except households with low income and people with hearing or sight impairments. The broadcasters, however, also subsidise the production costs of French cinema (although not to the extent of Canal +, which is a private channel).
The future? Well, for one, I think there will be changes in the way the broadcasters' president is chosen. I'm not sure how long people who receive those channels via their computers only will be able to avoid paying the annual tax, since they receive the same service as the others but don't pay for it. I don't know, this requires more attention than I have given it, but this is certainly an upcoming debate.
Re: Question!
(Anonymous) 2013-02-27 01:59 am (UTC)(link)Aside from that, there are other restrictions that come from the licence fee, like in the UK we can't watch anything from BBC America (it's region blocked) because that's all paid for through advertising and if the BBC made a licence fee payer watch an advert they'd be in breach of their terms.
As for the future, I don't know. I can't believe any government would be comfortable being the ones who 'killed' the BBC, but who knows.
Re: Question!
Oh and thank you!
*Norwegian Broadcasting Company
Re: Question!
(Anonymous) 2013-02-27 04:28 pm (UTC)(link)French public channels have roughly the same set of rules: must encourage French fiction, cultural and educational programs, must be available for the whole country, and no opinion pieces. There are political debates, but no show to the glory of one party (except for short programs that are virtually 5-minutes soapboxes for all parties and unions). That's the theory. In practice... Well, journalism is not always unbiased, but all in all, it is rather neutral.
Re: Question!
We do the same, except our channels are for the most time (like 98% of the time) completely unbiased. Mostly thanks to the rule NRK got that goes along the lines of: NRK shall bring forth any and all issues in society (be it individuals, companies or the government) that are questionable and/or necessary for the public to know.
We only have political debates, all political comercial/slogans and so on are not allowed on television. Instead our political parties all get about the same amount of time in the spotlight to make sure they in debates and interviews can get their points across. We also got pretty strict rules about how much money individuals and companies can give to a political party. We like to pretend everyone is equal in Norway*.
*I am not taking a piss, seriously our entire society is built around everyone should be treated the same, and it is idiotic.
Re: Question!
(Anonymous) 2013-02-28 12:19 am (UTC)(link)- So: the last president lost the election in May 2012 and is now touring the world with $100,000 conferences. His party, which he used to control, was left with plenty of people who were civil to each other when he was there but who hate each other's guts and want nothing more than to grind the other's face into the dirt. Possibly with steel-toed boots.
- They decided to have an election to choose the new leader of the party, in which every member could participate. There were 4 candidates originally, only 2 were really likely to win. On the right side: former secretary of the party, twitchy, simpering, downright scary man. On the less right side: former Prime Minister, sinister, rich, rather bland man.
- Election day came. It was the worst mess ever. One candidate claimed they had won. Then the other did. During the day there was evidence of fraud, heavy fraud. They all said nasty things to each other. The accountant of one side said there was fiscal fraud and left for the other side. A former Prime Minister stepped it and gave up in less than 24 hours (there was probably frustrated screaming involved). Former president said he would tell everyone they were incompetent twats if they didn't stop arguing (as if we didn't already know that). There were several organisations involved who were supposed to recount the votes, none of them said the same thing. Apparently some votes were forgotten.
- It lasted for days and days. At some point, one of them took the deputies who were favorable to him and created a new political group in the Assembly (RUMP, as it was lovingly called) and everyone kind of panicked because that would mean less money for the party.
- In the end: they've settled on doing a new election sometime soon. Now, yesterday, one of them held a meeting to say he intended to be the party's candidate for the presidential elections (in 4 YEARS). The other held a meeting with the party at the exact same time. So they're faking a nice solidarity when in fact what happened has made everyone hate each other even more than before. They have to put ADS in the papers to find candidates for the 2014 local elections.
The funniest thing is that they have squandered HOURS of their allotted speaking time on national media because of this.
Come to think of it, we have also rules about how much money an individual can give to a party. That's why our last president was accused (and it is still an ongoing case) of fraud during the 2007 election. But he's accused of plenty of other things as well... Like our other last president was, before charges were (mostly) dropped. He was from the same party. Created it, in fact.
Re: Question!
(Anonymous) 2013-02-27 04:29 pm (UTC)(link)