<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Media on nostuff.org archive | Chris Keene</title>
    <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/categories/media/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Media on nostuff.org archive | Chris Keene</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-gb</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:38:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nostuff.org/archive/categories/media/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Listening to music in three parts</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2013/listening-to-music-in-three-parts/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2013/listening-to-music-in-three-parts/</guid>
      <description>&lt;h2 id=&#34;part-1-listening-to-digital-music&#34;&gt;Part 1 Listening to digital music&lt;/h2&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I have this theory. In fact I have lots of theories. But for the rest of this paragraph I will restrain myself to blessing you with just one. My theory is that we are all moving to digital music before we are ready for it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;I mean listening to it on an iphone/ipad thing, sure fine. We’re all doing that ok. But in the house? or in the car? How do you listen to it there?&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>iplayer diary and a tool i was never going to use again</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2012/iplayer-diary-and-a-tool-i-was-never-going-to-use-again/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Oct 2012 21:54:44 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2012/iplayer-diary-and-a-tool-i-was-never-going-to-use-again/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;A lot of online services have tried to introduce social elements in to their product. This is normally annoying, but in the case of the BBC’s iplayer I found it interesting and useful.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The problem was I was about the only person who did.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A brief recap, when the current design was launched, it had an extra (smaller) column on the homepage. Along with &lt;em&gt;Featured&lt;/em&gt; and &lt;em&gt;Most Popular&lt;/em&gt; was a column called &lt;em&gt;Friends Recommend&lt;/em&gt; or something like that. They made some sensible design choices, rather than having another site where you needed to maintain a ‘friends’ list, you could simply point it to twitter and co and it would do the rest. The problem was that in turned out that at any time it would have maybe three programs to recommend, each of which just one of my friends would have recommended, and that was about it. It was therefore showing ‘anything my friends recommend’ – due to lack of take up – rather than ‘the most recommend programs by my friends’ which would probably be more useful and avoid the slightly narrow topics that came through (oh look Formula 1 and Dr Who).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BBC Three</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/bbc-three/</link>
      <pubDate>Sun, 05 Sep 2010 21:06:37 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/bbc-three/</guid>
      <description>&lt;div&gt;&#xA;  In 2003 I got a freeview box. I got good reception. I could see the transmitter from my window.&lt;/p&gt; &#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&#xA;    BBC One or Two had being running ‘BBC Three takeover’ sessions, with several BBC Three programmes in a row. They were good. It’s not fashionable to say that nowadays.&#xA;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&#xA;    In its early days it was innovative, cutting edge, risk taking and alternative.&#xA;  &lt;/p&gt;&#xA;  &lt;p&gt;&#xA;    One of the programmes I saw on the BBC Three take over shows was &lt;a href=&#34;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreamspaces&#34;&gt;Dreamspaces&lt;/a&gt;, which simply explored modern buildings and architecture. It didn’t pad out the show with music montages, and the presenters gave facts, rather than the normal approach taking by shows of making the presenter be ‘fun but stupid’ and ask an ‘expert’ lots of basic question&lt;/a&gt;s.</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Nick Clegg’s Fault. Beware the REAL Nasty.</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/nick-cleggs-fault-beware-the-real-nasty/</link>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Apr 2010 13:03:19 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2010/nick-cleggs-fault-beware-the-real-nasty/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Tonight is the second party leaders debate. As most in the UK know, Nick Clegg came out of the last one well, using a underhand tactic of using intelligence and good sense to answer the questions. &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.twapperkeeper.com/hashtag/iagreewithnick&#34; target=&#34;_blank&#34; rel=&#34;noopener noreferrer&#34;&gt;#iagreewithnick&lt;/a&gt; immediately became a twitter trending topic.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;The upshot of this is that the Lib Dems now have the slight chance that they will come a respectable third in the forthcoming election, instead of just a distant third. Obviously this is a matter of national emergency.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>naughty boys and lots of sheep</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/naughty-boys-and-lots-of-sheep/</link>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Oct 2008 22:58:26 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/naughty-boys-and-lots-of-sheep/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;I Don’t normally write about this sort of thing, but this is crazy.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Trying to ascertain the facts is almost impossible, even though supposed quality broadsheets have written huge amounts about it.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;So what happened?&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Russell Brand has an evening radio show on Radio 2.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;This is pre-recorded (really? every week? this is the biggest scandal!)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Last week he had Jonathan Ross on the show (presumably to promote his book), though it has never been made clear whether he was co-presenting or a guest&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Andrew Sachs – an actor who was in Faulty Towers – was due to be interviewed on the phone to promote a TV show.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Andrew is 78&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Russell phones Andrew while chatting to Jonathan, there is much banter going on, both are known for it.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;When they are put through to the answer&lt;/a&gt; phone the banter continues, references about Andrew’s granddaughter are made, including implying Russell has slept with her, though these are done in a somewhat joking fashion (Brand: “Andrew Sachs, I did not do nothing with Georgina – oh no I’ve revealed I know her name”)&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;The Granddaughter is currently touring in Satanic Sluts burlesque group.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Various reports (including the Times, which is less inaccurate than most of the press) said she had slept with Russell.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Reports keep on referring to them talking about Andrew Sachs killing himself on hearing the talk about his granddaughter, though the one edited transcript I have seen does not mention this at all.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After the show was recorded, the Times claims that a junior produce contacted Andrew Sachs to confirm it was ok to be played on air (which I understand is actually normal practice), though does not state if they actually got permission, i.e. what his response was. (&lt;a href=&#34;http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article5036517.ece&#34;&gt;from the times&lt;/a&gt;) Apparently a senior executive (or senior editor – to me there’s quite a difference between an executive or editor) vetted the recording before going out, presumably due to the new guidelines which mean senior staff (above the show’s producer) have to sign off controversial content.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;After the show went out there were, apparently, two complaints.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;li&gt;Roughly a week later the Mail reports on it, and then 18,000 more complaints are made, one wonders how many have actually listened.&lt;/li&gt;&#xA;&lt;/ul&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Since Tuesday this has been at the top of every major UK news site, including the websites of the ‘broadsheets’. Ultimately it is all about a few minutes of talk left on an answering machine.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Today’s new thing: LRB</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/todays-new-thing-lrb/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 01 Feb 2008 21:51:13 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2008/todays-new-thing-lrb/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Apparently the London Review of Books isn’t a London based magazine which reviews books. I say this not as a joke, oh you cultral ones. I really do think it is justified of me to presume a publication called London Review of Books is actually a review of sodding books. Apparently it is not. &lt;a HREF=&#34;http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n01/lanc01_.html&#34;&gt;Apparently is has some interesting articles&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>BBC Newswatch</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2007/bbc-newswatch/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:25:58 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2007/bbc-newswatch/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&#34;http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/default.stm&#34;&gt;BBC Newswatch&lt;/a&gt; was set up after the Hutton &lt;strike&gt;whitewash&lt;/strike&gt; inquiry as a place to monitor and feedback on BBC News. It seems that recently it has had a bit of a slimming down, with many parts of the site being reduced to ‘&lt;a href=&#34;http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/profiles/default.stm&#34;&gt;nothing to&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&#34;http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/notes_and_corrections/default.stm&#34;&gt;see here&lt;/a&gt;‘ messages. However, by following just one link from the main homepage: ‘styleguide’ and you will notice the left hand menu still has a link to the &lt;a href=&#34;http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/notes_and_corrections/notes_a_-_z/default.stm&#34;&gt;archived ‘notes’ pages&lt;/a&gt;. Most BBC ‘downsized’ sites are &lt;a href=&#34;http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/default.stm&#34; title=&#34;check the notice at the top&#34;&gt;simply&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&#34;http://www.bbc.co.uk/cult/&#34;&gt;frozen&lt;/a&gt;, I wonder why they didn’t do the same here. One rational explanation might be that it was generating a large amount of email from those who objected to the BBCs stance on various matters and terminology.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>R.I.P F.I.P</title>
      <link>https://nostuff.org/archive/2007/rip-fip/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:02:08 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nostuff.org/archive/2007/rip-fip/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&#34;http://www.radiofrance.fr/chaines/fip/endirect/&#34;&gt;FIP&lt;/a&gt; is basically the world’s best radio station. Fact. It plays a random mix of decent new music, jazz, classical, more cool music, with no adverts, or DJs, or anything except a news bulletin at the totally logical time of 50 minutes past the hour.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;Oh and the news bulletin is in French (language of inferior foreign types). But that maybe due to it being a French station. But we could pick it up in Brighton. We don’t want to get too technical about it but it had something to do with the &lt;a href=&#34;http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/scip-discussion/message/8046&#34;&gt;sea being very flat&lt;/a&gt; between France and Brighton. or something.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
