MEDIA RELATIONS CONFERENCE

I was a guest panellist at the 7th Annual Media Relations Conference in Wellington this week. The conference was targeted to members of the public relations industry, and, among many other things, we discussed the changing face of the media. This is a big topic in these days where the mainstream media is struggling and the impact of online is rapidly increasing. The discussion was very interesting, though in the end I guess no-one really knows exactly how things will continue to move and change and where we will all end up.

At the moment I know some people who pretty much never read a newspaper or magazine, but spend huge amounts of time online and seem to gather all or most of their information that way. But I also know people who have never or rarely been online. And then there is the whole mass of people, including myself, who happily use a mix of all media options. So is it a generational thing? If there is a whole generation of young people coming through who never read them, will newspapers and magazines eventually evolve out completely? Will a generational shift change everything completely, or will things just continue to merge and evolve? Only time will tell.

As discussed at the conference, media people who ignore the rise of online do so at great risk. All of our big media outlets in New Zealand now have websites as well. Whether they make money or not at this stage, they can’t afford not to have them. And this of course brings me to the thorny topic of getting consumers to pay for online news/magazine content. Internationally, Rupert Murdoch has announced plans to charge users for content, and locally Fairfax are making similar noises. The National Business Review is already charging for some online content via paywalls. It will be really interesting to see how this goes for NBR. I’m more of the mind that it’s too complicated and that consumers are now too used to getting everything for free for the concept of paying for online journalism to work. I think it may make sense to just give more and better away for free in the hope of eventually making money from advertising and related promotional activity.

But Barry Colman is a savvy businessman and Rupert Murdoch apparently knows quite a bit about the media too! So I guess we can all watch this space.

Because the conference was for the public relations industry, we also talked a lot about the need for PR people to work with both mainstream and online media these days, and the similarities and differences in working these two worlds. Many of the usual business courtesies and efficiencies apply in both worlds, and similar judgement calls based on knowing who you are dealing with are also involved. But social media like blogs, Facebook and Twitter do have some quite particular things to bear in mind. If you are too overtly commercial on Twitter, people will quickly block you from following them. You need to come across as a real member of the Twitter community. And if you send your general news release to a blogger you risk them deciding to do something rather irreverent with it, so your action could backfire and you could become the victim of a blog piss-take. Bloggers don’t obey the traditional rules of journalism - and they won’t necessarily respect an embargo date, so PR people need to be careful.

There was a lot of interesting talk at the conference about what works and what doesn’t work for PR people in terms of all types of media outlets. But the main thing that was agreed upon was that you ignore the online world at your peril!

THE CLAYTON WEATHERSTON CASE AND BLOGS AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES

The Clayton Weatherston murder trial is perhaps New Zealand's worst example yet of blogs and social networking sites playing fast and loose with the laws governing court reporting and contempt of court.

Everyone has the right to a fair trial, and that's why there are rules and regulations surrounding court reporting that mainstream media have always had to follow. But how do you police the internet - how do you police blogs, and facebook and twitter? There's talk at the moment that some of the more prominent blogs and facebook sites might be targeted for legal action. This makes sense as it would serve as a reminder that the normal rules do apply even in the online world - but there's no way you could keep every blog, facebook mention and tweet about the case under control, so in the end this would be a symbolic action as much as anything.

I think it is also important that juries be constantly reminded that they are not to look at the internet during the course of a trial - and I understand this is happening these days.

The interesting thing about the Weatherston case in terms of blogging, tweeting and all, is that a lot of what is being said online is almost comic in nature (in a dark and cynical kind of way) - so you could possibly argue that it's not really the sort of thing that would influence any sensible jury member anyway. I mean if someone posted some supposed new evidence on a case online, that would be one thing, but just to poke fun at an accused and say that he seems guilty, well if I was on a jury I don't think that would change my thinking much.

It's certainly an interesting issue. I'm really not sure if the legal system can stem the giant tide that is the internet - so I do wonder where we will all end up with this one.

CAMPBELL LIVE STILL HAUNTED BY MEDAL THIEF INTERVIEW

I see in today's Herald on Sunday there is a not-quite-apology on Paul Holmes' column page, relating to a suggestion he made in last week's column that perhaps the controversial John Campbell interview with the medal thief never actually took place.

Holmes was speculating that a lawyer or some other middle man may have interviewed the thief on behalf of Campbell Live and then Campbell just recreated the questions with the hooded man, who we now all know was an actor. I thought at the time Holmes made the suggestion that it was unlikely, but the fact that the programme didn't tell viewers on the night the story screened that they had only secured an audio interview with the thief and so the television interview scenario was being re-created with an actor, left them wide open to such speculation.

It was a major cock-up on TV3's part, and to be fair they know that and have apologised for it. So fair enough that they wanted to set the record straight with the Herald on Sunday that Campbell's interview with the medal thief did indeed take place.

This one has been a bit of a sorry saga for TV3 and Campbell Live, and it continues to drag on. The Campbell Live team are now in the awkward position where they will have to fight a legal fight not to give up the name of the thief, as journalists must always protect their sources. This is an important journalistic principle, and one that is worth fighting for. It's just a shame that some hasty decision making back when this story screened means this important point of principle is being fought over a medal thief loathed by the nation rather than a brave whistle-blower or some other more admirable human being.

A FOND FAREWELL TO EYE TO EYE

I'm very sorry to hear that Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson is finishing its run with TVNZ.

The current affairs panel discussion show with a Maori focus has run for six years off-peak on TV ONE. Funding for off-peak shows is a rather perilous thing these days, and it was almost inevitable that the plug would eventually be pulled, but it's a shame. The show was great, and had a real role to play in furthering understanding of Maori issues and points of view.

I'm not an entirely unbiased observer on this one, as - in my other life as a freelance executive producer - I worked on the show for a couple of seasons a few years back. It was one of the most interesting and enjoyable productions I have ever worked on, and my time spent with Eye to Eye gave me a greater understanding of the Maori world that I am still grateful for.

It was this providing of another perspective in an easily accessible, very watchable way that was Eye to Eye's strength. The Maori Television Service should have a look at whether there might be a way they could pick the series up with funding from Te Mangai Paho.

SUNDAY NEWSPAPER WARS

The employment law case involving one-time Herald on Sunday Assistant Editor Stephen Cook has highlighted the intense competition between the HoS and the Sunday Star-Times. The case has been before the court this past week, and the judgement is now reserved.

Between the information actually revealed in court and the rumours circulating about what is contained in some of the suppressed evidence, there have been a few wild stories floating about. A telescope to spy into the SST editor's office (a joke apparently), stealing stories (probably not a joke), deliberate rumour spreading about rival staff members - it's been all on.

I'm amazed the journos have time to do any work with all this carry on. And I'm equally amazed to hear they fight so bitterly when the stories both the papers feature seem so little worth fighting for!

MEDIA COVERAGE OF MICHAEL JACKSON'S DEATH

I've waited a week and a half to write about the media coverage of Michael Jackson's death. It just seemed too hard in the beginning. There was so much to say, and - in another way - so little to say. Because in the end the coverage is pretty much what I would have expected it to be - there's really nothing surprising about any of it.

Every now and then something happens that generates absolutely saturation media coverage from both serious and tabloid media - Jackson's death is one of these events. And when this happens you see the best of journalism and the worst of journalism. Great writers from legendary publications write some thoughtful and striking pieces, and - at the other end of the spectrum - madness rules. This is just the way of it I guess.

The American showbiz website TMZ broke the story first, and they've had some other significant scoops in recent times, so they are obviously good at what they do, and you have to give that to them. Getting the scoop is an important part of journalism, and they got it. But as the first reports filtered through, I found myself not believing the story when it was just on the TMZ site. It was when the LA Times reported it that I sat up and took notice. And I don't think I was alone in that.

Also like a lot of other people, I had very mixed feelings about Jackson's death. There's no denying that he was an exraordinarily gifted entertainer, but what a questionable lifestyle he led. I once read a book written by Jordy Chandler's uncle, which was so restrained and balanced in its approach that it was extremely credible and believable. Jordy Chandler was the boy at the centre of the first high profile child abuse scandal. The book told a story frighteningly similar to that told in the later child abuse court case. I know he wasn't convicted of any crime, but I do believe Jackson hurt these boys. He may well not have thought he was hurting them, but maybe that's what all paedophiles think. As I say, mixed feelings indeed.

But in the hours immediately following Jackson's death, it wasn't really the time to talk about the darker sides of his life, and most of the media coverage here in New Zealand didn't. And I'm okay with that. It's a social convention that you don't speak ill of the dead, and I think to a degree it is and should be a media convention too.

Actually one of the best things about this past 10 strange days has been getting to see and hear Jackson's music again - and to remember how great it was before it all started to feel a little tarnished.

I haven't sought out much other Jackson coverage - there's such an enormous amount of it online, I haven't even really gone there. I've been content with reading my daily Herald, listening to radio reports and watching the TV news. The Herald has done the best job for me. Their coverage has been thorough and considered, but not over-kill. The paper has run some excellent pieces of writing from some of the respected overseas publications - the David Randall piece from the Independent in today's Herald is a great example.

On TV ONE news, Tim Wilson looks a little earnest, and Dominic Bowden rather lightweight. David Farrier strikes a better balance on TV3.

And if you're not troubled by mixed feelings like I am, and you just want to be a fan - grab the colour lift-out section from this week's Woman's Day. It's simply a pretty pictorial of a pop star who has died. Maybe that's enough. And maybe soon we can all move on and a tortured genius can rest in peace.

NEW IDEA DAVID BAIN EXCLUSIVE

TV ONE have just shot an interview with me for tonight's news, about the David Bain exclusive in this week's New Idea magazine, and whether or not it is a good scoop.

In one sense it is - it's what journos call a "good get" and all of our media outlets would have been keen to have it. After all, Bain is someone once convicted of killing five members of his family, who has been found not guilty after spending many years in prison. New Idea editor Hayley McLarin is a good and hard-working women's magazine editor. I don't doubt that she will have worked her contacts and done the necessary groundwork to secure the interview, but of course it is also more than likely that money changed hands. Today's Sunday newspapers are speculating that the price for this two-part story could have been as much as $50,000. That seems a lot for these tough financial times in journalism, but at $25,000 for each of the two parts of the story, it may well be possible. Paying this kind of money for big exclusives is certainly not unheard of for our weekly women's magazines.

So because many readers will be suspicious that they may be reading a piece of chequebook journalism, the scoop is compromised. More savvy readers may well ask themselves - if Bain was paid for the article did that give him control over what questions were asked and what was written? Did he get to vet the questions in advance and did he get copy approval of the final piece? It is certainly a very soft story - there are no questions about why Bain thinks his father killed his family and how he now feels about that, and there is nothing about why some of the forensic evidence seems so incriminating to Bain junior. Of course I haven't seen next week's part two of the interview yet, but I'd be surprised if it contains those harder questions. In the end it is a feature piece for a women's magazine.

I don't know what Bain's motives were for doing the story. They may have been purely financial - no doubt he needs the money after so many years in jail. He may also want to tell his side of the story. But if the latter was the case, picking a soft women's magazine to do so probably doesn't help his cause. The roughly 50 per cent of New Zealanders who believe he is not guilty will no doubt still think so after reading the New Idea piece. But conversely the other 50 per cent who have misgivings about the not guilty verdict aren't likely to change their minds either. In fact their opinion of David Bain may worsen if they feel that he has now profited from a terrible crime.

If Bain had allowed himself to be interviewed for a serious current affairs media outlet like TV ONE's Sunday programme or The Listener, and if he'd had some convincing answers to the tough questions, that might have done more for his reputation and P.R. But I guess it was always unlikely that he would take that path, especially bearing in mind that it is mainly the women's magazines who are known to pay for stories in this country.

So to answer the original question - yes it is a good scoop for New Idea, and it will no doubt sell some magazines for them. But it is a compromised scoop, and I doubt that it will be a P.R. triumph for David Bain and his supporters either.

HYSTERICAL MEDIA AND A LOST OASIS

In my commentating on media coverage of the Napier seige story, I remarked upon the sensational tone of a lot of the coverage. Since then we've had the Christine Rankin and Melissa Lee sagas also reported on at fever pitch. And maybe it all began with the Tony Veitch case, which attracted an extraordinary amount of frenzied coverage that still festers on.

A journalist friend of mine, Zara Potts, remarked on Twitter that she felt our media was getting more hysterical every day. I think I agree with her. I've never been a purist in my media commentating. I accept that in these commercial times, there will be lighter stories, and showbiz stories and a sometimes populist approach to journalism. But at the moment things feel a little out of control.

Is it the result of increasingly tough economic times for our media outlets, and the added pressure of mainstream media fighting something of a losing battle with the online world? Are we breeding a new wave of young journalists who think that breathless sensationalism is the normal way to go? It's getting scary. If someone with fairly populist taste like myself is getting turned off by it all, I hate to think how people with more classic taste in journalism are feeling.

Sadly, one little oasis of calm in our local media landscape made its final appearance last Sunday. Finlay McDonald and Andrew Patterson's excellent Sunday Live show on Radio Live has ended to make way for sports programming. The show was a fine mix of pop culture and current affairs. It was informative and entertaining - intelligent but never elitist. It was a soothing Sunday morning listen and I will miss it. I hope Radio Live has plans for it to come back in some form or other.

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE NAPIER SIEGE

The Napier siege has been a huge news story and a lot of journalists have done a lot of hard work, in some cases in quite scary circumstances. As I have said before in my media commentating, we tend to be reasonably good at on-the-spot news reporting in New Zealand, and coverage of this awful incident was generally strong.

But one thing I would criticise is the rather sensational tone that crept into a lot of the coverage. In these very competitive commercial times for our media outlets that does seem to be the way of things - to be sensational - and the language a lot of reporters used was rather over-the-top at times.

A mate of mine who knows a thing or two about guns and the military - from a historian/collector point of view, I hasten to add - says not only was a lot of the reporters' language sensational, in some cases it was also inappropriate and inaccurate.

He says: "They talked about the gunman firing a 'volley of shots' at police. A volley is fired by a number of shooters firing at the same time. What the gunman fired was a 'burst' or 'series" of shots."

The New Zealand Herald made an interesting call for its Saturday morning edition when it came out that morning with the banner headline Gunman Dead - something that was not confirmed at that time. Maybe a question mark at the end of the headline might have been a better, more accurate option.

Talkback radio has been an interesting part of the media coverage of the siege. On the plus side, it was an opportunity for some really strong and immediate first-hand eyewitness reports as events unfolded, and also a good chance for people who knew him to paint a picture of the gunman. But on the downside, as usual there were all the same old armchair experts who knew what they would do if they were there and doing the job of the police. Yeah right.

It was a hell of a situation, and it seems to me the cops handling it were doing okay. Especially when they were knee-deep in journalists at the time!

TV NEWS RATINGS

It's not the done thing these days - in sales and marketing terms - for TV networks to refer to 5+ ratings (that is, all viewers five and over). Somewhere along the line the advertising world decided that big bulk audience didn't matter and demographics, particularly younger ones, were where it was at. But despite that, I've always been surprised that TVNZ doesn't make more of the fact that its news programmes always have more viewers in 5+ than TV 3's news shows do. They've tried all sorts of fancy tag-lines on their promotional billboards over the years, but never the basic "New Zealand's most watched news." So I was intrigued yesterday to see a small, simple advertisement placed in the Business section of the NZ Herald just quietly stating the 5+ viewing figures for all of the main news shows across the two big networks in March. The ad didn't have a note on it to say who had placed it, but I can only assume it was TVNZ, though the subtlety was unusual compared to the network's usual efforts. And of course the rarely quoted 5+ figures show a very rosy picture for the TVNZ shows - quite a different picture than that painted by the many news releases TV 3 puts out talking up its ratings success in News and Current Affairs. These many news releases play with ratings data shamelessly, and if TVNZ has finally been driven to a bit of subtle rebuttal - good on them.

For the record, here are the numbers that appeared in the ad:

TVNZ TV 3
NZI Business 38,100 ASB Business 12,440
Breakfast 113,830 Sunrise 21,980
ONE News Midday 93,890 3 News at 12 29,600
ONE News 548,580 3 News 303,670
Close Up 456,990 Campbell Live 177,960
Tonight 164,200 Nightline 138,210

KEVIN SMITH TRIBUTE

As well as my media commentating and executive producing, I have recently taken up the position of Content Director of NZ On Screen. NZ On Screen is the NZOA-funded website that is charged with acquiring and showcasing New Zealand television and film content going right back to the beginning of the industry. The website is great - there's already a lot of good content there and it is being added to all the time. And we've just launched a new feature where you can access a collection of titles from one home page button. We can use this to celebrate the work of a significant performer or producer, or to mark an occasion like ANZAC Day.

Our first featured collection is a tribute to the late actor Kevin Smith. It went up on the site to mark his birthday on March 16 and will be there for around six weeks. The tribute features television and film work from Smith, as well as written pieces by friends and colleagues such as James Griffin, Michael Hurst and Geoff Dolan.

The collection has come together very well and shows what a versatile and appealing performer Smith was, and what a terribly sad loss his early death was. It feels like there would have been so much more to come.

If you would like to have a look at the Kevin Smith collection, or anything else on NZ On Screen, go to www.nzonscreen.com

A CORO ST FAVE BOWS OUT

The episode of Coronation St where long-time favourite character Vera Duckworth died was watched by 760,400 people when it screened here last Friday night - up from the usual average of 530,000. When the tear-jerker episode screened in Britain a year ago, almost 12.5 million people watched it. As is always the case with Coro St, when there's a big event to stage, they do it well. Bill Tarmey, who plays Vera's husband Jack, was just right in his reaction to her death. It was a very moving piece of tele. Vera was played by Liz Dawn, who is retiring due to ill-health. Her portrayal of her larger-than-life Coro alter ego will be missed.

ROBERT BRUCE R.I.P.

Long-time agent Robert Bruce's sudden passing is a very sad loss for the television and film industry. Robert was one of the true gentlemen of the business. I had a lot of dealings with him when I was running TVNZ's internal production unit, as he represented many of our top presenters as well as actors. Even though we were haggling over his clients' pay, our discussions were always friendly and enjoyable. Robert got great deals for his clients, but producers like myself didn't come way hating him or never wanting to deal with his talent again (and believe me some agents can have that affect on you!).

Robert's business style was always to be amiable and respectful. He was very good at his job. I came to be extremely fond of him, as I think did everyone in our very strange and imperfect screen industry. His death was sudden and unexpected. He was such a fit, strong, larger-than-life man. I couldn't believe it when I first heard of his passing, and I still feel a bit in shock.

Robert's funeral on Thursday was incredibly sad, but also really lovely. I've never seen so many actors and showbiz personalities in the same place at the same time. It showed the mark of the man and the big loss that is felt. Jackie Clarke and Frankie Stevens made our spines tingle with their acapella version of Amazing Grace, Tem Morrison made us laugh with his eulogy then made us cry when he led a rousing haka around Robert's coffin, bagpipes played, and SPCA dogs howled. It was a heart-felt and heart-breaking send-off.

R.I.P. Robert. You showed us all how the business side of show business should be done.

FAREWELL TO TIM PANKHURST

Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst is leaving the job after seven years. Pankhurst has an excellent track record for supporting and encouraging investigative work, including the long-running Louise Nicholas story, the Donna Awatere fraud story, and some good work on the Winston Peters and Vela Brothers saga late last year. Investigative reporting is time and resource consuming and therefore expensive, and Pankhurst is to be commended for his efforts in this area. Pankhurst is leaving to run the Newspaper Publishers' Association. I wish him well, and hope the Dom Post continues to do well in his absence.

HILARY BARRY JOINS RADIO LIVE BREAKFAST

TV 3 newsreader Hilary Barry is to join Marcus Lush's Radio Live breakfast show as news anchor from Monday February 9. This is an interesting strategy from Radio Live.

Marcus Lush is an unusually talented broadcaster, but his quirky, folksy style is an unusual choice for a breakfast show on a news and talk station. Lush doesn't come from the classic current affairs interviewer or news journalist background, and sometimes this shows (though he actually does make a good fist of a lot of his interviewing).

Radio Live is no doubt hoping that Barry's profile and newsreading cred will beef the show up a bit as the station tries to make some inroads on Newstalk ZB Breakfast. Radio Live bosses may feel that ZB Breakfast is a little vulnerable at the moment with the departure of Paul Holmes and the arrival of Mike Hosking. Hosking is such a strong current affairs host, I doubt that ZB Breakfast is all that vulnerable, but good on Radio Live for trying.

Barry will be newsreading on the Lush show, but also presenting a new current affairs and information feature called "The World at 7" - a half hour of news, interviews with the day's key newsmakers, and other information from New Zealand and around the world.

It will be very interesting to see how this new strategy goes, and how the on-air relationship between Marcus Lush and Hilary Barry develops.

REPORTING THE RECESSION

I've heard a lot of people saying lately that they are sick of the media endlessly reporting recession stories and all the negativity and doom and gloom that comes with that. Some folks go so far as to say if we journalists all just shut up about it, everyone would carry on as normal and everything would be a lot better. While there may be some truth in that, journalists can't really ignore something that is a global reality. It isn't the media's role to protect us from bad things that are happening in the world. And people do want to know what is happening and to get advice from those who are, hopefully, in the know.

But because of the "self-fulfilling prophecy" aspect of recession it is incredibly important that our media outlets act responsibly and get the balance right. Over the quiet news period of the past few holiday weeks we have definitely had rather more daily news stories about falling house prices and desperate times in retail than was perhaps really necessary. Overall, house prices haven't actually fallen by a huge amount yet, and Christmas retailing wasn't nearly as bad as so many column inches predicted.

I'm not saying things are great out there, but as Bob Jones said the other day, for people who can keep their jobs and pay their mortgages things won't really change all that much. And there are always those who actually do well out of recession. All sides of the recession story need to be reported. A balanced picture is important to us all, and our journalists must rise to this challenge.

I'm not suggesting all our newspapers suddenly start running "good news" columns - but a bit of positivity here and there would be welcomed by many readers I think. This weekend's Herald on Sunday ran a feature piece by reporter Leah Haines called "Upside to the Downturn" - looking at ways to make the recession work for you. Good on Haines and the HOS for doing that. It was refreshing. More please.

CONGRATS TO NORTH AND SOUTH AND MIKE WHITE FOR MARK LUNDY STORY

The February issue of North and South magazine features a piece on the Lundy Murders, by senior writer Mike White. It is a 12,000-word feature, and the level of in-depth research work and the clarity of writing about complex court evidence is really impressive. Congratulations to White for what must have been a mammoth effort.

The great thing about the story is that it goes straight down the middle. It is not an emotional piece playing up on the fact that a man who has lost his family may also have been wrongly convicted of murdering them. It doesn't prominently feature interviews with Lundy supporters. It just lays out and analyses a whole lot of evidence - some of which was presented to the jury and some of which was not.

The story doesn't overtly criticise Lundy's defence team, but the implication is that they were rather weak. Neither does the piece overtly criticise the Police - but once again you get the feeling that the cops picked their man and then picked and chose their evidence to fit.

We all form our own opinions on these high profile court cases that are not cut and dried - based on what we read and what we hear. I've always sensed that Lundy was guilty as charged. But the North and South story made me think again. Even if the man is guilty, it certainly doesn't seem that this was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Mark White's feature story is a long read but it's a very good read and well worth the effort. Grab a copy of North and South and have a look for yourself.

HAVE YOU HAD YOUR THREE HOURS AND EIGHT MINUTES TODAY?

Nielsen research figures released by the NZ Television Broadcasters' Council say that New Zealanders watched an average of three hours and eight minutes of television in 2008 - the highest level of TV viewership in this country since records began.

Many would have predicted that the arrival on the scene of new media, in particular the internet, would have hurt the traditional old media of television. But it seems the reverse has happened. As Television Broadcasters' Council Chief Executive Rick Friesen says - "it seems that content from these newer media outlets is helping grow interest in traditional television programming." I think another part of this same equation is that when viewers are deciding whether or not they will commit to a long-running series, the fact that they can now access missing episodes on the internet perhaps means they are more willing to make a commitment to the series.

The tightening economy may also have contributed to the rise in viewership. There is certainly a TV industry theory that television is something that does well in tough times because people are staying home with their cheap entertainment option. And with the technology we have these days - wide-screen, flat-screen, high definition, etc - perhaps the home viewing experience is getting closer to that of the cinema.

It was also a big year for television in New Zealand - we've got a lot of channels now and most of them did what they do reasonably well. Pay operator SKY TV had a particularly good year in 2008. It was also a year with a lot of special event television - the Olympics, the New Zealand General Election, the American Election, and big stunt-type local series like Dancing with the Stars and Who Wants to be a Millionaire.

Health experts and educationalists may not think NZers watching over three hours of tele a day each is a great thing, but it is certainly very good news for the television industry.