NEWS | MYCAREER | DOMAIN | DRIVE | FINANCE | MOBILE | RSVP | STAYZ
  network map | member centre  

Who We Are

Advertisement

Why the viewers hate Channel Nine

by David Dale.
Channel Nine is still Australia's most watched network, but its audience is down four per cent on 2004, and its reputation is shot to hell. If Nine has any balls, this is what it will do before the end of the year:

Try to recover a little credibility by ...
1) living up to the promises in its promos;
2) showing only new episodes of its cop shows; and
3) bringing back the series it cut off in their prime, such as Malcolm in the Middle, Smallville, Judging Amy, The West Wing, Gilmore Girls and Joan of Arcadia.

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). His latest book is Soffritto -- A delicious Ligurian memoir. To join a daily discussion of Australian attitudes, go to http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

We said the ABC's audience share had dropped 10 per cent since 2004. A more realistic way to consider the change in its public appeal is to use the average number of viewers over all programs, which is down 6 per cent on 2004. We also said that Seven should show the first episodes of the second seasons of Lost and Desperate Housewives this year, instead of waiting till February.

Seven's director of corporate affairs, Simon Francis, responded:
"We're pleased that there is an undeniable demand to see our new programmes and the first episodes of the breakout hits for 2005 - Desperate Housewives and Lost. We have brought forward episodes of Grey's Anatomy from the next season. The Australian television season has been defined by all networks and major advertisers as February-November. It's a structure similar to that undertaken in the US.
"We use summer to introduce some new programmes and trial others - as we did with The Amazing Race last year and My Wife and Kids the year before. Sports coverage and Christmas play havoc with regular programme scheduling. We understand the demand for new episodes for the big programmes. We have a competitive and complete primetime at the moment but we'd look forward to Nine and Ten bringing forward episodes of their new series as they seek to defend their diminishing audiences.
"We take it as significant that millions of Australians can't wait for new episodes of Lost and Desperate Housewives and that no one's losing any sleep over the fact that there are no new season episodes of CSI or Law and Order on Nine and Ten. Seven is looking forward to the new seasons for Lost and Desperate Housewives and the new series: Commander In Chief, Criminal Minds, Bones and My Name Is Earl in 2006."

David Dale responds: Whether its audience decline is 10 per cent or 6 per cent, the ABC has not addressed the central question of why its only efforts in drama this year have been MDA and Hell Has Harbour Views, both of which drew minimal audiences. As for Seven, holding onto all its good stuff until February just perpetuates the general dullness of television and risks driving viewers to seek their entertainments elsewhere -- DVDs, games, iPods, conversation. This will hasten the doom of broadcast TV.

Channel Ten has taken issue with this column's theory that Idol won't be back next year. Ten says: "Idol is still delivering results the other networks would kill for. In a nutshell:
*Australian Idol - both Sunday and Monday nights - continues to overwhelmingly win its timeslot with under-40s, with shares well in excess of 40%
*While we're not about total people, the TP 000s for Sunday nights have continued to build, now at 1.5m
*Monday nights have been building too; the very slight dip this week is most likely due to the Millionaire million going off
*Monday's Live Verdict is still winning its slot in 25-54 as well as 16-39
*Every Live Performance show has been the night's #1 show in 16-39, with the exception of 21 August and NRL Grand Final night (when Idol was still the #1 show that night in Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth.)
*Idol is still solidly in the top ten shows for the week (all major demos).
*In 16-39, Idol is consistently outrating Dancing with the Stars by up to 40%
We may be off the extraordinary numbers we did last year, but Idol is still achieving huge demo wins that other networks would love. The bottom line: there is no other format anywhere in the world at present that continues to deliver the audience profile that Idol does."

Added on October 31: Channel Nine announced today that its Director of Drama, Posie Graeme-Evans, has resigned "to spend more time with her family". The press release says the former boss of ABC television, Sandra Levy, will assume responsibility for Nine's drama output. Levy's legacy in drama for the ABC was discussed in llast week's column, but at Nine she may well have a bigger budget to work with.

What do you think? And how do you rate the performance of the channels?

David Dale is the author of Who We Are -- A snapshot of Australia today (Allen and Unwin). His latest book is Soffritto -- A delicious Ligurian memoir. To join a daily discussion of Australian attitudes, go to http://blogs.sunherald.com.au/whoweare.

COMMENTS

I grew up watching Chanel Nine News due to its perceived credibility.

However, after living in various cultures for the last 8 years, I CAN NOT STAND watching this network's news channel as it is complelety skewed and basically a subsidary of NBC...or a CNN wannabe.

IF I want to get a global,unbiased, unsensationalised, balanced view of global affairs, I watch ABC or SBS!!!

What scares me is that CH.9 has manipulated the average Australian into their slogan that they are the most 'trusted news network' or something to that effect, so people believe what ever dribble is dished out to them.

A very sad state of affairs, indeed!!!

  • by Fionna Ward on October 18, 2005 at 02:27 AM

I've lived the first six months of this calendar year in Australia and these last six in New York. Back in Sydney I only had the 4 free to air channels, here I have 230 cable channels to choose from. It was during the first six months of the year that I had the greatest choice, and the most interesting television. American cable gives me 230 versions of superficial, inane, news, infotainment, sitcoms, and reruns of programs you'd never want to waste your time with. As bad as things may be back home, I really miss the our networks>

  • by David Kadrian on October 18, 2005 at 04:17 AM

I am an avid ABC watcher, but I also watch the occasional show on commercial TV. My main reason for watching ABC is my hatred for the commercial breaks so when I am watching 7,9 or 10 I am a remote flicker during the commercials. Also I don't use a TV guide so I flick round the stations at the end of each show. Almost EVERY time I flick to 9 there is an ad on. It is uncanny. As a result I seldom watch 9. My favourite shows are The Bill and House.

  • by rudyzarsov on October 18, 2005 at 04:46 AM

when will ch.9 realise that the reason that they are losing viewers is the political bias that is shown in favour of the government -- in particular on the "today " show.
john howard spends more camera time on the show than the presenters

  • by stan green on October 18, 2005 at 06:42 AM

I'm annoyed by the networks' treatment of shows like scrubs and arrested development. once you get a timeslot for a show, stick to it! it's stuff like this that makes me stick to the ABC and SBS.

  • by tigs on October 18, 2005 at 06:45 AM

I've got cancer and I'll be 6 feet under before channel 9 brings the show back. My TV has been switched off for a long time except for Friday nights on ABC. Nothing but drivel on from Monday-Thursday now. I'm not a baby boomer so there's nothing on.

  • by joh on October 18, 2005 at 07:03 AM

Fionna Ward (and Stan Green) hit the nail on the head; Channel 9 has perfected the creation of a credibility veneer. Scratch the veneer and you can clearly see the agenda. Evidence of this is the cult of personality they set up around their presenterss (Brian, Ray etc). They turn my stomach.

  • by Noel B on October 18, 2005 at 07:09 AM

I've given up on free-to-air TV long ago (except for At the Movies and Glass House). If there's a series worth watching, it's worth getting on DVD, to avoid it being screwed about with -- plus the ads, censorship, etc, etc. And you're also right about pay TV. We were looking at it earlier this year, and it is too expensive for too much unneccessary crap.

  • by David Carroll on October 18, 2005 at 07:20 AM

Why viewers hate channel nine? Because the answer to "What's on?" is always "CSI".
What did they do with "The West Wing"?

  • by Woody on October 18, 2005 at 07:25 AM

Channel 9 has treated its viewers with contempt for years; the dreaded Eddie McGuire and Miwwionaire has delayed broadcasting by up to 40 minutes at a time of both The Sopranos and Six Feet Under, and The West Wing simply got dropped mid season. I now wait for their release on dvd, and have watched them all commercial-free, when I want. Advertisers beware!

  • by Maggie Cooper on October 18, 2005 at 07:25 AM

David, you also missed one significant bugbear for not wanting to watch free-to-air commercial networks. That issue is the constantly late running shows. Almost no evening show finishes at their allotted time. This insidious ploy to retain viewers for the next 15 minute slot and the following show is reason enough to watch the ABC and SBS.
It's indicative of the contempt that channels 7, 9 and 10 have for their audience.

  • by Dave Clarke on October 18, 2005 at 07:30 AM

All of the commercial channels show contempt for viewers in the way that they chop and change on a whim. I understand their commercial imperatives and profit making motives but its easy to see that they don't care a fig about what viewers want/think. I've got to say though that the ABC and SBS could and should lift their games also. Whilst still much better there is increasingly a lot of content fill therein also that masquerades (or doesn't even try) for quality.

Bring on the internet revolution that will enable us to seek out great TV content from all over the world. That way we can bypass Pay TV as well! From what I can deduce from the net, it won't be far off.......

  • by mark on October 18, 2005 at 07:44 AM

If I want a global, unbiased, unsensationalised, balanced view of global affairs, I watch Fox News. If I want left wing, anti - American, socialist propaganda, I watch either the ABC or SBS.

  • by sam on October 18, 2005 at 07:46 AM

We've just bucked the trend towards pay TV after being a subscriber from day one and recently cancelled our Austar subscription. What a giant load of repetitive tripe; ther's only so much wreck diving, whale watching and battle reenactment anyone can bear, the lie of "All New Digital" satelite pay TV was the last straw. Satelite transmission was always digital! and most source material is still SD/4:3 anyway. We don't own a digital reciever and won't be buying one till a HD box is under $100. If it wasn't for SBS I wouldn't even bother with that. Bah humbug!

  • by M Chirgwin on October 18, 2005 at 08:08 AM

Who has the kahonies to get a decent show like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, one of the most watched, Emmy Award winning shows in the US? That would fill a few voids. And Arrested Development - Channel 7 execs weren't smart enough to understand it so they buried it near midnight. All the stations need to stop dumbing down their programs. Stop underestimating the audience. Have some respect for the viewers and they will return in droves.

  • by Troy Graham on October 18, 2005 at 08:09 AM

What 9 has done to West Wing and its fans is embarrassing, for them. Right from the get go, 9 moved the program's timeslot around willy nilly, ostensibly trying to find the right time for it. No small wonder it didn't find the mega audience 9 says it requires. Er, by the way, it's an intellgient program in an age when "all about me and my mortgage" is the wider audience's motivation. Many insults later, cutting off season 5 half way through at the beginning of '05 was the final straw. They should have to forfeit the rights.

  • by Josh & Donna on October 18, 2005 at 08:09 AM

Is this guy kidding? "If I want a global, unbiased, unsensationalised, balanced view of global affairs, I watch Fox News. If I want left wing, anti - American, socialist propaganda, I watch either the ABC or SBS. " Fox news is the most biased and right wing of all news networks. If the ABC and SBS seem biased it's because they're telling the truth, and the truth ain't pretty.

  • by Paul on October 18, 2005 at 08:29 AM

'If I want a global, unbiased, unsensationalised, balanced view of global affairs, I watch Fox News.' - that's very funny sam, are you a murdoch?

  • by jj smith on October 18, 2005 at 08:34 AM

There is not much worth watching on Ch.9 now. Drivel like A Current Affair (which copies Today Tonight story for story), Sunday which shows the same segments as 60 Minutes with nothing but a rework and a different presenter. Or the utter contempt they have for Star Trek fans with their abysmal programming schedules. Ch.9 hit the trash heap after Brian Henderson left.

  • by John Smith on October 18, 2005 at 08:43 AM

I am so sick of networks showing half a new series then sticking in repeats like nine has done with CSI and Cold Case. As for seven , Arrested Development is the best comedy in years and what does it do? Stick it on at some unGodly hour when no one is up. No wonder people are out buying TV series on DVD. I am. At least you can then watch it when you want without the annoying ads.

As for Ten, let's hope it does away with garbage like BB and Aust Princess. I mean how dumb do they think we are? As for pay tv it is just too damn expensive for more rubbish. If I could choose what channels I wanted and pay accordingly then maybe. In the meantime I shall stick to DVD's and old fashioned books. Anyone remember reading?

  • by emily o connor on October 18, 2005 at 08:46 AM

Things I hate about Channel 9 - too many Harvey Norman/Domayne ads, their programs seem to be louder than other channels (I channel surf like there is no tomorrow), they took away West Wing & The Sopranos, their shows are always running over time (I take this to mean contempt for me & my viewing habits, so I will usually watch ANYthing else - even the soccer on SBS), McLeod's Daughters, The Footy Show, Sydney-centric news programming, Ray Martin (although that Naomi thing on 7 is giving him a right good run for his money), they took the footy away from 7 of which I've never forgiven them.

Things I like about Channel 9 - The Super Nanny, Sunday (don't ever leave me!). I am religious about a few of my viewing habits, & watch many stations simultaneously, as the remote belongs to ME. I love Spicks & Specks, Survivor, The New Inventors, Beyond Tomorrow, Catalyst, CSI, SVU, The Insiders, Big Brother, The Simpsons, Compass, any type of televised poker game, Frasier and Degrassi The Next Generation. All the rest merely means I have something to watch INSTEAD of Channel 9.

I agree with the comments about Pay Per Station TV. Right now I wouldn't shell out $50 for what they're offering, but I'd certainly hand it over if I could select the channels. Until that happens, its $50 they won't be getting from me.

  • by Cathy on October 18, 2005 at 08:48 AM

The commercial free-to-air stations have been treating viewers with contempt for decades. Channel 9 lost me when they failed to show the Cricket World Cup final in 1986 and I was forced to listen to it on the radio. And when they lied about showing rugby league grand finals without ads (in the early 90's or maybe late 80's). And the continued contempt of channels in running shows overtime almost beggars belief. Things started going downhill in this respect when the tv industry was allowed to self-regulate the number if minutes of advertising per hour. 'Hey - why don't we just run our most popular shows overtime and pump them full of more advertising?'

And don't get me started about the debacle that is digital television. One only has to look at the pathetic EPG's provided on digital tv - turn on to the Channel 10 EPG and it tells you that 'Sunday night is Law and Order Criminal Intent' - however the night I bothered to look at the EPG, Law and Order Criminal Intent was not on. The EPG of course, continued to state otherwise. At other times the EPG is scrolling through the times for programs that were on hours before, having somehow failed to update for the evening's programs. But do the commercial free-to-air stations care? Of course not. The fewer people who take up digital tv, the longer the stations will be able to monopolise the spectrum and prevent competitors from entering their marketplace. Not that John Howard and Richard Alston (then Communications Minister) could see past their high definition tv's to see this of course. Datacasting??? Don't make me laugh. High definition??? My laptop screen has much greater resolution.

  • by David Mitchell on October 18, 2005 at 08:49 AM

I agree with all the comments about how the commercial stations are contemptuous of their viewers - and they can barely hide it. Channel 9 knew it was on a winner some seasons ago when Sex & The City became very popular so they immediately demonstrated their disdain for viewers by mucking around with episodes to the extent that you really never knew when it was on. Then Ten advertised earlier this year SATC all episodes start to finish - hurrah! They showed 2 episodes then shelved it. I rang to find out why and was told they had some new US cop show episodes - what, they didn't know beforehand?? Also, in attempting to contact Channel 10, I was astounded to discover they don't have an email address - you have to post, fax or ring - and they aim for a target audience of 18-39 - WHAT A JOKE! I won't watch SATC when and if they ever show it even though it's on free-to-air but will shortly boost HBO's coffers by buying the whole show on DVD. And basically I find I am naturally boycotting all the commercial stations due to all the other stuff the other posts have mentioned. There's some contempt right back atcha, 7, 9 and 10.

  • by Sarah on October 18, 2005 at 08:51 AM

Which free-to-air channel in Australia is the only one to have won the prestigious award for excellence? Here's a hint: it's not 10, 9, 7 or even the ABC. It's SBS. (see : Banff Global Outstanding Achievement Award 2000)

  • by eldamahj on October 18, 2005 at 08:53 AM

Channel nine would not continue to suffer if they didn't treat their fans with contempt. Good shows like Third Watch and The West Wing do not rate for them becasue they aren't given a chance to.
The network would fare better if they stopped saving all their good programs for Summer, when the ratings don't count.
Now there's a good time for repeats!

  • by Emmett O'Reilly on October 18, 2005 at 09:09 AM

Don't be fooled JJ SMith and Paul -- Sam is trolling!

  • by David Higgins on October 18, 2005 at 09:14 AM

I finally wrote a letter to Ch. 10 in the forlorn hope that they may lift their game. Glad to see others feel as I do. West Wing? Sob... I love my mute button.

  • by Claire Murphy on October 18, 2005 at 09:15 AM

Earlier this year I purchased a PVR (Topfield). This has revolutionised my viewing. Although I still have to suffer through the repeats stacked in the middle of new episodes of favourites like SVU & CSI (Las Vegas only), and had to buy the DVDs of West Wing to see how that turned out, I am no longer held to viewing schedules, overrun programs or loud commercials. I now watch almost everything in delayed mode, so I can skip through ads and watch programs in my own time. It's the utopia that normal videos promised but couldn't quite deliver.

As for Channel 7's nonsense about holding over shows for our traditional Feb - Nov year, that would make sense if that didn't mean that everyone already either downloaded and watched the shows, or heard what happens becauses it's all over the media (Friends anyone?) I will give Channel 9 one good point - with Survivor, they make the effort to show this in line with the US, so there is no (or very little) risk of spoilers - not like 7 with the Amazing Race.

  • by LR on October 18, 2005 at 09:21 AM

What do u mean simpsons only once a week...thats one of the best shows on channel 10!!! Its so easy to watch!

  • by Hols on October 18, 2005 at 09:23 AM

I have despised Channel 9 and their contempt for viewers for years. The latest "incident" was last week's Survivor. For the first few weeks of the latest series they have showed "encore" screenings on the Saturday or Sunday afterwards. Last week's encore was set down for late Sunday night (due to the cricket). As we were going out on Friday night we thought 'ok we'll watch Sunday'. Get to Sunday "encore" has been replaced by some movie. On ringing channel was told that "the channel has the right to change programmes", ok but WHY? Obviously in my mind to stop people watching the encores and create the one audience. However, why not tell people, why advertise one thing and do the other... contempt and arrogance.

  • by Michael on October 18, 2005 at 09:25 AM

There is nothing i can watch on ch9 except for 60 minutes, max 2 out of 3 stories, cutting the celebrity crap ones. ch9 digital won't come in kogarah, so i have to watch in crappy analog quality as well. BTW my telli is not the expensive digital ones, just a tuner card in the pc watched on crystal clear monitor! Docos on ABC & SBS are the best use of one's time. For the funny break I watch Simpsons & House!

  • by ch9iscrap on October 18, 2005 at 09:26 AM

I DESPISE Channel SEVEN after Desperate Housewives. They put "summary" episodes in from time to time posing as proper episodes and on the last episode of DH they made viewers watch Grey's Anatomy to get the last scene. I think this is gross manipulation of viewers - I didn't watch Grey's then and I have boycotted it since - SEVEN should not try to manipulate and abuse its own viewers. Elaine from Port Macquarie NSW

  • by Elaine on October 18, 2005 at 09:42 AM

Channel 7 and 10 do not adhere to their advertised times for programmes, that is my biggest bugbear. The 10 - 15 minute runover has had its day, we can all see through what they are trying to achieve. What I'd love to see is someone with a bit of money, take out a full page advert in the "other newspaper", with a blow by blow account of the first 5 episodes of Season 2 of Lost. The reaction from both the public and Channel 7 would be very interesting.

  • by Adam on October 18, 2005 at 09:42 AM

Two Words Steven Jacobs.Get rid of him and instantly you'll have 375,000 more viewers.
No seriously, channel nine have dragged their heels, they are stuck in the 90s with their programming and their celebrities, Steven Jacobs (YAWN!), Richard Wilkins, in fact every single person involved with the lumbering sleepy dinosuar that is the today show, Kerri Ann, Ray Martin, I can't go on ...........

  • by Wasim on October 18, 2005 at 09:44 AM

ABC would do better if they "packaged" programming like they do on Wednesday night. While Spicks 'n' Specks is an example innovation in variety shows the honour must go to SBS with Under the GrandStand and In Siberia Tonight. No wonder Idol and Millionaire are losing audience. You can only stretch 30min shows out to 60minutes plus for so long before it drives us all crazy.

  • by William Hawkins on October 18, 2005 at 09:46 AM

I have been a fox subscriber for 3 years now and only view free to air television once in a blue moon. I have had the service on two separate occasions that were about five years apart and must say it is 100% better than what free to air has to offer. The reason, greater variety and freedom of choice. Free to air TV is dominated by mindless soapy's, reality shows or continous renovation programs with limited variety at specfic timeslots ie all channels having similiar shows at the same time. Not everyone wants to watch such shows.
I do agree with the comments made earlier about you should only really pay for what you want because about half the channels on fox I never look at. This will change in time as Fox pursues the means to convert free to air viewers. This will also create the situation of those that pay getting a benefit over those that don't. This is already starting to happen with shows like 'TOP MODEL' and some of the other reality shows including sports that aren't shown on free TV. How some of the programs on fox where overlooked by free to air is negligence. Free to air cannot really compete compared to what is happening with FOX and once more people start to experience it free tv will be obsolete. Free to air has to pick up its game and this may seem a bit harsh but reduce some of the Australian programming. It is really amature at times and is a copy of what has already occurred in America or the UK. If your going to have Australian programing it has to have something that makes it unique. If you watch fox and flip over to free to air once a month you can see that this is the case. Pay TV is much better polished than free TV.

  • by Jeff Brannan on October 18, 2005 at 09:51 AM

I swear, by all that is holy, if Nine screws up showing the next season of ER someone will pay dearly! Also, what's with the new lady on Nightline? Bring back Hugh Rimington.

  • by Mark on October 18, 2005 at 09:52 AM

OK I've read the above and I concur with most comments. I moved here from Ireland 8 years ago and TV is the one thing I miss. Recent developments have seen Apple sign a deal with ABC to sell Desperate and Lost over ITunes. Australia need not apply. However, the writing is on the wall. TV is changing. My favorite shows are Weeds, Rome, Prison Break, Invasion, Bodies and who can live without The Daily Show.
US Sixty mins isn't bad either. I haven't watched an ad in 6 months. Can't remember what they look like. However, I'm under no illusions it's wrong to download TV shows or grab DVDs with the latest eps of Lost etc from work colleagues. If I could DL show and pay for them or god forbid have the choice of pay TV with real content I'd be first in-line. Torrent is great but I want the choice to pay for my entertainment. Commercial TV can still work as you could to DL shows with ads that are cheaper than without. The new age is coming folks and it's our job to force change...

  • by David on October 18, 2005 at 10:20 AM

Why we hate 9 - simple - arrogance and viewer contempt plus Eddie McGuire. Take last night, how can it take 45 mins to ask three questions. No wonder, no-one had won a million Eddie, you drive them crazy. It was that bad, we muted the sound, did the washing up, made lunches and a cuppa, and the Coach still hadnt won.
Take Friday night footy - due to start at 8.30, yet we have to contend with 15 mins of pure drivel before kick-off. Then the cricket - 6.00, one or two overs to go - straight to the news.
Just love that - not. My other gripe with 9, is the chopping and changing of episodes. Start a series and just finish it for once, without repeats every two weeks. I gave up on Without a Trace for that reason. Could go on and on - with 9 NOT !!!

  • by Garry S on October 18, 2005 at 10:33 AM

A firm leadership and a solid programming schedule will build a base of loyal viewers. Now just to get the program selection right and you are laughing. Keep in mind that strong sympatheic characterizations are what make programs like House so successful. Limit the crime/medical programs, we are sick to death of it. Limit the reality programs unless it completely new and not pathetically tasteless. Health is good, but few American programs have any unique flavor. Look for the unusual. Why dont you do audience testing like they do for movies? Dont go on just the over hyped pilot, get the first couple of episodes and screen them to a private audience and their reactions will certainly tell you what you need to know. By the time you guys discuss a series its into the next season so their is no problem getting a couple of episodes up front for testing.

Firefly is good. But then I am a marginal sci-fi viewer.... hehe.

  • by Kevin Davies on October 18, 2005 at 10:57 AM

Channel 9 are expert at pissing off loyal viewers. Dare I mention Six Feet Under - the best series to ever come out of the US - and it even has "our Rachel". Even at 10.30 (or later if Eddie decised to overrun) we stuck with it and now NOTHING! And the home grown stuff that could be good is just awful The Celebrity Weight Loss thing just became boring as one long ad for a health resort or whatever else they want to sell us.

  • by Jonathan Nolan on October 18, 2005 at 11:02 AM

After Channel 10 didn't bother to get the new season of Battlestar Galactica I turned to BitTorrent.
I've now watched the first 12 episodes of season 2. They were all posted to the web with commercials removed within a few hours of playing in the US.
If Apple ever launch the iTunes Music Store in Australia I'll happily pay for episodes. Beats pay tv, and definitely beats the commercial networks.

  • by Tim on October 18, 2005 at 11:16 AM

Yes indeed people hate Channel 9. They treat us sportsfans with complete contempt. If ever there's a choice between keeping fans reasonably happy, and irritating fans to gain an extra 0.001 of a ratings point, it's the latter every time.
Rugby League games they never show live, always delayed so the can queue up the ads. They edit out parts as well. AFL outside AFL states, play games at 1.30AM after Star Trek re-runs, one day cricket, refuse to delay the 6 O'Clock News for 30 seconds to catch the end of an innings. Choose not to show the golf, cricket or whatever it happens to hold the rights to for tenuous reasons. I could go on all day, Channel must really hate us sportsfans, and they have done so for years.

  • by Sportsfan on October 18, 2005 at 11:23 AM

Reasons I hate Ch9: 1. Eddie Maguire. 2. 60 Minutes - absolute crap, especially Richard Carelton, another lowlife like Maguire and ACA reporters. 3. Chopping off the cricket to go to the news. I don't watch their news anyway (what's the point?).

Why I hate Ch10: 1. For selling us Battlestar without telling us that the final episodes didn't exist! 2. Rove McManus

In general, I am sick of the US crap (and the UK crap, for that matter) that gets endlessly recycled on commercial TV - Las Vegas, so-called reality TV progs like Survivor, Brainiac etc etc. Whatever happened to good documentaries ( not dubious recreations)?

I can't afford as yet to pay for PAYTV, but why would I want to pay to watch ads???. Nor do I want to pay for channels I don't want to watch - I want movies, documentaries, cricket thanks very much.

  • by David Ashton on October 18, 2005 at 11:33 AM

Channel nine stinks because it cuts off shows just as you are getting into them - Gilmore Girls is one such example. At least channel 7 has the decency to put shows on during the middle of the night (Boston Public) so that fans can watch it - nine has not even tried that. At least put it on in the summer. ABC on wed nights with Spicks and Specks, (Black Books), and Glasshouse is the best 1/1/2 hr on tv!

  • by Scarlett on October 18, 2005 at 11:36 AM

We all know who the biggest loser is (no pun intended) CHANNEL 10. Lets face it...they suck. Channel 7: Desperate Housewives, Lost, Grey's Anatomy (which did do well ratings wise)
Channel 9: CSI and all those nanny and weight shows that people seem to like
Channel 10: Australian idol; which is a joke, none of those poor kids go anywhere and it's just about how insulting or badly dressed the judges can be. Having nothing to do with music and everything to do with T.V.

  • by Holly on October 18, 2005 at 11:37 AM

My husband & I have been wanting the PayTV subscriptions to be reduced for a few years now - ever since Channel 7 lost the Super 12 Series & even stopped showing the highlights. We would be first to sign up if they produced a basic package for around $20-$25 which includes sports & world news.

As far as Ch 9 goes, I agree with most of the commentators - how could they stop West Wing & Six Feet Under, why is the Sopranos on so late, why do they insist on showing 'home-grown' humour/sketch shows - I don't think i've ever watched anything as embarrassing.

I hope that they never get to show test match cricket again as SBS did such a bang-up job during the Ashes series. It was great not to have to hear Ritchie telling us to watch CSI.

Channel 10 - you suck. Why did you insist on having those 2 idiots commentate on the final F1 GP in China on Sunday when they were seeing exactly the same pictures as we were on their tv's. You had the coverage from ITV so why didn't you stick with their well informed commentators who were actually there as opposed to being at Phillip Island?

Finally, one minor gripe for SBS. Please bring back Oz. Did you have to take it off for Queer as Folk? COuld you not have run both programs at the 10pm slot on different days?

I certainly hope the networks are reading these comments as I have agreed with pretty much everthing everyone has said and think it is about time that something is done.

  • by Allison on October 18, 2005 at 11:40 AM

Sam you can't be serious Fox news unbiased!!!!!!!!!! Any comment that doesn't go with what GWB has to say is not aired. Fox is propaganda at its worst.
As for the free to air channels, contempt is a nice way of putting how they treat us. As for Pay TV I thought the idea was to have no ad breaks! Get onto the internet, you can get what you want without having to put up with someone elses idea of how when and where it is delivered I think we will see the end of free to air tv in the next 20 years

  • by snakes alive on October 18, 2005 at 11:53 AM

I actually watch more of the ABC since it became available through pay TV. We get a better reception via satellite. There is a possibility that this is not being counted in the stats for ABC viewing. We do not watch any commercial stations any more unless extremely desperate. The advertisements have driven us away. Thank goodness for Pay TV!!

  • by Lorraine Olsson on October 18, 2005 at 11:58 AM

I recently watched pay tv (FOX) at a friends house, and i was disgusted at actually how many ads they now have on their channels, i wouldnt go near cable atm because of high $$ and ads! but a $20 a month subscription would be tempting indeed!!

  • by Williboi on October 18, 2005 at 12:06 PM

I am so tired of all the crime shows on the commercial channels i.e. CSI New York , CSI Miami, CSI Whatever, Cold Case & Murder Call etc. They all blur into one, even the characters are the same!
Between them and the medical dramas, all we have is a lot of serious self righteous Americans invading our lounge rooms, and this happens every night during the news anyway.

If you then factor in the "reality shows" phenomenon, I'm not surprised people are moving away from the commercial channels. I mean, how may obnoxious no-ones do I really need to be exposed to? And I'm only just referring to the hosts. The average "reality show" contestants make the trailer park trash that Ricki Lake used to interview look like Nobel Peace prize winners!

Commercial channels have an obligation to their advertisers to attract audiences. The only way to attract audiences is with entertaining programming.

The ABC has it all over the commercial channels and even they need to beef up their local content.

  • by Stu Reeve on October 18, 2005 at 12:09 PM

Channel 7 has earned my scorn by not renewing Last Man Standing. If the other stations pick it up they will gain quite a few viewers.
Channel 7 killed it by constantly moving the time slot or mysteriously forgetting to put it on (the night we got 2 epidodes of all saints instead springs to mind).
Channel 10 this ones for you. It's like the Secret Life of Us but for blokes. Please don't let good Aussie TV die.

  • by David Vernon on October 18, 2005 at 12:16 PM

The revolution is coming people... Once broadband (REAL broadband) plugs into the lounge room telly we'll be able to easily watch programs from all over the world.
We won't need 7 or 9 (they'll be fighting over Under 10s soccer just to have something to fill the screen), and we can watch complete series of our favourite shows as they screen in their home country - in correct order with no repeats.
We'll have access to just about every movie ever made, every series, every concert, and every major (and minor) sporting event - LIVE.

It's no wonder Kerry's slashing the staff at Nine in order to sell it to some poor sucker (Quick - get me Telstra on the phone??). Commercial networks have been chipping away at their credibility for over a decade to the point where there is no return - all the dumb decisions made by short-sighted executives, like making shows run late, shifting time-slots, cancelling series mid season, repeating episodes in the middle of a story arc, copying rivals, etc has resulted in a jaded audience who are looking elsewhere to fill their needs.
Those short-terms gains have resulted in a long-term loss. The day I turn off Australian commercial television for good will be a very happy day indeed - justice for the way I've been treated by their deceitful programming departments. Now if you excuse me, I have to finish watching series 6 of "The West Wing" on DVD... Viva La Revolution!

  • by Adam P on October 18, 2005 at 12:33 PM

Bugger Free2Air, they've bored us to death with frickin' repeats. We use BitTorrent all the time, get fresh tv hot off the US/UK, without commercials. Brilliant! So whilst you lot are bored stupid by the Simpsons and endless pointless encores and too many CSUs and so on, we've got My Name Is Earl, Rome, Robot Chicken, MXC, Little Britain and many more!

  • by jodes on October 18, 2005 at 12:45 PM

I agree with what most of the posts say. But....does any other person care that ch.10 stops and starts Charmed every other week!!! I have so had enough of free to air TV.

  • by Cheree on October 18, 2005 at 12:46 PM

Where is the final season of Six Feet Under, Nine? The series was not axed, rather that the creator has decided that this season was to be the last as the series has run its course. Another late slot to be shunted around whenever Who Wants to Endure Torture by listening to Eddie McGuire runs over time?

  • by Six Feet Now! on October 18, 2005 at 12:52 PM

Cannot believe some of the comments here. Who gives a toss what is or what is not on the idiot box? How can peoples' lives possibly revolve around the television? So you miss a show or they play a repeat - big deal! Try switching the telly off for a while rather than being addicted to it - read a book, do something else for a change.

  • by Kate on October 18, 2005 at 12:54 PM

pfft. as if this guy knows anything "outcry from kids" for removing simpsons... try any kid from the ages of 8-30.

  • by newio on October 18, 2005 at 12:55 PM

Love the SBS news, unfortunately dont get to see any dog riding a surf board or the latest diet fad as a news story.. Shame on you SBS for not going down the light entertainment road like 10,7,9 as news ...

  • by adrian on October 18, 2005 at 12:57 PM

The networks treat the audiences with contempt. I'm used to being half a season behind the US so I'm over that. But what I hate (and ch 9 is particularly prone to this) is pulling shows MIDWAY through the season. I remember they stopped Smallville halfway thru a season and called that episode the SEASON FINALE. Do they think we're stupid? Seriously, show the whole season first if you want to yank it off.

And their treatment of other shows like The West Wing, no wonder the audience ratings were low...you never knew when it was on! Moving shows from one day to another and putting them at different times (and listed incorrectly in the TV Guides) does not build viewer loyalty.

And I agree with the Millionare comment. If the guy says (A), we do not need another 10 minutes of "are you sure?"

And yes, I'm guilty of downloading TV shows which stations can't be bothered to show anymore. Ad free!

  • by parker on October 18, 2005 at 01:02 PM

Last night I enjoyed season six of The West Wing, the first episode of the second season of the brilliant series The Wire and the wonderful UK series Have I got News for you.

How? Thank God for Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and a chipped DVD player.

I have simply given up on Australian commercial TV and the total and complete contempt with which they treat their viewers. Nine is, of course the worst, but the others are little better.

Meanwhile Amazon has another trick up its sleeve: Give them the details of a series you want on DVD and they'll (a) campaign for it and (b) let you know when they have succeeded, as they just have with Hill Street Blues.

It beggers belief that on one hand the TV companies cry over their declining audiences and then treat those audiences as mindless sheep who should be grateful for what ever is shoved their way. How can they not see a link?

  • by Ted on October 18, 2005 at 01:14 PM

Not only do the commercial networks repeat shows unexpectedly, cut programs halfway through the season and air popular favourites really late at night etc but they can't even air the programs on time!!

  • by Kay Russell on October 18, 2005 at 01:23 PM

Of all the networks, C9 is by far the worst offender.
If they took into account what viewers want instead of treating us with utter disdain then they wouldn't be down on their figures.
As a station, they actually have some really good shows. However, they spoil whatever success they have by lousy re-scheduling.

Sex And The City was put on hold half way through the last series without further notice, instead, using repeats to drag it out.
As for CSI, that used to be a favourite until they moved it to Sunday night. I don't watch it anymore as we usually watch a movie then.

And then Survivor. That was great on Tuesday nights, but now we often miss an episode as it is on Friday night, a night when most people go out to celebrate the start of the weekend - WHAT ARE THEY THINKING??? This isn't just me either - this is a view held by most of my friends and colleagues - wake up C9 before you lose any more viewers.

  • by Sara Hall on October 18, 2005 at 01:36 PM

"If I want a global, unbiased, unsensationalised, balanced view of global affairs, I watch Fox News." -- hahahahahaha hahaha hahhahaha hahahah! haha! Oh mercy. That is the funniest thing I have EVER read, bar none.

  • by Gavin on October 18, 2005 at 01:40 PM

Channel 9 goes unnoticed in our household. Channel 7 and Channel 10 are the most watched networks, in our house.

Channel 7 - Home and Away EVERY NIGHT we can't miss that

Channel 10 - News, then simpsons, then neighbours and then we switch to Channel 7, to watch Home and Away.

Wednesdays we fight over the television, half want to watch "Blue heelers" (CH 7) and the other half want to watch "House" (CH 10 8:30PM). Of course when the second television isn't free by our folks, everyone gets to watch what they want. BUT when there is only one television not occupied, I WIN and HOUSE it is.

One of the best shows i've come across, keeps you laughing, interested and hanging for more when the show is over...

We've got PAY TV as well and that's watched the most on the weekend.

As for ABC and SBS, if you're looking for unbiased information and quite frankly "the closest thing to the truth", these two have got to be watched. Some good shows, foreign correspondant and Insight, Glass house, and all those good discussion nights they hold; between people of different religons and cultures. Also the documentaries on current affairs and politics are interesting.

And that's about it...I think the only shows i might watch on Channel 9 are "You are what you eat" and "Body makeover". Oh hang on, do they even come on Channel 9?

  • by Zeinab on October 18, 2005 at 01:40 PM

Why hate channel 9 ? Well putting it simply, there aren't any shows that resemble anything that's creative in television. The only shows they wish to feed the silly sods who view the channel are those backed by the agenda hidden, heavily marketing budgeted corporations that wouldn't even dream of backing a locally produced innovative show that displayed imagination and creativity borne from good old aussie guts and "have a go you mug" character. What has Australian television turned into?

  • by Toby Taylor on October 18, 2005 at 01:44 PM

I am a 25-year old university-educated professional with a high disposable income living in Sydney's eastern suburbs. Sounds like advertisers' dream and the main target audience for the commercial channels, right?

Obviously not as the programming is so unpalatable that I watch no commercial TV at all. It is SBS and ABC all the way. And I am certainly not the only one turning away from commercial TV

SBS is the best. It constantly has great programs that are actually entertaining and deal with issues that other channels are too afraid/have no wish to explore.
Where else can you watch show about gays and their issues (Queer as Folk) or politically-incorrect comedies (Pizza) or documentaries about sex-workers or stories of Holocaust/genocide survivors?

Ch9, 7 and 10 have a very sanitised view of the world, very simple and uncomplicated. Its like they prefer their audience to be brain dead
It is channels like SBS and ABC that make one think and open one up to the rest of the world and real issues facing the world.

  • by Elena on October 18, 2005 at 01:51 PM

Channel 7 Start being seerious about your programming. Gray's Anatomy over a proven winner in 24 Season 4. All Channels - Too Many Reality Prgrams are boring. Too many cop shows are boring.

  • by Kim on October 18, 2005 at 01:52 PM

Channel Nine have taken many shows of for now reason.

Still waiting for:

Gilmore Girls, Joan of Arcadia and Smallville to return. All of these shows were taken off during or halfway through their respective seasons.

All the fans are getting fed up.

  • by Bella on October 18, 2005 at 01:55 PM

Let me get this straight - seven has responded to the interest in "Lost" and "Desperate Housewives" by bringing forward episodes of a different show altogether. What the....?

The traditional ratings season being February-November also has nothing to do with it. With the average season of a quality US drama being 22 episodes, it's quite common for the season to be split in two segments of 11 episodes and have a couple of months off. They could run DH and lost for a couple of months now and still take them off over xmas.

  • by Timmy A on October 18, 2005 at 02:14 PM

If SBS had any balls, they'd stop recycling the same half dozen episodes of "Inspector Rex", and start showing all those other episodes they keep telling us they're going to show us. If I have to watch Moser and Stocki doing their lame ham roll routines once more, I may just erupt in homicidal fury.

  • by Scotty on October 18, 2005 at 02:25 PM

We don't watch all day, so pay TV repeats I can live with, but is anyone else sick of the frequent "commercial break" interruptions, especially Discovery, Discovery Science, NatGeo, Comedy and History channels? We switched to Foxtel to get away from the loud, dumb, frequent and repetitive 8-in-a-row commercial breaks we're assaulted with on free-to-air, only to experience the same trend developing on a service where we're paying $100 a month for the privilege.

  • by WillyG on October 18, 2005 at 02:28 PM

Reasons I'm sick of Channel 9; that's easy. (1) Eddie, (2) Richard Charleton, (3) 60 Minutes in general, (4) the Sports News, (5) ACA, and (6) the weary old Cricket Commentary Team. And speaking of the cricket commentary, wasn't the coverage provided by SBS a breath of fresh air!

  • by WillyG on October 18, 2005 at 02:35 PM

Sopranos, West Wing and Six Feet Under are the best shows on free to air. When will Nine play them? And why has Seven pulled Boston Legal and delayed Arrested Development? It gives us no choice but to get Foxtel to catch the re-runs.

  • by rjb on October 18, 2005 at 02:43 PM

Channel 7 - ha! Messed around with the scheduling of Desperate Housewives and Lost so much I refused to watch and swore I would buy the DVDs - that was before I discovered BitTorrent of course, now I am up with the US.

You won't believe what's in the hatch!!!

  • by mandy on October 18, 2005 at 03:14 PM

All three commercial channels tend to drive me batty! Look, I don't mind ads, IF they are intelligent, witty and/or amusing, but the drivel ad agencies here churn out makes one ill!

As a sports fan I find it totally incomprehensible that a game broadcast -- be it rugby, cricket, footy, whatever -- is interrupted for ads after every point scored or between overs. That is the time I'm used to hearing expert comments from the commentating team! Mind you, having lived in South Africa for most of my life and having spent some time in Portugal and Japan, I'm perhaps spoilt by better offerings...

And 10, where were the ITV commentators during the Chinese GP?? While did I have to endure those two yokels for the entire race? Not good, Mate, not bloody good at all!

As for 7, Naomi Robson's sanctimonious presentation and the aggressive, biased and often misleading style of Today Tonight has driven me from that time slot. Good thing, actually, because now I watch SBS's World News instead -- and that's miles better than anything 7, 9 or 10 can offer in the news stakes, anyway.

Now if SBS or ABC could cover F1 and offer me Survivor and Lost and a few others, the commercial channels would never see me again! As it is, I watch them under protest!

  • by Ray on October 18, 2005 at 03:21 PM

I agree 9 should put smallville back as we were still in the middle of the season. My biggest gripe would have to be with 10 on Charmed. Why put in on for 2 weeks then take it off and then when it is programmed again I tune in and get something different. Wake up 10 your viewers are definately not charmed.

  • by kelly on October 18, 2005 at 03:51 PM

If Ten aired The Simpsons only once a week then I'd only watch it 3 times a week (Simpsons, House and Monk). Everything else on it is total junk. Idol to be canned? Oh joy, oh rapture, oh happy days! Now if only BB would tank too...

Yeah Nine suck too, mostly. Kerry should just get out of media altogether and totally, like, gamble his time away!

  • by David S. on October 18, 2005 at 03:57 PM

What about Scrubs? One of the funniest, smartest shows on TV and 7 have buried it late at night, and then dropped it completely. I can't believe this show didn't rate, it was laugh out loud funny.

I also hate the fact that 9 dumped Malcolm in the Middle, yet persisted in screening Two and a half Men - one of the most awful shows in history. I actually wrote to 9 after the 1000th repeat of Frasier and asked where the new eps were and they even wrote back telling me when they were going to start screening them - very surprised they bothered to respond. Perhaps more people should write to them.

  • by Matt on October 18, 2005 at 03:59 PM

What about bringing back "It's a Knockout" ?

  • by Matt on October 18, 2005 at 04:03 PM

I watch what I want when I want and the networks can go to rerun hell. BitTorrent forever!

  • by Matt on October 18, 2005 at 04:23 PM

Channel 9 was showing the series Everwood which is still one of the top rating series in the US. It showed about 4 episodes in the 'deadzone' Saturday afternoon at 4.30pm. It still rates in the top few in the U.S. Give your shows at least a chance to gather an audience, channel nine!

  • by Jim Koolis on October 18, 2005 at 04:25 PM

One of the very few intelligent TV series this decade is The West Wing. Channel 9 treated it with sooooo much contempt. They'd off it when anything else popped up, change sceening times and even days around without telling anyone, and zapped the last eseason (6) in the middle of it. I'm still waiting for the other programs to appear. Meanwhile I bought the first 5 series on DVD and when Season 6 appears I'll buy them too and 9 can go screw!

  • by Craig on October 18, 2005 at 04:43 PM

Why would anyone watch television shows stuffed full of advertisements. Just go torrent anything you want.

  • by David Carter on October 18, 2005 at 04:44 PM

I am still waiting for some kind of logical explanation as to why Channel 9 pulled West Wing. Every person I know has resorted to buying DVDs. Not only should it not have been pulled, but it should have been given a more reasonable and consistent timeslot than 10:30pm (or 11pm or 11:30pm, depending what week it was). Saying a show doesn't rate when you show it at a different, late night timeslot each week just doesn't cut it. BRING IT BACK!!!

  • by Keren on October 18, 2005 at 04:56 PM

What is Channel 7 thinking by dropping Last Man Standing? They must be deluded. We finally get a good Australian show and they drop it. UNBELIEVEABLE!!!

  • by Nel on October 18, 2005 at 05:06 PM

I have Foxtel and I think for the most part, it is a massive waste of money. If it weren't "the other woman", I would have gotten rid of it ages ago. There are some interesting documentaries, good movies, and classics like What not to Wear, Footballers Wives, etc. but for the most part, it's rubbish. Totally not worth the $100 we shell out every month. Ch. 9 has the rights for a brilliant new show called Veronica Mars, which is developing a major cult following on the net and in the States. We're currently petitioning them to screen it, all us Aussie VM fans have to download episodes to watch this show and it's a real shame.

  • by kb on October 18, 2005 at 05:06 PM

Sunrise on 7 is quite fresh and the 9 offering is quite bland, bland like Ray Martin, how did he ever get anywhere -- he has no personality, maybe 9 looks for those qualities. When somethings too popular it is clearly not bland enough and must be replaced. I think the big lesson that big media companies are unwilling to learn is things like the internet can help them promote their product, how can they release a movie or tv series in the US before Australia or any other country? Do they expect to make more money draging it out?

If the product was good, people would probably watch TV or hit the cinema rather than download it, if it were released globally at the same time. Of course if a movie doesn't get good reviews you will probably just download it out of curiosity, but then they will sue you for having taste and not wasting cash on it.

And when is Good Eats going to make it to Australian TV!!!. Thats my tip to whatever channel wants to take it, theres ratings to be had!

  • by Duncan on October 18, 2005 at 05:18 PM

One conspiracy theory I've heard about the treatment of good shows is that the attempt to drive audiences away is deliberate. Something like the West Wing or the Sopranos takes money and effort to make, money and effort that networks really aren't that interested in coming up with. So when a "high-quality" show comes along, they shuffle the timeslot, mix series up, switch to reruns on no notice, cut it off mid-season and so on until the viewers give up in disgust. Then, of course, they can go back to the board and the shareholders and say "look, all that highbrow stuff doesn't rate, let's just stick to cheap infotainment and reality TV!"

  • by Salamander on October 18, 2005 at 05:20 PM

As an expat living in Norway, I found the change in commercial Oz TV after an absence of a few years to be startling. It has become unwatchable, constant visual pollution cluttering up the screen with advertising tickers , series being shown out of order or repeats being jammed into the middle of a new season without warning, late program starts (timeslot creep) and a general contempt for the viewer. No wonder downloading is rampant!

All the commercial networks have taken their eye off the ball i.e. their viewers determine if a station succeeds, not their advertisers. How obvious is that? Stations like CH9 have long been 'dog in the manger' with their hoarding of good programs to prevent other stations from getting them only to not show them or dump them in random, late timeslots. Why not make them available for legal download, with advertising hard burned into them?

Too innovative? Get back to me in 5 years when every network in the world is doing this!

  • by Ashley Riddell on October 18, 2005 at 05:21 PM

All the commercial channels are tarred with the same brush. Boring... boring... BORING! I never thought I'd say it, but even the adverts are starting to look attractive (except that awful ad which screams at you -- god knows what they are trying to sell, because I zap to another channel). Get rid of Millionaire (and everything to do with Eddie McG), Idol, BB and every single "reality" program in existence and then the channels may be half-way improved.
If they would actually treat their viewers with respect, that would be nice. How often do you have to go hunting for a favourite program, only to find its either been pulled off the air, moved, suspended or just lost in the 2am dead zone. ABC and SBS seem to be the only channels that show the slightest interest in entertaining their audience and treating them like they have IQs over 70.
And whilst I'm on my soapbox... my biggest annoyance is that self-satisfied, loud voiceover at the end of movies advertising some program I'm probably never going to watch and the endless self-promotion during the actual programs. Isnt it enough that we have to put up with adverts during the breaks, as well as having them meander across the screen during something I'm trying to watch.

  • by Lynne Clarke on October 18, 2005 at 05:21 PM

David Dale reacts: It would be nice if the TV networks read the messages here and recognised the fury they have provoked with their programming policies -- and the damage they are doing to the long term future of broadcast television. But could we address a question to the cyber-literate people among the readers of The Tribal Mind column? Just hypothetically, how would an average person go about finding and downloading an episode of a favourite TV series from America? Can anyone explain how to use file sharing systems such as BitTorrent in language a non geek can understand? We don't mean to imply that any of this column's readers would dream of doing anything illegal, but there might be a certain academic interest in understanding the extremes that Other People are driven to.

  • by david dale on October 18, 2005 at 05:54 PM

So, how do we fix this, people? I hear you all and have the same problems, but is this blog helping us to fix it?

  • by Sarah on October 18, 2005 at 05:58 PM

Do the figures for free-to-air viewers include those who watch those channels on pay-TV? I have bad reception for channel 2 due to powerline interference and went to pay-TV to get an excellent signal. I spend most time watching the free-to-air channels via the cable medium and became curious about figures that could reflect an otherwise unregistered audience.

  • by Pat Leeper on October 18, 2005 at 05:58 PM

Right on with pay TV!!! I cancelled my Foxtel subscription three years ago after the realisation that I was paying again and again for the same stuff. A lot of which I would never watch the first time. UKTV is a joke. You would think that the only good television that ever came out of the UK was East Enders, The Bill and Coronation Street based on their programming. The Lifestyle Channel is just plain risible. The only things I watched on Fox8 was The X-Files and Millenium which were programs I missed on free-to-air. If I could select just what I want, I would sign up again.

  • by Mark on October 18, 2005 at 06:01 PM

I cannot figure out why stations particularly 9 think that mixing old episodes with new can possibly do anything but piss off its audience. Removing shows such as West Wing mid season is just infuriating.

  • by Glenn on October 18, 2005 at 06:06 PM

I always used to watch too much TV, but not anymore. I don't understand the downloading thing either. Result: pretty much lost to TV altogether. I pay way too much for PayTV, only inertia and the kids stop me dropping it altogether. I totally agree with your suggestion for only paying for the channels you want (so long as the price is right and the stupid self-promoton breaks disappear.)

[Why do these posts appear back to front? It makes it very hard to follow. I also suggest you put a line between the posts - it's hard to tell who posted what.]

  • by John on October 18, 2005 at 06:19 PM

When I lived in Ireland they had a fantastic cable package. It cost 15 euros a month and provided you with about a dozen extra channels. The channels included were the British free to air (BBC, ITV etc) plus a news channel, a music channel, documentary channel etc, the only thing it didn't have was sport, but the sport package was not a huge amount extra. Apparently 80% of households had the package. If Fox did something like this here they would see themselves with the same market share. People only want the essential channels, why even have the crap channels as standard when no one wants them? Like David says, pay an extra $3 a month if you want a lifestyle/fashion/cartoon channel

  • by king_crud on October 18, 2005 at 06:47 PM

Commercial TV is utterly boring. Reality TV shows using 'scab' labour for the lead roles, and more cop shows than ever. General dross. One island of reality in this sea of diarrhoea is Arrested Development. Great series, very funny but Channel 7 managed to put it on at 11pm before shelving it. Go figure! In any case SBS and ABC have the only decent TV worth watching.

  • by AnthonyL on October 18, 2005 at 07:12 PM

I am just a little kid but i want to know why people hate TV so much. It has changed our lives and has been going on now for 5 decades. Why should people start getting bored of it now? We should enjoy the pleasures of the telivision.

  • by Anonymous on October 18, 2005 at 07:20 PM

Buy a Digital PVR! and take full control over Nine.

  • by Mr Simple on October 18, 2005 at 07:22 PM

Yes! At the end of the movie/TV shows, why do they have to override the credits and music with a "next Sunday" or "Comming up next" bit. It is annoying. Some people actually want to see the credits or hear the cool song they might be playing. And I am not amused with the advertising DURING the program. Having a big block taking up the bottom of the screen (usually with an annoying jumping animation) about what show is on next is distracting and infuriating. I was not a happy camper when it happened in the middle of House.
At least there's still some good stuff on ABC and SBS. It seems a lot of the good stuff on commercial TV has either been stuck in the dead zone or replaced by reality TV and multiple cop shows. I like CSI but there is waaay too much. Channel 9 ... really, is it necessary to show 2 hours of the same show or on multiple days??? Surely with all the back stock you could plug a non-cop show in.

  • by parker on October 18, 2005 at 08:21 PM

David Dale asks how BitTorrent can be used by the general population: I was driven to BitTorrent (or BT for short) because of Channel 9 and its irresponsible attitudes to West Wing. BT and amazon.co.uk have now become my best friends. What you need:
1) Broadband, and not what Telstra would like us to think constitutes broadband. The faster you can download, the faster you can upload and while downloading faster technically gets you the file quicker, it's the uploading that is the important part of this equation. Why? You're not downloading from a single source, but from other people who are also downloading the file. They download, they upload to you, who is in turn uploading to other people. The faster the upload (and the more people uploading), the faster the download.
2) The program that does the downloading: BitTorrent. There have of course been other programs created which builds upon the original piece of software and according to many, are far superior. Where do you get it? Google is your friend.
3) The pointer, or "torrent" files. BT is different from all other p2p programs in that it is not a "type a keyword into a search field and wait for the results to come in" kind of program. This means you have to know what you are looking for, you can't just browse. This is (IMO) the thing that prevents most people from using BT because a) it makes it much harder to use if you don't know what you're doing and b) finding the torrent files. Due to obvious copywrite implications, sources of torrent files do not broadcast their locations and so one must do some digging.
So, once you've got it all set up, how quick is it? Put it this way, it's possible to view a new TV episode via this method before it's aired across all time zones in the USA. Via BT, I've been able to sample new US shows such as Joan of Arcadia, Commander In Chief and My Name Is Earl. Some US TV producers are accutely aware of the potential web download market is available, the pilot of the new Battlestar Gallactica was available via the official website not long after it aired. iPods will soon be able to be show tv episodes on them and once assumes on the computer screen as well.
There is a legal solution to viewers grievances, the tv stations have been put on notice.

  • by Jason on October 18, 2005 at 08:52 PM

David Dale's next question: Jason has given us an idea of how BitTorrent works, and it sounds complicated. Yet plenty of people seem to use it in Australia. Let us pose a more specific question: just say, for example, that somebody wanted to see the first episode of the new season of 'Lost', which has been shown in America but won't be shown here till February. How would an Australian with broadband go about finding this episode and loading it in a form that could be watched on a computer screen here? Would anyone care to offer hypothetical information in non-technical language?

  • by david dale on October 18, 2005 at 09:08 PM

Thanks to pay TV, I have become accustomed to not having to endure the blatant cross-promotions and awful reality/makeover/celebrity drivel ladled out by 9, 7 and 10. It is a little like switching from full cream milk to skim. The taste seems to be missing something at first but, once used to it, a gobful of the old muck just makes you want to hurl. Looking at that trend, it is clear that the internet will surpass even pay TV as the chief delivery of content, as it will allow each of us to choose what