| Author |
Message |
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:00 pm
Post subject: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
Tom was certainly tongue-tied in response. He repeated his one-
sentenceexpressions of outrage three times each. Maybe being in _The
Firm_ turned his English into the lawyerly kind.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberCypher
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:00 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
| Quote: | cybercypher@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrought:
Ross Howard wrote:
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
Tom was certainly tongue-tied in response. He repeated his one-
sentenceexpressions of outrage three times each. Maybe being in _The
Firm_ turned his English into the lawyerly kind.
What I found most pathetic about this, from both sides, pathetic
incident was Cruise's apparently genuine disbelief at someone he had
graced with the privilege of an interview -- "the shoot was a lotta
fun we're so like you know in love london is just the greatest city
well so is pairce but london is so special stephen is the number one
genius of our time -- might respond by doing such a dreadful thing.
|
I agree that it was pathetic on both sides. The prankster was pandering
to adults with a 9-year-old's sense of humor, and Tom Cruise was
outraged for the wrong reason. The prankster could've just as easily
had HCl as H2O on his phoney mike. Tom should'a said something about
British mass media journalists being real pissers or wondered out loud
whether it ever stopped raining in London. His response was like
totally lame, and for that I pity him.
--
Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 5:24 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:24:13 +0000 (UTC), CyberCypher
<cybercypher@19--16-25-13-01-03.com> wrought:
| Quote: | Ross Howard wrote:
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
Tom was certainly tongue-tied in response. He repeated his one-
sentenceexpressions of outrage three times each. Maybe being in _The
Firm_ turned his English into the lawyerly kind.
|
What I found most pathetic about this, from both sides, pathetic
incident was Cruise's apparently genuine disbelief at someone he had
graced with the privilege of an interview -- "the shoot was a lotta
fun we're so like you know in love london is just the greatest city
well so is pairce but london is so special stephen is the number one
genius of our time -- might respond by doing such a dreadful thing.
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Will
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 6:53 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | What I found most pathetic about this, from both sides, pathetic
incident was Cruise's apparently genuine disbelief at someone he had
graced with the privilege of an interview -- "the shoot was a lotta
fun we're so like you know in love london is just the greatest city
well so is pairce but london is so special stephen is the number one
genius of our time -- might respond by doing such a dreadful thing.
|
I think you're being rather hard on the little feller. By all accounts
he makes a big effort to meet and greet as many fans as he can at these
photo-ops, pressing flesh, speaking into peoples' mobiles (with all
their attendant germs and food detritus), and the behaviour was
unbelievably churlish and plain dumb. Here's the rather good Marcus
Brigstocke on the subject:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1511143,00.html
Will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Areff
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:53 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jason Kirk wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:17 +0200, Ross Howard wrote:
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
I can actually understand how they could have made that mistake. It would
be logical for a US source to assume that Channel 4 is a regional station
if they had no other experience of the British system. All the US networks
are run like of the old ITV regions with each small regional franchise
branding itself on its local place in the spectrum. Most aren't even state
wide. For example Channel 7 News in Boston is an NBC affiliate while
Channel 7 News in Buffalo, NY is an ABC affiliate.
|
Doesn't the news affiliation go along with the general network affiliation
as a matter of course, or is there any example of a local TV station that
affiliates with one network for news but with another network for other
kinds of programming (e.g. prime-time shows)?
As a matter of AmE usage, I'd speak of a *station* as being an affiliate
of a national television network, rather than of the *news programming* of
a local station, regardless of the possibilities.
I can't determine whether you're British or American or other. Your name
is Jason, rather than, say, Nigel, Trevor, Ringo, Clive, Doc Robin, Simon,
Colin, Hamish, Dafydd, Huw, Graeme, Mick, or Ron, which suggests you're
American. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jason Kirk
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:17 pm
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:17 +0200, Ross Howard wrote:
I can actually understand how they could have made that mistake. It would
be logical for a US source to assume that Channel 4 is a regional station
if they had no other experience of the British system. All the US networks
are run like of the old ITV regions with each small regional franchise
branding itself on its local place in the spectrum. Most aren't even state
wide. For example Channel 7 News in Boston is an NBC affiliate while
Channel 7 News in Buffalo, NY is an ABC affiliate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:02 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Ross Howard wrote:
Are you posting this on London's Usenet or Madrid's?
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Dean
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:05 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jason Kirk wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:17 +0200, Ross Howard wrote:
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
I can actually understand how they could have made that mistake. It
would be logical for a US source to assume that Channel 4 is a
regional station if they had no other experience of the British
system.
|
But why would a major news source "asume" anything? They must check
stories, no? They have stringers in the UK, yes? They have fact
checkers?
--
John Dean
Oxford |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Brader
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:08 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Ross Howard quotes Fox News:
| Quote: | "The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
|
Jason Kirk writes:
| Quote: | ...All the US networks are run like of the old ITV regions with each
small regional franchise branding itself on its local place in the
spectrum. Most aren't even state wide.
|
Statewide or state-wide, please!
| Quote: | For example Channel 7 News in Boston is an NBC affiliate while
Channel 7 News in Buffalo, NY is an ABC affiliate.
|
I hope this doesn't mean Jason thinks Boston and Buffalo are in the
same state. Anyway, the key thing is that a numbered "channel" in
North American TV usage is a name for a broadcast frequency, just
as numbered "gas marks" in British cooking usage are names for temper-
atures. "Channel 7" here is shorthand (and in some cases effectively
a local brand name) for "the station broadcasting on channel 7".
The "channel" seen in the British "Channel 4" does not have that meaning.
The correct comparison is with cable TV "channels" that use names like
the "History Channel" and the "Biography Channel", but are not received
on the same frequency everywhere. In one city the History Channel might
be on channel 20 of the local cable system, say; in another, on channel 30.
(And here in Canada we don't get it at all; we have our own copy instead.)
Is "channel" used in connection with TV in other English-speaking
countries, and if so, with what meaning?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Sex on trains, of course."
msb@vex.net -- Clive Feather
My text in this article is in the public domain. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sara Lorimer
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:31 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
John Dean <john-dean@frag.lineone.net> wrote:
| Quote: | Jason Kirk wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:00:17 +0200, Ross Howard wrote:
"The prank was pulled for a new celebrity-type reality show called
'Grand Classics' [...] for London's Channel 4."
-- Fox News, today
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160160,00.html
I can actually understand how they could have made that mistake. It
would be logical for a US source to assume that Channel 4 is a
regional station if they had no other experience of the British
system.
But why would a major news source "asume" anything? They must check
stories, no? They have stringers in the UK, yes? They have fact
checkers?
|
Actually, Fox News probably doesn't have factcheckers. In the US,
they're are mostly found at magazines.
--
SML |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 12:58 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Areff spake thusly:
| Quote: | I can't determine whether you're British or American or other. Your name
is Jason, rather than, say, Nigel, Trevor, Ringo, Clive, Doc Robin, Simon,
Colin, Hamish, Dafydd, Huw, Graeme, Mick, or Ron, which suggests you're
American.
|
The forename "Jason" became popular in the UK in the 70s with women
who swooned at the sight of Peter Wyngarde as "Jason King". So there
is a whole set of men named Jason who are now in their 30s.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jukka Aho
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 2:52 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Mark Brader wrote:
| Quote: | The "channel" seen in the British "Channel 4" does not have that
meaning [as in the US]. The correct comparison is with cable TV
"channels" that use names like the "History Channel" and the
"Biography Channel", but are not received on the same frequency
everywhere. In one city the History Channel might be on channel
20 of the local cable system, say; in another, on channel 30.
(And here in Canada we don't get it at all; we have our own copy
instead.)
|
There's another difference as well:
As far as I know, NTSC tv sets usually use the broadcast channel number
as the primary access key to all programming: you zap the tv stations in
their broadcast channel order, the tv set will display the broadcast
channel number on the screen, and you can key in the broadcast channel
number on the remote to switch to a particular station. (Apparently,
modern NTSC tv sets will typically skip over those broadcast channels
where nothing is broadcast so there can be some discontinuity in channel
numbering.)
Not so in PAL countries. Practically all PAL tv sets (since mid-70s or
so) have an additional layer of abstraction: there are numbered presets
for storing the broadcast frequencies (broadcast channels). These allow
you to arrange the stations in any order you wish. In PAL land, you zap,
view and key in the preset numbers, not the actual broadcast channel
numbers. You do not usually deal with broadcast channel numbers at all -
they are not even shown to the viewer, except when tuning the set (which
is pretty much a one-time process.)
* * *
If you take a new PAL tv set in use for the first time, it will
typically autoscan through all frequency bands, detecting all active
transmitters and storing their broadcast channel numbers in its preset
memory. (The preset count starts from number "1" and advances up to the
total number of actively transmitting stations.)
When the autoscan step is done, the tv set will let you view the
results. You can now browse the presets and delete the stations you do
not want or need - for example, stations with too weak a signal, or
duplicates from another transmitter, or stations you do not really wish
to view at all for some other reason.
The third and final step in the tuning process is rearranging the
presets - or, actually, the broacast channel numbers within. You can
assign the channels preset numbers in any order you wish, but usually
you would want to store the most important ones into the first 9 preset
locations since they're the easiest ones to access directly with the
numeric keypad on a remote.
* * *
In each PAL country, there is usually a nationally established
"standard" pattern for assigning preset numbers to the channels (not any
official standard, but just the traditional way how people usually do
it.) The oldest and most important channels are typically assigned the
lowest preset numbers. (These are also the channels that are the most
likely to have a number incorporated into their name, suggesting a
suitable preset location that way.) The young upstart channels, movie,
news and music channels etc. will come next. Local channels,
teleshopping channels etc. will get some random high numbers, depending
on your viewing habits and preferences.
In each country, there is usually a clear "pecking order" of channels
which people will intuitively follow when choosing the preset numbers.
In the UK, I assume you would typically store BBC 1 into preset number
1, BBC 2 to preset number 2 and so on.
In Finland, YLE TV1 goes to preset number 1, YLE TV2 to preset number 2,
MTV3 to preset number 3, Nelonen ("Channel four") to preset number 4
etc.
The same goes for digital television as well: you can arrange the
"channels" any way you wish.
| Quote: | Is "channel" used in connection with TV in other English-speaking
countries, and if so, with what meaning?
|
Can't speak for English-speaking countries, but I would assume the
situation is pretty much the same in all PAL countries: the word
"channel" (or local equivalent of thereof) is used first and foremost in
the "History Channel" sense and
channel-as-related-to-the-broadcast-frequency is only a secondary
meaning (used in this latter sense mostly by broadcast professionals,
not ordinary people.) That's at least how it works in the Finnish
language.
--
znark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the Omrud
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 3:45 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
Jukka Aho spake thusly:
| Quote: | Can't speak for English-speaking countries, but I would assume the
situation is pretty much the same in all PAL countries: the word
"channel" (or local equivalent of thereof) is used first and foremost in
the "History Channel" sense and
channel-as-related-to-the-broadcast-frequency is only a secondary
meaning (used in this latter sense mostly by broadcast professionals,
not ordinary people.) That's at least how it works in the Finnish
language.
|
That is the same as in the UK. There is another good reason for
allocating the broadcast channels into the "correct" order - Video
Plus. This programs your VCR to record a given channel at a given
time by use of a code number (up to about 10 digits but usually
shorter) which is printed in the listings guide. For this to work,
you must allocate the channels in the same order that the programmers
of Video Plus expect.
1: BBC1
2: BBC2
3: ITV2
4: Channel 4
5: Five
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jukka Aho
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:14 am
Post subject: Re: The UK only has local papers... and TV channels |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: | That is the same as in the UK. There is another good reason for
allocating the broadcast channels into the "correct" order - Video
Plus.
|
Also known as "ShowView".
| Quote: | This programs your VCR to record a given channel at a given
time by use of a code number (up to about 10 digits but usually
shorter) which is printed in the listings guide. For this to
work you must allocate the channels in the same order that the
programmers of Video Plus expect.
|
The ShowView codes do not have much time left here. We're going to
switch off analogue transmissions for good in 2007. This includes both
terrestrial and cable networks.
--
znark |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in