Focussing on things that matter, Ctd

Labour is intent on focussing on things that matter, just so long as there are no details, or an expert panel. Clare Curran has grasped this, she is really focussed on the things that matter to Kiwi voters:


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • sthnjeff

    It is what the effing mute button is for you moron….. Labours answer to everything, “create more stoopid legislation”

  • JK

    Well now, isn’t that the important issue that stops this country from dragging itself out of the financial problems it is in?
    That stops it from creating jobs? That stops it from dealing with the social issues it is facing? That stops it from going further down the road of apartheid? If only life would be that simple….

  • Rob

    To answer Clare’s question, probably not. A study was recently completed in Australia looking at this. Advert there certainly seem louder, usually for electronic, whiteware, carpet retailers etc. Turns out they’re not. From memory, what we notice is the difference in the nature of dialogue between programmes and adverts. Programmes generally have people talking in normal situations, so we have 10+ minutes of a more subdued conversation, to then switch to a more in-your-face style of dialogue. The tests showed that even those annoying Harvey Norman adverts were no louder than any other advert or programme. Having said that, I was always under the impression that in NZ, adverts were allowed to be 10% higher in volume than programmes. No idea where I picked up that misapphrehension though.

  • Lance

    No, they aren’t. From

    “Spencer Critchley, writing in Digital Audio last month, explained it this way: “The peak levels of commercials are no higher than the peak levels of program content. But the average level is way, way higher, and that’s the level your ears care about. If someone sets off a camera flash every now and then it’s one thing; if they aim a steady spot light into your eyes it’s another, even if the peak brightness is no higher.””

    Took 2 seconds of research to find that out.

    As an aside a further 2 seconds finds the US already did it:

    More “there should be a law” problem ‘solving’ nonsense.

  • Agent BallSack

    About Clare…..

    * Journalist 1985-1988
    * Social Change Media 1989-1994 (Sydney)
    * Communications and media officer for the Australian Council of Trade Unions 1994-1999
    * Essential Media Communications 2001-2002 (Sydney)
    * Founder, Inzight Communications 2003-2008 (based in Dunedin)

    Hell, you would think with the career in journalism and communications she has had (by her own reckoning, might have to check that CV) she would be aware that TV pumps advertisements loud, every ad break, so every 12 minutes approximately…drops rock back on her head, fuck off back to Dunners you stupid cow.

  • Agent BallSack

    According to previous commenters, No, theyre not – but having been involved in a previous life in Audio Engineering and music, I have to wonder if the optimal decibel level is set higher than 0dB, thereby generating higher frequency levels of noise rather that the standard ‘The ads are louder’….Just a thought?
    I know several channels I strain to hear what is being said, only to be assaulted by a cacophony of noise when the ad breaks do come on.

  • toby

    Rather than waste time, money and effort on trying to regulate noisy ads, maybe Curran could do something useful such as getting more funding for captions for the deaf.

    Agent BallSack: typically broadcasters don’t exceed -10 dbfs in ads or programmes.

  • Mr Blobby

    Who cares change the channel? Or do something useful like encourage the technology that allows adds to be removed from TV when recording.