Ep 252: The Walking Dead, Peter Hitchener

walkinDeadPic.jpgWe get to speak to the extraordinarily delightful Peter Hitchener, newsreader for Channel 9 Melbourne, about how he just gives and gives to his viewers.

After many requests from listeners we finally have a look at the comic book adaptation, The Walking Dead. I still wish it was called “They Shoot Zombies, Don’t They?

In News we look at what’s happening in Germany and Japan as well as some important local stuff.

There’s also an I Don’t Buy It, some great Letters to Boxcutters, and a whole helping of Pork with Trotters

Oh yeah, and Carrie Bickmore sold us out to Oprah.

This week’s question: What do you think of Actual Chad’s new single,”The Man from Boxcutters”? Let us know by email.

Also, if you’re wondering where we are on Facebook and Twitter, just click on those words back there.

Show Notes

If you want to speak to Peter Hitchener and Peter Overton via the interwebs, then you first need to “like” the Channel 9 news Facebook page. Then follow the instructions for how to leave questions and watch their replies.

Peter Hitchener is @phitchener9 on Twitter and he genuinely tries to follow and respond to everybody who follows him.

You can see the reception fees for NHK on their translated website. Wikipedia has a great page detailing NHK.

The Australian wrote all about the Oprah, Carrie Bickmore and the McDonald’s scandal that rocked Australia. Also, our own Jess McGuire wrote some commentary in Defamer Australia.

13 Comments

  1. Is there anything that states he doesn’t leave and then return to the Black Lodge?

  2. Josh Kinal says:

    All we know is that he’s trapped and he is still there 25 years later. You draw your conclusions and I’ll draw mine. Next week we can discuss who would win in a fight between Batman and Daredevil.

  3. Paul Boxcutter says:

  4. Josh Kinal says:

    Hey, save it for next week. (But you’re probably right.)

  5. Paul Boxcutter says:

    Saw this interesting article today, ties in a little with Toby’s interview.

    http://www.npr.org/2010/12/07/131857237/afghan-tv-show-aims-to-burnish-police-reputation

  6. Trizshjen says:

    i definitely agree with your review of the walking dead, the first episode was a stunning piece of television, but so far the rest of the episodes seem to amount to a lot of faffing around with not much happening. I was surprised to see so little happen in a 6 episode season, being used to watching British television where 6-8 episodes is often the norm. I will be sticking with it, i think the idea has a lot of potential.

    It’s good to hear that they fired the writing staff, as they only wrote 2 episodes of the series, one of which was by far the weekest (episode 5). it will be interesting to see where the show goes from here. it obviously has the support of the network; after their highest ever ratings for a premiere (5.3 million) they picked it up for a 10 episode run next season. I must say its nice to see AMC showing support for an alternative show and letting it run and discover its feet. it would be nice if more stations were willing to do the same.

  7. Daniel B says:

    Hi Josh,

    Any chance of getting Tony Martin back on the phone to ask him about the upcoming “The Joy of Sets?”

    If you do I’ll bar up

    Cheers.

  8. David Boxcutter says:

    Jesus Christ, Cropley, are you for real?

    “Just because I don’t address every single argument.”

    This quote from the show exemplifies what is so infuriating about your behaviour around this topic.

    * You have so far addressed exactly zero of the counter-arguments.

    * You blatantly misrepresent what other people are saying. Nelly even pointed this out to you on air one time you did this, but you just ignored her. She asked you to go back and read more closely what was written, but did you? Of course not.

    * You don’t even give any indication that you have any comprehension of the opposing arguments.

    * You insult your own listeners, such as when you likened those who disagree with you to right-wingers attacking the ABC over bias issues. And you attack the character of those who disagree with you, rather than addressing the substance of the arguments.

    * You can’t be bothered making your own argument in a clear and logical manner, but continue to say the same vague things over and over again, even though they have been thoroughly debunked.

    And it’s not like this is the first time these things have happened. It seems like something just breaks when it comes to certain issues, and you convince yourself that you are right (regardless of any facts or logic), and anybody who disagrees must be a horrible person.

    I really can’t tell if it is malicious, a huge failure at comprehension, a personality issue, or some kind of combination – perhaps you go on the offensive because you know you don’t have anything to back up your position?

    Anyway, back to the actual issues on debate, no you don’t have to address every single counter-argument. There are plenty of aspects which are matters of opinion or taste. However, there are other aspects where facts are involved. In those cases, difference of opinion is not valid. If your argument is based on things that are not true, then that invalidates your argument.

    Let’s take what, as far as I can work out, are your two key arguments:

    Argument 1: If football games are only broadcast on Pay TV, then this excludes a portion of the population (i.e: the poorer people).

    Counter-argument 1: Football games are also broadcast free-to-air on the radio. Poor people can still access the football on the radio without a Pay TV subscription.

    So, your argument has been invalidated. To continue using this argument, you’d have to demonstrate that football games are not broadcast on the radio, or come up with some other reason why it’s not a valid counter-argument. You can’t just ignore it and retain credibility.

    Argument 2: Football culture is under threat, so we must protect it by keeping it on Free TV.

    Counter-argument 2: Have you looked around? Football is a multi-billion dollar industry, at the height of its all-time popularity. It’s practically a national religion. We see football everywhere we look. What credible evidence do you have that it’s under threat?

    Again, you’d then have to show that football is struggling and in need of protection to retain your credibility.

    ————-

    See, it’s really quite simple. If your argument has merit, you should be able to clearly address these arguments, rather than just talking around the issue and making personal attacks on those with different opinions, or building strawmen by pretending people are saying things that they really aren’t, and ridiculing these made-up arguments.

    Now, if I’ve misconstrued your arguments feel free to correct me, because you haven’t been exactly clear what those arguments actually are.

  9. Wow! Touchy.

    I’m not gonna read that though. The list and changes have been decided so there’s nothing riding on the discussion at all now anyways.

    Forgetting about any cultural significance, the thing that sticks with me is that Josh thinks subscription TV should be allowed to buy the rights to anything they want and points out they wouldn’t be able to afford it.

    I wonder why you would bother letting that happen then. It’s only going to drive up the price for FTAs through spoiler bids – like Kerry’s just before he died – meaning they have to advertise more and more during the games, or whatever, to pay for them. Football and the viewers are the losers.

    If Josh is wrong and subscription TV IS able to buy the rights and lock them behind a paywall, 75% of the population is the loser and you emulate what has been going on at the games themselves – if you’re not the corporate type willing to pony up the big bucks for the superbox then it’s unlikely you’ll be able to see any finals games. The AFL seem to have been operating on this line for some years now – which just indicates to me that they really only care about the money and left any concern for the actual game far behind them.

    Damn! I just glanced up and saw some reference to national religion. My thought on that – with relation to the game in general – is that they’re turning it into Scientology and if you don’t pay you don’t get to move up the levels.

    I must stop looking up there… Your refutation of my concern about affordability is “fuck poor people – they don’t need to actually SEE a game – they have the radio.” That doesn’t invalidate shit. It’s like Barbara Bush saying that it wasn’t so bad for the people of New Orleans because they were black and poor and they would be USED to camping.

    I’ve scrolled down now so as to avoid further logic offences and now I’m hitting POST – never to look at it again.

  10. David Boxcutter says:

    Brett, why are you being such a prick about this?

    You can’t be bothered to read a fairly short post, but then you selectively quote it? You claim my stance is “fuck the poor” without even bothering to engage with my argument?

    Do the people you work with at 3RRR know that you think radio is a second-rate medium? I’m pretty sure that the serious football fans consider the radio commentary to be far superior to that on TV.

    First Muslims, now Scientology? Why do you insist on insulting your listeners with this drivel? Saying that radio is a perfectly acceptable medium for sports broadcasting is now equivalent to racism? WTF?

    You also have a real nerve exclaiming that I’m touchy, when you have shown yourself so thin-skinned over all of this, that you don’t even bother to read or listen and lash out at people for disagreeing.

    Your argument is just so twisted – now you’re saying that this is about protecting football from corporatisation. But TV has been one of the most fundamental forces in the corporatisation of football. Wouldn’t a return to radio and, perhaps, actually going to the games in person be a move against corporatisation?

    I really don’t understand how you can argue football being on Free TV reduces its commercialisation. It does the opposite, because Free TV is the most highly corporate media in the country.

  11. David Boxcutter says:

    P.S:

    It appears that you believe the problem of commercialisation has a lot to do with the AFL. Do you propose that the government pass laws preventing them from selling corporate boxes, that limit ticket prices, and make seats more broadly available to the public?

    That would seem to be a lot more relevant to the root of the problem. The TV rights are just a symptom.

    Ultimately, if this is an issue of culture, then the people who belong to this culture need to make a stand and reject the corporates and start their own league or something. This is how institutions like 3RRR started – by rejecting corporate media and starting their own thing. Not by lobbying government to pass regulations forcing commercial radio stations to play punk/rock/alternative/whatever music.

  12. Cheers very much for that link Paul. We’re keen to follow up on other examples of TV being used by governments. If you’ve got any other links or thoughts post them or email them through!

  13. The first episode of The Walking Dead really was stunning! It’s such a shame it goes downhill (judging by what you guys have said). I’m only up to S1 Ep2 as I’m watching it weekly on Foxtels new channel FX. Second episode wasn’t too bad either although the actress who was also in Prison Break (a show I couldnt stand) is hopeless. Did AMC learn nothing from Mad Mens casting of eigmatic unknowns?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *