Jump to content

Talk:TV3 (Catalan TV channel)/Archive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cleanup 2005

  • I made what I think are a few "cleanup" edits; hopefully they improved the clarity of the article without changing the meaning of the content. Everyking 07:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Removed some clearly catalan nationalist ideas on the channel's description. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.37.126.224 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 July 2006

POV edits & bias

I'm sorry, but comments like "Critics argue" and "to the network's increasingly "granny" audience." are POV unless sources are noted. I'm Catalonian and I know many younger people who like TV3 and "El cor de la ciutat". Also, TV3 often leads the audience on prime time hours, according to newspapers, which it couldn't do with only a "granny" audience. So, unless you specify sources for those comments, I'm going to revert them each time.--Andromeda 02:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources for the comments contained in the stub. Merely because "Andromeda" happens to like the series is no excuse for censorship. Presumably, being Catalan and an avid fan of "Stargate" are not necessarily insuperable hurdles to making dispassionate, intelligent comments on TV3's "soaps" - although "Andromeda's" censorial attitude in the name of "POV" makes me wonder. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by LAJONQUERA (talk • contribs) 11:59, 12 July 2006
  1. The inform you linked only says that 1) TV3 is the most watched network in Catalonia and 2) That Ventdelplà and El cor de la ciutat are the two most watched fiction programs, with Ventdelplà doing better with +64 audiences, but also having good results from 35 years onwards, while El Cor de la Ciutat does good in all ranges of age, specially 18-24 and +64.
  2. "histrionic acting" is a subjective opinion and therefore not NPOV.
  3. All the series around the world do Product placement advertising. It is not anything particular of TV3.
  4. The "funding problems" comments are unsourced.
That, for some reason I don't know but I can imagine, you have a problem with TV3, it is no reason to bash them with unsourced and misinterpreted comments. Also, have at least the decency to sign your comments. --Andromeda 16:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

CAC Report

  1. You obviously have not read the CAC report carefully - the information was taken directly from it.
  2. "Histrionic acting" may be subjective but anyone familiar with the series would be hard-pressed to avoid such a judgement.
  3. While product placement is common, it is by no means universal. The best public European networks have codes of practice forbidding it. It is unfortunate that TV3 (and Spain's TVE for that matter) have uncritically adopted the US model in this respect (remember that we are talking of PUBLIC television here, not commercial TV). If TV3 chooses to adopt such a blatantly commercial approach, what possible excuse is there for the interminable multi-million dollar bail-outs of CCRTV at the taxpayers' expense?
  4. The funding problems of CCRTV (of which TV3 forms an important part) are chronic and have been widely publicized. I cited La Vanguardia newspaper but I can easily dig up any number of other references. Funding, and financial and parliamentary accountability go to the heart of public TV's mission - hence their inclusion here. Perhaps these are issues that certain Catalans like yourself would prefer to see swept under the carpet but I am sure that dispassionate observers would agree they go to the core of public broadcasting.
  5. Your accusation of "an axe to grind" is a typical response from someone who would rather not face unpleasant truths. While there are positive things about TV3 (for example, it broadcasts in Catalan and tends to experiment more than TVE), this should not be an excuse to don rose-tinted spectacles or - worse still - impose them on everyone else. Perhaps if you were to spend less time watching "Stargate" and more time reading the papers, you might be more aware of such issues. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by LAJONQUERA (talk • contribs) 08:46, 13 July 2006
  1. I read it carefully. More carefully than you. And without biased glasses.
  2. I'm familiar with the series and calling it "histrionic acting" is insulting the actors.
  3. "blatantly commercial"? Have you seen how much commercials we get at the private networks? A whole lot more than at TV3. Do you think running a network is cheap? TV3 won't be half as good with only public money, unless of course you're willing to pay several times more taxes than now (supossing you're paying them, that is)
  4. I can face unpleasant truths. What I can't stand is such blatant and biased lies. Also, what I watch and read is my bussiness, not yours. I can also say to you that you should read newspapers outside your closed ideological niche. You'll find that that things are not like some people wants them to be.
Also, you didn't sign your comments again. But since you're using 3 different nicks to edit only this article and nothing else... well, that says a lot about you, didn't it? --Andromeda 23:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. The CAC is an independent watchdog body - I fail to see how quoting their statistics (presumably elaborated after careful research) can be considered biased.
  2. Maybe the acting does not seem histrionic to Catalan viewers but I can only say that it certainly rivals the worst I have seen on Mexican and Venezuelan soaps.
  3. The point is that commercial networks are just that - commercial. I dislike Telecinco but at least I do not have to fork out a cent to watch it (or abstain therefrom). With TV3, Catalans get the worst of both worlds - wall-to-wall adverts, a hefty addition to the taxes, and no real parliamentary control over either its budgets or its content. Just to add insult to injury, TV3 (and CCRTV) is used as a political football by whoever happens to be in power at a given moment. You might ask yourself why a former Director-General of the Corporation - Miquel Puig - tried so hard to get legislation through the Catalan parliament to model the network on the BBC (he failed and resigned). You might also wonder why parties across the political spectrum - CiU, ERC, PSC, ICV, PP - also consider that reforms are urgently required. Lest it occur to you that I am picking on TV3, the same problems also apply to Spain's TVE and the country's regional public networks.
  4. I assume we all pay taxes. It is precisely because I do pay taxes that I take these issues seriously.
  5. Labelling my contributions as "lies" is beneath contempt. I have verified all of the information, which is on the public record. Perhaps your addiction to science fiction has blurred your ability to distinguish between fact and fantasy. It is curious that you use the term "ideological" since none of your contributions on "Stargate" mention the rather obvious links between a Pentagon-inspired view of the world and the storylines. This looks like a job for Serralonga.
  6. I shall use whatever nickname takes my fancy. "Serralonga" is as good as any. The problem is remembering the password - an explanation which maybe had not occurred to you. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by SERRALONGA (talk • contribs) 17:40, 14 July 2006
  1. I don't think the CAC is biased. I think your interpretation of their report is.
  2. Please! Catalan actors are well considered in the profession.
  3. There may be some problems yes, but TV3 is one of the most politically balanced televisions (and I'm not just refering to the public ones). Debates and other news programs always seek to present all sides of the issue, something that's completely lacking in other networks. Even in the issues that do exist, the reporters got to protest publicily for it, and all conserved their jobs.
  4. I'm not labelling them as lies, but as biased information. And you just produced one verifiable reference for your information. And yes, when you don't have arguments, revert to personal insults. Very adult of you.
  5. It's a lot easier to remember the password of one nick instead of four. This is simply you using sockpuppets to make it look if there are a lot of people that agree with you, instead of the one-man biased effort. --Andromeda 20:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. Citing official statistics revealing that the two series in question are disproportionately popular with female and elderly audiences is not an issue of interpretation but of fact. As an avid viewer of these soaps, you may identify with neither group but that is your problem.
  2. I made no comment on Catalan actors in general, just about the standard of acting in these series (and let's face it, soaps are not exactly at the high end of the profession).
  3. Bias is a four-letter word and a very relative term. Facts are facts, even though the way they are interpreted may vary between individuals.
  4. Passwords are a blind spot and I have a habit of inventing difficult ones - so what? Four nicks is hardly a crowd (but Andromeda is a constellation). --SERRALONGA 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy about the air time during elections

As I can remember, the controversy about the air time during elections started before than the article says, probably during the 2003 elections.--Darz Mol 22:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure either, but that's the reference I found. Do you have another? --Andromeda 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A few days ago I repaired the links from articles to the disambiguation page Catalan(You can help!), but someone reverted the link on this article. Please remember to link to the specific article intended, such as Catalan language or Catalan people. Ntsimp 23:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, which I have acted upon. The link is now to "Catalan language" instead of the more ambiguous "Catalan". SERRALONGA 11:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Debating neutrality

This site has been turned into a perfect clone of the TV3 corporate web. It seems that Wikipedia has chosen to neuter well-documented public criticism concerning the public debates on TV3 (some of it from highly-placed individuals in Catalonia's parliamentary Control Commission). Presumably we can expect the same kind of censorship in the future regarding the Bush Administration's policies in Irak, removal of any mention of Bhopal from the Union Carbide/Dow Chemicals entries, and so on.

This makes a nonsense of Wikipedia's supposed openness and theatens to fatally undermine the project. "Andromeda" would obviously prefer to force us all to live in a sanitized cyberspace from which any whiff of controversy is permanently banished. His penchant for writing reams of purple prose about science fiction series and Europe's royal families is surely proof of that. The tragedy is that Wikipedia seems willing to support his efforts. -- Heliodore 23:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I prefer a page that deals with truth than a page that deals with a sectarian view. You are championing the views of a very narrow sector as the unique truth and any other opinion is simply wrong for you. You make a mountain of a grain of sand and refuse to see all the things TV3 does well or has done well in the past. You are so set in your narrow vision of the world that you are blind to other person's opinions. Your truth is the only truth. TV3 is the devil, let's crucify her.
I also find very interesting that you are trying this here and not in the Catalan or Spanish Wikipedias, where more people may challenge your skewed views.
2) I'm not a man. Get your facts straight. Also, what does my interests have to do with this? I can edit whatever I wish. If they offend your radical sensibilities, well, that's your problem, but it's not the issue here. The issue here is presenting an article that's both NPOV AND truthful, instead of an skewed version of the truth.
--Andromeda 16:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Andromeda's reply reveals a fundamental difference in premises as to what constitutes "truth". I would happily concede that TV3 is something of a technical pioneer in the context of Spanish broadcasting and has done much to promote the recovery of the Catalan language. However, that does not mean one should blind oneself (and others) to its many faults - especially when these are a matter of public and parliamentary debate. The cause of truth (and for that matter, of TV3 itself) is best served by considering both positive and negative aspects of the network.
Incidentally, how the less flattering information on TV3 might be received in the "Catalonia" and "Spain" sections of Wikipedia is surely beside the point. I placed the information in the "TV3" entry because - wait for it - it concerns the TV network. I find this perfectly logical but Andromeda does not. I can only assume she makes such an absurd argument because she is blinkered by nationalism (whether of the Catalan or Spanish variety, it matters not).
As I see it, the Wikipedia entry should not simply replicate the corporate web site (perhaps Andromeda's poor command of English made this an irresistible temptation). Neither is it reasonable to cite the Catalan Audiovisual Council's (CAC) audience figures for TV3 newscasts while censoring the CAC's compelling criticisms of the network's news department. In any case, all of the information I provided on TV3 is a matter of public record and is carefully sourced. There again, references to external reality may have little meaning for someone whose contributions reveal an unhealthy obsession with science fiction series and royalty. Let us hope for Wikipedia's sake that Andromeda finds a Perseus to free her from her mental shackles.

--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heliodore (talk • contribs) 09:53, 13 June 2007

Well, after that, I really don't think I need to say much since you disqualified yourself already. Personal attacks just mean that you have no arguments to sustain your position and have to resort to dirty tricks.
But, just for curiosity's sake, let's look at your "information", shall we?
The "Cantamania" affair. You only cite one side of the issue, the purely political one. You conveniently forget than the show was a success anywhere it went. The public didn't have a problem with the program, just the politicians did. Your view in this issue is not a balanced one.
You say also that "No em ratllis" "strengthens the case of those critics who say the network is going down the tube". "No em ratllis" has been a hit with the audience since day one, averaging 21,3% of share [1] and a maximum of 23% [2]. How conveniently you forget to mention that. So I heavily object to the authority of your sources for that, which oh surprise!, you forget to mention. Which it leads me to think is again your personal opinion, and thus original research. And, unless you forget, that's not allowed in Wikipedia.
"Via Augusta" - All networks have hits and flops. Everywhere. Yet you only mention the flops and forget to mention the hits. "Ventdelplà" or "Mar de fons" say anything to you? "Porca Miseria"? "Via Augusta" flopped. Well, it happens. Could it have been better? Yes. It a sign of the coming apocalypse? No. That section is POV-heavy, since you only cite one source (without a link to check its accuracy) that only talks about the series quality, not it being part of a masonic conspiracy to lower TV3 standards. You add a couple of production facts (unsourced) and then give your own personal extrapolation and opinion, which falls clearly into original research territory. Again.
"The network and Catalan politics" - "This appears to be well-founded." appears? "Political interference may explain why TVC" may explain? That sounds suspiciously like original research again. While the reports exist, you again just use the part that interest you of the notice and forget the rest. This section is heavy in POV and original research, and needs to be balanced with a better research and less politicized prose.
How your information would be received in the better-informed Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia is beside the point yet my personal tastes are? You just are doing this here because you won't be allowed there. --Andromeda 12:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship masquerading as neutrality

As usual, Andromeda has failed to address the issues. She says that “Cantamania” was a success but the question is, in what terms? Remember that TV3’s only raison d’être is to promote the Catalan language through broadcasting. A program that is slated by both the Catalan parliamentary control commission and media critics because it contains a great deal of Spanish and relatively little Catalan (and sub-standard at that) can hardly be called a success. If TV3 is only interested in ratings and advertising revenue, why not privatize it and let it compete on its merits with private stations? On the other hand, if it is serious about promoting Catalan, programs like “Cantamania” have no place in the schedule. My views are of little account but I would suggest that those of the host of critics among Catalonia’s “makers and shakers” are very much to the point. I concede that “No em ratllis" is popular but then so is female nude wrestling (I vividly recall this being shown on one of Berlusconi’s stations). Surely public broadcasting should aspire to more? Why not leave the commercial stations to scrape the bottom of the barrel? They are better at it and they do so at no cost to Catalonia’s long-suffering taxpayers.

Talking of suffering, try the following musical interlude (courtesy of Cantamania) before reading the rest of this post. By the way, the couple crooning at each other are brother and sister:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=un65vpi_qGo&mode=related&search=

“Via Augusta" is not only expensive (€210,000 an episode – an unheard of figure for a TV3 drama serial) – it is what Hollywood would call a “turkey”. But then someone ought to have wondered whether commissioning the scriptwriters of “Jet Lag” (a tired lesbian comedy) to write “La Via Augusta” was not a sure-fire recipe for disaster. In most networks, ideas for series like this are killed off at the planning stage. TV3 works differently – a politically-appointed management class and other vested interests have created the mother of all TV turkey farms. How else can one explain deadly dull programs on mushroom hunters, tourist board propaganda posturing as a bird's-eye view of Catalonia and a host of other departures from sanity? As for "Ventdelplà" and "Mar de fons", they may well cater to hidebound Catalan audiences but they augur ill for the network’s future. Right now, TV3’s managers are worried silly that the network is not catering to the region’s most recent immigrants (over 1.3 million out of a population of 7.3 million in the last 20 years). Judging by the standard and focus of the network’s output, TV3 has every reason to be scared. Throw digital terrestrial television and Internet video content into the picture and TV3’s chances of surviving far into the 21st century begin to look decidedly remote.

Andromeda’s gratuitous reference to a masonic conspiracy may sound weird to foreign readers but it reveals all too clearly where Andromeda is coming from (if you guessed outer space, you are at least half right). You see, General Franco had this hang-up about the masons (which is perhaps not surprising when you consider that almost a third of the Spanish Republic’s MPs in the 1930s were lodge members). The Fascist dictator even built his very own crazy reconstruction of a masonic temple in El Prado palace complete with life-size dummies. So what Andromeda is snidely suggesting is that any criticism of TV3 is inspired by hankerings after Spain’s all-too-recent dictatorial past. Nothing could be further from the truth. Criticism of TV3’s output should be interpreted as a healthy sign of democracy (not least when it comes from members of Catalonia’s parliamentary control commission). Andromeda’s knee-jerk reaction to any criticism of TV3 reveals that the notion of democratic debate in Catalonia is still in its infancy. Indeed, her puerile censorship of anything that sheds light on the less satisfactory aspects of TV3 hearkens back to the mindset of Franco’s Spain. In my humble opinion, Catalonia and Wikipedia deserve better. -- Heliodore 21:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... have you ever heard of the term "sarcasm"? geez... --Andromeda 13:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

A CALL TO STOP!

Stop. You two have been wrangling like a pair of tomcats and it is both unproductive and innappropriate for this talk page. I point you to Wikipedia:No personal attacks as well as Wikipedia:Is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. Both of you have repeatedly violated these policies on this talk page. IT MUST STOP.

If you both wish to have a political debate, take it to your individual talk pages. This talk page is for discussion regarding the improvement of this article, not for airing one's own political laundry... and that's what most of your writing here comes off as.

I really don't care about the subject of this article, and I have no side in this debate, but I must say, Andromeda, Heliodore, if you find yourselves unable to be neutral in your edits of this article because you have such strong views on the subject, then it is time for you BOTH to back off and let other editors take the reins. Frankly, I strongly suggest you both do this. --Lendorien 23:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

1) I have not personally attacked him. He attacked me.
2) I try to be always be neutral. I tried very hard to add to the article only factual information that I've been able to find sources for and keep my personal views and political opinions out of it. TV3 is not perfect, no company is, but it's not the devil either. I know they committed errors, but the information presented need to be backed up by facts, not personal opinions. Heliodore is only backing his information in original research and personal opinions, not in facts. I can't accept bashing just for the sake of bashing. If anyone is willing to do some serious, factual research on TV3 and its story, I'm open to it. --Andromeda 13:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Andromeda seems to have a short memory, having evidently forgotten the occasion on which she accused me of dodging taxes (goodness knows how she reached that conclusion but then a diet of “Stargate” is probably not conducive to clear thinking). My intention was not to insult her. I simply have grave doubts that someone who spends so much time writing sugary accounts of royalty and fanzine-type screeds on science fiction series has the maturity to tackle more serious subjects.
To be frank, the chances of any agreement are non-existent. Andromeda believes that wholesale lifting of material from the TV3 web site forms the right basis for a Wikipedia article and I do not. I believe that the often stormy political and general debate concerning TV3 should be reflected in the Wiki article and Andromeda does not. With the best will in the world, I can see no middle ground. In this context, it is instructive to read the Wiki article on Fox News. There are well-documented references to power struggles, law suits, allegations of political bias, and what have you, as well as other information. In other words, the Fox wiki yields real insights on the network. Why should the article on TV3 be any different? Admittedly, TV3 is much less known to readers and so there are few people who have: (1) the competence to write about it in English; (2) in-depth knowledge of the network (criteria which I suggest disqualify Andromeda on both counts).
I am puzzled by Andromeda’s comment about “original research”. Does she mean that I should be mindlessly unoriginal and simply turn the Wiki entry into a clone of TV3’s web site? Perhaps she thinks originality is akin to original sin (I would not put this past her given that she has already dragged the devil and freemasonry into the discussion). Maybe she means the information is false (evidently not the case – any editor worth his salt and conversant with Catalan/Spanish is welcome to check the references).
What I would say is that the current protected article is little more than an exercise in corporate hagiography. It would even be preferable to scrap it altogether rather than leaving it as it is. A disclaimer and a link to the English language section of the TV3 web site would suffice for those who care to read such stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.223.130 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 14 June 2007

Please add Pp-dispute tag

I see that the article page has been full-protected. Please add the {{Pp-dispute}} tag to the article, to indicate that it has been protected. Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 13:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Banned" in Comunitat Valenciana

Should the fact that TV3 is no longer able to be broadcast in the Comunitat Valenciana be mentioned? - Francis Tyers · 00:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have details about this, Please do add them. Thanks. --Lendorien (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, with the exception of the most southern comarcas, TV3 is still broadcasted in Valencia. Moreover, the Catalan and Valencian governments have announced a forthcoming agreement to legalize Catalan broadcasting in Valencia and vice versa. --Carles Noguera (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? Excellent news. - Francis Tyers · 15:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:TV3_(Catalan_TV_channel)/Archive&oldid=1198379229"