|
| Monday, February 12, 2007 |
| International media news: Ireland's INM to buy Australia's APN |
Independent News & Media Plc (INM), the Irish media group, and United States investment vehicle Carlyle Group have agreed to buy APN News & Media Limited, Australia's fourth-largest media company.
Independent News & Media Plc., headed by 70-year old Sir Anthony O'Reilly, will reduce its stake in APN to 35%, freeing up resources to grow its business in other markets.
Sir Anthony O'Reilly, the Irish billionaire, revealed on Monday the Australian dollar 2.8-billion (US $ 2.17 billion; euro 1.67 billion) takeover bid for APN News & Media, Australia's fourth largest media group.
The deal, which values APN at A $ 3.8 billion (US $ 2.94 billion; euro 2.26 billion) -- including debt -- is the media sector's first for 2007.
Analysts expect 2007 to see the biggest shakeup of the Australian media landscape in over 20 years as Canberra prepares to relax ownership rules.
If shareholders approve the proposal, Independent will cut its stake in the Australian media group to around 35% from the 41.6% stake at present. Fellow consortium member Providence Equity will take a 37.5% stake and Carlyle Group, a 27.5% stake.
Independent and Providence Equity first approached APN -- which owns radio stations, outdoor advertising sites and newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, including the New Zealand Herald -- with the offer of Australian $ 6.02 (US $ 4.66; euro 3.58) a share in 2006.
However, they had abandoned that bid in November 2006 after failing to meet a self-imposed deadline, before coming back with new partner, Carlyle, in January 2007.
An independent committee of the board of APN has recommended that shareholders vote in favour of the increased $ 6.10 offer in the absence of a superior proposal.
Sub-committee chairman Ted Harris said the recommendation was supported by the full APN board and that all Independent directors intended to vote in favour of the offer in respect of APN shares they owned or controlled.Labels: media |
posted by a correspondent @ 9:15 PM  |
|
|
|
| Thursday, July 20, 2006 |
| Ban on blogs lifted in India: TV and mdia coverage on the ban |
Quite a few ISPs have started freeing up the blogs. Mine, Iqara, seems to be a slow one there.
The coverage I have seen on most TV channels and newspapers seemed extremely superficial. No one has bothered to, or managed to, identfy the responsible person, minister or bureaucrat, and question them. All we have are bloggers looking upset, and lawyers talking about some point or the other.
The real issues I feel are:
Who gets to decide such issues, and do we expect the same in the future too?
What is the official policy on this, and how has it been applied in the blog ban?
Who is really to blame for blocking the entire blogspot domain? I think it is unlikely that all ISPs are in the same boat, and made the same mistake.
Show up the fool who did this. I also want to how anti left or anti Islam sites are banned.
I saw a story on the IBN website about govt lifting the ban on blogs Again same old story with no extra information, and no attempt to get at the truth either.
Posted below is a mail I have sent them as a comment on the story:
I am quite surprised by the superficial nature of your coverage of this issue.
True, the government has decided to backtrack. But there are many important issues here.
1. Who was responsible for the ban? Who came up with the list of 22 websites?
2. What was the criteria being applied? I suspect that what had appeared was nothing more than what appears in the newspaper columns and party magazines.
3. If something derogatory to Islam appears on a blog, how is it the government's problem? It was derogatory in what way? Does the govt intend to apply those yardsticks to all writings about Islam, or for every religion?
4. "...ISPs decided to go ahead, do one better and block all blogs." How can you say this? Do you have proof? How come we do not see any representative of any ISP on any channel including yours? It is extremely unlikely that all ISPs in India made the exact error and blocked all blogs on their own.
5. What was the extreme views expressed on princesskimberly.blogspot.com? Are they any different from the extreme views expresssed on defamer.com or wonkette.com?
6. How can blogs fuel communalism any better or worse than the people who go around making inflammatory speeches in the country? How is blocming the blogs a priority?
7. How is exposingtheleft.blogspot.com improper? Is it because the Left supports the govt in India? But that blog is about the American Left. Was it someone's kneejerk reaction without ever reading it?
Too many questions, repeatedly asking the audience and interviewees about comparisons to China is of no use. Someone in the government deserves to hang for this, and you are not even making a serious attempt to fiogure out who it is? |
| posted by a correspondent @ 5:28 AM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, June 01, 2006 |
| Was that Bhupendra Chubey or someone else? |
...
A few days back, while posting on the story on the Honda City fire which killed two people, i said that the anchor was Bhupendra Chaubey. Now I am not so sure.
The reason is that yesterday I saw an anchor on CNN-IBN who to my eyes looked pretty much like Chaubey - then the real Chaubey appeared on the screen from New Delhi!
So if I thought the wrong guy was Chaubey, sorry! |
| posted by a correspondent @ 11:19 AM |
|
|
|
| Wednesday, May 31, 2006 |
| Photos of the monsoon |
...
Check today's newspapers. HT - flooded roads, almost artistic. TOI - firemen looking for someone who drowned. Indian Express - nothing, but Newsline has a pic of the crowded CST platform.
DNA? A pic of a wet women running across the street smiling and bracing herself against the rain!
So TOI. So like the wet lady doctor in front of a water cannon in Delhi. Some things dont change. |
| posted by a correspondent @ 8:19 PM |
|
|
|
| Tuesday, May 30, 2006 |
| Two people die in Honda City blaze; Bhupendra Chaubey and Hormazd blunder about |
...
A Honda City caught fire on a Delhi flyover, and its two occupants were charred to death. It is now known that one of the deceased was the car's chauffeur and the other, a maid servant.
The media has raised revelant questions on this mishap. Why could the occupants not get out? Did the central locking system jam? Was it a problem with a defective part, or wth the car? Why did the safety mechanism to cut off fuel supply in case of fire not work?
All valid points, and important ones too. In recent years, a few such incidents have come to pubic attention. A Fiat Palio fire that was quite similar in Delhi, and the Mumbai victims who died in cars when their doors jammed.
So Bhupendra Chaubey calls in Hormazd Sorabjee, editor of Autocar India.
Now Bhupendra Chaubey's core competency is not automobiles; its politics. Some would say it's not anchoring either. Here, after pointing out the questions, he went on in a tone that suggested that technology itself is the culprit, and asked several questions on blackmarket accessories, music systems, central locking, tubeless tyres etc. All valid questions, but if the tone of the questioning is that of the all-knowing ignoramus, blaming all technology, what is poor Hormazd to do, other than get all defensive?
And getting defensive is what Hormazd did. Why? There has always been criticism that automobile journalists are apologists for the automobile industry. I have consistently opposed that. However, Hormazd's performance yesterday reallylet me down. I know he was reacting to the accusatory tone of Chaubey, but what stops you from being objective?
Hormazd went on to sing praises of technology. Not needed at all. If a car catches fire, there is no need for an auto mag editor to feel insecure, even though you are facing stupid questions. The fact is, 2 people died inside a car. Unless it is a suicide or murder, it is most likely that the occupants could not get out as the doors jammed in some fashion. Why can't you just say it, Hormazd? You said that the door could have deformed, but don't look so defensive while saying it. There was an automobile fire, and a door and its locking system can jam. The space shuttle explodes while re-entry, damnit, and there is nothing bad about saying that some system could have malfunctioned. The fire could have messed up the manual override, some chip could have fouled up, any number of things could have happened, and why can't you just say it?
Not that Bhupendra Chaubey was helping him along, every line of his made it clear that there was this huge mysterious issue here.
Then he asked Hormazd about the Mumbai floods, and how come some people died as they got locked in their cars. Good question. An already psyched Hormazd almost said that that could not have been because doors caught jammed, maybe the water pressure did it, etc etc. Come on Hormazd. Say that you don't know. People died in cars, for some reason they couldn't get out, they didn't choose to die. What could have happened? It could be that the system fouled up. It could be that they could not open their power windows. It could be that the battery conked off, you don't have a winding lever, and the water pressure anyway wouldn't let the doors open even if the central locking system was working.
The point is that you have to find a way to make sure that people caught in accidents and floods do not die - the doors should open. On way or the other. I have a friend who got stuck in his Maruti 800 which didn't have power windows or central locking. The doors refused to budge, the windows refused to wind down. No technology there - simple jamming. Bystanders saw him panicking inside the car and pulled it open in some way. So it happens. What are the editors and auto manufacturers going to do about it?
(And if anchors do not start talking like they have just uncovered a huge conspiracy by car manufacturers to deliberately lock people inside cars and suffocate them, that could help too.) |
| posted by a correspondent @ 11:44 PM |
|
|
|
| Thursday, May 18, 2006 |
| Da Vinci Code and the 'secular' media |
...
To begin with, let me make it clear that this writer is a Christian by birth. Whether I am a true Christian is something I don't know for sure, and something many would disagree with. So take this piece as you will.
First, links to some secular media stories:
HT
Who’s afraid of Dan Brown?
...There is nothing to fear from Brown or The Da Vinci Code. What one should be afraid of is one’s own ignorance.
Chhotebhai Noronha
The writer is the former National President of the All India Catholic Union
Control dramas
The Talibanesque charade being played out over the movie based on The Da Vinci Code raises questions about how freedom of expression is being encroached on by illiberal groups, and the Government of India.
IE
‘The Da Vinci Code’ controversy: the I&B minister has no business styling himself chief censor
If there is something refreshing about the Da Vinci Code protests and its coverage by the media, it is a clear stance. A clear stance, that this is a liberal society, censorship will not be tolerated, let people judge for themselves, etc etc. And for once, I can't see the Christian counterparts of the 'sensitive Hindu' writing columns about how it hurts the sentiments of the community, ban it please or there will be riots, etc etc. Sure, there are some who keep talking to the media and appearing in news reports, but so far, I haven't come across any columns or opinion pieces asking for a ban. Thank (Christian) God!
It also makes me smirk - how come the media which is in the thrall of the Italian Roman catholic Sonia Maino doesn't ask for a ban too? Sonia, Christian and Catholic and born in Italy, Manmohan - indebted to her, Indian Express, Hindustan Times, Times of India, sucking up to the Congress and therefore Christian Sonia all the time - so why are the newspapers supporting the movie and opposing the opposers?
Oh, I know. I think its that Hindus have finally awakened and if the newspapers would do just one more thng to please the minorities, they would wake up and cancel all their subscriptions. yes, that must be it.
Also, the surprising absense of anyone asking for a ban on Da Vinci Code from the edit and op-ed pages of the papers leads me to the next question - can't Christians write?! Occasionally, Muslims have a Shahabuddin writing in the papers, and all the editors and reporters (supporting the Muslims as my Hindu brethren would say), Balbir Punj and associates write about Hindu sentiments and such-like, where are the bloody columns on Christian sentiments? Oh I am so angry now I think I should go out and burn some shops.
Or could it be that Christians who can write columns are actually liberals and would want the movie in our cinemas? Such a horrible thought. I am sure my right-winger friends must be thinking - they have sold their religion off, what will they sell next - their mothers?
Most interesting thing in the papers are the letters to the editor. Also the discussions on websites of TV channels. The posters in their message boards seem to be very confused - why a ban? After all, isn't it a story? A better, more human interpretation of Christ? And then I check their names, and I see Hindu names. Umm, righties say Christians can't understand why Hindus feel strongly about 'insults' to their Gods, so the reverse line doesn't work?
Anyway, in case you are truly confused by now about where I stand, let me clarify: Dan Brown can 'insult' my religion as long as he wants, I will go watch his movie and laugh. If my fellow Christians don't stop me from it. |
| posted by a correspondent @ 1:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
