The press in England is having a field day at the moment at the expense of television, and some even within the TV industry may say it's long overdue.

Following a scandal involving a phone-in competition to a popular kids TV show, where the lines were down so they got a kid in the studio to fake a call, and an incident shortly thereafter involving misleading editing practices in a documentary about the Queen and photographer Annie Liebowitz, newspapers are on a witch hunt for any situation where TV is employing dubious practices or morales.

The latest scandal involves 'survival guy' Bear Grylls, who recently appeared spectacularly on Oprah, and who has been shown in a recent Discovery Channel documentary to have been staying in a motel while supposedly abandoned in the wild. A raft that he is supposedly constructed was actually put together by crew members.

Like all 'flavours of the month' for the press, this one will not stop until the public gets bored, front page headlines about the issue stop selling newspapers, and most likely, the public has come to the complete conclusion that all TV is inherently bad. Seeing how little faith the public has in the integrity of newspapers ("Nothing you read in the newspapers is true"), it's a wonder this particular witch hunt has taken as long as it has to show up.

I've worked in both TV and print and I have to say there are dubious practices in both. You could even say there are dubious practices in all industries - it's human nature to cut corners and misrepresent things for a benefit. Uniquely, TV and Print pretty much act with immunity thanks to their inherent power to report and persuade.

What's interesting about this particular mud slinging is the inevitable reaction that will follow. Newspapers have enjoyed a lack of investigation into their own practices for a long time. Writers write without credits (do you ever know who wrote a salacious tabloid article?) and TV has almost certainly left Newspapers alone for fear of being investigated themselves. A journalist may get berated by their Editor and superiors if a story ends up costing the paper a libel action in the courts or an enforced public retraction or apology, but the public rarely see any of this, (particularly in the case of the latter).

I've long been a critic of dubious editing whether it be TV, photo editing or quotes out of context. I've often had to make a case to a producer that editing a person's quote in a particular way would shift it's meaning or the (false) impression of that person it makes on the viewer. Fortunately in all cases I've never had much complaint, although sometimes the entire quote may have had to be taken out. Editing does have a reason for being after all.

My hope is that once the smoke clears on all this, both TV and Print will emerge better and stronger. Transparency is a trend, and greater checks and balances within the media industries will have positive and far reaching benefits for all.

Posted by Alx Klive at 11:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A forward doing the rounds in England today is about Blackle.com, a black version of the Google home page which has absolutely nothing to do with Google.

The creators claim that a black screen saves energy and this is good for the environment. It's also very good for the creators as they are making money out of it from the ads.

Two things here - Firstly, the supposed energy savings are highly suspect. A black screen only saves energy on an old style CRT monitor and does nothing to save energy on an LCD flat panel monitor which most people use. You could also argue that because it is more difficult to read, you spend longer looking for what you want, hence more energy used.

The second issue is that this site is a clear violation of Google's Terms of Service. They offer no content, and you are simply not allowed to replicate the Google search function on your own site.

Be surprised if it lasts a week...

OCT UPDATE - Well Blackle does still exist. I guess it would have been bad publicity to take it down. For what it's worth, we had a not dissimilar site taken down a couple of years ago by Google for TOS violation. We should have put it against a black background I guess!

Posted by Alx Klive at 1:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Moscow is the most expensive city in the World - think about this for a second. Not London, New York or Tokyo, but Moscow.

That's what the recent "Mercer" survey tells us in their annual rankings, and which was widely reported in the media about a month ago. The qualification on this is... "for expatriates" - Mercer's reports are aimed at corporations who need to establish pay scales for sending their workers abroad.

My own observations, having just spent two weeks in that part of the World are that Moscow is indeed very expensive for anyone coming in from outside. A hotel suite can easily set you back $1000, regular hotel rooms are $350 plus. But it's property prices throughout the former Soviet States that are the most interesting for me. Property in the former USSR is remarkably expensive, not just for expats, but for everyone.

In Kharkiv for example, a city due south of Moscow and falling just inside Eastern Ukraine, a two bedroom appartment can set you back $200,000. In terms of comparitive earnings, this is equivalent to $800,000 or more by Western standards.

Kharkiv (or Kharkov as it is often written) is not exactly a city most people in the West have ever heard of, and to be fair, is not a place most people would readily choose to live. It has some good universities and a consequently well-educated and entrepreneurial population, but aside from a core of foreign medical students flying in for some of the world's cheapest medical education, and a few adventurous Austrian tourists flying the new route from their national carrier, it's a fairly crumbling, tough old place to live.

The reasons for these inflated property prices are complex, I don't understand all of them, but in several trips there over the last couple of years I've started to gain some understanding.

There is a big gulf between the haves and the have-nots. This is probably not news but it's worth mentioning as it colours everything. Whereas the West, China and India have a burgeoning middle class - on the streets of Kharkiv for example, you will typically only see very expensive cars (late model Lexus / Mercedes), or very old Russian beaters which have been in families for 30 years or more.

A new middle class is developing, but for most people, buying a new car is akin to us buying a new house - it's a very big deal. Buying a house is not even on the radar.

I suspect that it is richer Moscovites who are driving property prices in former Soviet States to high levels. In a part of the world where a healthy dose of preparedness for anything is an absolute necessity, and diversity of assets a common approach to personal and family security (even if that means simply keeping dollars and roubles under the bed) cities such as Kharkiv offer an outlet of investment.

Supply is an issue too. Given a choice between very old and ill-maintained buildings from centuries of troubled history, or a few modern new buildings from construction companies who simply "can't get the staff", these recently enriched buyers from Moscow are funelled into a limited number of options.

The problem with finding construction staff is exacerbated by the fact that half of Eastern Europe has upped and moved to the West following EU acceptance of the likes of Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, and that literally, half the construction staff of those countries have moved to countries like England where they are now in hot demand.

The displacement that is going on as a result of property prices is profound. Polish and Romanian tradesmen move to England, English builders move to Spain or Turkey (thanks to the money they've made on their properties in the UK) and a vacuum is left behind in Eastern Europe. This in turn drives prices higher, and it's toughest most on the people who live there.

A point to make is that we're not talking about states who have come into the EU - the Ukraine for instance has had none of the benefits of EU membership, but is already feeling the pain. This is probably why one business owner I spoke to was nonplussed about joining the EU - "It will make no difference" he says. Normally business owners are pretty animated about potential EU membership - polarized, but still animated.

Back in Kharkiv, a programmer and his girlfriend show off their brand new car with pride on a night out playing billiards. They may not be able to afford a house yet, but they are doing well by Ukrainian standards.

Posted by Alx Klive at 10:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

It's not often that you get to stick it to the man, but here in the UK a minor revolution is going on, and millions of people are set to benefit from it.

For several years now, banks in England have been levying absurdly high charges against their customers for stretching over their overdraft limit or for miscalculating a direct debit payment. In most countries this isn't even possible, but in the UK it is, thanks to a highly inefficient banking system.

Account balances in the UK are never completely up to date, and debit card use for example can take several days to show up in your account. In Canada and the US for instance, it is impossible to use a debit card that will take you over your limit. The system does a live check against your account, and all transactions (apart from cheques) reflect instantly in your account. You just can't go overdrawn.

The charges by the UK banks for making a mistake (thanks to their inefficient system) are insane... My bank, NatWest, charges £38 ($75)for each debit transaction that takes me over my limit, and an additional £28 for the month where the mistake happens.

Since most people have half a dozen or more direct debit instructions set up and make frequent debit card transactions, it's all too easy for the charges to quickly rack up. Earlier this year for example I was charged £76 in one day for two direct debit instructions that went over my limit, plus the £28 fee. Thats £104 ($205) for a simple mistake, and all thanks to the banks own inefficient tracking system.

Relief is gleefully at hand because it turns out that the charges are in fact illegal. UK law states that where there is a breach of contract between two parties (the bank and their customers), the disadvantaged party (the bank) cannot charge the other person more than their own costs associated with the incident. Since it costs almost nothing for a bank's computerized system to add a line to your bank statement, the charges are totally out of whack with reality and thus, illegal.

For my part, I've been hit by these charges for years. Starting a business of course is always challenging, and one thing that is pretty universal for any entrepreneur is sailing a little 'close to the wind'. With the compounding factor of the delayed reporting by the banks, in the UK it's virtually impossible to avoid these charges.

Under statute of limitation laws, people can claim back the illegal charges for up to six years, and it gets even better. Under UK law, you can also claim interest at the rate of 8% from the time each charge was levied.

Fortunately for me I'm a pack rat, and I've kept all my bank statements. I just spent the last two hours going through them, and to my no insignificant delight, I'm due back £1754 in illegal bank charges. Adding in interest, that sum rises to the rather hefty figure of £2071.18 ($4150).

I can't tell you how enjoyable the feeling is of calculating interest on money unexpectedly owed to me by a bank. It's a great feeling.

For anyone who thinks they've been hit by these charges I'd strongly encourage you to follow it up. I knew I'd been hit by quite a few charges over the years, but never did I think it would be as much as it was. Even if you don't have access to all your old bank statements, you can force the bank to provide them to you under Freedom of Information laws. See the article below for more info.

Having a bank account... essential
Not liking banks... universal
Getting your own back on the bank... priceless.

(For an easy-to-follow explanation of how you can reclaim illegal bank charges in the UK, along with a very useful interest charge calculator, see this tutorial on the subject. You do not need to use the services of any of the third-party brokers who've started advertising their 'reclaim bank charges' services in the press.)

Posted by Alx Klive at 1:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)