Media Coverage of The World Cup

[Swat]

So, what does everyone think of the coverage - in print media, online, television, Quade's tweets etc?

For those that aren't in the know the IRB required companies to sign terms preventing them showing more than 90 seconds of footage on their websites or running ads before clips, despite Australian law allowing both under fair dealing exceptions to copyright protections for news reporting.

Do you think this impacts on the role of the press as the 4th estate?
I know personally trying to get a decent set of highlights to RWC games is tricky and they are usually taken down off the net very quickly. You would probably find it nigh on impossible to locate much at all of the Wales v Australia pool game from RWC2007. This is due to the IRB insistence on removing any RWC footage on the internet not owned by them but does this help or hinder the growth of the game? Personally, I think it hinders.

 

[Jets]

Channel 9 are rubbish and it seems they only paid for the right to make sure no other channel had them allowing them to win ratings in QLD and NSW with their NRL finals coverage.

 

[Antony]

I have foxtel, so I'm going alright; but my mates without it are starting to leave imprints on my couch.

As a result, my particular beef is with Channel 9. With the amount of rugby being played, there was real potential to win a few converts in non-rugby areas of Australia. If there was decent coverage available (or even actively promoted, god forbid) for non-fanatics to get a taste of running rugby, then we could have seen a real spike in interest in Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide (in combination with the 7s) and perhaps especially in the league-following parts of Sydney and Brisbane.

Instead, all Joe Blogs is getting in terms of rugby-promotion is a back-page full of syndicated shit like Greg Growden, who I honestly want to punch in the ovaries.

 

[EVERYFWDTHINKTHEYREA6OR7]

So, what does everyone think of the coverage - in print media, online, television, Quade's tweets etc?

For those that aren't in the know the IRB required companies to sign terms preventing them showing more than 90 seconds of footage on their websites or running ads before clips, despite Australian law allowing both under fair dealing exceptions to copyright protections for news reporting.

Do you think this impacts on the role of the press as the 4th estate?
I know personally trying to get a decent set of highlights to RWC games is tricky and they are usually taken down off the net very quickly. You would probably find it nigh on impossible to locate much at all of the Wales v Australia pool game from RWC2007. This is due to the IRB insistence on removing any RWC footage on the internet not owned by them but does this help or hinder the growth of the game? Personally, I think it hinders.

The only reason they won't sign it is because they can't run ads before the footage. You only need 90 seconds of footage. Look at every video on smh you have to sit through an ad before it.

Highlights are easily obtainable. I have the RWC app and it is fantastic! Highlights are up before you know it. Surely it would be on the World Cup website as well.

 

[barbarian]

Can we please not make this into another Channel 9 bitch-fest, because we already have one of those.