You are not currently logged in.
Thursday, May 24 2012

April 9: Kent TV Mark Two...sort of

Kent TV. Library imageKENT TV may be no more but the county council is pressing ahead with plans to develop what is calls the Kent Digital Service and these plans came under the watchful eye of the authoritys cabinet scrutiny committee last week.

According to a paper presented to the meeting, KCC is earmarking £250,000 for the development of various initiatives with the over-arching aim of finding "new ways of engaging the public through digital media".

This follows the much-publicised demise of the 1.8million Kent TV project.

The principal outlet for all of this looks like being through the county council's website, which will be used to stream video content but will not allow residents to upload their own videos - as they could with Kent TV.

The cabinet member in charge, Cllr Roger Gough, was at pains to stress that whatever KCC decided, the council was not about re-inventing the past or what he termed a retro-fit justification, which might just be a phrase that will soon appear on one of those lists of banned local government jargon.

He's also pointed out that at £250,000, the costs are less than half the £600,000 it was costing to subsidise Kent TV.

There were one or two interesting observations made by some members of the cross-party committee.

One came from Conservative councillor Jeremy Kite, who argued that KCC should perhaps be considering setting up a "super-blog" along the lines of the success of independent political websites such as ConservativeHome.

His argument was that such blogs could avoid a situation in which members of the public felt they were having things imposed on them rather than being involved as active participants. (cf Kent TV)

Its a novel idea but I can see all sorts of ways in which it might fall foul of the various restrictions there are on what kind of publicity councils are allowed to produce.

And blogs like ConservativeHome are full of comments and articles that are not always complimentary about the Conservatives. I really can't see that sort of thing being allowed at County Hall but who knows? That really would be a piece of innovative risk-taking of the sort KCC likes to trumpet

Cllr Kite also warned that KCC needed to be careful that it did not, in its endeavours to develop new ways of communicating information, end up creating KentTV Mark Two - a pithy point.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MIND YOU, I am beginning to wonder exactly why Kent TV was scrapped. After Conservative county councillor Mike Northey described it as a brilliant, raging success there were more complements and expressions of sorrow at its demise expressed at the committee meeting.

Cllr Alan Chell (Con) said he believed the concept had been "absolutely brilliant" while Cllr Paulina Stockell declared that she was very sorry to see it go. Just who did vote against it when the Conservative group held their private meeting to decide on what they should do? Someone must know.

It wont be entirely bad news for all those who used to work for Kent TV. Of the 12 members of staff, five are expected to take up jobs with the county council.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I see the latest edition of "Around Kent", the county council's magazine that some see as a vehicle for propaganda, is out. I counted seven pictures of KCC leader Paul Carter (Con) among its 24 pages. Only seven? Note to editor...

 

Friday, April 09 2010

The KM Group does not moderate comments.
Please click here for our house rules.

Comments (1)

Comments closed

  • Dave wrote:

    Clearly KCC believe that Kent TV has transfered ownership from Ten Alps to themselves. Why else would they employ 5 staff from Ten Alps and pick up the tab for the redundancy payments due to the rest of the Kent TV Staff under a TUPE agreement? If KCC thought it was a new service then they did not have this obligation. So if KCC can run Kent TV themselves for less than £250,000 p.a, the detractors were all right along to say that KCC was wasting £600,000 p.a when cheaper alternatives were available.

    Two further points to make are what are the 400 staff being sacked over the next 2 years to make of KCC hiring staff for a non front line service?
    Second what happens when expensive contracts like the Highways contract come to an end? Do KCC pay the redundancies if Highways is taken in-house?

    13 Apr 2010 12:59 PM

    Report Abuse

Terms of Comments
We do not actively moderate, monitor or edit contributions to the reader comments but we may intervene and take such action as we think necessary, please click here for our house rules.. If you have any concerns over the contents on our site, please either register those concerns using the report abuse button, contact us here, email multimediadesk@thekmgroup.co.uk or call 01634 227834.

Advertisement

Copyright: You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit or otherwise use content on this site in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any content on this site except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of content requires the prior written permission of the KM GROUP. Read full terms and conditions.