Robin Laing of The New Zealand Film and Television School and Television New Zealand Ltd - 2004-204
- Joanne Morris (Chair)
- Diane Musgrave
- Tapu Misa
- Paul France
- Robin Laing
- of The NZ Film And Television School
ProgrammeOne News Insight: Learning the Hard Way
BroadcasterTelevision New Zealand Ltd
Complaint under section 8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989
One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" – documentary about privately-run tertiary courses – segment about the film industry included references to The Film School – allegedly unbalanced, inaccurate and unfair
Standard 4 (balance) – complaint more appropriately assessed under fairness – not upheld
Standard 5 (accuracy) – fact alleged to be inaccurate was expression of opinion to which standard does not apply – not upheld
Standard 6 (fairness) – item about students getting “duped” by substandard courses – only institution identified was The Film School – implied The Film School was one of these substandard courses – no evidence to suggest that it was substandard – unfair – upheld
Section 13(1)(a) – broadcast of a statement
This headnote does not form part of the decision.
 One News Insight: "Learning the Hard Way" was broadcast on TV One at 8.30pm on 15 September 2004. The documentary examined concerns that privately-run tertiary courses in New Zealand were leading to the proliferation of graduates, and strong dissatisfaction among some students whose expectations had not been met, and who had not found employment. The programme looked at four occupation areas – film making, scuba diving, computer animation, and policing.
 The presenter introduced the item by saying that it included interviews with a range of students who “all say they were duped by courses that over-promised and under-delivered”.
 The sections of the item about scuba diving, computer animation and policing all focussed on institutions which were alleged to have exaggerated the outcome of their courses. Disgruntled students spoke about the use of unqualified teachers, substandard resources and students leaving without the skills they had expected to gain.
 The segment concerning film making included interviews with three students who had attended courses to prepare them for work in this field. Comments were also provided by the director of the New Zealand Film and Television School (Tommy Honey), the Tertiary Education Minister (Hon Steve Maharey), the head of makeup at Weta Workshop (Dominie Till) and the Chairman of the NZ Screen Council (John Barnett).
 Robin Laing complained on behalf of New Zealand Film and Television School (The Film School) that the item had breached broadcasting standards relating to balance, accuracy and fairness. She was concerned that The Film School had been included in the programme simply because other film schools had declined to participate, and was therefore grouped with other institutions that “had already attracted a negative media profile for non or inadequate delivery”.
 Ms Laing also alleged that the subject of the documentary had been misrepresented in order to secure the participation of the director of the School. While other institutions had been named in the programme, she said, The Film School was not. Rather, it had been included by:
…repeated visual identification (exterior sign, prospectus cover, tutor notice-board, interior shots), by several interview clips with its Director Tommy Honey and by interviews with two graduates of the School in which a false allegation and a number of negative and incorrect inferences were made. Even the most cursory attempt at research by the production company prior to the filming of the documentary would have excluded The Film School from the thesis it was attempting to present.
 The complainant identified four areas of concern within the broadcast that she alleged had constituted breaches of broadcasting standards.
1. The School was included in the main thesis of the documentary by association, impression and implication in a manner that would leave the viewing public in no doubt that the story was actually about the School.
 The complainant maintained that there had been no opportunity provided to the School to “disprove or even discuss” claims of:
- use of unqualified teachers
- flashy brochures alluding to the success awaiting course graduates
- exaggerated advertisements
- over-promising and under-delivering
- “duping” students into paying for a course that fails to deliver
- the allegation that “it’s just a bit of a get rich quick scheme”
- the profits to be made from private training.
 Ms Laing was concerned that there had been no attempt to disconnect Dominie Till’s comments about the failure of makeup courses from the School, as no other schools were identified in that section. She argued that “not one of the allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour apply to The Film School” although it was the only school represented on screen.
 Ms Laing maintained that the two graduates of The Film School who were interviewed had both had work since graduating, although only one of them acknowledged this. Neither had been asked, she said, about their preparation for “the sporadic employment which is the reality for film industry practitioners at all levels”. The complainant contended that standards of balance, accuracy and fairness had been breached in this respect.
2. The participation of the director of the School was gained by misrepresentation on the part of the production company as to the subject of the documentary, and furthermore he was presented as speaking for all “film” schools.
 Ms Laing stated that The Film School “had no reason to shy away from a documentary described in advance as being about how it marketed itself”, and for that reason the director was “open and honest in his interview”. If he had known the true subject of the programme, she contended, he could have “easily refuted and corrected the allegations and exposed the invalidity of using The Film School as an example in the ‘duping’ thesis”.
 This, she alleged, constituted a breach of standards relating to balance, accuracy and fairness.
3. The production company misrepresented to the broadcaster and the viewing public the role and status of The Film School and thereby demeaned and damaged it in the eyes of the public.
 The complainant advised TVNZ that The Film School had been established by members of the film industry in Wellington because existing courses did not involve working practitioners in the delivery of the course, and:
…there was a need for those considering a career in the film industry to be adequately prepared for the New Zealand industry (and a part of this adequate preparation is the emphasis on the fact that it is very difficult a) to get a foot in the door and b) to earn a living as a self-employed practitioner – in fact it is precisely during their copious downtime that experienced practitioners are able to give their tutoring time to the School).
 Ms Laing contended that many graduates of The Film School were working in the production industry with varying degrees of success. In the “emotive” talk about “kids” and “school leavers” being duped, she said, the School’s preferred admission policy of “applicants with previous training, tertiary education or at least some life experience (i.e. not school leavers)” was completely overlooked. Rather, the complainant maintained, the majority of all intakes comprised mature students.
 Ms Laing alleged that the above matters amounted to breaches of accuracy and fairness.
4. The broadcaster allowed a grossly derogatory quote by a graduate of the School to the effect that “it’s just a bit of a get rich quick scheme” without checking the accuracy of the statement or providing the School with an opportunity to respond.
 Far from being a “get rich quick scheme”, the complainant said, The Film School was run by a non-profit industry trust with fees that equate only to the cost of delivery. Ms Laing stated that the course fee was “no higher than the highest charged by other tertiary providers in the field” while being the only course that allowed students to work on film-stock. The number of offshore enquiries and foreign students indicated that the School “is offering the best value around”, she said.
 Ms Laing also noted that until 2003, tutors worked as unpaid volunteers “wanting to give something back”. This was also the motive of the eleven industry trustees, she said, who worked many unpaid hours. The complainant maintained that the derogatory statement breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness.
 Turning to more general matters, Ms Laing stated that it was impossible to ignore the “damaging effect” the broadcast would have on the School. She added:
Already enquirers are referring to us as “the school in that programme” and “the school that’s in trouble”. Various of our tutors have expressed surprise that one of the disaffected subjects represented in the documentary was a graduate of the School. In fact she is not, but this distinction, along with many others, was not made. Our stake-holders are confused and dismayed.
 The complainant maintained that the organisations responsible for the funding and accreditation of the School were owed an explanation. She alleged that the programme had caused “unwarranted damage to the reputation of The Film School which we would like to see redressed”.
 Television New Zealand Ltd assessed the complaint under Standards 4, 5 and 6 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which provide:
Standard 4 Balance
In the preparation and presentation of news, current affairs and factual programmes, broadcasters are responsible for maintaining standards consistent with the principle that when controversial issues of public importance are discussed, reasonable efforts are made, or reasonable opportunities are given, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.
Standard 5 Accuracy
News, current affairs and other factual programmes must be truthful and accurate on points of fact, and be impartial and objective at all times.
Standard 6 Fairness
In the preparation and presentation of programmes, broadcasters are required to deal justly and fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.
Broadcaster's Response to the Complainant
 In its response to the complainant, TVNZ contended that the subject of the documentary was a matter “of genuine public interest and concern”. While investigating the complaint its attention had been drawn to advertisements in local papers which advertised a “huge variety of tertiary courses – which place pressure on both young students and older people to pay up and train”.
 The broadcast did not, in TVNZ’s view, criticise The Film School. It contended that the complainant’s concern arose because she recognised two of the students as being graduates; however viewers unaware of where the students were taught would not conclude that they came through The Film School. In addition, the broadcaster maintained that the students’ comments were “delivered as genuinely held expressions of opinion as is specifically allowed for in guideline 6d of the Code”.
 TVNZ also argued that while the complainant had alleged a lack of accuracy in the item, she appeared to produce “no evidence of fact or detail being reported incorrectly”.
 The broadcaster proceeded to examine each of the four points outlined in Ms Laing’s letter of complaint.
1. Viewers were led to the conclusion that the programme was about The Film School because it was the only school referred to.
 TVNZ did not agree with this claim, arguing that it seemed clear that the opening section “looked at the oversupply of graduates, and their dissatisfaction in the film training area and industry generally”. The broadcaster argued that the programme did not look at the quality of tuition, unqualified teachers or student “duping”, as alleged by the complainant.
 TVNZ pointed to responses from the students which “clearly refer to the film training area as a whole, and not specifically to The Film School”:
- “It was really hard to get a job. There are so many people just looking to get their foot in the door. Just everyone is trying to do the same thing. There’s not really much work around”.
- “I’ve had sporadic work in the film industry. Certainly nothing that constitutes a liveable income”.
 The broadcaster contended that Tommy Honey’s comments actually presented The Film School in a positive and constructive light.
 Noting the complainant’s concern that “no attempt was made to disconnect The Film School from Dominie Till’s complaints about the failure of makeup courses generally”, TVNZ found that no disassociation was necessary. It contended that Ms Till’s remarks were a general observation about students approaching her workplace for jobs, and that there was no implication that the courses she referred to were provided by The Film School.
2. Participation of the Director of The Film School was obtained by ‘misrepresentation’ as to the subject of the documentary.
 TVNZ sought a statement from the director of the programme who, it said, gave his assurance that there was no misrepresentation as alleged by the complainant. The director said:
There was no attempt whatsoever to misrepresent the topic of the documentary with Mr Honey. I was open and honest with him about the content and thesis of the programme from my first contact.
…I told him that we were looking at several different industries or types of training courses, and that our focus for film and television courses was essentially the huge numbers of courses available to students, and how this meant huge competition for a relatively small number of jobs.
I told Tommy that we were focusing on how particularly since The Lord of the Rings and The Last Samurai hit the headlines there seemed to be a sense that screen courses were cashing in on this perceived “boom” industry and marketing themselves with allusions of awaiting glamorous careers for graduates. This is what the interview covered and what ultimately the subject of that segment became.
3. The programme misrepresented the role and status of The Film School, thereby demeaning and damaging it in the eyes of the public.
 The broadcaster did not agree that the role and status of The Film School had been misrepresented. It contended that the central thesis of the programme was that:
…there were an abundance of courses, with graduates chasing a very limited number of jobs. The [standards] committee noted that you have not challenged this basic premise. The programme was not about quality of tutors or quality of courses. It was about oversupply.
 TVNZ contended that the programme did not assert that the oversupply was the work of The Film School alone. Rather, it said, choosing the director of the School to speak on behalf of the industry had implied something about the status of The Film School.
4. The broadcaster allowed a grossly derogatory quote by a graduate to be broadcast without checking the accuracy of the statement or providing the School with an opportunity to respond.
 The broadcaster maintained that the “get rich quick scheme” remark was an expression of genuinely held opinion by a student “who was clearly disillusioned with the course he took”. While the complainant knew the student had attended The Film School, it said, the viewing public was not made privy to that information.
 TVNZ argued that the student’s opinion was presented as a general comment about film courses in “an industry which is over supplied with graduates and difficult to get in to”.
 Turning to consider Standard 4 (balance), TVNZ did not agree that the programme lacked balance. While there had been criticism of courses, it said, there had also been reaction from Tommy Honey, adding:
The film industry, it has to be remembered, was being used as an example of a segment of the tertiary education sector which, rightly or wrongly, is experiencing criticism in what is already an over-filled job marketplace.
 The broadcaster contended that the programme approached the subject from “an objective and impartial viewpoint, identifying the issues and looking at the causes”. The complaints about the film industry were not, in TVNZ’s view, linked specifically to The Film School and the comments seen to be made were general. It concluded that Standard 4 had not been breached.
 Similarly, TVNZ found no examples of inaccuracy and believed that the complainant had not identified any in her letter. It found that there had not been any breach of Standard 5 (accuracy).
 With reference to Standard 6 (fairness), TVNZ argued that the standard would only apply if the programme had singled out one school as the target for the students’ criticism. The broadcaster maintained that the programme had not done that, stating that the comments were “general in nature and applicable across the whole film training industry.
 Accordingly, TVNZ found that there had been no breach of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice and it declined to uphold the complaint.
Referral to the Authority
 Dissatisfied with the broadcaster’s response, Ms Laing referred her complaint to the Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. She maintained that The Film School had been included by association in allegations of “duping” and “under delivery” as a result of a programme which breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness.
 Ms Laing alleged that the director of the programme had advised Mr Honey that the documentary was originally going to be about students disaffected by their educational experience, but because he had been unable to find any students with such concerns he had changed the nature of the documentary. She said that the director had advised Mr Honey that the programme was now to be about how tertiary institutions marketed themselves, and it was on that basis that he had agreed to take part.
 In the week prior to the broadcast, Ms Laing advised that Mr Honey became aware of publicity for the programme and contacted the director, who told Mr Honey that he “would probably not be happy with what he saw”. Mr Honey was told that the director had found three students who were willing to speak on screen, “although it was simply coincidence that two of them were from The Film School”. The complainant added:
Instead of advising Tommy of this change of focus (back to the original idea) and giving him the opportunity to respond, it seems it was decided to use his comments, made in another context, to appear to be in response to issues raised by students and others in this section. (In this regard it hardly matters whether the students were graduates of The Film School or not – it has been our experience that viewers…thought all interviewees in the first section were involved in The Film School).
 Ms Laing said that the production company had confirmed that no students from film schools “that were clearly under-performing and ripping the students off” were prepared to go on television. She contended that this circumstance, and the fact that Mr Honey had been interviewed on another subject, “appears to account for the fact that the first section of the documentary is stylistically different from the others”.
 For example, she said, while other institutions featured elsewhere in the programme were named upfront, The Film School was not. In addition, while there had been an attempt to use the same format as the other case studies – “student and industry complaints and tertiary representative response” – Ms Laing alleged that Mr Honey was in fact responding to questions on another subject entirely. The result, the complainant argued, was that The Film School was connected with the failed institutions “by both manipulation and association”.
 Ms Laing turned to consider TVNZ’s response to her complaint. She argued that the broadcaster had responded by “broadly redefining the thesis of the documentary and ignoring the later segments and the company the School is forced to keep”, referring to the “bogus police recruitment course and a collapsed animation course refusing to return fees”.
 The complainant alleged that TVNZ had interpreted Standard 5 (accuracy) as relating to fact and detail, and not at all to context and inference. She suggested that the programme was not truthful in its association of The Film School with “get rich quick schemes”, unqualified teachers, or students being “duped by courses that over promised and under delivered”.
 TVNZ’s conclusion that Mr Honey’s appearance suggested something positive about the School was only possible, Ms Laing said, if it was denied that the programme was about failed institutions. She also argued that the two ex-graduates of The Film School were identifiable – the first because an image of the School’s prospectus immediately preceded his comments, and the second by reference to the fee paid. The complainant contended that many viewers believed that the third student was also a graduate of The Film School, which was not the case.
 Ms Laing disputed TVNZ’s contention that the programme did not look at the quality of tuition, unqualified teachers, over promising and student “duping”. In fact, she said, that was the message that The Film School had been dealing with. The complainant advised that a prospective student had declined to turn up for an interview after the broadcast, and that Radio New Zealand had run a programme and interview where a Member of Parliament had questioned “how shonky programmes with poor teaching come to be funded”.
 In conclusion, Ms Laing reiterated that the broadcaster should have “been honest in its representation” of the reason for the School’s participation. If The Film School was not intended to be associated with the opening and publicity statements, the complainant argued, this should have been made clear.
Broadcaster’s Response to the Authority
 In its response to the Authority, TVNZ denied that the purpose of the programme had altered after the interview with Mr Honey. It had always been focussed on the large number of courses available, the oversupply of students and the use of tempting advertisements suggesting good job prospects. The questions asked in Mr Honey’s interview, it argued, revolved around these issues.
 The broadcaster observed that it had received no complaints to indicate that Mr Honey was surprised about the questions, or that he felt he was misled about the programme’s focus. It responded to the four points outlined in Ms Laing’s complaint.
 TVNZ held to the view that the item was accurate on points of fact and detail. It recognised that the complainant might be suggesting that the documentary was inaccurate because “not one of the allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour applied to The Film School”. However, TVNZ contended, that assertion relied on the belief that all of the issues about training courses addressed in the documentary could be seen to apply to that school, and the broadcaster disputed this.
 TVNZ maintained that the focus of the segment on the film industry was the oversupply of graduates, not issues of quality or the level of tuition. In terms of balance, it said, Mr Honey responded to oversupply issues himself. While the segment included comments from John Barnett (Chairman of the NZ Screen Council) that there were too many courses where the teachers are not qualified, these were general remarks.
 Referring to the complainant’s allegations that the School had not been dissociated from Dominie Till’s remarks about makeup courses, TVNZ submitted that there was no implication that the “three-month course” mentioned was in any way linked to The Film School.
 While the complainant had argued that allegations of unsatisfactory behaviour did not apply to The Film School, TVNZ contended that the only criticism levelled at the School was “that there are too many courses and not enough jobs available”.
 Remarks by the students about “get rich quick” schemes and the difficulty of finding work were expressions of opinion, TVNZ said, which were expressly endorsed by Guideline 6d of the Code. In addition, references to “flashy brochures” and “exaggerated advertisements” were made in the introduction to the programme and were general comments about the state of tertiary training in New Zealand.
 TVNZ “emphatically denied” the complainant’s claims that Mr Honey was misled about the focus of the item. The broadcaster supplied some of the questions asked by the director which, it observed, did not appear to have concerned Mr Honey at the time of the interview. It argued that, even if Mr Honey’s opinion had been seen to represent other film schools, there was “nothing inherently wrong in that”. That the director chose Mr Honey, it said, implied a level of respect within the industry for The Film School.
 The broadcaster disputed Ms Laing’s contention that the documentary “misrepresented…the role and status of The Film School”. It stressed its view that the programme was not about The Film School; rather it was about an industry with an abundance of courses and a limited number of job opportunities for the numerous graduates. It said:
As the documentary at no point criticised the quality of The Film School courses we find it difficult to see how it “demeaned and damaged” the School “in the eyes of the public”.
 TVNZ noted that the owner of the production company had written to Ms Laing, suggesting that if she could demonstrate that the School had been negatively affected then he would investigate ways in which he might “be able to help correct that impression with certain clients or funders of the school”. The broadcaster observed that the complainant had “not taken up this offer, or demonstrated the damage she alleges”.
 TVNZ reiterated its contention that the student’s remark about a “get rich quick” scheme was a valid expression of opinion that was “directly relevant to the issues under discussion”. The broadcaster also noted that it had spoken to several other former students of The Film School who had complained that the fees were expensive. It added:
If a student feels that he or she has not got value for money, the sense that someone is getting rich at their expense is a very real perception. The criticism was never levelled specifically at The Film School, and in the documentary appeared as a general comment about some courses.
 TVNZ argued that The Film School was not invited to defend this point because the documentary “was never a story about The Film School, nor a criticism of it”. Further, it said, a defence of this point could have made it look as though the documentary had singled out The Film School.
Complainant’s Final Comment
 In her final comment to the Authority, Ms Laing made several preliminary points before addressing TVNZ’s response to her four main issues of complaint. Firstly, she asserted that the validity of her complaint came down to whether the director of The Film School had been misled as to the subject of the documentary in which he agreed to participate. She added:
He would not have received approval [from the Trustees], and nor would he have wanted to participate, had he or the Trustees known that the subject of the programme was failed or dishonest tertiary institutions.
As a result, the School was unwittingly featured in a documentary about failed courses – “courses that over-promised and under-delivered”.
 Ms Laing maintained that Mr Honey had been interviewed about marketing – specifically how The Film School markets itself. Referring to TVNZ’s argument that Mr Honey had not complained about the line of questioning, she contended that he had no reason to complain until “his comments were used out of context to appear to be responses to other participants…when in fact they were not”.
 The complainant was also concerned that the footage involving The Film School would be used by TVNZ in the future to illustrate any case being made about problems in the tertiary sector.
 Referring to her first point of complaint, Ms Laing argued that TVNZ appeared to be “in some confusion” as to what the programme was about. The presenter’s introduction, which was also used in promos and news releases, made it clear that the students all said they were “duped”; whereas TVNZ had subsequently claimed that the programme was about the large number of courses, the oversupply of students and the use of tempting advertisements. While the issue of oversupply had been canvassed, the complainant argued:
…oversupply is not over-promised, and TVNZ has consistently ignored our primary complaint that the School was featured at all in a programme about duping and failure.
 The complainant was also concerned about John Barnett’s statement that “there are far too many of these courses in which the teachers aren’t qualified and the certification they get at the end is of very little use”. She argued that “with no other view to balance Mr Barnett, it is not unnatural for viewers to draw the inference that The Film School has unqualified teachers, when the reverse is true”. In addition, Ms Laing contended that the director of the School had been given no opportunity to respond to Mr Barnett’s comments, although the programme “was constructed in such a way to suggest that this had occurred”.
 Ms Laing referred to TVNZ’s contention that the only criticism levelled at The Film School was that “there are too many courses and not enough jobs”. This, she said, was “simply untrue”. The complainant said:
Enough mud is splattered about in the section on film and television training to stick without being specifically aimed at the only film school represented in the programme.
 Considering the broadcaster’s argument about Dominie Till’s comments, Ms Laing asserted that the perception was available that her remarks concerned The Film School. Further, she said, there was no implication or statement that they were not linked to the School.
 Ms Laing noted that none of the film students had complained about having been “duped” or falsely led to enrol in a course through “flashy brochures”. She argued that this was a point of difference between the film segment and the remaining segments, all of which had clearly identified those issues as a problem in those sectors.
 The complainant stood by her assertion that The Film School had been included in a documentary about duping and failure in a manner that had given the public the impression “that it is underperforming, ripping off students and somehow ‘in trouble’”. She referred to the comments of the Dominion Post’s television critic about “shocking anecdotes related by film, animation, diving and police students who had shelled out considerable sums of money for badly resourced and tutored courses which left them out of pocket and job”. This, she said, did not allow for the distinction “that TVNZ naively promotes with regard to The Film School”.
 Turning to consider her second main point of complaint, Ms Laing maintained that Mr Honey’s participation in the documentary was “gained by misrepresentation”, and she included a statement from Mr Honey to that effect. On the subject of Mr Honey being represented as speaking for all film schools, the complainant agreed with TVNZ that there is “nothing inherently wrong” with that; as long as he knew that was his role. Ms Laing said:
Mr Honey believed he was speaking about how The Film School markets itself. At no time was he invited to serve as a representative of the sector or as apologist for poorly performing schools. And it was quite simply not necessary that he do so. Where were the other voices, the other film schools?
 Referring to part three of her complaint, Ms Laing noted that TVNZ had said that it could not see how the programme had demeaned and damaged the School in the eyes of the public. “Such a lack of awareness of the power of the medium in which they operate” was of real concern to the complainant. She argued that audiences not only “believe what they see on television but believe what they think they see”. Ms Laing stated that the overriding impression left by the programme was that students were being financially exploited by “shonky courses and poor teaching”. Nobody, she said, had picked up the “subtlety promoted by TVNZ that The Film School was somehow placed outside this assertion”.
 Ms Laing advised the Authority that the School continued to receive feedback from both members of the film industry and the public, asking how it was coping “with the fallout from the programme and enquiring if we are still ‘in trouble’”.
 In relation to point four of her complaint, Ms Laing accepted that the student’s comment about a “get rich quick scheme” was an expression of opinion. However, she argued, it was “a strong opinion with severe implications for the image of the only identified film school”. The complainant asserted that the opinion deserved a response from The Film School in the interests of balance.
 In summary, Ms Laing advised that she could see only two possible reasons for “the misrepresentation of The Film School in the programme: duplicity or incompetence”. She asked the Authority to consider the implications of the programme for the School in its determination.
 The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the broadcast complained about and have read the correspondence listed in the Appendix. The Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.
 Ms Laing has complained that the programme breached standards of balance, accuracy and fairness; and her complaint centred around four main points.
1. The Film School was included in the main thesis of the documentary by association, impression and implication in a manner that would leave the viewing public in no doubt that the story was actually about the School.
 While the complainant has alleged that standards of balance, accuracy and fairness were breached under this heading, the Authority is of the view, for the following reasons, that Standard 6 (fairness) aptly encompasses her concerns.
 While the item did deal with a controversial issue of public importance – the quality of some tertiary education courses – the complainant’s essential concerns were not that The Film School had not been given the opportunity to comment on this wider issue and thus bring balance to the coverage. In its correspondence, the complainant never disagreed that the industry did face these problems. Instead the concern was that the School had been unfairly singled out and identified as a target of the criticism levelled at film schools.
 In these circumstances, the Authority considers that this part of the complaint is most appropriately addressed as an issue of fairness, rather than balance.
 The Authority agrees with the complainant that The Film School was treated unfairly in the broadcast. The focus of the whole programme was criticism of a number of different industry training bodies. The first segment – which was preceded by a strongly-worded introduction about students being “duped” – was about film training schools. This segment made a number of comments that were critical of film training schools generally, including that they were “get rich quick” schemes, that they over-promised and under-delivered, and that staff were unqualified. Critically, The Film School was the only institution identified in this item.
 In the Authority’s view The Film School became by implication and juxtaposition, the “face” of the substandard film schools being discussed. TVNZ maintained that the criticisms were not directed at the School, and that it was portrayed in a good light. But, in the view of the Authority, even if the criticisms were not intentionally directed at the School, the School’s identification in a piece that was critical of film schools generally, and the failure to disassociate it from the criticisms, clearly implied that The Film School had these same faults. The Authority considers that this impression was heightened by The Film School’s involvement in a programme that examined the failures of courses in other fields.
 The Authority accepts that there is no evidence that the key criticism – that students were being “duped” by substandard courses – applies to The Film School. In fact, TVNZ has stressed on a number of occasions that this criticism of The Film School was not intended and that the choice of Mr Honey as a spokesman implied something about the status of the School. The documentary, TVNZ maintained, “at no point criticised the quality of The Film School”.
 The Authority disagrees. It considers that, given the thrust of the documentary in the introduction about students being “duped by courses which over-promised and under-delivered”, the comments about substandard courses and inadequate teaching in the film segment, and the association with poorly performing courses in other industries, The Film School was clearly implicated by association.
 The Authority considers that if the criticism had not been intended for The Film School, as has been claimed, then the documentary should have explicitly stated this. The failure to do so left the School exposed to unwarranted criticism and was unfair.
 Furthermore, despite this implicit criticism of The Film School, its director was given no opportunity to respond. Mr Honey’s responses were limited to questions about the oversupply of graduates and the cost of The Film School’s course.
 For the above reasons, the Authority considers that the item breached Standard 6 (fairness).
2. The participation of the director of the School was gained by misrepresentation on the part of the production company as to the subject of the documentary, and furthermore he was presented as speaking for all “film” schools.
 The Authority considers that Standard 6 (fairness) is most apposite to this section of the complaint. Guideline 6b to Standard 6 states:
Contributors and participants in any programme should be dealt with fairly and should, except as required in the public interest, be informed of the reason for their proposed contribution and participation and the role that is expected of them.
 The Authority has been presented with conflicting accounts about the participation of The Film School’s director.
 The complainant has alleged that Mr Honey agreed to participate in the programme on the basis that it was a documentary about how tertiary institutions market themselves. She advised that The Film School board gave permission for him to do so under this original thesis. The complainant has contended that when the focus of the film industry segment changed and students were interviewed, the programme’s director should have returned to Mr Honey for his comments.
 The director of the programme, in denying there had been any misrepresentation, said that he advised Mr Honey that “this was a programme looking at the proliferation of tertiary education courses in New Zealand and in particular, but not exclusively, private training establishments”, and that the focus for film and television courses was “essentially the huge numbers of courses available to students, and how this meant huge competition for a relatively small number of jobs”.
 TVNZ also argued that the thesis of the programme was limited to the large number of courses available, the oversupply of students, and the use of tempting advertisements suggesting good prospects of jobs in the industry. The Authority accepts that these were certainly part of the thesis of the programme, but it does not agree with TVNZ that the documentary confined itself to those issues.
 The Authority considers that the theme of substandard courses and unqualified teachers was introduced into the film segment through comments made by Dominie Till and John Barnett. It was also the theme of the entire documentary, as stated in the introduction about students being “duped”, and continued through the rest of the programme when, following the film segment, it went on to feature courses of questionable quality and tertiary providers who had already attracted negative publicity.
 The comments Mr Honey made in the programme were consistent with the complainant’s allegations that he was asked to comment only on the marketing of film training schools. His responses were confined to questions about the oversupply of graduates, the cost of the course, and the difficulty of finding permanent film industry work. Mr Honey did not address the students’ allegations about the quality of courses or teacher qualification.
 Whatever the understanding of the parties, the Authority is of the view that Mr Honey was unaware of the documentary’s wider focus. He was unaware that former students of the School would be featured in the programme; that his interview would be in a segment which included negative comments about poor quality teaching and course delivery; and that The Film School would be featured among “failed” course providers from other industries.
 The Authority considers that this was unfair. It denied Mr Honey the opportunity to address the serious concerns voiced in the item, and to distance his organisation from criticisms which, as the broadcaster has stressed, were not intended for The Film School.
 On the information before the Authority, it is of the view that Mr Honey agreed to participate in the programme under a thesis different from that which underpinned the programme as broadcast, and should have been given an opportunity to respond to the students’ interviews. The Authority considers that the broadcaster’s conduct in this respect amounted to a breach of Standard 6 (fairness).
3. The production company has misrepresented to the broadcaster and the viewing public the role and status of The Film School and has thereby demeaned and damaged it in the eyes of the public.
 The Authority considers that the issues raised by this point have already been dealt with under the first of the complainant’s main points. The Authority agrees that The Film School was implicated in the allegations of “duping” without being given any opportunity to respond. It upholds this as a breach of Standard 6 (fairness).
4. The broadcaster allowed a grossly derogatory quote by a graduate of the School to the effect that “it’s just a bit of a get rich quick scheme” without checking the accuracy of the statement or providing the School with opportunity to respond.
 Standard 5 (accuracy) requires that news and current affairs programmes be truthful and accurate on points of fact. Guideline 5d to that standard states that factual reports must be clearly distinguishable from opinion, analysis and comment.
 In the present case, the Authority agrees that viewers may have thought the student attended The Film School by implication, and that the “get rich quick” observation was about that school. However, it considers that the student’s remark was a genuine expression of opinion, rather than a statement of fact to which Standard 5 (accuracy) would apply. This aspect of the complaint is not upheld.
 Regarding the allegation that the School was not given the opportunity to respond, the Authority notes that it has, under heading 1. above, already comprehensively addressed the complainant’s concern that unfair criticisms were made of the School. It considers that this issue has been appropriately dealt with in that discussion.
Bill of Rights
 For the avoidance of doubt, the Authority records that it has given full weight to the provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and taken into account all the circumstances of the complaint in reaching this determination. For the reasons given above, the Authority considers that its exercise of powers on this occasion is consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.
For the above reasons, the Authority upholds the complaint that the broadcast by Television New Zealand Ltd on 15 September 2004 breached Standard 6 of the Free-to-Air Television Code of Broadcasting Practice. It declines to uphold the other aspects of the complaint.
 Having upheld the complaint, the Authority invited submissions from the parties on orders.
 Noting that the Authority had not found a breach of Standards 1 or 4, TVNZ submitted that publication of the decision would be sufficient penalty for the breach of Standard 6 (fairness). In the broadcaster’s opinion, any statement would throw the spotlight on The Film School again, perhaps highlighting it to a greater extent than was the case in the original broadcast.
 However, if the Authority determined that an order was appropriate, TVNZ submitted that it should be in the form of a “notice” placed in a trade publication of the complainant’s choosing. The broadcaster noted that One News Insight does not have a regular place on TVNZ’s schedule, and that each documentary is self-contained. TVNZ contended that it would be unfair to the producer of a future documentary if an unrelated statement was “sellotaped” to the programme.
 The complainant sought an order that TVNZ publish a statement including the following points:
- that the Authority upheld the complaint that the broadcast breached Standard 6 (fairness)
- that TVNZ regrets the unfair association of The Film School with the other educational providers referred to in the programme
- that TVNZ in no way wished to suggest that The Film School was guilty of “duping” students, or of “under-delivery” or is a poorly performing institution
- that TVNZ acknowledges that there is a high level of respect for The Film School within the film industry.
 The complainant submitted that the statement should be published within a period of two months. Noting that One News Insight is infrequently on air, the complainant asked that the statement be broadcast within a series of a similar nature, or within Close Up. In addition, it asked for the statement to be printed in the Listener.
 With respect to costs, the complainant asked for an award of costs in the amount of $3,000 plus GST. Stating that The Film School had experienced a direct financial disadvantage from inclusion within the programme as a result of lost course fees, the complainant also asked for $12,500 plus GST in costs relating to damaged reputation.
 Lastly, the complainant requested that the Authority seek a commitment from TVNZ not to use any of the footage shot in relation to The Film School without the prior approval of the School.
 The Authority has considered the submissions on orders made by the parties. It notes that it has no jurisdiction under the Broadcasting Act to seek a commitment from TVNZ that it will not use the footage again without the prior approval of The Film School. Similarly, the Authority has no power to award damages to a complainant under the Broadcasting Act. Therefore it declines to award costs relating to damage to reputation.
 The Authority does not consider an award of costs to The Film School to be appropriate. The majority of costs awards are designed to reimburse complainants for a portion of legal costs reasonably incurred in pursuing their complaint. In exceptional circumstances, other out-of-pocket expenses directly related to the laying of the complaint may also be claimed. The Film School has not advised the Authority of any legal costs, and no exceptional circumstances exist on this occasion.
 However, the Authority considers that the breach of broadcasting standards on this occasion was sufficiently serious to warrant the broadcast of a statement approved by the Authority. Accordingly it imposes the following order:
Pursuant to section 13(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989, the Authority orders Television New Zealand Ltd to broadcast a statement approved by the Authority. That statement shall:
- be broadcast within one month of the date of this decision
- be broadcast within a programme similar to One News Insight, during prime time, on a date to be approved by the Authority
- summarise the Authority’s decision on the complaint and comprehensively explain the reasons for its finding that the broadcast breached Standard 6 of the Free-to-Air Code.
The Authority draws the broadcaster’s attention to the requirement in s.13(3)(b) of the Act for the broadcaster to give notice to the Authority of the manner in which the above order has been complied with.
Signed for and on behalf of the Authority
4 May 2005
The following correspondence was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:
- Robin Laing’s formal complaint – 1 October 2004
- TVNZ’s decision on the formal complaint – 1 November 2004
- Ms Laing’s referral to the Authority – 25 November 2004
- TVNZ’s response to the Authority – 6 January 2005
- Ms Laing’s final comment – 20 January 2005
- The Film School’s submissions on orders – 30 March 2005
- TVNZ’s submissions on orders – 31 March 2005


text:
DEERFIELD, Ill. (AP) _ Fortune Brands Home & Security Inc. (FBHS) on Wednesday reported first-quarter net income of $84.7 million.
The Deerfield, Illinois-based company said it had profit of 60 cents per share. Earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and costs, were 63 cents per share.
The results exceeded Wall Street expectations. The average estimate of eight analysts surveyed by Zacks Investment Research was for earnings of 59 cents per share.
The maker of products for the home, like faucets, cabinets, windows and doors posted revenue of $1.33 billion in the period, which also beat Street forecasts. Seven analysts surveyed by Zacks expected $1.31 billion.
Fortune Brands Home & Security expects full-year earnings in the range of $3.53 to $3.77 per share.
Fortune Brands Home & Security shares have climbed 31 percent since the beginning of the year. In the final minutes of trading on Wednesday, shares hit $49.93, a drop of slightly more than 9 percent in the last 12 months.
This story was generated by Automated Insights (http://automatedinsights.com/ap) using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on FBHS at https://www.zacks.com/ap/FBHS

domain: news


text:
OG Kush Barney's Farm
100 day satisfaction guarantee
Discreet delivery worldwide
Unlimited cash on delivery
The feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm are a legendary marijuana strain known for its potency and distinctive flavor. With high THC levels and a unique terpene profile, these seeds are ideal for those looking for a high quality growing experience. In this description we will provide you with detailed information about the genetics of these seeds, what they look like, how to grow them indoors and outdoors, and when to harvest them for best results.
Table of Contents
- What are the genetics of these seeds?
- How do OG Kush plants look like?
- How to grow these seeds indoors and outdoors?
- When are Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds harvested?
- How much do these seeds produce?
- What is the aroma and flavor of Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds like?
- What kind of effect does this marijuana have?
- Buy feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm at the best price online.
What are the genetics of these seeds?
The feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm are a hybrid strain that comes from a mix of Chemdawg, Lemon Thai and Hindu Kush strains. This unique combination of genetics results in a marijuana plant with Indica and Sativa characteristics, and contains about 70% Indica and 30% Sativa.
How do OG Kush plants look like?
The plants of OG Kush are of medium/tall size, with wide and dark green leaves. The buds are dense and resinous, with a thick layer of trichomes and highly developed calyxes, with a very low leaf ratio. The pistils are bright orange, which contrasts with the dark green of the buds, giving them a attractive visual appearance.
How to grow these seeds indoors and outdoors?
The feminized seeds OG Kush of Barney's Farm can be grown both indoors and outdoors, but it is important to take into account some specific considerations to obtain the best results.
Indoors, a vegetation period of about 3-4 weeks is recommended before switching to the flowering phase. The plant can grow to a height of 80-120 cm indoors, so it is important to have enough vertical space. OG Kush is suitable for growing techniques such as LST (Low Stress Training) or SCROG (Screen of Green) to control its height and maximize bud production. A warm and humid climate should be maintained during vegetation, and humidity should be reduced during flowering to prevent mold formation on the dense buds, as they are very compact and do not transpire very well. It is possible to put 9 plants/m2 in pots of 11 liters.
Outdoors, the feminized seeds OG Kush of Barney's Farm prefer a warm and sunny climate, similar to the Mediterranean climate, but they can be grown in other environments. They can be grown in pots or directly in the ground, as long as they have at least 40 liters of substrate, but it is important to make sure that the plants receive enough direct sunlight and are protected from adverse weather conditions. The plant can reach a height of 150-200 cm outdoors.
When are Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds harvested?
The feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm have a flowering time of approximately 8-9 weeks indoors, and will be ready for harvest when the trichomes on the buds are at their optimum point of maturity. This can be determined by using a magnifying glass to observe the trichomes, which should be mostly amber in color for a more relaxing and sedative effect, or milky in color for a more uplifting and euphoric effect.
Outdoors, feminized seeds OG Kush of Barney's Farm are harvested at the beginning of October in the northern hemisphere, or at the beginning of April in the southern hemisphere. However, it is important to monitor the trichomes and not just rely on the date, as the maturity of the plant can vary according to climatic conditions and the growing environment.
How much do these seeds produce?
The feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm are known for their excellent performance both indoors and outdoors. Indoors, you can expect a performance of around 550-600 grams per square meter under optimal growing conditions. These seeds produce medium to large sized plants with dense, resinous buds that give a high performance.
However, in outdoor cultivation, performance may vary depending on climatic and growing conditions, as well as the care and experience of the grower. However, it is estimated that Barney's Farm feminized OG Kush plants can produce around 1500-2000 grams per plant in an outdoor crop. These plants are hardy and adapt well to different climates, making them ideal for outdoor cultivation in various regions.
What is the aroma and flavor of Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds like?
The aroma and flavor of Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds are legendary in the world of marijuana. The aroma is intense, with earthy, citrus and spicy notes that combine in a distinctive and intoxicating fragrance. When smoked, hints of lemon, pine and wood can be appreciated, blending into a complex and delicious bouquet. The smoke is smooth and silky, allowing you to fully enjoy the characteristic flavors and aromas of OG Kush.
What kind of effect does this marijuana have?
OG Kush is known for its potent and balanced effect, combining indica and sativa characteristics. The effect of OG Kush is described as relaxing and euphoric at the same time, which makes it a popular choice for both daytime and nighttime use. The effect on the body is relaxing and comforting, something that helps relieve stress and muscle tension. It can also have analgesic properties, making it a popular choice for those seeking pain relief.
In the mind, OG Kush produces a euphoric and stimulating effect, which can improve creativity and mood. However, it can also have a sedative effect at higher doses, which can be beneficial for relaxing and falling asleep. In terms of potency, Barney's Farm feminized OG Kush has a high THC content, which can vary between 23% and 26%, and thanks to this it is a potent strain and suitable for those with a high to moderate tolerance.
Buy feminized seeds OG Kush from Barney's Farm at the best price online.
If you are looking to buy Barney's Farm OG Kush feminized seeds at the best price, or with the best quality/price ratio on the market, look no further, because nowhere else will you find them with a better service, with discreet and fast shipping, and with a unique personalized attention.
|Phenotype:||70% Indica / 30% Sativa|
|Harvest outdoor H.N:||Early October|
|Harvest outdoor H.S:||Early April|
|Indoor production:||19.40 oz-21.2 oz per 3x3ft|
|Outdoor production:||52.9 oz-70.5 oz/plant|
|Indoor flowering period:||8-9 weeks|
|Weather:||Sunny / Mediterranean|
|Flavor and aroma:||Citrus
Is the shipping discreet?
Yes, the shipment is 100% discreet, no one will know what you have bought, also the sender is SITE OF SHOPS ONLINE.
Do you ship worldwide?
Yes, we ship to almost every country in the world although you need to know the current legislation in your country to make sure that you do not break any regulations with the germination of the seeds.
We cannot be made responsible for the wrong use that some people decide to give to the seeds, so please don't act against your national laws.
Due to problems with customs you can check here for restrictions to certain countries.
What payment methods and currencies do you accept?
We accept the following payment methods: Bank transfer, Cryptocurrencies, cash, credit and debit cards and cash on delivery (Spain, Belgium, France, Italy, Portugal).
You can change the currency on the top right to know the price of the products in your local currency and of course pay this way.
How long does it take to ship my order?
In 24/48 hours we will ship your order.
Are the seeds guaranteed to germinate?
If you live in a country where the cultivation of cannabis is legal and you decide to plant the seeds, it is good that you know that all the seeds that we commercialize have germination guarantee.
If you germinate with the method of paper napkins and you have followed all the steps that we indicate here, you will only have to return us the seeds not germinated in their original packaging and when we receive them we will proceed to the change.
Then we take care of requesting the return to the seed bank, we do not transfer this responsibility and time to our customers.
What if I receive a bad or damaged product?
If you receive a broken product due to transport, you have to notify us within 24 hours for insurance coverage, always contact us as soon as possible and we will fix the problem!
Among all those who comment or send us your questions, there will be a monthly raffle for a €50 voucher for your purchases at Pevgrow. What are you waiting for? Write us and participate!

domain: hobby


text:
Twin Beach Players’ The Mousetrap
Halloween sweetens the bait in this timely production
Agatha Christie catches you in her Mousetrap — the longest running show in the world — baited by Twin Beach Players with Halloween lure.
Enter the cozy North Beach Boys and Girls Club and you step into the spell. Cobwebs drape the gate of Christie’s barely illuminated Monkswell Manor, now a guesthouse.
In the dark theater, the tune of Three Blind Mice (the play’s original title), played on piano, breaks the silence. The eery music yields to a shrill whistle and a woman’s scream.
A moment of silence is broken by a radio voice (Sid Curl) announcing a murder. Alongside Curl, ghoul Brianna Bennett creates timely sound effects: the whistle, a door squeaking, a telephone ringing, skis schussing across snow, a gunshot.
Stage lights come up, and strange guests join you in the Great Hall.
Proprietor Mollie Ralston (Anna Gorenflo), who comes in out of the snow, is a bit scarier than usual, pale faced with white-streaked hair. Scarier still is her husband Giles (Aidan Davis) transformed by make-up artists Skip Smith and Wendy Cranford and costumer Dawn Dennison into Frankenstein’s monster.
Five more guests are stranger still.
Booked into the inn are four oddities: Christopher Wren (Justyn Christofel), a hyperactive Mad Scientist; Mrs. Boyle (Angela Sunstone), a witch with Bette Midler attitude; Major Metcalfe (Rick Thompson), the world’s tallest dwarf; and Miss Casewell (Lindsay Haas), a succubus.
Unexpected is Mr. Paravicini’s (Jeff Larsen) Dracula, who claims his car overturned in a snow bank.
“It’s the monster mash,” said Twin Beach Players’ president — and Mousetrap director — Curl. “The script lends itself to Halloween; I didn’t have to change anything.”
Characters emerge as the unlikely guests get acquainted. Mr. Paravicini’s charming and humorous Dracula steals the show, sneaking peeks of Miss Casewell’s ample cleavage and love bites on her neck.
Cut off as they are by the blizzard, one more visitor nevertheless skis in. He’s Sergeant Trotter (Michael Saunders), brought by an address found in the notebook of the murder victim. She never appears but she has distant ties to Monkswell Manor.
True to Agatha Christie — and at the request of Sergeant Trotter — the guests re-enact the murder while trying to prevent another.
As each character is scrutinized, the only thing we in the audience can be sure of is that no one is beyond
Which one is the guilty party?
You’ll have to go to find out. Christie — and Curl — demand it.

domain: artistic


text:
BYU (13-13, 7-7 MWC) at Wyoming (23-5, 11-4 MWC)
TODAY, 6 p.m.
GAME NOTES: On the heels of one of the season's lowlights (BYU's first-ever loss to Air Force), the Cougars face the same opponent from their season highlight. BYU beat then-nationally ranked Wyoming 56-42 a month ago in Provo. ... The Cougars won 69-62 in Laramie last year. BYU traditionally has been able to use a strong inside presence against Wyoming, but that part of the Cougars' game as well as many other aspects has been plagued with inconsistency this year. ... The Cowgirls are 6-1 in Mountain West home games in '08.


Last update on 2023-01-27 / Affiliate links / Images, Product Titles, and Product Highlights from Amazon Product Advertising API
The TONOR USB Microphone is a condenser microphone designed for computer gaming, podcasting, recording, livestreaming, and teleconferencing. It features noise-canceling technology and zero latency monitoring, allowing for clear audio capture. The microphone is plug and play, meaning it can be easily used on PC, Mac, and Android devices without the need for additional software or drivers. The model number of the microphone is ORCA001.
The CMTECK USB Computer Microphone G009 is a USB microphone designed for recording and online chatting, home studio, podcasting, gaming, Skype, and YouTube. It features noise-canceling technology to help reduce background noise and interference, and a mute function that allows you to quickly turn off the microphone when not in use. The microphone is compatible with both Windows and Mac operating systems, and is plug and play, meaning it does not require additional software or drivers to be installed.
The Cosycost USB Microphone is a condenser microphone designed for use with computers, gaming consoles such as PS4/5, laptops, and Android phones. It features noise-canceling technology and an instant mute function, making it suitable for use in various settings such as ASMR, voice recording, music recording, podcasting, and streaming. The microphone is plug-and-play, and compatible with Windows, Mac OS and Android, which means you don't need to install any additional software or drivers.
A noise-canceling USB microphone is a type of microphone that uses advanced technology to reduce background noise and interference, resulting in clear, high-quality audio capture. These microphones are typically designed for use in a variety of settings such as podcasting, recording music, streaming, online chatting, gaming, and teleconferencing. They can be connected to a computer or other device via USB, allowing for easy plug-and-play operation. Some noise-canceling USB microphones may also feature a mute function, allowing you to quickly turn off the microphone when not in use. They are becoming popular for their easy set up and for improving the audio quality of the recording which is important for various professional or personal use.
There are several factors to consider when choosing a noise-canceling USB microphone:
Directionality: Consider whether you need a unidirectional (only picks up sound from one direction) or omnidirectional (picks up sound from all directions) microphone. Unidirectional mics are better for isolating your voice from background noise, but omnidirectional mics are better for recording groups or in environments where sound is coming from multiple directions.
Sensitivity: Look for a microphone with a high sensitivity rating, as this indicates that it can pick up a wide range of sound levels.
Frequency response: Consider the range of frequencies that the microphone can capture. A microphone with a wide frequency response can capture a wide range of sounds and will be suitable for various recording purposes.
Noise-cancellation technology: Look for a microphone with advanced noise-cancellation technology, such as a built-in pop filter, to reduce background noise and wind noise.
Compatibility: Make sure the microphone is compatible with your computer or device and your operating system.
Mute function: It's a useful feature to have if you want to be able to quickly turn off the microphone when not in use.
Size and design: If you're planning on using the microphone for streaming or video conferencing, you might want to choose a model with a sleek and professional design.
Brand and reviews: Research about the microphone brand and read customer reviews to get an idea about the microphone's performance and customer satisfaction.
Ultimately, the best noise-canceling USB microphone for you will depend on your specific needs and preferences. It's important to consider all of these factors and to try out different models before making your final decision.
CMTECK USB Microphone G006 - Review
These are the factors that guided our decision while picking out the finest noise cancelling usb microphone. Are they the only factors that should be taken into account? They certainly are not! You can rely on our website to provide you with the most up-to-date and pertinent information at all times.
In the end, we sort everything according to how satisfied our readers are, as this factor is the most important to us. Please support our efforts! We would really value your comments if you discover that any of the noise cancelling usb microphone referenced in this article contains errors, is not up to date, is irrelevant, or is unsuitable in any other way. We would appreciate it if you could provide us feedback, and we promise to make fair adjustments to our list in accordance to the comments you bring in.


text:
Day 3 already – I hope you’re feeling on top of your game!
You might have noticed my emails this year are a little less “what are macros” and a little more “getting your head in the game”.
As Keto has gained popularity over the years, there is SO much information out there on the fundamentals of Keto.
It’s best left to the experts – the nutritionists and doctors – to explain these mechanics.
And, if it was as easy as learning about macros or counting carbs, then we would all have nailed it by now.
But it’s not that easy, is it?
How many of us have started Keto successfully more than once, only to slip or fall or crash land off the wagon?
That’s why I’m focusing on the mental side in these initial emails.
So today I want to talk about perfectionism and how it derails our best efforts.
Because did you know…
CHASING IMPERFECTION IS INSECURITY IN DISGUISE
YEP. Perfection is not an achievable goal. It doesn’t even mean anything.
If you are trying to be perfect, 9 times out of 10, it’s actually insecurities pushing you.
Chasing perfection might look like;
– following a meal plan to the letter
– looking ‘perfect’ or having the perfect body
– home cooking every single meal
– only eating ‘perfect’ ingredients
– being the perfect wife, mother, daughter, sister, workmate, human
The biggest one when it comes to a healthy lifestyle:
When we think we have not been perfect, we throw in the towel and make it worse. We eat the whole packet of Tim Tams because we had one.
We had a bad Saturday so we make it a bad weekend (or week.. or month)..
And the insecurity part? That’s when we beat ourselves up for NOT meeting these impossible goals.
Because they are impossible. Even if you achieve what you consider to be ‘perfect’, it’s rarely sustainable.
And often we’ve measured ourselves as successful against these unachievable goals.
We think we will be happy once we FINALLY weigh 60kgs again like we did when we were 23.
We think we will achieve this ridiculous state of Nirvana, if only we exercise every single day for the rest of our lives.
Or we will finally get acknowledged and get a promotion if we do every task at work perfectly.
So what do we do about perfectionism?
Here’s a great article from Harvard Business Review for those that want to dig into it, but here’s some key takeaways that apply in this context;
1. See the big picture
Are you using your time effectively? Does making some thing “perfect” actually make it any better than “very good”?
In my day job in healthcare software, we talk a lot about the “Minimum Viable Product” – ie. what is the most basic and quickest thing that actually achieves the objective?
2. Adjust your standards
Get some outside feedback on your ‘not good enough’ and you’ll quickly see it’s probably plenty good enough. Instead of going into a shame spiral that you ate bad food yesterday or that your parenting isn’t up to scratch, chat with a trusted friend and I guarantee it will give some perspective and put your standards in line. We are SO much harder on ourselves than we need to be.
3. Break the cycle of rumination
Those thoughts going round and round your head are not helpful, especially if it’s about a past action you deemed ‘not good enough’.
Learn a lesson from them, journal about them or talk with a friend about it and then MOVE ON.
Put them in the past and say farewell to them, they don’t deserve brain space anymore.
4. Celebrate progress
Progress not perfection – that is the goal. Find little steps of progress, and remember you’ll take backward steps but the general direction is forward. A journey of finding a healthy lifestyle is up and down and unpredictable.
There is no perfect way to do it, because life is not perfect. It throws us curve balls and we have to be ready to catch them, add them to our juggling and keep going.
Enjoy the wonkiness, the craziness of life and relax if things don’t go to plan.
Having a plan is good, but having balance in your life is better.
|P.S If you’re starting later, no stress! Lots of people are joining this week and next and saving the emails for later.|
If you’re wanting more structure and support, you can get the full 21 Day Meal Plan here < but don’t follow it ‘perfectly’

domain: psychology


Koehl aims to find the best value for our customers. With that in mind, we deploy our versatile design team with decades of experience and the latest innovations. We execute 3-D layouts or basic renderings to fit your facility specifications. We are committed to safety, quality and on-time completion. NCCCO certified, Koehl owns and maintains the necessary equipment to get the job done right. Have a unique build? Our dedicated fabrication team can customize the solution.


Our small Country Park was created from reclaimed industrial land - an alpine range of slag heaps to be precise - but with residential development and landscaping it has been allowed to develop into a natural and diverse habitat. At this time of year, several areas are quite densely populated with Early Purple, and Northern Marsh Orchids, and it has been a joy to see these patches of colour grow larger and stronger each year. This year one of these patches has also had a scattering of Bee Orchids on the fringes of the more common varieties. It does make you marvel where they could have been hiding all these years. Probably there were odd ones lurking from previous years, and this years weather conditions has suited them. I hope they manage to survive long enough to set plenty of seed for future years - unlike the single, and quite rare Ghost Orchid, which I found on my field when we lived in High Peak. It was right on the edge of the field and I did try to protect it, but one of the calves managed to squidge it into the ground, never to reappear.


text:
Porsche renews full cooperation with Maria SharapovaSport April 26, 15:05
Russia not planning to curtail security cooperation with Europe — General StaffMilitary & Defense April 26, 13:54
Saudi Arabia hopes for cooperation with Russia in oil sectorBusiness & Economy April 26, 13:30
Russian General Staff: West ignores Moscow’s offers to pool efforts to fight terrorMilitary & Defense April 26, 13:24
Ambassadors of EU member states approve visa waiver for Ukraine — sourceWorld April 26, 13:21
Russian defense chief suggests enlisting private sector to assist in demining SyriaMilitary & Defense April 26, 13:07
NATO building up offensive armaments along border with Russia — General StaffMilitary & Defense April 26, 13:05
Press review: Trump to ease up on Moscow's democracy and Russia goes on gold-buying spreePress Review April 26, 13:00
MiG-31 interceptor jet crashes in RussiaMilitary & Defense April 26, 12:41
DUSHANBE, November 12 (Itar-Tass) — Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon took under personal control the situation over the fate of the pilots of the Russian air company – Russian citizen Vladimir Sadovnichy and Estonian citizen Alexei Rudenko, sentenced by a Tajik court to 8.5-year term of a strict regime colony, Itar-Tass learnt on Saturday at reliable sources at power and diplomatic structures of the republic.
“The head of state heared detailed information on the situation with the pilots from executives of all law enforcement bodies, including the State National Security Committee that conducted preliminary investigation,” explained sources.
According to their data, Dushanbe is looking for diplomatic ways “to pull out of this delicate situation”. “The Tajik authorities did not expect such a vigorous and negative response to the conviction as well as a resolute and quick demarche from Moscow,” they reckon.
Tajik defence lawyer Gulyam Boboyev also hopes for justification of the convicts. He reported on Saturday in an interview with Itar-Tass from the city of Kurgan-Tyube that “his clients tendered a cessation appeal against the passed sentence” and insist on their innocence.
Turning to conditions of internment at the investigative ward, Kurgan-Tyube court chairman Temur Boyev said that ”they have no complaints and contact their lawyers without at restrictions. As an exception, a team of a Russian TV channel was permitted to have a brief interview with them”.


text:
This property that is located at
1300 S St Hwy 205 , McLendon Chisholm Texas 75032 in Rockwall county is currently for sale.
This property is offered by Keller Williams Central,
agent Cindy Stuart,
priced at $629,000. The property at 1300 S St Hwy 205 has , 2,248 sq.ft.. 1300 S St Hwy 205 is in McLendon Chisholm and in the ZIP code of 75032.

domain: geography


text:
Abita Strawberry beer has 200 calories per 12 oz serving. The beer has an ABV of 4. 2% and contains 13 grams of carbs, 0 grams of fat, and 1. 2 grams of protein. Abita Strawberry beer is brewed with real Louisiana strawberries and Pale, Munich and Wheat malts.
The sweetness of the beer is balanced with Hop and malt bitterness, creating a refreshing taste with a hint of strawberry flavor that makes it a great summer beer.
- 1 Is strawberry lager a beer?
- 2 What type of beer is Andygator?
- 3 What kind of beer is the boot?
- 4 Who makes Andygator?
- 5 What is the nutritional value of alligator meat?
- 6 What are the macros of chicken breast?
- 7 What does Abita Strawberry Lager taste like?
- 8 Is Abita Strawberry in season?
- 9 How long is Abita beer good for?
- 10 Who owns Abita beer?
- 11 Is there caffeine in Abita root beer?
Is strawberry lager a beer?
Yes, strawberry lager is a beer. This type of beer is brewed with strawberries and typically has a sweeter taste than other beers. Some strawberry lagers may also have a slightly pink color due to the strawberry juice that is used during the brewing process.
What type of beer is Andygator?
Andygator is an American beer that was first introduced in 1987 by the Dixie Brewing Company. It is a dark lager that has an alcohol content of 8% by volume.
What kind of beer is the boot?
The boot is a boot-shaped glass that is typically used for drinking beer.
Who makes Andygator?
The Abita Brewing Company, which is located in Louisiana, produces Andygator. This beer is a higher alcohol content beer, coming in at 8% alcohol by volume. It is a light golden color and is brewed with pale malt and German lager yeast.
What is the nutritional value of alligator meat?
The cooked meat of an alligator is a good source of protein as well as vitamin B12, niacin, and iron. Alligator meat is also low in fat, with only about 2 grams of fat per 3-ounce serving.
What are the macros of chicken breast?
There are a few different ways to look at the macros of chicken breast, but generally speaking, it is a lean protein source with a good amount of healthy fats. One 4-ounce serving of chicken breast has approximately:
-20 grams of protein
-1 gram of fat
-0 grams of carbohydrates
When it comes to macros, chicken breast is a great option for those looking to increase their protein intake without adding a lot of additional calories.
What does Abita Strawberry Lager taste like?
Abita Strawberry Lager is a light and refreshing beer with a distinct strawberry flavor. The beer is brewed with real strawberries and has a slightly sweet taste. It is perfect for summertime drinking and pairs well with lighter foods.
Is Abita Strawberry in season?
Abita Strawberry is in season during the months of March, April, and May.
How long is Abita beer good for?
Assuming you are talking about unopened bottles of Abita beer, they should be good for around six months. After that, the quality of the beer will start to decline. Abita beers are best when fresh, so try to drink them within a few months of buying them.
Who owns Abita beer?
The Abita Brewing Company is an American Brewery founded in 1986 in Abita Springs, Louisiana. The company is currently owned by Evans management group.
Is there caffeine in Abita root beer?
Abita root beer is made with cane sugar, water, yeast, and extract from the root of the sassafras tree. While sassafras does contain small amounts ofsafrole, the FDA has determined that it is safe to consume in small quantities.
Therefore, there is no caffeine in Abita root beer.

domain: food


text:
Leon Family Session
When we arrived at the park for this session it was decidedly very grey and looking like rain! But we got so so lucky - the clouds parted shortly after we arrived, and we were treated to this most stunning sunset and afternoon! And two of the cutest munchkins ever, what a win! Thanks guys for bringing a big bag of snacks, the sweetest smiles and your A-game to this session of ours, it was such fun!
Robyn Davie Photography
Lifestyle Family Photo Shoots | Johannesburg, South Africa
#whattoweartoafamilyphotoshoot #familyphotographyjohannesburg #deltaparkjohannesburgfamilyphotography #familyphotographydeltapark #deltaparkfamilyphotography #photographerjohannesburg #reallifephotographer #robyndaviephotography #robyndaviefamilyphotographer #johannesburgfamilyphotos


text:
Andrew Stanton's JOHN CARTER Takes Over Los Angeles With Promotional Billboards
Walt Disney Pictures is preparing for a big marketing push for the Andrew Stanton-directed film John Carter, a science fiction epic based on the classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and now some billboards have neen spotted in LA...
From Academy Award®--winning filmmaker Andrew Stanton comes "John Carter"—a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). "John Carter" is based on a classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose highly imaginative adventures served as inspiration for many filmmakers, both past and present. The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands.
Along Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe, the rest of the cast includes Mark Strong, Bryan Cranston, James Purefoy, Dominic West, Thomas Haden Church and Ciarán Hinds. John Carter is set to hit theatres on March 9, 2012!
: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]


text:
How to Choose an Eye Doctor
The first contraption that you condition to do is to apprehend if the eye doctor you have found is well experienced with most of the will malpractice cases. One has to warrant that he or she has selected an eye doctor that is well experienced with most of the will claims. An eye doctor that is well experienced in most of the will malpractice cases is the finest to select. Selecting an eye doctor that has skills to handle situations on will malpractices is the finest, check eye doctors in layton utah. You discover that eye doctors have their areas of specialization and it is vital for a being to select an eye doctor that is expertise in this field. One have to apprehend that eye doctors specialize in different fields so when he or she is making his selection, then he have to select an eye doctor that is specialized in the will malpractice cases.
Warrant that you do not handpick just an eye doctor but then you handpick an eye doctor that is specialized in n will malpractice cases. If you select an eye doctor that has been in this field for a long time, then you can be sure of the finest packages since it means that he or she does various researches in the area that he has specialized in. Those eye doctors that specialize in specific fields are the finest since they take time to research on the issues that have been presented to them, also see optometrist in layton utah. A being have to be wise enough to select an eye doctor that has specialized with the field that he or she is interested because it means that the eye doctor takes most of the time studying on these issues that have been presented to him or her.
The other contraption is that this eye doctor has dealt with similar cases in the past hence he or she will similarly be able to handle your case. One can be sure of getting the finest results since an eye doctor that does various research has dealt with similar cases in the past hence he or she can address them extremely well in court. One have to warrant that he or she has selected an eye doctor that has dealt with similar cases in the past since this means that he can similarly present your case extremely well in court.Apprehend ledge on wills of this particular eye doctor is yet something else contraption that a being have to similarly concede. A being have to similarly audit on the will expertise of the eye doctor that he or she wants to hire. Read more at https://www.encyclopedia.com/medicine/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/eye-examination

domain: medical


text:
Day 5: smidgins of joy
Smidgins of joy are like spontaneous beads of perspiration seeking solace in a desk fan at full blast.
Someone gave me a dish of cooked beetroot last week to which I added homegrown sliced onion. The smidgin of joy came yesterday when I returned the dish with a generous couple of handfuls of prunes, from plums I dried on a rack I made myself.
I ate a tomato at breakfast time, and threw the bits into a vegetable bed, where they can self-seed after I have moved house.
I dislike the sound of my desk fan intensely. The occasional blast brings joy, in the form of physical relief, although I prefer milkshakes of the iced coffee variety.
It is too hot to think of any other smidgins, except a five-year-old bestseller by Ruby Wax, called Sane New World which I have just downloaded. There is a long excerpt here. Google Play lets you pay via PayPal. Oh, what a smidgin of joy that was!
I shall read it in the evenings with my feet up to minimise swelling, and the fan on high speed, oscillating.
©2019 Allison Wright
Are you going to have to move from the wonderful garden you’ve lovingly created?
I am indeed, Ros. The owners are selling. By the end of September, I hope to have found a small apartment near a beach (and theatres!) in these parts – either Faro or Tavira, by preference.
It is disappointing – and quite strange to be in the garden now, knowing that the continuum of “next year” no longer exists in this space for me. Very little is truly ever ours, and life seems to be sending me a message to move on!
I suppose you’ll make a garden in pots in your new place? Why not?
I am not a fan of pot plants. Been there, done that in another life. Can’t be bothered now!