There is so much discussion on the worm at the moment. I taped the Election debate from 60 minutes, uploaded it on YouTube, and within an hour: 500 viewings.

Australians are worried about "the worm".

OK, so I have some free advertizing and wave my flag, 3 other YouTubers have copied my video (they do that). OK but this is also a free service for you to refer to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHwb6B7X_2U

Sorry Graham but it seems my channel is causing some interest in debate, and I imagine people who missed the great debate on 60 minutes might like to take a look.

If you look at John Howard, he looks like he is watching the worm, trying to "get it up". It was like trying to watch an old man painfully failing his Viagra.

Beside that statement, I open debate on the worm.

Was Channel 9 wrong to keep the worm against the wishes of the Press Club? Or with the ABC coverage of the same debate without the worm, should authorities interfere with a private enterprise television network's coverage style?

People could watch the ABC, the Government channel by choice.

It's on the radio, it's on the news. So I imagine, its worthy of OLO debate to figure out what the fuss was about.

Early on that day I watched on the ABC [maybe it was a repeat] the Andrew Olly, sorry if that is miss spelled address.
He was a reporter much loved and respected, that debate touched on freedom of the press.
It should be shown along side this debate, I do not care about the worth of the worm, but another worm is at work here.
It eats freedom of speech and a free press, it is an insult that the press club leadership played any part in it.
Some one must go, no debate just go.
No government must ever again claim ownership of such a debate.
Given the polls it is likely more damage than good will come to this government from its part in this shambles.

an easy question for me, as a would-be democratic citizen: if you have to watch the worm to know what to think, you deserve to be ruled by pollies.

since almost all ozzies are cattle, consumers of entertainment in politics as elsewhere, channel 9 was right to make a dollar by offering this service.

and since there is no way to prevent the use of the worm being broadcast on youtube, protesting against it is futile, only serving to underline how out of touch with technology and current custom that old man is.

incidentally, there is no such thing as 'freedom of speech' in oz, what made you think there was?

Demos made an interesting point there. Howard made it clear he did not want the worm and seemed to think he'd gotten around it. In this day and age anyone who thinks they can stop people doing what they like with communications technology simply doesn't understand it.

Between YouTube, broadcast feeds, liveblogs and everything else we have these days, telling people you don't want a worm is a challenge more than anything else. People in WA who were planning to watch the ABC watched Channel 9 instead. By the time it was 7.30 over there they'd already heard about the kerfuffle.

The worm itself doesn't add anything to democracy and is sheer entertainment, but trying to stop it made it a political issue about democratic principles. The National Press Club should be held accountable and especially Glen Milne. Another old sad sack with no idea about the world he's living in.

The worm is a type of subliminal to encourage the viewer towards a certain thought.
I wouldnt trust its sincerity for a second. Someone holds the worms' power in their hands (satan looing over that persons shoulder).
Its a bit like those UFO subliminals that appeared on television advertising back in the late 1980's before they suddenly disappeared. They were there for a purpose (click on "The Cosmic Conspiracy" by Stan Deyo). Television if constantly manilulating for certain slants on things. Its no longer reliable re: truth.

Beware the Satanic Vermes!

And UFOs!

Thanks for that Gibo - I needed a chuckle :)

the point is "what worm?"

Please see my UTube on You call THAT a Worm - THIS is a Worm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LImSuh7CNP8&watch_response

but Oh sweet democracy - I put my video as a RESPONSE to howards own UTube spot at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07yLauixFkM

AND as you see I blow the lid on his plan to up the pension age to 67

so all he could do was make a quick announcement on the fly he would "pay pensioner's power bills etc etc"

bet he wishes he never used UTube

There is so much discussion on the worm at the moment. I **taped** the Election debate from 60 minutes, uploaded it on YouTube, and within an hour: 500 viewings.

so that would be a TAPE Worm??

DD, you've made me laugh even more than Gibs does!!

Howard's promise of dramatic increases to pensioner concessions today, when he proposes to put the retirement age up to 67 yesterday? is a doozy!

On Tuesday this week, the dream of YouTube independence was over.

We are now under "YouTube Australia". This trojan horse has the young YouTubers excited that it is "Australian". They can't see the shift of partner ownership over Australia YouTube.

As of now, a partnership chunk of YouTube for us was taken over by Fox, PBL, Packer, 10 Network and other Australian Corporations including the ABC.

The so called "secret YouTube Party" in Sydney was a hoax. It wasn't a party, and the youtubers were locked in an area where they couldn't see the screens or the window seats reserved for "partners only", that is, Fox, 10, 7 and so on.

On YouTube's internal news or Citizen YouTube, the announcement was that under the new "You Tube Australia", they will be digging up as much dirt on Kevin Rudd as possible. You Tube reported that this is a "close election", that the PM had a "right to do what he likes on the debate" and the the PM "needed some help from YouTube". They are the new moderators of YouTube. The end of a dream.

So there goes the old dream. This should start a new thread. It is as depressing as it is frustration. A hat trick that no one expected from John Howard. Just take over YouTube Australia, and there is nothing we can do.

Did channel 9 at any point agree with the National Press Club not to use the worm?

If not, who cares?

"So there goes the old dream. This should start a new thread. It is as depressing as it is frustration. A hat trick that **no one expected** from John Howard. Just take over YouTube Australia, and there is nothing we can do."

well, MOSTLY no one, ie except this little black duck. Take a look at my new book http://www.ablokesguide.com to see that in family law and child support [AND soon in privacy law] I have been following every nasty step by Howard/Ruddock to kneecap the legislation, and had a few great victories

"We are now under "YouTube Australia". This trojan horse has the young YouTubers excited that it is "Australian". They can't see the shift of partner ownership over Australia YouTube.

As of now, a partnership chunk of YouTube for us was taken over by Fox, PBL, Packer, 10 Network and other Australian Corporations including the ABC."

I believe you as of today - Yesterday I was able to nominate a video reply to Howard himself, but note that I [as wongadonga] was the LAST one added

Today I tried to reply to a quango lady talking to "aged pension" but when I tried to do a video reply a caption said "awaiting approval of the video owner", and of course the reply is not there

So in one day complete censorship

On Tuesday this week, the dream of YouTube independence was over.

We are now under "YouTube Australia". This trojan horse has the young YouTubers excited that it is "Australian". They can't see the shift of partner ownership over Australia YouTube.

As of now, a partnership chunk of YouTube for us was taken over by Fox, PBL, Packer, 10 Network and other Australian Corporations including the ABC.

The so called "secret YouTube Party" in Sydney was a hoax. It wasn't a party, and the youtubers were locked in an area where they couldn't see the screens or the window seats reserved for "partners only", that is, Fox, 10, 7 and so on.

"On YouTube's internal news or Citizen YouTube, the announcement was that under the new "You Tube Australia", they will be digging up as much dirt on Kevin Rudd as possible. You Tube reported that this is a "close election", that the PM had a "right to do what he likes on the debate" and the the PM "needed some help from YouTube". They are the new moderators of YouTube. The end of a dream.

So there goes the old dream. This should start a new thread. It is as depressing as it is frustration. A hat trick that no one expected from John Howard. Just take over YouTube Australia, and there is nothing we can do."

--

Hi Mate,

as I say, I believe you, but can you reveal any proof of this, espec ABC involvement [I refer to PM on last Fri where they did a "2 edged sword" crap on UTube, which is now ONE edged]

I've had a few days talking long and hard with YouTubers in Australia at various places to get a more clear picture of what has actually happened. This is probably why you haven't heard from me.

What has happened is that YouTube Australia broke away meaning our upload's don't have to cross the Pacific to San Bruno California. That cyber-freeway is jammed. I can see this is a good move, we don't need that freeway for uploads.

The problem is sponsorship and partnerships, and this has been saturated by Fox, Fairfax and major Australian networks. So it is being parroted to me that its not a takeover, its a new branch that is well sponsored.

Even OLO has sponsors mainly from the Universities, and Graham would agree that there is no interference. Look at the internal YouTube news: CitizenTube, and you can see that they play John Howard's advertisement, and clearly back John Howard. The censorship is also a concern.

as I say, the Oz election up front video is a porky, as you DONT get to use a Reply Video at all

Seems my reply to Howard was the one that caused the chopper to come down, albeit I cant even reply to Kev's video

same old Nazi censorship we expect from this gummt