Tag Archives: Prime minister

Visualizing Slovenian coalition agreement

With the election of new Slovenian prime minister we also got formal release of a Coalition agreement. Since it’s a 72 page document, I was wondering what keywords would stand out. Here is the result:

Pogodba za Slovenijo 2012 - 2015 - word cloud (top 80 words)

While we’re at it, we can also take a look at the coalition agreement that Pozitivna Slovenija prepared. As we run them through the same process, we get:

Koalicijska pogodba - Pozitivna Slovenija - 2012 (top 80 words)


A few words on how to reproduce this:

  • Grab your favorite OCR software and convert scanned PDF into .docx
  • From Word save it into .txt file
  • Lemmatize the words so you normalize all the grammar rules
  • Apply stop-words (in this case mostly: ministrstvo*, vlada, slovenija*, ..)
  • Drop the resulting text into wordle.net


Excerpt of Greg Dyke interviewed by Andy Allan [Thinking digital session notes]

Milwaukee Art Museum (interior with people)

Image from Flickr

> Hillary Clinton or Obama?


> Why?

Because it’s exciting, interesting, new and exciting. But Clinton is not that.

> So what does that mean regarding you? Are you also revolutionary or you just fancy him?

I’m not sure politician are leaders. Last year was good for HArding, because Bush took the position of “worse president”.

America as a country looks strange from outside, because we elected Bush twice. We live in times where american are unnerved and then Obama comes.

> Gordon Brown or Tony Blair?

Gordon Brown is at least honest. I know what he is, he’s a doer, whereas Tony Blair was just an actor.

> You loved him thou? You gave him 50 grand.

Yes, I did. I’ve been in a Labour party for many many years. We wanted to win, and he looked like the person who will win. And we discovered that that winning was not enough.

> Tony was a master of media, but Gordon failed in that. So you have to have a master of the media now?

Probably, probably.

Al Gore’s book about broadcasting where he talks about the fact that it’s a two-way way and it’s too powerful for politics now.

Most the traditional media is getting last important.

> More people voted in BB than in last election ..

Yes, but it’s a bit skewed. My kids voted for that lots of time.

But the fact that you need to get Sun on your side, it’s not that important anymore. Sun is selling one million less copies.

> You tried to buy ITV ..

Yes I did.

> And the price is right.

Right, we tried to buy it for 1.50 .. But the board refused, and now its 50p.


> Would you still like to buy ITV?

I think it still can be turned around, but the decline is very fast now.

> How fed up were you when your governors at the BBC did not support you over the Gilligang business?

Avoid them like a plague, because they were afraid.

> Information superhighway. Does it concern you as a trained journalist? It doesn’t necessarily reason to believe that it’s factual or truthful.

One, I’m not sure who pays for good journalism, and in our lifetimes it was by advertising and government and stuff, but I’m not sure who pays in the future.
And in terms of television, I’m also not sure who pays in the future.

They asked me what’s my definition of public service broadcasting, as opposed to american programming and we’ve managed to sustain it by giving large license fee’s to BBC. So what happens when we don’t have that anymore and commercial television gives everything to sport, as opposed to HBO who funds some incredible dramas.


> BBC should not use the license money to intervene in the commercial market..

It’s a complicated job. “Looks easy to me, someone gives me 3 million pounds and I get to spend it”.

> BBC is not involved in the commercial market .. Should it be PBS for Britain?

The commercial market has failed. ITV digital, one of the dire decisions to destroy the station and the brand.

Freeview worked because we had enough money and market. “More telly, less money”.

> Do you see BBC more involved in the commercial market? This seems unfair.

We were very careful what we do. We’ve gone to freeview because commercial market have failed. The digital world was left to Murdock and I’ve though he should dominate the digital world, and it doesn’t.

> So BBC is a player now in this market.

Yes, and it survived and it work.

> Vast majority can still receive 4 and half channel

Not true. 80% of people can receive multi-channel. Largely because of the freeview.

> Do you believe they have more choice?

You’re coming back to 67 channels and nothing on. The question is going to be, who pays for it. A lot of channels are just repeating other stuff. The question is, who can afford to produce original channel. ITV is producing twice as much, and they can’t afford it.


Sorry, the discussion is too lively for a good transcript. I’ll update with podcast link when it’s available.