A BBC Thread
Posted by: John C on 18 January 2004
Quote from other thread
"I think you're living in the past.Producing public entertainment shouldn't be a public service, and the commercial Americans seem to be able to do a better job. BBC Current Affairs has deteriorated into badly written superficiality and even Sky News can do a better job.The BBC should be producing programmes that will be watched by few at a time but will have a life of 100 years. And I don't mean 'Fawlty Towers'.I have no objection to the licence fee in principle (although it does obviously breach the ECHR), just to its usage."
Paul Ranson has made a very good point here, as has Matthew Robinson earlier. I believe that the BBC is and should be an essential part of British public life fully funded by the licence fee. I want programmes to rival the Panorama or Monty Python of old. I don't want the BBC to pander to the public who funds them. I want it to set an agenda of excellence which challenges and tests us all. I don't want ITV or SKY and increasingly C4 with their inane claptrap and I don't want some Australian philistine poisoning our culture. Lets be clear, the BBC blows every other broadcaster in the world out of the water.
John
By the way last year's State of Play or a few years ago The Day Today are competitive with anything HBO has produced
[This message was edited by John C on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 15:31.]
"I think you're living in the past.Producing public entertainment shouldn't be a public service, and the commercial Americans seem to be able to do a better job. BBC Current Affairs has deteriorated into badly written superficiality and even Sky News can do a better job.The BBC should be producing programmes that will be watched by few at a time but will have a life of 100 years. And I don't mean 'Fawlty Towers'.I have no objection to the licence fee in principle (although it does obviously breach the ECHR), just to its usage."
Paul Ranson has made a very good point here, as has Matthew Robinson earlier. I believe that the BBC is and should be an essential part of British public life fully funded by the licence fee. I want programmes to rival the Panorama or Monty Python of old. I don't want the BBC to pander to the public who funds them. I want it to set an agenda of excellence which challenges and tests us all. I don't want ITV or SKY and increasingly C4 with their inane claptrap and I don't want some Australian philistine poisoning our culture. Lets be clear, the BBC blows every other broadcaster in the world out of the water.
John
By the way last year's State of Play or a few years ago The Day Today are competitive with anything HBO has produced
[This message was edited by John C on SUNDAY 18 January 2004 at 15:31.]
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by matthewr
The HBO model doesn't work in the UK as you would never get enough subscribers to be able to afford to make such high quality Television.
And its unfair to say that the BBC has to constantly make all-time classic programmes in order to justify its fee. It has to provide good value at £108pa (which it does) and be consistently higher quality than the alternatives (which whatever you say about it's decline it is).
Plus its recently made "I'm Alan Partridge", "The Office", "Little Britain", numerous high quality documentaries on BBC (the Japanese whaling one, the Korean world cup team one, the coup in Venezual one, etc), the BBC4 News and Newsnight remain excellent, the new digital radio channels are brill, they rule spoken word radio with low- (R5L) and high-brow (R4) and all sorts of other things I can't remember of the top of my head.
Matthew
And its unfair to say that the BBC has to constantly make all-time classic programmes in order to justify its fee. It has to provide good value at £108pa (which it does) and be consistently higher quality than the alternatives (which whatever you say about it's decline it is).
Plus its recently made "I'm Alan Partridge", "The Office", "Little Britain", numerous high quality documentaries on BBC (the Japanese whaling one, the Korean world cup team one, the coup in Venezual one, etc), the BBC4 News and Newsnight remain excellent, the new digital radio channels are brill, they rule spoken word radio with low- (R5L) and high-brow (R4) and all sorts of other things I can't remember of the top of my head.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by JeremyD
Re funding - I favour funding the BBC via income tax. It seems both fairer and more efficient, and I have yet to see a plausible argument against it.
Re quality - BBC TV's best feature is the absence of commercial breaks. Apart from this I don't see how it could get much more "dumbed down" than it already is.
Re quality - BBC TV's best feature is the absence of commercial breaks. Apart from this I don't see how it could get much more "dumbed down" than it already is.
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by matthewr
I'm guess you never watch ITV then Jeremy.
Or Living although Living is brilliant obviously
Matthew
Or Living although Living is brilliant obviously
Matthew
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Two-Sheds
I've just moved to Canada and I miss bbc 1 and 2 big time. I don't watch that much TV any more (I didn't watch that much before, but almost zero now). Previously my most watched channel was bbc 1 and I would happily pay £108pa for bbc 1 and 2 again.
The lack of adverts is a definite bonus, with advert breaks being more frequent here than in UK. Also when I was back in UK over the festive period I think 70% plus of my tv viewing time was on bbc.
The lack of adverts is a definite bonus, with advert breaks being more frequent here than in UK. Also when I was back in UK over the festive period I think 70% plus of my tv viewing time was on bbc.
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
Hallmark, obviously.
I think the BBC should major in commercially unviable programming. It seems to be run on the basis that it can only justify its funding if it is as popular as ITV, which makes no sense. I see that they've spent £2.5m on a dramatisation of Dunkirk when they could have spent £1.0m on a serious documentary on the whole Second World War. Curious that 'The World at War' was an ITV production from the 70s whereas 'The Great War' was BBC from the 60s.
Paul
I think the BBC should major in commercially unviable programming. It seems to be run on the basis that it can only justify its funding if it is as popular as ITV, which makes no sense. I see that they've spent £2.5m on a dramatisation of Dunkirk when they could have spent £1.0m on a serious documentary on the whole Second World War. Curious that 'The World at War' was an ITV production from the 70s whereas 'The Great War' was BBC from the 60s.
Paul
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by matthewr
Hallmark should be renamed as the "Diagnosis Murder Channel" as that's all it seems to showm
"It seems to be run on the basis that it can only justify its funding if it is as popular as ITV, which makes no sense"
I agree with that.
Matthew
"It seems to be run on the basis that it can only justify its funding if it is as popular as ITV, which makes no sense"
I agree with that.
Matthew
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
John c
I want programmes to rival the Panorama or Monty Python of old. I don't want the BBC to pander to the public who funds them. I want it to set an agenda of excellence which challenges and tests us all.
So you ...want, want, want
but you....don't want the BBC to pander to the public.
ironic?; hypocritic?
Perhaps you didn't mean what you said?
Cheers
Don
I want programmes to rival the Panorama or Monty Python of old. I don't want the BBC to pander to the public who funds them. I want it to set an agenda of excellence which challenges and tests us all.
So you ...want, want, want
but you....don't want the BBC to pander to the public.
ironic?; hypocritic?
Perhaps you didn't mean what you said?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by John C
"ironic?; hypocritic?
Perhaps you didn't mean what you said?"
Not at all Don, its entirely in line with my Marxist-Leninist outlook whereby I decide what best for everyone else.
John
Perhaps you didn't mean what you said?"
Not at all Don, its entirely in line with my Marxist-Leninist outlook whereby I decide what best for everyone else.
John
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Hallmark should be renamed as the "Diagnosis Murder Channel" as that's all it seems to showm
'Law and Order' in its infinite varieties. And of course the glorious 'Judging Amy'.
Last night the BBC had 'Dalziel and Pascoe', this evening ITV has 'Midsomer Murders'. Is there really a difference in appeal that justifies public funding for one and commercial funding for the other?
Paul
Posted on: 18 January 2004 by Don Atkinson
Marxist-Leninist outlook whereby I decide what best for everyone else
....which also applies to followers of Maggie T and T Blair and George W B.....
Cheers
Don
....which also applies to followers of Maggie T and T Blair and George W B.....
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by sideshowbob
quote:
It seems to be run on the basis that it can only justify its funding if it is as popular as ITV, which makes no sense.
I have no doubt, however, that if the BBC lost audience share by concentrating on "commercially unviable" programming, it would only be a matter of time before politicians of both left and right started complaining that it was a waste of public money because nobody was watching it.
-- Ian
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
quote:
I'm not aware of any other Western nation using a license fee for this purpose, and for good reason.
In the past Germany had a TV licence process - I do not know if it is still in use.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Brian OReilly
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:quote:
I'm not aware of any other Western nation using a license fee for this purpose, and for good reason.
In the past Germany had a TV licence process - I do not know if it is still in use.
Derek
<< >>
Still true. At least I think so. I'm certainly paying something, but then again it could be my gas bill.
Hard to tell sometimes.
We also pay a fee for radio and once again for car radio believe it or not.
Brian OReilly
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by matthewr
Ross said "I also think American television is generally underrated"
The best of US TV (at least for comedy and drama) is easily as good as anything the BBC does and its been so lauded for the last 10 years or so that I don't think its possible for it to be overrated. There is an awful lot of crap though and my experience of being in the US is that it's unwatchable in a way the BBC isn't despite the BBC's undenaible delince in recent years.
Also US TV has two big weeknesses in that it cannot do news properly and it can't (or doesn't) do science and popular science and rarely does documentaries. I was watching "Crafty Tricks of War " last week (a man with an enormous moustache recreates arcane WWII military inventions) and this is a perfect example of an intersting, worthwhile and enjoyable programm in minor popular science strand that you just don't get in the US.
"Personally, I think a little market discipline in the BBC might not be a bad thing. (Also, having done some work for the BBC many years ago, a little commercialism would definitely improve its management.)"
Speaking as someone who used to work for an organisation that spent most of the 90s leeching 100s of millions out of the BBC in the name of commercialism I can only say that its has had precisely the opposite effect. The great Birt experiment seems just to have made the BBC lose lots of programme making talent in return for lots of complicated procedures, expensive computer systems and overpaid management. Frankly its far more of a scandal than anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has ever done.
On the funding issue -- I am quite happy for the licence fee to be made more progressive but its essential for it to remain a separate charge to ensure its properly hypothecated and ringfenced. Transfereing it to income tax (ie governement pays for it) would not only compromise the BBC's independence but would effecitvely be like a long slow abolition of the fee over 20 years rather than just scrapping it.
Besides the BBC's core support is a mixture of North London poncey Liberal types who want it to be a Liberal Arts channel and old-fashioned Tory paternalists who want it to be a tool to educate the lumpen masses. As both these groups tend to be well off a more progressively structured licence fee would be good news all round.
Matthew
The best of US TV (at least for comedy and drama) is easily as good as anything the BBC does and its been so lauded for the last 10 years or so that I don't think its possible for it to be overrated. There is an awful lot of crap though and my experience of being in the US is that it's unwatchable in a way the BBC isn't despite the BBC's undenaible delince in recent years.
Also US TV has two big weeknesses in that it cannot do news properly and it can't (or doesn't) do science and popular science and rarely does documentaries. I was watching "Crafty Tricks of War " last week (a man with an enormous moustache recreates arcane WWII military inventions) and this is a perfect example of an intersting, worthwhile and enjoyable programm in minor popular science strand that you just don't get in the US.
"Personally, I think a little market discipline in the BBC might not be a bad thing. (Also, having done some work for the BBC many years ago, a little commercialism would definitely improve its management.)"
Speaking as someone who used to work for an organisation that spent most of the 90s leeching 100s of millions out of the BBC in the name of commercialism I can only say that its has had precisely the opposite effect. The great Birt experiment seems just to have made the BBC lose lots of programme making talent in return for lots of complicated procedures, expensive computer systems and overpaid management. Frankly its far more of a scandal than anything Mr Kilroy-Silk has ever done.
On the funding issue -- I am quite happy for the licence fee to be made more progressive but its essential for it to remain a separate charge to ensure its properly hypothecated and ringfenced. Transfereing it to income tax (ie governement pays for it) would not only compromise the BBC's independence but would effecitvely be like a long slow abolition of the fee over 20 years rather than just scrapping it.
Besides the BBC's core support is a mixture of North London poncey Liberal types who want it to be a Liberal Arts channel and old-fashioned Tory paternalists who want it to be a tool to educate the lumpen masses. As both these groups tend to be well off a more progressively structured licence fee would be good news all round.
Matthew
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by domfjbrown
The biggest problem with American (and Sky) TV is the ridiculous number of adverts ON TOP OF stuff being "sponsored by xxx" so all you seem to see is a barrage of adverts.
That said, I resent paying £108 a year to be able to watch the odd repeat of Red Dwarf and The Office, and the chrimbo programming. Make the BBC "pay per view" (say, 10p/hour) and then see what happens. I mean, you HAVE to have a licence to play VHS tapes in stereo for godsakes since I know of NO non-pro video player that can do NICAM/hifi stereo - so you need a video RECORDER. That means a colour TV licence.
Oh - and here's the biggest thing that pees me off with it - I'm paying to subsidize all the digital TV stuff, but can't get digital or DAB where I live - despite being in a reasonably large city. Now afaic that means "poor quality reception" but the Beeb won't discount my licence because of that. Grrrrr....
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
That said, I resent paying £108 a year to be able to watch the odd repeat of Red Dwarf and The Office, and the chrimbo programming. Make the BBC "pay per view" (say, 10p/hour) and then see what happens. I mean, you HAVE to have a licence to play VHS tapes in stereo for godsakes since I know of NO non-pro video player that can do NICAM/hifi stereo - so you need a video RECORDER. That means a colour TV licence.
Oh - and here's the biggest thing that pees me off with it - I'm paying to subsidize all the digital TV stuff, but can't get digital or DAB where I live - despite being in a reasonably large city. Now afaic that means "poor quality reception" but the Beeb won't discount my licence because of that. Grrrrr....
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Dom - perhaps one day you will discover the "off" switch and be more discriminating about what you watch and then the quality of the programs you watch go up dramatically
Subsidizing the digital development - thank you -
I suggest you get a satellite dish and box or move to where you can get Freeview - at the moment you are chosing to not exploit the digital offerings
Derek
<< >>
Subsidizing the digital development - thank you -
I suggest you get a satellite dish and box or move to where you can get Freeview - at the moment you are chosing to not exploit the digital offerings
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Simon Perry
People,
I am truly aghast at the sentiments being expressed on this thread and others about the BBC. I can only assume you've swallowed the propaganda published about it by Daily Heil hook line and sinker.
Once the BBC's gone, its gone, it ain't coming back, and we'll all be watching Sky News, brought to you by Starbucks.
Regards
Simon
I am truly aghast at the sentiments being expressed on this thread and others about the BBC. I can only assume you've swallowed the propaganda published about it by Daily Heil hook line and sinker.
Once the BBC's gone, its gone, it ain't coming back, and we'll all be watching Sky News, brought to you by Starbucks.
Regards
Simon
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by matthewr
(Although Sky News is actually pretty good and is better than BBC News 24 in all areas aprt form set and graphic designs)
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by ejl
quote:
Also US TV has two big weaknesses in that it cannot do news properly and it can't (or doesn't) do science and popular science and rarely does documentaries
Matthew,
I have to say that PBS, the state-subsidised national U.S. broadcaster, does a fine job with both news and documentaries. The Jim Lehrer News Hour is far better than any commercial news program available here.
Commercial pressures are most visible, and destructive, at the level of local newscasts. For instance, sensational, violent crime is represented in a way that is completely out of proportion to its actual occrence or impact. Meanwhile, the more expensive and difficult to make investigative reports are fewer than ever.
It's now commonplace to see commercial placements in local "newscasts". It works like this: advertisers send a free video to the tv station, touting a new product in the guise of a "report". Since the advertiser doesn't pay the station anything, the broadcaster doesn't have to announce the spot as an ad., and so presents it as "news". The soundtrack is scripted by the advertiser but left for the local reporter to deliver, generating the illusion of a locally produced piece. The local station gains by getting some free "news" to fill the gap that would require an otherwise expensive-to-produce segment.
Free market forces at work.
Eric
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Matthew,
I agree with your views on Sky News, although I think that one of the reasons why they are so good is that they are trying to attain the high standards that have been set by the Beeb.
Cheers
Simon
I agree with your views on Sky News, although I think that one of the reasons why they are so good is that they are trying to attain the high standards that have been set by the Beeb.
Cheers
Simon
Posted on: 20 January 2004 by domfjbrown
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
Dom - perhaps one day you will discover the "off" switch and be more discriminating about what you watch and then the quality of the programs you watch go up dramatically
Believe you me, only having 4 channels means I watch almost NO TV now - probably less than an hour a week. My housemate will flop on the sofa and watch rubbish all night. Stuff like The Salon bores the arse off me to be frank.
quote:
Subsidizing the digital development - thank you - I suggest you get a satellite dish and box or move to where you can get Freeview - at the moment you are chosing to not exploit the digital offerings
The area I'm in in Exeter has:
NO cable
NO coverage for freeview
NO ability for a Sky dish (rented, and conservation area)
Therefore I have no choice, but I'm still forced to pay for the BBC's digital services. Why should I pay even more money to move again (for the second time in 12 months) just to receive DTV etc, when the only reason our (fairly densely) populated area of Exeter is served by an analog-only repeater TX that the BBC are too cheap to upgrade?
I'm not actually that bothered to be honest - it just seems silly for me to pay a TV licence when >99% of my current viewing is prerecorded DVDs and VHS tapes...
__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.
Posted on: 27 January 2004 by Kevin-W
In light of the publication of the Hutton Report later today (let's ignore, for the moment, the leaked Sun version of same, which claims Auntie will get its wrists slapped), it might be a good idea to get this thread up and running again.
See you at 1, then...
Kevin
See you at 1, then...
Kevin
Posted on: 28 January 2004 by Rasher
And, Oh Boy, am I looking forward to it! This is gonna be good.