TV rant nb

Re: Rant!

Not sure on what basis you judge that BBC make best programmes in world.

I would agree that news is good, but not significantly better than ITN or even Sky. As for the rest it seem just as rubbishy as everything else, Just looked at Radio Times BBC2 some programme with Keith Barrett (whoever he is), a celebrity couple!?! and a studio audience. Sounds real quality to me, how much you prepared to pay for that?

Don't really see how news can be good or bad - is just presentation of facts or at least something close to facts.

The BBC make this ridiculous claim that they are "independant" - Absolute bollox

Their very charter to exist is in the gift of the government of the day. Their total revenue is derived from a license whose price is decided by government minister and payment of which is enforced by law. How can that possibly be independant.

Incidentaly they spent £151M on "enforcing" the license in order to gain £40M in revenue.

Now that must be how to run a business

"I would still pay for it, what is the alternative, Sky, Living or even that dross known as ITV, no thanks! "

My point absolutely If you and enough like minded people want it and are prepared to pay for it thats great, I will be delighted. All I ask is that you pay for it and do not force me to pay for it as well - cos I don't want it.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Rant!

As it happens, I agree with Woofy. Let's face it, most telly is rubbish, but the BBC occasionally produces half-decent rubbish. HAve you had a look at Ch4 or 5 lately? Channel 4 started well, but it is now dire beyond belief - come back Jeremy Isaacs.

Problem for the BBC is that they are lowering standards in order to maintain audience share. Why? Because if they lose audience there would be greater political pressure on them from either govt or HM loyal opposition. Or probably lots.

The BBC radio output is PDG, as is quality of the news.

Given all the WMD invention by govts, and thousands killed in a (probably) illegal war, it's odd that the only resignations to date were Gilligan, who arguably, sexed up his story with an unproven assumption, and then Greg Dyke. Frankly, I think the present governors of the BBC are are spineless losers who are allowing the continuing decline of TV production standards, and are simultaneously incapable of standing up to govt interference.

Don't want to rant on, but the good things about public broadcasting in the UK are too good and too fragile to be left in the hands of twits. The prospect of control of the news media by Murdoch, and the standards of Fox, should resisted.

And while we're on the subject of Alastair Campbell (rant), do any of the Gaelic scholars out there happen to know the origin of his surname? I think we should be told.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/archivehour.ram>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/archivehour.ram</A>
 
If any of the terrestrial U.K. suppliers decide to broadcast something suitable for those with an I.Q. greater than room temperature I might be interested. Until then I'll stick with the net.

<hr width=100% size=1>A pessimist is an optimist in full possession of the facts
 
Re: Rant!

The quality of programming is not at the hands of the directors, and never has been. They are there to oversee in a general way, but are not producers nor directors, don't have that experience etc.

The quality issue in an organisation of this type, has to be lower in the organisation, and the directors might be culpable in not providing more general direction, but knowing how organisations work, they are not directly culpable. Where the blame for finance lies is far more in their remit.

Someone will undoubtably say that directors are ultimately responsible...that just shows their ignorance of big company politics and working practices

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Re: Rant!

Yes. It's a darn sight better than the USA. I'm just back from there. My son had a choice of 20 channels, some in Spanish, and mainly game/reality shows and adverts. The only decent channels were the three public ones which showed BBC World News and some other BBC programmes. The down side was that, although there were no adverts on the public channels, much of the time was spent in exhorting viewers to send donations to finance the channel.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Rant!

My point is that the lay board of governors are overseeing/oversighting the decline in standards. Their supine capitulation over the Gilligan story (it was on the early edition - how many people actually heard it?), and their readiness to ditch both Gilligan and Dyke was pathetic toadying of the worst order. Sure, the BBC governors were worried about the charter renewal, but did they act in the best interests of reporting integrity and standards? IMHO, I think their ritual hand-washing reflected very badly on the standards and traditions of the Beeb.

Gilligan might have embellished the detail - Campbell by all account went completely bananas over it - but, looking back, someone must have sexed up the WMD story, 45 minutes etc etc. And if it wasn't Campbell, then who?

I believe Dyke did the decent thing by defending Gilligan on the grounds of breaking news (it certainly was) and fair(ish) comment - and the board of governors should have supported the DG.

The problem about standards started pre-Dyke, and I also accept that the funding issue is a central problem. That was probably the reason for the out-sourcing, a lot of which actually produces good programmes.

Risk-taking in production is one of the BBC's best attributes, witness the brilliant "FlashMob - The Opera" of a couple of months ago. A good example of the BBC at its best - innovative, cutting edge, insightful and entertaining at the same time. Trouble is, just not enough at that standard.

Personally, I want to see the Charter renewed, but I believe the BBC needs a DG and a B.o.G. that can create the environment to maintain standards and encourage innovation.

I'd sooner pay a licence fee rather than have the BBC go down the tube as it were.

Rant over.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/archivehour.ram>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/archivehour.ram</A>
 
Re: Rant!

It cuts both ways. DG is seen in today's reports as being responsible for massive overspending, hence cuts required.

Gilligan is a red herring in general terms. He was see as excellent investigative reporter, but went too far, and was always seen as a bit of a loose cannon. Governors shouldn't have backed him as far as they did without understanding the repercussions, as any BBC/Government relationship is based on a level of trust. Whether that relationship should stand is another matter. The BBC should be able to report without Gov interference, but that is an issue worldwide, not just here

<hr width=100% size=1>Me transmitte sursum, caledoni
 
Little Britain has been one of the Beeb's few recent success stories, and I have to admit to having enjoyed most of the what I have seen of it. No, I don't find it all amusing, but then again, I didn't laugh at everything Python turned out, despite being a fanatical viewer. There is a lot of trash on the box, I agree, but a lot of the "newer" comedy produced by the Beeb and C4 has been excellent.

<hr width=100% size=1>Think I'll draw some little rabbits on my head, from a distance they might be mistaken for hairs.
 
Yes, technically as you wouldn't have a tuner - but actually persuading the fascists at the tv licensing organisation is an entirely different matter. I have got a property which I have renovated and am selling - have never lived in, nobody has lived in it since I owned it. I get a very threatening letter from the TV licencing people about once a fortnight and when I rang them to tell them that there was no TV they started saying "You have to have a licence"! when I finally persuaded them that I was not some one who was going to be cowed into submission by their threats they admitted that no I did not have to have a licence if I had no TV, but the letters would keep coming anyway, as well as visits from the local licencing officer as there was no way to stop sending the letters, as the assumption is that everyone has a TV!
Whilst I can laugh about it , some elderly people on their own would feel genuinely threatened by this sort or menacing behaviour.
I for one will be quite happy when the outmoded and anacronistic licence fee is abolished and the BBC learns to sink or swim as a proper commercial organisation.
My TV spends most of its time either showing DVD's watching the Simpsons, and Futurama on SKY 1 (way to go BBC - what an inspired choice to dump the simpsons and give CH4 another coup!), or watching Discovery Wings (nerd alert!), so I probably wouldn't actually notice if the BBC disappeared tomorrow.
The BBC's production side does seem to do some good documentaries, but alot of these are co-produced by discovery.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Nostalgia isn\'t what it used to be

I agree: Memories about a Golden Age of TV are always selective. I switched off my computer last night and watched "The Smoking Room" and then a BBC3 documentary on the making of "Bohemian Rhapsody". Both excellent.

FWIW "Round The Horne" was as alternatively-orientated as a seven bob note.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Rant!

I do not agree

If you are trying to compare BBC with a "proper" company I think you are on shaky ground.

The directors of a company have stewardship of the owner's (shareholders) property, and are accountable to the shareholders for that stewardship.

The BBC directors do not have that sort of accountability. The BBC say:-

"BBC Governors differ from directors of public companies, whose primary responsibilities are to shareholders and not consumers. BBC Governors represent the public interest, notably the interests of viewers and listeners."

To me that means that the governors ARE responsible for quality. Surely that is precisely what is meant by "interests of viewers and listeners"

Interestingly there is no comment on financial responsibility!



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I'm not a huge watcher of television, mainly SKY sports, but the BBC do themselves no favours with regards to costs.

At a press conference with the England team during EURO 04, six (I think) different BBC correspondents asked questions. They represented different Radio Channels and TV programs including childrens BBC. Given that each of them would have had their own backup team of technicians, cameramen etc. I can't help thinking that's a huge waste of resource and money. Surely one BBC team could have covered it all?

On the same topic, why do they have a different person doing the traffic reports on each different radio station. Surely they have the technology so that one person could broadcast over different stations? It's the same roads for goodness sake.

Taking deep breaths -- rant over.

<hr width=100% size=1>Of all the things I've lost - I miss my mind the most!
 
Re: Rant!

I'm not sure that hating the bbc qualifies you to claim a higher level of intelligence...

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Rant!

I'd agree with Bergman, organisations in which no-one has responsibility tend to be... well irresponsible - so in the Beeb the BoG has to take ultimate responsibilty for all the Beeb's actions unless that responsibility is discretely held elsewhere at Board level (for example H&S may be a specific responsibilty held at executive level).

If the Governors feel that they are too insulated due to "company politics or practices" as Brendan suggests then they should decline the post as they clearly don't feel able to execute it. Of course many just accept the position/salary/kudos and rely on being able to avoid blame/point it somewhere else or nothing bad happening.

This applies to many large Co boards though, not just the Beeb IMHO.

I'm not sure wanting to "get what you pay for" and "pay for what you get" translate into "hate" though, most people object when asked to pay for goods that they feel are of shoddy quality and are not hugely impressed by tales of how other customers are very satisfied - I can't see why the Beeb should be any different.

Oh and any theories of not being required to pay the license fee where you only have cable etc won't wash as the Beeb provides a free feed to satellite and cable providers - and this means you are able to receive the Beeb and hence require a license. Would be interesting if one of the cable/sat providers dumped the free channels but I suspect that is not in their (the cable/sat provider) interest.

<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds

Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based
 
Psychic TV

<<I can get Southern easily>>

I'm amazed /forums/images/icons/smile.gif! Southern went off the air years ago, in slightly dubious circumstances, when TVS won the franchise bid (it was the good old days of Thatcherism, when the franchise went to the consortium that was prepared to pay most......). TVS went, in their turn, and the franchise is now held by an outfit called Meridian, whose only concession to the fact that they have the largest leisure sailing area in the UK on their doorstep appears to be that they show the time of high water at Poole on their local weather forecasts.

Southern did, however, do a boating magazine programme called "Afloat" for some years, and owned "Southerner", a converted MTB, which they used for coverage of Cowes Week, the Cowes-Torquay race and the return of Francis Chichester.

They also gave us Worzel Gummidge, with Jon Pertwee as Wurzel and Una Stubbs as Aunt Sally. Bring 'em back, I say /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif.

<hr width=100% size=1>Je suis Marxiste - tendance Groucho
 
Re: Rant!

You have to have a license to own a television - of any sort. Whether it is connected only to cable or satellite makes no difference.

Just a thought about satellite

Just had a look at the menu on Sky - the BBC have the same BBC1 programme showing on 18 - yes eighteen separate channels and 4 channels showing the same programme on BBC2 - so not much chance of satellite people dumping BBC when they spend so much of our money with them.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top