Not at all. My point is that BBC should be doing a show like Strictly because the content is not commercial. Some people go, oh that show is getting lots of viewers therefore the ITV could do it, forgetting of course that it wouldn't have been commissioned at all if it hadn't been for the Beeb and the licence fee because in most cases, the content wouldn't have been commercial enough.
Fair enough, I think we'll have to disagree on strictly, I'm certainly not going to be able convince you.
The BBC is more than strictly however, what about the comfy sofa chat chit chat on Breakfast on Saturday mornings? Or most of Radio 1's or 2s or 5s output?
Not necessarily if it was in part due to budget. One fundamental difference between the BBC and commercial channels is that the BBC doesn't exist to make a profit for shareholders.
BGT was not as big a risk as Strictly for the reasons already given. Its not as though "tv talent show" was uncharted territory. And yes, I know Come Dancing was a big show in the 70s, but by the time it was axed it was airing in a midweek graveyard slot and was deeply unfashionable.
Strictly wasn't uncharted territory and TV talent shows were also deeply unfashionable. As it goes strictly is a TV talent show as well.
I'm not convinced by the distinctions you make. The shows appear to have more parralles than you are willing to acknowledge.
I stand by my comment about the ad-channels. They are a chore to watch and completely draining. I accept that not everyone has the same take,
Oh wow, that would be like me saying that I do not watch BBC because I think all output is rubbish. Which i don't, I know the BBC do some good stuff.
Ok I do not watch the BBc, but then I do nto watch any TV as such anyway, my reason for getting rid of the TV licence was not because I never watch anything on the BBc, because i be lying if I said that, but because the one thing I did enjoy they sold most of it off to Sky. There are a couple of other reason as well.
but given that since 2001 (and for the first time in it's history) BBC1 is the most watched channel. I would put that down to the fact that the channel has a variety of programming all uninterrupted coupled with declining standards on ITV.
TV full stop is declining and have been for years and since we have had digital and now loads of channels it been getting worse, if that is possible.,
Yeap...ok Doctors... sorry, I thought we were talking about prime time. The BBC only has EastEnders during peak time against Emmerdale and Coronation Street daily (for obvious reasons) on the other side.
The problem with soaps is that they are now on almost every day, I think EE gets one day off in the week. The BBc used to have more than one soap, it is only because of the ones they have had failed that they either sold them or got rid of them.
Anyone remember Eldorado? that did not last long, Angels was another, it did last a bit longer than a year.
I know ITV have had their fair share of soaps over the years mind you.
Soaps are cheap to make, which is why they are put on almost everyday, because then the broadcasters do not have to think of anything else to put in that place.
I used to watch Eastenders years ago at my parents place when I went there for Dinner on a Sunday, I would not watch it now.
I remember Come Dancing with Angela and Terry. How not to dispel the image that ballroom dancing isn't cool ay.
Strictly is clever really...introducing to the nation to niche interest dancing via celebs, professional dancers and judges qualified to judge. Brilliant...just brilliant.
Maybe, but it is not educational which you keep on saying. I use to love ballroom dancing, yes I done it when I was younger, but no way could I watch a show of it. It is mind numbing boring.
Timeshift and fast forward through the ads or watch catchup, why would anyone boycott commercial TV and miss things that could be of interest. Some drama on ITV is just as highly regarded as those on the BBC, ie. Broadchurch, Downton Abbey, Whitechapel, at the end of the day you are the one missing out.
I used to pause my PVR for 15 mins or so and then watch and fast forward though the adverts, or I would record stuff and do it that way.
The problem with recording stuff I forgot to watch them or could not be bothered.
i put some stuff on series record and then never got around to watching them. I bet if I switch on my PVR now it would have a fair few timers set up and all would be out of date now.
It does beg the question though - if there was something that on the BBC that you were interested in, why wouldn't you watch it? I would have though that most people watch programmes that interest them regardless of what channel it was on.
There has been nothing on the BBC, I have liked for around three years. Other outlets really have more interesting stuff.
Nowadays I only have around 5 or 6 hours of screen time to spend a week. Which also includes You Tube and this site! It's not only about channel numbers, but also about brands and apps. Sky Atlantic is like a on-demand brand to me, and Amazon Instant Prime an app!
The BBC channels and programs are just not on my radar and would be a waste of time!
Which, of course is not the point about completely rejecting public funding for the organization. Just it can't be an obvious burden to the tax-payer and the BBC should really forget about being 'number 1' .
It isn't, quite often I just go straight on my on-demand section of my planner or switch on my Amazon Fire Stick!
This is why I think the BBC should be allowed to start up an subscription based service, within the next agreed public remit. It already has a great commercial arm presence both here and overseas.
It would be in the interests for the BBC to go this way and not be completely trapped in the backward looking European PSB culture, who are always late to the table for everything!!!
Maybe, but it is not educational which you keep on saying. I use to love ballroom dancing, yes I done it when I was younger, but no way could I watch a show of it. It is mind numbing boring.
come dancing i remember that, just about.
There is a difference between liking a show/finding a show boring and whether a show is educational or not. I love Strictly. It's very British, very BBC. I've learn't loads about dance having watched it for years. How? Through the comments given by the well qualified judges.
What does Simon Cowell teach us about music and singing? Does he advice the contestants on how they can improve? Does he talk about technique?
There has been nothing on the BBC, I have liked for around three years. Other outlets really have more interesting stuff.
Nowadays I only have around 5 or 6 hours of screen time to spend a week. Which also includes You Tube and this site! It's not only about channel numbers, but also about brands and apps. Sky Atlantic is like a on-demand brand to me, and Amazon Instant Prime an app!
The BBC channels and programs are just not on my radar and would be a waste of time!
Which, of course is not the point about completely rejecting public funding for the organization. Just it can't be an obvious burden to the tax-payer and the BBC should really forget about being 'number 1' .
It isn't, quite often I just go straight on my on-demand section of my planner or switch on my Amazon Fire Stick!
This is why I think the BBC should be allowed to start up an subscription based service, within the next agreed public remit. It already has a great commercial arm presence both here and overseas.
It would be in the interests for the BBC to go this way and not be completely trapped in the backward looking European PSB culture, who are always late to the table for everything!!!
...I see Brand BBC in the same way as you view Amazon. The difference for me is 1. I trust the BBC more than any other media brand 2. The ethos and ethics...the BBC exists to provide a public service for the benefit of the public, the likes of Amazon exist to make a profit for themselves and that's my real problem with it and what it results from it.
BIB...It may be beneficial for the BBC, but would it be beneficial for the British public? I am far from convinced. Anything alternative to the status quo which would result in a poorer service and higher charges I would be against.
The antis also need to understand this... a strong private sector (ITV) only happens if there is a strong public service (BBC). The BBC holds ITV's feet to the fire and that has to be a good thing. Who benefits? The viewer.
The current media mix is actually a strong advocate for strong public services across the board.
There is a difference between liking a show/finding a show boring and whether a show is educational or not. I love Strictly. It's very British, very BBC. I've learn't loads about dance having watched it for years. How? Through the comments given by the well qualified judges.
What does Simon Cowell teach us about music and singing? Does he advice the contestants on how they can improve? Does he talk about technique?
SCD is light entertainment, just like the X Factor. Neither are produced to be educational.
I'm betting there is strong team behind each finalist in the X Factor guiding them through each area of being a performer, there'll be music coaches, stylists, dancers, teaching them all the technical aspects needed to be successful - That's why you can see an improvement in their performance each week. The judges have a certain amount of input too.
There has been nothing on the BBC, I have liked for around three years. Other outlets really have more interesting stuff.
Nowadays I only have around 5 or 6 hours of screen time to spend a week. Which also includes You Tube and this site! It's not only about channel numbers, but also about brands and apps. Sky Atlantic is like a on-demand brand to me, and Amazon Instant Prime an app!
The BBC channels and programs are just not on my radar and would be a waste of time!
You have not found anything to watch on the BBC for 3 years? Your scope of entertainment must be worse than mine.
Even I could find something on the BBC a couple of times a week.
Have i got news for you, Q.I, maybe a couple of things on BBC4 like Great British railway journeys.
Which, of course is not the point about completely rejecting public funding for the organization. Just it can't be an obvious burden to the tax-payer and the BBC should really forget about being 'number 1' .
That is one of the other things that annoyed me with the BBC, trying to chase ratings. since they do not have to rely on advertising they should not have to chase ratings.
Some of the stuff, in fact a lot of the stuff thay have on BBC4 could be stuck onto BBC2, I always thought BBC2 was the better channel at one point.
It isn't, quite often I just go straight on my on-demand section of my planner or switch on my Amazon Fire Stick!
Like me with Netflix, I watched two or three things on the BBC per week, plus the F1, once the BBC decided to palm most of the f1 to Sky, I then started to think if it was worth paying the £145 per year for the TV licence. I decided that it was wasted money for me, so I got rid of it.
This is why I think the BBC should be allowed to start up an subscription based service, within the next agreed public remit. It already has a great commercial arm presence both here and overseas.
I also think it should go subscription now,
It would be in the interests for the BBC to go this way and not be completely trapped in the backward looking European PSB culture, who are always late to the table for everything!!!
There is a difference between liking a show/finding a show boring and whether a show is educational or not. I love Strictly. It's very British, very BBC. I've learn't loads about dance having watched it for years. How? Through the comments given by the well qualified judges.
What does Simon Cowell teach us about music and singing? Does he advice the contestants on how they can improve? Does he talk about technique?
It is not educational, can you now dance since you been watching it? As for singing, you either can or you can't, ok some people can have a bit of training to control their breathing, but if you have not got a voice then you can not sing.
Strictly is no better than X-factor and all that type of crap to be honest. My view i know, but it is sad of the rubbish some people do watch. Saying that, some people may think I watch rubbish
SCD is light entertainment, just like the X Factor. Neither are produced to be educational.
I'm betting there is strong team behind each finalist in the X Factor guiding them through each area of being a performer, there'll be music coaches, stylists, dancers, teaching them all the technical aspects needed to be successful - That's why you can see an improvement in their performance each week. The judges have a certain amount of input too.
There is a gulf of difference between the out and out commercial outfit that is the X Factor and the classy, educational, informative and entertaining Strictly. They are not comparable at all.
The judges (qualified to judge on Strictly) feedback to the celebs on technique / what they liked/didn't like / things to improve on each week in the show...at the same time, educating the viewers. None of that element appears on the X Factor. The X Factor is just a vehicle to allow Cowell to sell records. That's it's purpose. The X Factor doesn't do informative/educational.
You have not found anything to watch on the BBC for 3 years? Your scope of entertainment must be worse than mine. Even I could find something on the BBC a couple of times a week. Have I Got News For You, Q.I, maybe a couple of things on BBC4 like Great British Railway Journeys.
Interesting choices. Neither would have existed without the licence fee and all would go without it of course.
That is one of the other things that annoyed me with the BBC, trying to chase ratings. Since they do not have to rely on advertising they should not have to chase ratings.
Chasing ratings?...I don't see any evidence of this. Surely if it was chasing ratings, the schedules would be clogged up with reality shows and soaps and not shows like The One Show, VE Celebrations, Panorama, The News, New Tricks, 24 Hours In The Past, Inspector George, Watchdog, Crimewatch, Shark, A Question Of Sport, Have I Got News For You and Mrs Brown's Boys.
That is Europe for you.
Europe is good. We gain hugely from being in it, but that's a whole other argument.
...Strictly is no better than X-factor and all that type of crap to be honest. My view i know, but it is sad of the rubbish some people do watch. Saying that, some people may think I watch rubbish
To determine whether a show is commercial or not you have to look at the content not the format or presentation. Is ballroom and latin dancing mainstream? Commercial if you like?
There is a gulf of difference between the out and out commercial outfit that is the X Factor and the classy, educational, informative and entertaining Strictly. They are not comparable at all.
The judges (qualified to judge on Strictly) feedback to the celebs on technique / what they liked/didn't like / things to improve on each week in the show...at the same time, educating the viewers. None of that element appears on the X Factor. The X Factor is just a vehicle to allow Cowell to sell records. That's it's purpose. The X Factor doesn't do informative/educational.
You have got to be kidding, next you'll be saying you can build an extension because you watch DIY SOS.
The judges on the X Factor are in the music business, they give their opinion on the performance giving constructive criticism most of the time on how to improve, just as they do on SCD. How would you know what elements appears on the X Factor or not when you don't watch it.
The X Factor is not produced/designed to be educational, neither is SCD.
SCD is prime time telly, it's light entertainment, not open university. ...
You have got to be kidding, next you'll be saying you can build an extension because you watch DIY SOS.
The judges on the X Factor are in the music business, they give their opinion on the performance giving constructive criticism most of the time on how to improve, just as they do on SCD. You seem to know a lot about the X Factor considering you don't watch it.
SCD is prime time telly, it's light entertainment, not open university. ...
I am genuinelly serious in what I say.
The Strictly judges are all dancers...qualified to judge...inform the nation. I have learn't loads having watched Strictly. The X Factor judges are not musicians/singers so aren't in a position to pass judgements because they have no knowledge of such matters...but it doesn't matter because it isn't the purpose of the X Factor. The X Factor is just a cash cow for Cowell. The X Factor is not a patch on Strictly. They are completely different shows.
The Strictly judges are all dancers...qualified to judge...inform the nation. I have learn't loads having watched Strictly. The X Factor judges are not musicians/singers so aren't in a position to pass judgements because they have no knowledge of such matters...but it doesn't matter because it isn't the purpose of the X Factor. The X Factor is just a cash cow for Cowell. The X Factor is not a patch on Strictly. They are completely different shows.
Really?
So Mel B, Gary Barlow, Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, Nicole Sherzinger aren't singers/musicians and Simon Cowell and Lewis Walsh aren't in the music business.
So Mel B, Gary Barlow, Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, Nicole Sherzinger aren't singers/musicians and Simon Cowell and Lewis Walsh aren't in the music business.
The only one there who is a credible musician/singer is Gary Barlow. Cowell and Walsh aren't musicians are they.
If you want a credible music show, look to Gareth Malone's Choir series...he is a singer, musician and composer.
Craig, Darcey, Len and Bruno are all dancers meaning that the feedback they provide carries weight and credibility.
So to get out of your lack of knowledge you are now moving the goalposts to who you consider credible.
They are singers/musicians and credible judges.
You will find I referred to Cowell and Walsh as being in the music business, they are both fully qualified to judge.
Come on...compare Darcey (qualified/knowledgeable dancer) with so-called singers Mel B and Cheryl. What knowledge and understanding of music and singing do Mel B and Cheryl have?
The X Factor is in no way comparable with Strictly... not on any measure. Strictly brings us niche/narrow interest ballroom dancing to the nation via an inclusive/accesible format. ITV (for obvious reasons) plays it safe with one long advert for Cowell's latest singers, signed to his label of course. For The X Factor to have any credibility, all the judges should be musicians/singers with a good understanding and knowledge of music. Cowell and Walsh don't fit that bill... but that isn't ITV's agenda is it. They just want to sell ad time and to allow Cowell to make money.
Come on...compare Darcey (qualified/knowledgeable dancer) with so-called singers Mel B and Cheryl. What knowledge and understanding of music and singing do Mel B and Cheryl have?
The X Factor is in no way comparable with Strictly... not on any measure. Strictly brings us niche/narrow interest ballroom dancing to the nation via an inclusive/accesible format. ITV (for obvious reasons) plays it safe with one long advert for Cowell's latest singers, signed to his label of course. For The X Factor to have any credibility, all the judges should be musicians/singers with a good understanding and knowledge of music. Cowell and Walsh don't fit that bill... but that isn't ITV's agenda is it. They just want to sell ad time and to allow Cowell to make money.
Who's comparing?
I was merely pointing out the judges on the X Factor are qualified to judge contestants and the contestants do get professional guidance, elements you said we're not present on the show, if there is a comparison to be made, then the two shows are very similar in that respect.
Both programmes are designed to provide light entertainment on a weekend, nothing more.
I was merely pointing out the judges on the X Factor are qualified to judge contestants and the contestants do get professional guidance, elements you said we're not present on the show, if there is a comparison to be made, then the two shows are very similar in that respect.
Both programmes are designed to provide light entertainment on a weekend, nothing more.
I'm afraid, with respect, you are allowing your anti-BBC bias to distract you. Strictly and The X Factor in no way comparable at all. One is quality, informative, educational and entertaining...the other isn't.
I'm afraid, with respect, you are allowing your anti-BBC bias to distract you. Strictly and The X Factor in no way comparable at all. One is quality, informative, educational and entertaining...the other isn't.
Just because someone pulls you up on inaccuracies in your posts doesn't make them anti BBC.
I'm afraid, with respect, you are allowing your anti-BBC bias to distract you. Strictly and The X Factor in no way comparable at all. One is quality, informative, educational and entertaining...the other isn't.
You are also allowing your extreme pro BBC bias to distract you too.
Strictly is not educational at all, and X Factor is just a medium to make Cowell money.
I'm not a fan of either, but I prefer Strictly because it isn't a programme designed with the only purpose to create personal wealth for one man, it is just an entertainment show.
Comments
Fair enough, I think we'll have to disagree on strictly, I'm certainly not going to be able convince you.
The BBC is more than strictly however, what about the comfy sofa chat chit chat on Breakfast on Saturday mornings? Or most of Radio 1's or 2s or 5s output?
Strictly wasn't uncharted territory and TV talent shows were also deeply unfashionable. As it goes strictly is a TV talent show as well.
I'm not convinced by the distinctions you make. The shows appear to have more parralles than you are willing to acknowledge.
Oh wow, that would be like me saying that I do not watch BBC because I think all output is rubbish. Which i don't, I know the BBC do some good stuff.
Ok I do not watch the BBc, but then I do nto watch any TV as such anyway, my reason for getting rid of the TV licence was not because I never watch anything on the BBc, because i be lying if I said that, but because the one thing I did enjoy they sold most of it off to Sky. There are a couple of other reason as well.
TV full stop is declining and have been for years and since we have had digital and now loads of channels it been getting worse, if that is possible.,
The problem with soaps is that they are now on almost every day, I think EE gets one day off in the week. The BBc used to have more than one soap, it is only because of the ones they have had failed that they either sold them or got rid of them.
Anyone remember Eldorado? that did not last long, Angels was another, it did last a bit longer than a year.
I know ITV have had their fair share of soaps over the years mind you.
Soaps are cheap to make, which is why they are put on almost everyday, because then the broadcasters do not have to think of anything else to put in that place.
I used to watch Eastenders years ago at my parents place when I went there for Dinner on a Sunday, I would not watch it now.
Maybe, but it is not educational which you keep on saying. I use to love ballroom dancing, yes I done it when I was younger, but no way could I watch a show of it. It is mind numbing boring.
come dancing i remember that, just about.
I used to pause my PVR for 15 mins or so and then watch and fast forward though the adverts, or I would record stuff and do it that way.
The problem with recording stuff I forgot to watch them or could not be bothered.
i put some stuff on series record and then never got around to watching them. I bet if I switch on my PVR now it would have a fair few timers set up and all would be out of date now.
shows about cars, video games, travel
a radio station that played classic songs without being as pipe and slippers as radio 2
There has been nothing on the BBC, I have liked for around three years. Other outlets really have more interesting stuff.
Nowadays I only have around 5 or 6 hours of screen time to spend a week. Which also includes You Tube and this site! It's not only about channel numbers, but also about brands and apps. Sky Atlantic is like a on-demand brand to me, and Amazon Instant Prime an app!
The BBC channels and programs are just not on my radar and would be a waste of time!
Which, of course is not the point about completely rejecting public funding for the organization. Just it can't be an obvious burden to the tax-payer and the BBC should really forget about being 'number 1' .
It isn't, quite often I just go straight on my on-demand section of my planner or switch on my Amazon Fire Stick!
This is why I think the BBC should be allowed to start up an subscription based service, within the next agreed public remit. It already has a great commercial arm presence both here and overseas.
It would be in the interests for the BBC to go this way and not be completely trapped in the backward looking European PSB culture, who are always late to the table for everything!!!
There is a difference between liking a show/finding a show boring and whether a show is educational or not. I love Strictly. It's very British, very BBC. I've learn't loads about dance having watched it for years. How? Through the comments given by the well qualified judges.
What does Simon Cowell teach us about music and singing? Does he advice the contestants on how they can improve? Does he talk about technique?
...I see Brand BBC in the same way as you view Amazon. The difference for me is 1. I trust the BBC more than any other media brand 2. The ethos and ethics...the BBC exists to provide a public service for the benefit of the public, the likes of Amazon exist to make a profit for themselves and that's my real problem with it and what it results from it.
BIB...It may be beneficial for the BBC, but would it be beneficial for the British public? I am far from convinced. Anything alternative to the status quo which would result in a poorer service and higher charges I would be against.
The antis also need to understand this... a strong private sector (ITV) only happens if there is a strong public service (BBC). The BBC holds ITV's feet to the fire and that has to be a good thing. Who benefits? The viewer.
The current media mix is actually a strong advocate for strong public services across the board.
SCD is light entertainment, just like the X Factor. Neither are produced to be educational.
I'm betting there is strong team behind each finalist in the X Factor guiding them through each area of being a performer, there'll be music coaches, stylists, dancers, teaching them all the technical aspects needed to be successful - That's why you can see an improvement in their performance each week. The judges have a certain amount of input too.
You have not found anything to watch on the BBC for 3 years? Your scope of entertainment must be worse than mine.
Even I could find something on the BBC a couple of times a week.
Have i got news for you, Q.I, maybe a couple of things on BBC4 like Great British railway journeys.
That is one of the other things that annoyed me with the BBC, trying to chase ratings. since they do not have to rely on advertising they should not have to chase ratings.
Some of the stuff, in fact a lot of the stuff thay have on BBC4 could be stuck onto BBC2, I always thought BBC2 was the better channel at one point.
Like me with Netflix, I watched two or three things on the BBC per week, plus the F1, once the BBC decided to palm most of the f1 to Sky, I then started to think if it was worth paying the £145 per year for the TV licence. I decided that it was wasted money for me, so I got rid of it.
I also think it should go subscription now,
That is Europe for you.
It is not educational, can you now dance since you been watching it? As for singing, you either can or you can't, ok some people can have a bit of training to control their breathing, but if you have not got a voice then you can not sing.
Strictly is no better than X-factor and all that type of crap to be honest. My view i know, but it is sad of the rubbish some people do watch. Saying that, some people may think I watch rubbish
There is a gulf of difference between the out and out commercial outfit that is the X Factor and the classy, educational, informative and entertaining Strictly. They are not comparable at all.
The judges (qualified to judge on Strictly) feedback to the celebs on technique / what they liked/didn't like / things to improve on each week in the show...at the same time, educating the viewers. None of that element appears on the X Factor. The X Factor is just a vehicle to allow Cowell to sell records. That's it's purpose. The X Factor doesn't do informative/educational.
Interesting choices. Neither would have existed without the licence fee and all would go without it of course.
Chasing ratings?...I don't see any evidence of this. Surely if it was chasing ratings, the schedules would be clogged up with reality shows and soaps and not shows like The One Show, VE Celebrations, Panorama, The News, New Tricks, 24 Hours In The Past, Inspector George, Watchdog, Crimewatch, Shark, A Question Of Sport, Have I Got News For You and Mrs Brown's Boys.
Europe is good. We gain hugely from being in it, but that's a whole other argument.
To determine whether a show is commercial or not you have to look at the content not the format or presentation. Is ballroom and latin dancing mainstream? Commercial if you like?
You have got to be kidding, next you'll be saying you can build an extension because you watch DIY SOS.
The judges on the X Factor are in the music business, they give their opinion on the performance giving constructive criticism most of the time on how to improve, just as they do on SCD. How would you know what elements appears on the X Factor or not when you don't watch it.
The X Factor is not produced/designed to be educational, neither is SCD.
SCD is prime time telly, it's light entertainment, not open university. ...
I am genuinelly serious in what I say.
The Strictly judges are all dancers...qualified to judge...inform the nation. I have learn't loads having watched Strictly. The X Factor judges are not musicians/singers so aren't in a position to pass judgements because they have no knowledge of such matters...but it doesn't matter because it isn't the purpose of the X Factor. The X Factor is just a cash cow for Cowell. The X Factor is not a patch on Strictly. They are completely different shows.
So Mel B, Gary Barlow, Cheryl Fernandez-Versini, Nicole Sherzinger aren't singers/musicians and Simon Cowell and Lewis Walsh aren't in the music business.
The only one there who is a credible musician/singer is Gary Barlow. Cowell and Walsh aren't musicians are they.
If you want a credible music show, look to Gareth Malone's Choir series...he is a singer, musician and composer.
Craig, Darcey, Len and Bruno are all dancers meaning that the feedback they provide carries weight and credibility.
So to get out of your lack of knowledge you are now moving the goalposts to who you consider credible.
They are singers/musicians and credible judges.
You will find I referred to Cowell and Walsh as being in the music business, they are both fully qualified to judge.
Come on...compare Darcey (qualified/knowledgeable dancer) with so-called singers Mel B and Cheryl. What knowledge and understanding of music and singing do Mel B and Cheryl have?
The X Factor is in no way comparable with Strictly... not on any measure. Strictly brings us niche/narrow interest ballroom dancing to the nation via an inclusive/accesible format. ITV (for obvious reasons) plays it safe with one long advert for Cowell's latest singers, signed to his label of course. For The X Factor to have any credibility, all the judges should be musicians/singers with a good understanding and knowledge of music. Cowell and Walsh don't fit that bill... but that isn't ITV's agenda is it. They just want to sell ad time and to allow Cowell to make money.
I was merely pointing out the judges on the X Factor are qualified to judge contestants and the contestants do get professional guidance, elements you said we're not present on the show, if there is a comparison to be made, then the two shows are very similar in that respect.
Both programmes are designed to provide light entertainment on a weekend, nothing more.
I'm afraid, with respect, you are allowing your anti-BBC bias to distract you. Strictly and The X Factor in no way comparable at all. One is quality, informative, educational and entertaining...the other isn't.
Strictly is not educational at all, and X Factor is just a medium to make Cowell money.
I'm not a fan of either, but I prefer Strictly because it isn't a programme designed with the only purpose to create personal wealth for one man, it is just an entertainment show.