BBC concerns over Doctor Who - Daily Mail

Ray_SmithRay_Smith Posts: 1,372
Forum Member
✭✭✭
Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2325806/INSIDE-THE-BOX-Exterminate-Doctor-Who-boss-BBC-urged.html
A Beeb source says: ‘The 50th anniversary episode seems a good opportunity for him [Moffat] to bow out. Either way, something dramatic needs to take place to improve ratings.’

Interesting if true (it is the Daily Mail, though). ;)
«13456

Comments

  • CD93CD93 Posts: 13,939
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    10 million or the axe.

    Mail thinking.
  • Ray_SmithRay_Smith Posts: 1,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The BBC got rid of 'Grange Hill', 'Top of the Pops', even 'Last of the Boring Wine'.... so anything is possible. 2014 could be the last series - assuming the ratings continue to fall. No more Doctor Who! How will fans react to this?!!!! :D
  • adams66adams66 Posts: 3,945
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Typical Daily Mail BBC bashing. Once timeshifted viewers are taken into account the facts are that ratings are much the same as they have been since Doctor Who returned. There is a slight downward shift in ratings across all TV programmes, but the facts are that Doctor Who is doing just fine ratings wise.
  • Ray_SmithRay_Smith Posts: 1,372
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A new Doctor - (new actor) - would spice up the ratings. I'm sure the BBC have given that some thought.
  • JohnnyForgetJohnnyForget Posts: 24,061
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Despite allegedly falling ratings, Doctor Who is a money making franchise for the BBC, and they would be fools to cancel it.
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    "The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

    ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.

    And the 10 million figure is for Rose, the very first episode of the new series, and Series 1 took an inevitable massive nosedive in the ratings after that to around 6-7 for every other episode, which is less than the show's getting now.

    ARGH. Daily Mail. Not even good for toilet paper, I wouldn't dirty my backside with it.
  • JCRJCR Posts: 24,028
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1. The Daily Mail is owned by ITN
    2. There is no chance charging for news websites in the UK will work while bbc.co.uk is there.
    3. As a result of 1 & 2, the Daily Mail publishes negative stories about the BBC every day, to the point where it's become a running joke.

    This is a non story. So, this will be a 15 page thread by this time tomorrow, no doubt. ;)
  • Dr TheteDr Thete Posts: 573
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ray_Smith wrote: »
    Apologies if this has been mentioned in another thread...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2325806/INSIDE-THE-BOX-Exterminate-Doctor-Who-boss-BBC-urged.html



    Interesting if true (it is the Daily Mail, though). ;)

    Of course it isn't true.

    Then only supposed BBC source quoted is unnamed and uninformed. Odds are, from Wootton, as someone working for the Daily Mail, it could be entirely made up. If not, all he would actually need is anyone from the BBC (literally anyone) to say those words. Classic lazy tabloid moronic click bait.

    Wootton, as with most media hacks, is still living in the 1980s and can only see the Day One BBC One ratings count, thus his apparent surprise that the BBC can see 8 million viewers rather than 4.6 million. No doubt he thinks PVRs and iPlayer are devilry and witchcraft (which he has in common with some fans, sadly).

    That said, he's not beyond twisting the few ratings facts he does understand in order to make a 'story'. Sure, the show did break 10 million (in final ratings) in its first year (counting BBC One only). Once. Most of the time since it's averaged ratings between 7 and 8 million, or somewhat higher if we count total reach. And that's still the case.

    The only truly honest thing in that article is the only actual verifiable BBC quote:
    The show has the highest audience share of all dramas on any channel this year and is in the top three most requested shows on iPlayer.

    The only people who will think there is any truth in that story are those who want it to be true. But then that's the Daily Mail article criteria in a nutshell. Bugger the truth, tell people the things they want to believe.
  • Dr TheteDr Thete Posts: 573
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    JCR wrote: »
    1. The Daily Mail is owned by ITN

    No it isn't. It's owned outright by DMGT, who have only a 20% stake in ITN. Both via subsidiaries.
  • Dr TheteDr Thete Posts: 573
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dr. Linus wrote: »
    "The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

    ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.

    It's highly likely that every episode this run (and of Series Seven as a whole) will have garnered at least 8 million plus in weekly reach.

    Beyond the weekly reach those figures (from people catching up via PVR and iPlayer past the seven day mark) those figures will be higher still. Which is why focusing on the rough BBC One day one count is so silly.
  • Dr. LinusDr. Linus Posts: 6,445
    Forum Member
    Dr Thete wrote: »
    It's highly likely that every episode this run (and of Series Seven as a whole) will have garnered at least 8 million plus in weekly reach.

    Beyond the weekly reach those figures (from people catching up via PVR and iPlayer past the seven day mark) those figures will be higher still. Which is why focusing on the rough BBC One day one count is so silly.

    Indeed. It's well known even outside of the fandom that Doctor Who gets crazy timeshifts. This series it's been getting pretty much 2m an episode, and The Snowmen got the highest timeshifts of all time - of any programme, that is. The report is utter crap.
  • PyramidbreadPyramidbread Posts: 10,440
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dr. Linus wrote: »
    "The BBC claims the show has eight million viewers, but this is still well down on the 10 million the show received when it was relaunched in 2005."

    ARGH. So frustrating. First of all, the BBC isn't "claiming" it has eight million viewers, it does. The Bells of St. John got 8.4 million just six weeks ago, and Asylum of the Daleks also got over 8 million at the beginning of this series. These are facts, not claims.

    And the 10 million figure is for Rose, the very first episode of the new series, and Series 1 took an inevitable massive nosedive in the ratings after that to around 6-7 for every other episode, which is less than the show's getting now.

    ARGH. Daily Mail. Not even good for toilet paper, I wouldn't dirty my backside with it.

    Plus all ratings have generally gone down since 2005, with the digital switchover and on demand TV.
  • Sophie ~Oohie~Sophie ~Oohie~ Posts: 10,395
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Think positive guys - at least they didn't make up a sex scandal with the writers this time.
  • GDKGDK Posts: 9,467
    Forum Member
    The function of all daily newspapers is to make money for their proprietors and push certain political views. Their readers usually want stories that only confirm what they already believe. There's no requirement for balance or impartiality.

    The BBC is required to be impartial and balanced. It's also supposed to educate and entertain.

    Enough said, really.
  • allen_whoallen_who Posts: 2,819
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Every single series of dr who ive seen going back to the seventies has had good stories and bad stories.. its the same now as it always has been... the bbc are unpredictable but I doubt they would undermine the show in such an important year... also this business of bowing at after the anniversary ep... hmmm the christmas special has already been confirmed by moff
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    adams66 wrote: »
    Typical Daily Mail BBC bashing. Once timeshifted viewers are taken into account the facts are that ratings are much the same as they have been since Doctor Who returned. There is a slight downward shift in ratings across all TV programmes, but the facts are that Doctor Who is doing just fine ratings wise.

    Indeed - typical Mail reporting - use selective figures such as the lower overnights, and conveniently ignore the timeshifts

    Add to that a "BBC source" who could be just about anybody, not necessarily someone connected with teh show or even connected with programme production or commissioning (such as a cleaner, car part attendant, or canteen assistant).
  • FATCHOPSFATCHOPS Posts: 626
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Due to the unique way the BBC is funded technically we could all be classes as BBC sources. We stump up the cash! Therefore he can write what he thinks and claim it as coming from a BBC source.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Very true.

    The other possibility is that the reporter simply made up that quote, knowing that a source would never need to be named.
  • Muttley76Muttley76 Posts: 97,888
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Well that little piece is a load of crap. I guess thats what happens when someone who can't count writes a piece on ratings.
  • hardylanehardylane Posts: 3,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Screw ratings. Dr Who is a still a flagship BBC show, earning millions of sales and merchandising.

    It is under no threat.

    Oh, and screw the Mail. Backwards. With a thistle.
  • Thunder LipsThunder Lips Posts: 1,660
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ratings aside, the "creative nosedive" bit isn't a million miles off the mark.
  • hardylanehardylane Posts: 3,092
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ratings aside, the "creative nosedive" bit isn't a million miles off the mark.

    In your opinion.
  • MulettMulett Posts: 9,055
    Forum Member
    Well, at least they're talking about Moffat rather than the show being axed. We should be grateful for small mercies.
  • ocavocav Posts: 2,341
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'd quite like to see the License Fee go on a new department called The Daily Mail Department. This would be the sole point of contact at the BBC for comment and they would spoonfeed them rubbish on a daily basis
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 547
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Just out of interest - what are world wide ratings like and how do they compare to other BBC productions?
Sign In or Register to comment.