So what about the remaining 50 odd million people who live in Britain? Do you think they all don't watch tv or do they all watch something else instead?
Well to be fair if you look at viewing figures most people aren't watching TV at any given time. Not everyone spends their entire day in front of the TV - like me
Last night, using the figures from the Rating Thread, 21(ish) million people were watching TV so nearly 42 million had something else - some would say better - to do which I think puts things into perspective.
I said 3 hours of sport AND news. Newsnight tonight which is on for an hour will no doubt be dominated with news about the Commonwealth games as has the BBC news channel.
hang on, why are you now including normal, scheduled new programming in the count? originally the gripe was the amount of CG programming that was also on Two.
And I doubt very much if Newsnight will be carrying much sports news. As for the News channel, well it is a news channel, and they have always covered sports news, especially so when its major events.
It seems to me that there's an element of "shifting the goalposts" going on now.
Shove your licence fee up your backside. PUT the sports nonsense on BTSport and eurosport not main stream television. These sporting events are a total distraction from real news stories like the middle east etc.
That is my general problem with this year's coverage. It isn't actually any different to previous years (there is more this time), it just seems more "in your face" than previously. The CG was easy to avoid before. It isn't this time. If the coverage was more balanced then it wouldn't appear to be so bad.
Sorry, but it's far easier to avoid now, simply don't watch BBC one. this "more balanced" covereage would mean bits of coverage here, there & everywhere, across a number of channels, with some events overrunning and causing the non-CG schedule to be delayed. Far more difficult to avoid it (and its effects) I would have said.
hang on, why are you now including normal, scheduled new programming in the count? originally the gripe was the amount of CG programming that was also on Two.
And I doubt very much if Newsnight will be carrying much sports news. As for the News channel, well it is a news channel, and they have always covered sports news, especially so when its major events.
It seems to me that there's an element of "shifting the goalposts" going on now.
Shove your licence fee up your backside. PUT the sports nonsense on BTSport and eurosport not main stream television. These sporting events are a total distraction from real news stories like the middle east etc.
I've quoted your post Mossy because it is opposite to the post redunited wrote. There is coverage of the CG on The News Channel and I would expect there to be. But the CG should NOT be top headlines when stories like Israel are more worryingly important. It's fine to round up the CG news, but can we have it at the end of the news in a five minute slot so that the focus on the real news stories is maintained? Sometimes the BBC go a little OTT with their prioritising of news stories. (As do all broadcasters).
Redunited, the thought of the BBC not showing sport is a horrible one. There are also some sporting events that are legally protected to remain on terrestrial FTA TV. If ITV bid for and won all the sporting events available, the BBC would be severely weakened and would ultimately enter an existential crises. How could that be good for broadcasting?
These sporting events are a total distraction from real news stories like the middle east etc.
Becuase 'Homes Under The Hammer' and 'Flog It' do such a great job of informing viewers about how planes can't stop crashing and two countries halfway across the world keep playing rocket-boomerang.
I've quoted your post Mossy because it is opposite to the post redunited wrote. There is coverage of the CG on The News Channel and I would expect there to be. But the CG should NOT be top headlines when stories like Israel are more worryingly important. It's fine to round up the CG news, but can we have it at the end of the news in a five minute slot so that the focus on the real news stories is maintained? Sometimes the BBC go a little OTT with their prioritising of news stories. (As do all broadcasters).
On the whole I would agree with that, with one proviso - that the "important" news such as Israel has new developments to report (which sadly, always seems to be the case, although rarely positive). But when major events are held, especially on home soil, the broadcasters to tend to push it up to the top of the news agenda.
What you're actually proving is that a minority of people in this country want to watch sport while the majority prefer to watch something else. Therefore the majority of people in this country DO NOT want to watch sport.
No, it actually isn't proving any such thing. All it is proving is that those who didn't watch sport preferred to do something else other than watch sport at the time they chose to do something else other than watch sport. We have more choices in life other than "watch sport" or "watch something else".
I am not a huge sports fan , but I would be disappointed if the BBC was not providing full coverage of the Commonwealth Games and Wimbledon etc, I would far rather they were free to air and on the BBC without adverts . I have plenty of other channels to choose from if I want to avoid the sport.
I have no problem with the BBC showing sports. It needs to provide sports coverage in order to justify its existence, alongside news ,LE, drama, factual, arts, current affairs and comedy. Overall it does provide enough of each genre to provide adequate programming for all the population. Obviously it can never show something everyone wants to watch for all of the time. The CG has received extensive coverage in the past but it has been a more balanced coverage. That is my general problem with this year's coverage. It isn't actually any different to previous years (there is more this time), it just seems more "in your face" than previously. The CG was easy to avoid before. It isn't this time. If the coverage was more balanced then it wouldn't appear to be so bad.
But it is though. There are plenty of other channels to watch.
Redunited, the thought of the BBC not showing sport is a horrible one. There are also some sporting events that are legally protected to remain on terrestrial FTA TV. If ITV bid for and won all the sporting events available, the BBC would be severely weakened and would ultimately enter an existential crises. How could that be good for broadcasting?
ITV wouldn't be able to afford to do that even if they wanted to - and I don't think they would.
But why so much sport on 1 channel ? How much this is us costing us tv licence payees ? How much these t.v presenters getting like Irvin, lineker etc.
Given the hours that they are covering, probably less than a number of other presenters on a series of programmes which would be required to fill an alternative schedule.
But why so much sport on 1 channel ? How much this is us costing us tv licence payees ? How much these t.v presenters getting like Irvin, lineker etc.
The price of your annual TVL fee. The TVL fee you and I pay goes towards the BBC as an entirety. Each amount of individual TVL fee's received goes towards providing programming on TV, Radio, Online and beyond. The cost of sports rights, music festivals, drama, comedy and so on is included in the one payment we all make each year (whether you pay monthly or not!). Therefore the CG are not costing us anything more than what we already pay.
But why so much sport on 1 channel ? How much this is us costing us tv licence payees ? How much these t.v presenters getting like Irvin, lineker etc.
Nothing because you would pay the same the same £11 a month however they dish it out, people spend to time bothering about the licence fee and let it take over their life.
But why so much sport on 1 channel ? How much this is us costing us tv licence payees ? How much these t.v presenters getting like Irvin, lineker etc.
And you think if they dropped sport the original dramas and comedies will cost less ? The sport is probably cheaper. The BBC is not the Host Broadcaster as it turned it down due to costs and instead has the domestic broadcast rights.
Nothing because you would pay the same the same £11 a month however they dish it out, people spend to time bothering about the licence fee and let it take over their life.
Doing a bit of maths: The TVL raises, I believe, around 3.7B; googling I found a figure of around £300M for the BBC's annual sports budget. So by my reckoning around £11.60 (ish) of a TVL is spent on sport or £1 a month.
Shove your licence fee up your backside. PUT the sports nonsense on BTSport and eurosport not main stream television. These sporting events are a total distraction from real news stories like the middle east etc.
Sometimes it's refreshing to have a poster who says exactly as he sees it, no frills. Red is one of those people, I'm quite used to him over on the radio threads.
Whilst understanding the view point of a non-sporting person suspect most people would rather pay a TV licence to watch live sporting events than the usual repeats that are on during the day-time...and all the reality stuff they show.
As people have said it just so happens everything is on at once in terms of a major sporting events.
Be nothing on in a few weeks expect the odd F1 race and highlights shows
Just think if the BBC had live cricket and horse racing too!
It would be even worse for people like the Wizard..
Shove your licence fee up your backside. PUT the sports nonsense on BTSport and eurosport not main stream television. These sporting events are a total distraction from real news stories like the middle east etc.
Whereas, Homes Under the Hammer, Cash in Attic etc don't distract from the news from the middle east?
If you want real news then you have BBC News, Sky News, CNN, Fox, RT and others. BBC1 isn't a sport channel but it isn't a news channel either.
I suspect most people would rather pay a TV licence to watch live sporting events than the usual repeats that are on during the day-time...
Would you?
People expect different things from their TVL payments. Posters saying it's fine to have sports on all day everyday are likely to be the ones who slag off the fact that soaps take up around 7 hours of BBC1 airtime each week. The ones who enjoy soaps (usually a higher audience consistently than non-stop sports) will complain about sports over load. Most people just expect the BBC to provide a varied, original schedule at all times. Whether you or I think they're providing that right now is a matter of preference. It's a subject that will never be resolved on DS!
Comments
Well to be fair if you look at viewing figures most people aren't watching TV at any given time. Not everyone spends their entire day in front of the TV - like me
Last night, using the figures from the Rating Thread, 21(ish) million people were watching TV so nearly 42 million had something else - some would say better - to do which I think puts things into perspective.
And I doubt very much if Newsnight will be carrying much sports news. As for the News channel, well it is a news channel, and they have always covered sports news, especially so when its major events.
It seems to me that there's an element of "shifting the goalposts" going on now.
I've quoted your post Mossy because it is opposite to the post redunited wrote. There is coverage of the CG on The News Channel and I would expect there to be. But the CG should NOT be top headlines when stories like Israel are more worryingly important. It's fine to round up the CG news, but can we have it at the end of the news in a five minute slot so that the focus on the real news stories is maintained? Sometimes the BBC go a little OTT with their prioritising of news stories. (As do all broadcasters).
Redunited, the thought of the BBC not showing sport is a horrible one. There are also some sporting events that are legally protected to remain on terrestrial FTA TV. If ITV bid for and won all the sporting events available, the BBC would be severely weakened and would ultimately enter an existential crises. How could that be good for broadcasting?
Becuase 'Homes Under The Hammer' and 'Flog It' do such a great job of informing viewers about how planes can't stop crashing and two countries halfway across the world keep playing rocket-boomerang.
No, it actually isn't proving any such thing. All it is proving is that those who didn't watch sport preferred to do something else other than watch sport at the time they chose to do something else other than watch sport. We have more choices in life other than "watch sport" or "watch something else".
But it is though. There are plenty of other channels to watch.
ITV wouldn't be able to afford to do that even if they wanted to - and I don't think they would.
Given the hours that they are covering, probably less than a number of other presenters on a series of programmes which would be required to fill an alternative schedule.
The price of your annual TVL fee. The TVL fee you and I pay goes towards the BBC as an entirety. Each amount of individual TVL fee's received goes towards providing programming on TV, Radio, Online and beyond. The cost of sports rights, music festivals, drama, comedy and so on is included in the one payment we all make each year (whether you pay monthly or not!). Therefore the CG are not costing us anything more than what we already pay.
Nothing because you would pay the same the same £11 a month however they dish it out, people spend to time bothering about the licence fee and let it take over their life.
And you think if they dropped sport the original dramas and comedies will cost less ? The sport is probably cheaper. The BBC is not the Host Broadcaster as it turned it down due to costs and instead has the domestic broadcast rights.
Doing a bit of maths: The TVL raises, I believe, around 3.7B; googling I found a figure of around £300M for the BBC's annual sports budget. So by my reckoning around £11.60 (ish) of a TVL is spent on sport or £1 a month.
An articulated argument there.
Sometimes it's refreshing to have a poster who says exactly as he sees it, no frills. Red is one of those people, I'm quite used to him over on the radio threads.
As people have said it just so happens everything is on at once in terms of a major sporting events.
Be nothing on in a few weeks expect the odd F1 race and highlights shows
Just think if the BBC had live cricket and horse racing too!
It would be even worse for people like the Wizard..
Whereas, Homes Under the Hammer, Cash in Attic etc don't distract from the news from the middle east?
If you want real news then you have BBC News, Sky News, CNN, Fox, RT and others. BBC1 isn't a sport channel but it isn't a news channel either.
Probably the same as all the chat shows hosts and actors we see on the soaps?
TBF Lineker is on somewhere every week anyway...they probably feel justified paying him millions.
You say on one channel - think it should be spread out more?
Its on the BBC3 as well anyway.
People expect different things from their TVL payments. Posters saying it's fine to have sports on all day everyday are likely to be the ones who slag off the fact that soaps take up around 7 hours of BBC1 airtime each week. The ones who enjoy soaps (usually a higher audience consistently than non-stop sports) will complain about sports over load. Most people just expect the BBC to provide a varied, original schedule at all times. Whether you or I think they're providing that right now is a matter of preference. It's a subject that will never be resolved on DS!
So how many millions is he paid?