Options
Is BBC One going through a golden era?
MrJames
Posts: 8,127 Forum Member
✭
Everything they touch seems to turn to gold at the moment. From reality shows like Strictly, The Voice and the colossal GBBO, to their epic dramas like The Missing, Happy Valley and now The Casual Vacancy to their long running favourites like Silent Witness, Call The Midwife, Death in Paradise - heck, even EastEnders is being lauded for its recent resurgence. They seem to be toppling ITV in every respect, as they nearly always fill every spot in the top five of the official ratings.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
0
Comments
Of the shows you mention I watch/watched Happy Valley (superb), The Missing (good), The Casual Vacancy (undecided, pretty average so far) and Death in Paradise (losing interest this series). I don't think I watch much of the programming that's in direct competition with ITV - just Strictly when it's on (Edit: others in my household watch The Voice). There's nothing I really enjoy on any channel on a Saturday evening at the moment, and on Sundays I think Indian Summers on Channel 4 is going to be the best.
I like BBC2 drama as well or better than BBC1 (eg. Wolf Hall), and also watch some of the comedies (recent ones include Detectorists, Bluestone 42 and Uncle) and documentaries on BBC3 and BBC4. None of what I prefer is reflected in ratings though!
These days it makes no sense to compare the BBC to just ITV.
They were historically rivals, but nowadays the BBC has several competitors.
So if you do think BBC1 is "golden" enjoy these scant few weeks of good programming, they won't last.
I don't regard channels like "football teams."
Nor do I think do many others. I don't have a "favourite channel." I have favourite programmes and I don't care which channel screens them.
But I do know that few of them are on BBC1.
The words "golden" amused me, coming on a report in the Daily Mail that under a FOIA request, it's been revealed that the BBC spent £7,000,000 on consultants last year. Of course the BBC were quick to justify it.
However it surprised me, as they like to think that with all their staff they know what they're doin'.
Cue for those who aren't amused by Daily Mail criticisms of the BBC to shove in their two penn'oth, but let's try not to make it personal, eh?
I assume in the article the Daily Mail declared they have a financial interest in ITV ? I wonder how much the Mail spent on ''consultants'' or ITV did?
Here we go.
However much they spent, it didn't come out of the licence fee and no one is forced to buy the Daily Mirror.
Consultancy is a great job. A friend is paid thousands for doing it. They go into a company, of which they usually know little, go round looking at systems, talk to the employees etc., for a few weeks, then come up with a recommendation.
It really is like borrowing someone's watch, telling them the time and then charging them for it.
Bringing consultants, is really admitting those responsible haven't the expertise. It surprises me with the BBC, being such a multifaceted organisation, certainly not understaffed, that they still find consultants necessary. But as I said the BBC made a justification.
Like all jobs, when it's done properly, by someone who is good at it, everyone thinks "crikey that looks easy - anyone could do that". They think that about consultancy work, right up until the moment they are deluged with facts, figures, office politics, red herrings, hearsay, misdirection, lies, opinions masquerading as truth - and then realise that they haven't got the faintest idea what's actually going on, who to believe and how to make progress.
I have been doing consultancy work (not of the medical kind) since the mid-90s and before that as an "internal consultant" for many more years. Every year I save the companies that engage me well into the 7-figures in real, live, bottom-line savings. Not to mention the improvements in efficiency, quality and simplifying the way they work and improving the lot of their staff. Most of this is done for large utilitiy companies so those savings get fed through to keeping your household bills as low as possible. You can thank me later.
Yeah.
The joke is because it really is like that.
Consultants come in with a fresh pair of eyes. They cut through all the "we've always done it like that," crap. Most people in management are firstly in "the job protection business.," so can resist change and innovation. It's a brave manager who says "I've thought of a way of doing this better/with fewer staff."
But we're getting off topic here.
It was inspirational and uplifting, giving the message anything is indeed possible and it is ok to think outside the box.
It also publicised what a fantastic job today Chester Zoo, which is a charity, is doing to raise awareness and help with conserving criticially endangered species. It is 'a zoo without bars', the zoo is involved in and working on projects all over the world to help protect animals... George Mottershead's dream has been fulfilled.
Just the scheduling for this series was mad as it was on mid week at nine o'clock....
Dunning Kruger effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will
fail to recognize their own lack of skill;
fail to recognize genuine skill in others;
fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;
recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.[4]
To be fair to the BBC, they've made no end of documentary programmes on Chester Zoo and others. So given that not everyone likes programmes involving animals, maybe they thought that was the best time for it.
We're beyond the age where we have to sit down at specific times for programmes. Many people record programmes and watch them when they choose. We are reported to have the highest percentage per capita, of home television recording equipment in the world.
But I do think that, overall, The BBC has made some good choices of dramas and series (although The Casual Vacancy may not be included in that....).
BBC1 is our 'default channel' to begin from, so we tend to look there first, and, out of all the channels we could watch, if we had to choose only one viewing channel, then I would choose BBC1, simply because it has more decent stuff there than any of the others.
It's definitely not perfect though.
Now far be it for me to criticise your expertise, I genuinely think, you're probably good at your job.
But the words "savings and utility bills" in the same sentence, are not a good fit for most people, given the profits these companies make and their reluctance to reduce charges when wholesale prices fall.
I thought that sort of thing had long-gone! People watch programmes not channels and while I can see TV sets in the 1970s being left on one or the other all day it seems odd that that mindset would persist to this day.
You don't! You can watch any of them!
Well it is channel number 1 on the remote. The very first button, the beginning from which all other numbers must follow. ITV is the 'other side' and two is neither here nor there. As to the other channels they are strangely numbered and completely unmemorable with numbers like 36, 91 and 106.
It's just one button amongst many these days, no more prominent because it's number "one" than any other. Mine isn't isolated in any way AND all the numbers have rubbed off the remote anyway!
If anything I would imagine most people's default/start channel to be BBC or Sky News, or perhaps that's just me......?
When they are turned on they're on BBC1 regardless of the channel people were watching last time the set was used.
It's attitudes like that which have caused the problems. The BBC is meant to be a publicly-funded, non-commercial broadcaster and has no business involving itself in competition with private, commercial channels. This is why we are totally bogged down in competition formats whilst dramas and documentaries have taken a serious hit. Why the hell they have used funds on no less than three versions of Bleak House and they are now about to screen a new version of Poldark (Poleffingdark, for heaven's sake!) instead of investing much more in new drama and writers I just do not understand. It's all gone to hell in a handcart. I have a nasty feeling the blasted American audience is dictating what we see on our national TV channel:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/showtracker/2012/02/dvd-review-poldark-a-cure-for-your-downton-abbey-blues.html (three years ago!)
Using world opinion, we should be having a new series of 'Yes, Minister' and 'Dad's Army'. I wonder why we haven't?
What I meant is that I turn the TV back to BBC1 before I turn it off, so it's there when I turn it on again. That's all.
I then have BBC1 going in the small preview box while I look at the TV guide, and if there's nothing on I (or anyone else in the house) want to see, or nothing in my recorded shows I want to see, then I switch back to TV and have BBC1 running in the background.
(or sometimes a music channel)
It's more habit than anything else, but no one in the family seems to mind, so it stays that way