Options
The BBC has announced that it axing children's programming from BBC One and BBC Two
lmddawson
Posts: 484 Forum Member
✭
Oh no :eek:
A sad day
Looks like it'll move to the CBBC channel or something?
[news]BBC axing 'Blue Peter', children's programming from BBC One, BBC Two[/news]
A sad day
BBC Press Office @bbcpress
RT @juliantelly: For absolute clarity the BBC is not ditching Blue Peter. #bluepeter
Looks like it'll move to the CBBC channel or something?
[news]BBC axing 'Blue Peter', children's programming from BBC One, BBC Two[/news]
0
Comments
I heard that the Beeb will no longer be showing any kids tv shows on 1 or 2
They probably need the space for more programmes about cooking, antiques and middle class couples buying a second house in the country
You're so right. :yawn:
Disgraceful decision.
It already premieres on the CBBC channel, and more kids watch it on there than its BBC One showing.
Why do the need children's programmes on BBC 1 and 2 when they have two dedicated children's channels to put their programmes on? Children are well catered for on TV.
And it's not even so much the move as to what it means; a clear lack of interest in minority programming.
It's like when the more obviously PSB programming was moved to BBC3/BBC4.
It's moved out of the way of the ratings-grabbing stuff on BBC1/2, and then the budget is cut gradually for BBC3/BBC4. Meanwhile BBC1/2 remain as they are, it's not re-integrated.
It's BBC death by stealth, all of it under DG Mark Thompson
It is BBC death because the very thing that makes the BBC what it is is the stuff that is being removed. Very slowly. Sport too. In fact many more tradtionally male-interest programming like science fiction went some time back.
If you want to see what the BBC will soon look like then take a glance at CH4 group of channels.
It's not like the move will make it unavailable to poor analogue TV owners.
As for a lack of interest in minority programming, the BBC now provides children with two whole channels all to themselves for thirteen hours a day.
That's far more catering to children then they ever did when I was a child and they managed about three hours a day total.
The argument that it's hidden away from the basic 1 - 4 numbers is meaningless, my daughter could skip through the channel listing in seconds from the age of 4 onwards (stopping to record a couple of programs en route).
People said the same thing about the PSB programming moved to BBC4.
And BBC3 was far more "PSB" when it started, the programming gradually morphed into a grab for ratings tat fest.
Such behavior is just a symptom. It reveals a deep dislike of PSB and the BBC concept itself.
Mark Thompson is relentlessly commercial in his thinking, the sooner he goes the better.
Different channels catering to different tastes, everyone gets what they want and more of it without needing to watch what they don't. I watch some E4, a little More4 but seldom venture near Channel 4.
It would certainly be an issue if 80% of the country only had analogue TVs and couldn't access it but when 100% have access to freeview then it's a non-issue surely?
It's not being cut, it's not being removed, it's not being done away with. It's being put on a different channel which requires but seconds to switch over to. It's not like people will have to climb up on top of their house with a bent coat hanger to pick up the signal, or spend £9,000 to install a satelite dish the size of a swimming pool in their back garden.
I doubt we would have ever seen the likes of Wallander or The Killing if not for the BBC needing to fill up the BBC4 schedule.
Taking people out of the mainstream is always about a lack of consideration for such people.
To give people their own "special" channel and saying it's to improve things for them is always nonesense. It's actually the first step in cutting back.
Yes, children can find such channels. But I guarantee that the budget will gradually decline over the following years.
BBC4/BBC3 are in the vanguard of cuts, did you not know?
These things don't happen overnight, people would notice.
Obviously there used to be a solid reason for this when many people only had those four channels but as more and more have gone digital it makes no sense. There is no reason that digital channels seem to have a maximum audience of 1.5 million or so when 10 million+ people have access to them.
If the programs from the first four channels were spread out then perhaps it would educate people that the little box under the TV can offer them so much more. Any such education is, in my view, a good thing.
Perhaps some people see what isn't in fact there?
If you want to watch Blue Peter pick up your remote and type in the channel numbers not difficult.
And if cuts means that native channels stop making expensive tat themsleves (like Titanic) and buy in top quality shows cheap from abroad (and not just America) then I'm all for it.
The majority of my viewing, and that of my children, comes from channels beyond the first four slots and that's fine by me.
Look upon ALL the BBC channels as one, as equals in importance, not individually, then select the programme from them that one wants to watch. With Digital it is not what channel that should be important, it is on but it is the programme one wants to watch.
I can understand this method of watching a programme appears strange to those who have been used to just five analogue channels, but digital is very different.
So if cricket, Songs of Praise, Match or the Day is say on BBC 1, 2, 3 or 4 should make no difference they should not be channels of importance but all equal. The more this happens the more people will grow used to it.
I do that with the plethora of Sky programmes, I look for the programme I want to watch regardless as to what channel it is on.