So just because the appeal did not go your way, they are not independent?
I find it hard to believe they are as independent as they claim and when the complaints dept just say they're no longer responding to a complaint (because they can't be arsed discussing it) and tell you to appeal to the Trust, that's just their way of, as the politicians do frequently, kicking it into the long grass*
(*one of the most apt phrases since "A good day to bury bad news")
It wasn't a basic error though - it was mixed in 5.1 surround as a cinema film (and it worked as such).
Films are generally able to make them downmix to Dolby ProLogic without an issue, so why can't the BBC?
That said, in the early days of Dolby Digital being implemented in cinemas, a lot of screens at the Manchester Showcase remained Dolby Stereo and often the version those screens had to play was pretty crappy, so I'd ask beforehand which is the DD screen and go to that screening.
And in the first showings of the day when something was on two screens, I remember when the second one was the DD one. So loads of people would pile in the first screen, and I would go to the next one and watch in DD and with relative comfort
As long as the other broadcasters could justify the cost, or outbid Sky.
Indeed. ITV have shown them since time began, and shown them more often than the news. How desperate can you be, ktla5, if you NEED to see the cropped, censored versions again?
Cinema prints carry a Dolby digital track between the sprocket holes as well as an analogue Dolby stereo surround track (SR encoded these days). If there is a problem with the digital track the cinema's sound system will automatically default to pro logic until the problem is resolved. Broadcasters used to transfer films using the analogue track which is good quality. Non digital cinemas also use it. It is mixed in post production to match the digital track as closely as possible. In the digital world you can have any mix you are prepared to pay for.
Programmes and films are repeated on minority channels for reasons of cost. Playing tapes into a server costs money, transferring prints into a server a lot of money. Once something is in the server play-out is cheap. That's why a small number of Midsommer Murders go out endlessly.
Playing tapes into a server costs money, transferring prints into a server a lot of money. Once something is in the server play-out is cheap. That's why a small number of Midsommer Murders go out endlessly.
That explains why the same two seasons of Simpsons seem stuck on a loop for weekend lunchtimes
Which is completely irrelevant. They didn't uphold whatever Dom's complaint was therefore he believes they cannot possibly be independant.
How can an us not knowing the reason for an opinion make the reason irrelevant?
If I post an opinion on here I know to expect to be asked why I believe it rather than just saying 'my opinion is x' and providing no reasoning or thought process.
If we all did that all threads would be a question with replies of either yes, no, I agree or I disagree.
How can an us not knowing the reason for an opinion make the reason irrelevant?
Because if they had upheld the complaint (whatever it was) Dom would have not had any reason to mention it.
He was, basically, just having another dig at the BBC.
If I post an opinion on here I know to expect to be asked why I believe it rather than just saying 'my opinion is x' and providing no reasoning or thought process.
But we know what his opinion is; that the BBC Trust is not independent based purely on the fact that they didn't uphold the decision on whatever it was he originally complained about.
Because if they had upheld the complaint (whatever it was) Dom would have not had any reason to mention it.
He was, basically, just having another dig at the BBC.
But we know what his opinion is; that the BBC Trust is not independent based purely on the fact that they didn't uphold the decision on whatever it was he originally complained about.
So what was your point?
Anyway... way OT so never mind.
Surely if the opposite was true someone would have said they had an opposite experience.
I nearly made a complaint about newsnight, in particular one episode that showed a total biased in the style of Anne Robinson on watchdog 20 years ago, I knew I wasn't the only one as loads of people on twitter called Gavin esler a playground bully for his unprofessional style of interviewing a union rep, I expect the broadcaster I pay a license fee for to provide journalistic impartiality but realistically it isn't going to happen, and unless evidence to the contrary can be provided I maintain they are politically biased, effectively self regulating and care not one bit what license payers want. They have a reputation based on past success that is becoming less and less relevant as their output quality lowers constantly.
This thread proves the current attitude that if itv can get away with cutting corners we can too, an attitude that they need to be pulled up on with regulation that can be seen to be independent. Unfortunately we don't have an example of broadcast regulation as the knee jerk style regulation of other channels has shown, even the daily mail would label it prudish
On the subject of appealing to the BBC Trust, as discussed earlier, here's an example of when they really are full of bullshit.
Listeners were encouraged to phone in for requests to Steve Wright's show, and only AFTER they'd called in and left a message did a recording make it clear to them.
The BBC Trust weedled out of it with: "“As recognised by the Trust, it has never been our intention to deceive listeners." (yeah, right!)
And: The BBC Trust’s standards committee said the show breached guidelines on accuracy but the problem “was essentially a lack of clarity”.
On the subject of appealing to the BBC Trust, as discussed earlier, here's an example of when they really are full of bullshit.
Listeners were encouraged to phone in for requests to Steve Wright's show, and only AFTER they'd called in and left a message did a recording make it clear to them.
The BBC Trust weedled out of it with: "“As recognised by the Trust, it has never been our intention to deceive listeners." (yeah, right!)
And: The BBC Trust’s standards committee said the show breached guidelines on accuracy but the problem “was essentially a lack of clarity”.
I expect the broadcaster I pay a license fee for to provide journalistic impartiality...
Which they are. In fact, they have to be as it's in their Royal Charter, or something like that.
...and unless evidence to the contrary can be provided I maintain they are politically biased, effectively self regulating...
I can prove they're not biased because they are quite often accused of being "pro" and "anti" the same thing. Which is, of course, impossible
and care not one bit what license payers want.
They certainly care more than any commercial channel you can mention.
They have a reputation based on past success that is becoming less and less relevant as their output quality lowers constantly.
And yet BBC1 and BBC2 are still the most-watched pair of channels from any one broadcaster
This thread proves the current attitude that if itv can get away with cutting corners we can too, an attitude that they need to be pulled up on with regulation that can be seen to be independent.
When you're working with a 16-20% real-terms cut in your budget, things cannot remain the same.
You want less repeats (of whatever) then you're going to have to pay more.
On the subject of appealing to the BBC Trust, as discussed earlier, here's an example of when they really are full of bullshit.
Listeners were encouraged to phone in for requests to Steve Wright's show, and only AFTER they'd called in and left a message did a recording make it clear to them.
The BBC Trust weedled out of it with: "“As recognised by the Trust, it has never been our intention to deceive listeners." (yeah, right!)
And: The BBC Trust’s standards committee said the show breached guidelines on accuracy but the problem “was essentially a lack of clarity”.
Sorry, but this post clearly shows your bias against the BBC. They have explained things clearly, and the Trust has agreed it was basically a cock-up; yet you don't accept that. Well that's just your tough luck.
Which they are. In fact, they have to be as it's in their Royal Charter, or something like that.
I can prove they're not biased because they are quite often accused of being "pro" and "anti" the same thing. Which is, of course, impossible
They certainly care more than any commercial channel you can mention.
And yet BBC1 and BBC2 are still the most-watched pair of channels from any one broadcaster
When you're working with a 16-20% real-terms cut in your budget, things cannot remain the same.
You want less repeats (of whatever) then you're going to have to pay more.
Unbiased? Really? Watchdog still allows companies a proper explanation? When was the last time someone from a features company was in the studio telling their companies side? And did you see the pcs rep on newsnight when there were public sector strikes last year? He really got a fair chance to put his point across- sorry but we have to agree to disagree on this one.
Well here comes another controversial viewpoint- quality and expensive are not always the same thing, this goes for broadcasting as well as anything else. Quality films that haven't had huge budgets could do well for prime time once a week and free up funds for whatever the marketing brains think the public want.
Anyway I don't mind repeats, if once a week we get to see not the nine o'clock news or black adder or something then all the better, saves me buying dvd's.
R2 and shows like Sunday love songs are aimed at a mature audience of middle age and above, they have had a couple of decades as adults and if you tell them a fact they most likely will deal with it with at the most a bit of whining. Keep the facts from them and you lose their respect. The show would have done better to say its prerecorded and said if contact recieved by for example Thursday they will do their best to include on Sundays show.
Oh and if you are having ISP problems let me know I used to work for one
R2 and shows like Sunday love songs are aimed at a mature audience of middle age and above, they have had a couple of decades as adults and if you tell them a fact they most likely will deal with it with at the most a bit of whining. Keep the facts from them and you lose their respect. The show would have done better to say its prerecorded and said if contact recieved by for example Thursday they will do their best to include on Sundays show.
Ah, I see what you mean.
Oh and if you are having ISP problems let me know I used to work for one
Yep, with Sky. Just got to the point where they've sent a replacement router so I'm going to swap it over, over the weekend. The existing one is hit and miss and I've tried all their tests to ensure it's not a problem happening in my house. However, to get to the point has been a royal pain. I was told, for example, a 10-day line test was being carried out during November. At a point in December, I asked what the outcome was (as it had slipped my mind) and someone replied saying "Oh, it didn't complete properly, so we're going to have to run it again."
Yep, with Sky. Just got to the point where they've sent a replacement router so I'm going to swap it over, over the weekend. The existing one is hit and miss and I've tried all their tests to ensure it's not a problem happening in my house. However, to get to the point has been a royal pain. I was told, for example, a 10-day line test was being carried out during November. At a point in December, I asked what the outcome was (as it had slipped my mind) and someone replied saying "Oh, it didn't complete properly, so we're going to have to run it again."
Nice of them to tell me(!) #pisspoor
Hmm... Sounds like the 2nd line don't take ownership of problem cases, they should be either relaying back to 1st line to update you it needed restarting or getting on with it as a minimum.
I didn't work for sky btw, hope the router works out, let me know if I can be any more help
Unbiased? Really? Watchdog still allows companies a proper explanation? When was the last time someone from a features company was in the studio telling their companies side?
Its often the case that the companies decline the opertunity, Infact after the PR fiasco BP got into over the oil spill the standard advise from most companies PR gurus is to say nothing especially if they don't have full control of the edit
Anyway I don't mind repeats, if once a week we get to see not the nine o'clock news or black adder or something then all the better, saves me buying dvd's.
With some of the old program's that it would be nice to see repeated for once rather than then the same program getting its hundredth airing its down to rights issues and residuals that would have to be paid to those involved both in front and behind the camera that make it difficult to happen as what should be a cheap repeat ends up being relatively expensive if they can even get the rights issues sorted
Comments
I find it hard to believe they are as independent as they claim and when the complaints dept just say they're no longer responding to a complaint (because they can't be arsed discussing it) and tell you to appeal to the Trust, that's just their way of, as the politicians do frequently, kicking it into the long grass*
(*one of the most apt phrases since "A good day to bury bad news")
Films are generally able to make them downmix to Dolby ProLogic without an issue, so why can't the BBC?
That said, in the early days of Dolby Digital being implemented in cinemas, a lot of screens at the Manchester Showcase remained Dolby Stereo and often the version those screens had to play was pretty crappy, so I'd ask beforehand which is the DD screen and go to that screening.
And in the first showings of the day when something was on two screens, I remember when the second one was the DD one. So loads of people would pile in the first screen, and I would go to the next one and watch in DD and with relative comfort
Indeed. ITV have shown them since time began, and shown them more often than the news. How desperate can you be, ktla5, if you NEED to see the cropped, censored versions again?
But we don't know what the complaint was and what resolution/view was expected
Programmes and films are repeated on minority channels for reasons of cost. Playing tapes into a server costs money, transferring prints into a server a lot of money. Once something is in the server play-out is cheap. That's why a small number of Midsommer Murders go out endlessly.
That explains why the same two seasons of Simpsons seem stuck on a loop for weekend lunchtimes
How can an us not knowing the reason for an opinion make the reason irrelevant?
If I post an opinion on here I know to expect to be asked why I believe it rather than just saying 'my opinion is x' and providing no reasoning or thought process.
If we all did that all threads would be a question with replies of either yes, no, I agree or I disagree.
He was, basically, just having another dig at the BBC.
But we know what his opinion is; that the BBC Trust is not independent based purely on the fact that they didn't uphold the decision on whatever it was he originally complained about.
So what was your point?
Anyway... way OT so never mind.
I nearly made a complaint about newsnight, in particular one episode that showed a total biased in the style of Anne Robinson on watchdog 20 years ago, I knew I wasn't the only one as loads of people on twitter called Gavin esler a playground bully for his unprofessional style of interviewing a union rep, I expect the broadcaster I pay a license fee for to provide journalistic impartiality but realistically it isn't going to happen, and unless evidence to the contrary can be provided I maintain they are politically biased, effectively self regulating and care not one bit what license payers want. They have a reputation based on past success that is becoming less and less relevant as their output quality lowers constantly.
This thread proves the current attitude that if itv can get away with cutting corners we can too, an attitude that they need to be pulled up on with regulation that can be seen to be independent. Unfortunately we don't have an example of broadcast regulation as the knee jerk style regulation of other channels has shown, even the daily mail would label it prudish
Listeners were encouraged to phone in for requests to Steve Wright's show, and only AFTER they'd called in and left a message did a recording make it clear to them.
The BBC Trust weedled out of it with: "“As recognised by the Trust, it has never been our intention to deceive listeners." (yeah, right!)
And: The BBC Trust’s standards committee said the show breached guidelines on accuracy but the problem “was essentially a lack of clarity”.
"Lack of clarity"? They mean "lack of fact".
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/steve-wrights-sunday-love-songs-1538235
I can prove they're not biased because they are quite often accused of being "pro" and "anti" the same thing. Which is, of course, impossible
They certainly care more than any commercial channel you can mention.
And yet BBC1 and BBC2 are still the most-watched pair of channels from any one broadcaster
When you're working with a 16-20% real-terms cut in your budget, things cannot remain the same.
You want less repeats (of whatever) then you're going to have to pay more.
Well here comes another controversial viewpoint- quality and expensive are not always the same thing, this goes for broadcasting as well as anything else. Quality films that haven't had huge budgets could do well for prime time once a week and free up funds for whatever the marketing brains think the public want.
Anyway I don't mind repeats, if once a week we get to see not the nine o'clock news or black adder or something then all the better, saves me buying dvd's.
Why's that?
Andy, just ignore Carl. He's best avoided.
R2 and shows like Sunday love songs are aimed at a mature audience of middle age and above, they have had a couple of decades as adults and if you tell them a fact they most likely will deal with it with at the most a bit of whining. Keep the facts from them and you lose their respect. The show would have done better to say its prerecorded and said if contact recieved by for example Thursday they will do their best to include on Sundays show.
Oh and if you are having ISP problems let me know I used to work for one
Ah, I see what you mean.
Yep, with Sky. Just got to the point where they've sent a replacement router so I'm going to swap it over, over the weekend. The existing one is hit and miss and I've tried all their tests to ensure it's not a problem happening in my house. However, to get to the point has been a royal pain. I was told, for example, a 10-day line test was being carried out during November. At a point in December, I asked what the outcome was (as it had slipped my mind) and someone replied saying "Oh, it didn't complete properly, so we're going to have to run it again."
Nice of them to tell me(!) #pisspoor
I didn't work for sky btw, hope the router works out, let me know if I can be any more help
With some of the old program's that it would be nice to see repeated for once rather than then the same program getting its hundredth airing its down to rights issues and residuals that would have to be paid to those involved both in front and behind the camera that make it difficult to happen as what should be a cheap repeat ends up being relatively expensive if they can even get the rights issues sorted