But then you also have to appreciate that for millions of viewers that sort of schedule is their idea of a bad day out. Speaking personally I would rather have my teeth out than endure all that.
I'm happy to have no interest in what the vast majority of people watch, luckily I can choose what I want to watch/record and not have to endure the mainstream programmes that millions watch. You are of course welcome to watch what everybody else does.
Annoyingly the EPG for RB HD was not showing it as having the MotoGP coverage but I recorded it on there anyway (as well as RB1) just in case and there it was (albeit with the Moto2 quali coverage delayed until later in the day).
Earlier you said "how did people cope with a 12" monochrome TV" - so how did you cope when tennis/sport was on and there were only 4/5 channels?
I could understand the argument if there were still only 4/5 channels, but not with multichannel TV, it's not as if there's only the one branded channel, two in the case of the BBC, there are supporting channels available, there's even catch up/on demand available on certain platforms. Can't believe someone can't find something to watch with the quantity of channels/media available, it's even easier if you have a single/ twin tuner pvr to record/store content for when one considers there is nothing on worth watching - and if you can't, surely someone can find something else of interest to do.
I will throw it back to you. The point I make is that programmes are often cancelled where the viewer might have been really looking forward to them. This is often done with no notice whatsoever, leaving the viewer with Hobson's choice.
The numpty announcer announces all breathy and excited that X sporting event will continue on BBC1 so y&z has been cancelled, at which point most of the country gives a collective groan.
This issue was featured on POV the other week - there was the usual condescending answer from a senior BBC exec or 'god' as they liked to be known as. When asked why they had to switch from BBC2 to BBC1 just because a match was reaching its climax/overrunning this was the reply. BBC is our flagship channel and as such it's only proper that the viewer should be treated to the best from the BBC (or something akin to this). Do the BBC think the viewer incapable of either switching channels or actually staying on the channel they are watching? :eek:
Now here I tend to agree with you. The BBC's stance on this seems outdated. We've moved on from the old days, when not everybody could receive BBC2. Today, the only justification might be moving something from BBC3 to BBC1, so more can watch in HD.
I will throw it back to you. The point I make is that programmes are often cancelled where the viewer might have been really looking forward to them. This is often done with no notice whatsoever, leaving the viewer with Hobson's choice.
The numpty announcer announces all breathy and excited that X sporting event will continue on BBC1 so y&z has been cancelled, at which point most of the country gives a collective groan.
Not heard the nation groaning myself, can this be heard from say, an open window.
That's the problem with live sport, you have to accept the unexpected.
Makes a change from the usual moan I suppose, they broadcast free sport but it's still not good enough - goes to show, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time.:D
There's none as deaf as those who don't want to hear.
I certainly heard the groan when Hamiltons tyre blew. Spectacular watching those shards of kevlar and rubber fly - though it might not have been so exciting in SD
If the audience for things like Murray drops like a stone by the simple switch to BBC2 then shifting all sport to a dedicated sports channel would leave the country baffled. I really don't think it's possible to under-estimate the stupidity of the English viewing public taken at population level, which is why BBC1 carries on with the tennis and shovels The One Show over to BBC2. The tennis fans and Murray fans will find it wherever it is, but the casual viewer won't. Figures bear this out.
BTW I don't recall any programmes being suddenly cancelled, just moved or not shown during Wimbledon - Pointless for example.
Just moved is enough to screw up a planned recording. Turning it round I don't recall any programmes being displaced (rather than just delayed) at the last minute to make way for any other sport (other than the obvious throaway fillers).
Just moved is enough to screw up a planned recording. Turning it round I don't recall any programmes being displaced (rather than just delayed) at the last minute to make way for any other sport (other than the obvious throaway fillers).
If only there were some way of watching programmes that have been dropped or moved and that weren't recorded as planned? Perhaps the internet could be put to good use as a fall-back delivery mechanism, if only the BBC could get off their backsides and invent some kind of player to catch up on missed programmes.
BTW Gomezz you weren't driving your truck through Buckingham yesterday afternoon were you? I had a lovely tow on my bike from the Tesco roundabout past Badger Way, up the ar$e end of a juggernaut.
MotoGP quali is always first for the chop if there is too much sport to fit on the Red Button. You can still watch it online but only live, it *never* appears on iPlayer.
(Bicester's great? :eek: I must have missed a bit. )
BTW I don't recall any programmes being suddenly cancelled, just moved or not shown during Wimbledon - Pointless for example.
Regional News programmes were cancelled the other night for tennis :mad:
How much does it cost to spend the entire day putting together a 30 minute regional magazine programme? I would be pretty fed up if all my work for the day came to naught.
Regional News programmes were cancelled the other night for tennis :mad:
How much does it cost to spend the entire day putting together a 30 minute regional magazine programme? I would be pretty fed up if all my work for the day came to naught.
A lot of the stuff on the regional news can be time-shifted. On numerous occasions in the NW the reporter presenting outside is in the pouring rain, when the day broadcast was actually sunny! So clearly recorded on another day, and the piece used as and when.
A lot of the stuff on the regional news can be time-shifted. On numerous occasions in the NW the reporter presenting outside is in the pouring rain, when the day broadcast was actually sunny! So clearly recorded on another day, and the piece used as and when.
So what was going to be shown can wait!
Not if it is current for that day it can't. The point being they simply cancelled the entire 30 minute programme for that rich boys game - total disgrace. Surely THIS would have been the better option for the BBC?
That's those of us that like tennis sorted then, in your usual inimitable style.
Faust simply cannot accept that he is very much in the minority on this point, both on this and his other posts on this thread.
Incidentally, how many times has the BBC in the past been criticised for cutting short its live sports broadcasts when they have overrun? It should be applauded for giving us first class coverage of Wimbledon and helping keep this world famous tournament off pay tv.
Wimbledon brings in substantial overseas money into the UK each year and invests tens of millions of pounds annually in funding the sport across the population, including many inner-city initiatives.
Faust simply cannot accept that he is very much in the minority on this point, both on this and his other posts on this thread.
Incidentally, how many times has the BBC in the past been criticised for cutting short its live sports broadcasts when they have overrun? It should be applauded for giving us first class coverage of Wimbledon and helping keep this world famous tournament off pay tv.
Wimbledon brings in substantial overseas money into the UK each year and invests tens of millions of pounds annually in funding the sport across the population, including many inner-city initiatives.
Source for this information regarding me being in a minority for the population as a whole - no I thought not.
You quote the reason for its continued broadcast being the money it brings in for reinvestment including inner-city initiatives. Yet here we are some seventy odd years on still looking for a mens singles champion. So how many kids from deprived inner-city areas do you think can conceive of a career on the tennis circuit then? :rolleyes:
So an estimated third of the population. That left the majority out in the cold then. Discuss.
On a beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon I would think that two thirds of the population were on the beach, in the garden, at B&Q, or just generally enjoying themselves (excepting the ones at B&Q ).
Most people are also able to get more than one channel on their equipment. Have you lost your remote?
Comments
Of course not, we're watching our Scott now.
I'm happy to have no interest in what the vast majority of people watch, luckily I can choose what I want to watch/record and not have to endure the mainstream programmes that millions watch. You are of course welcome to watch what everybody else does.
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing/weekly-top-30?_s=4
I didn't watch a single programme in the top 30 for BBC 1 apart from the news.
I watched/recorded about 7 programmes in BBC2's top 30.
I recorded one film in ITV's top 30.
I only watched the Returned on CH4.
Nothing on SD 5.
I will throw it back to you. The point I make is that programmes are often cancelled where the viewer might have been really looking forward to them. This is often done with no notice whatsoever, leaving the viewer with Hobson's choice.
The numpty announcer announces all breathy and excited that X sporting event will continue on BBC1 so y&z has been cancelled, at which point most of the country gives a collective groan.
Not heard the nation groaning myself, can this be heard from say, an open window.
That's the problem with live sport, you have to accept the unexpected.
Makes a change from the usual moan I suppose, they broadcast free sport but it's still not good enough - goes to show, you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please everyone all of the time.:D
There's none as deaf as those who don't want to hear.
I certainly heard the groan when Hamiltons tyre blew. Spectacular watching those shards of kevlar and rubber fly - though it might not have been so exciting in SD
BTW I don't recall any programmes being suddenly cancelled, just moved or not shown during Wimbledon - Pointless for example.
BTW Gomezz you weren't driving your truck through Buckingham yesterday afternoon were you? I had a lovely tow on my bike from the Tesco roundabout past Badger Way, up the ar$e end of a juggernaut.
Wasn't me guv. I was in Bicester all afternoon after starting off going into town down London Road.
Was Motogp Q1 dropped because of tennis then? I'm surprised at that.
(Bicester's great? :eek: I must have missed a bit.
Regional News programmes were cancelled the other night for tennis :mad:
How much does it cost to spend the entire day putting together a 30 minute regional magazine programme? I would be pretty fed up if all my work for the day came to naught.
A lot of the stuff on the regional news can be time-shifted. On numerous occasions in the NW the reporter presenting outside is in the pouring rain, when the day broadcast was actually sunny! So clearly recorded on another day, and the piece used as and when.
So what was going to be shown can wait!
Not if it is current for that day it can't. The point being they simply cancelled the entire 30 minute programme for that rich boys game - total disgrace. Surely THIS would have been the better option for the BBC?
Faust simply cannot accept that he is very much in the minority on this point, both on this and his other posts on this thread.
Incidentally, how many times has the BBC in the past been criticised for cutting short its live sports broadcasts when they have overrun? It should be applauded for giving us first class coverage of Wimbledon and helping keep this world famous tournament off pay tv.
Wimbledon brings in substantial overseas money into the UK each year and invests tens of millions of pounds annually in funding the sport across the population, including many inner-city initiatives.
Source for this information regarding me being in a minority for the population as a whole - no I thought not.
You quote the reason for its continued broadcast being the money it brings in for reinvestment including inner-city initiatives. Yet here we are some seventy odd years on still looking for a mens singles champion. So how many kids from deprived inner-city areas do you think can conceive of a career on the tennis circuit then? :rolleyes:
Why thank you Pollensa, I always appreciate a plaudit from yours truly.
Apparently 20 million viewers watched the final on BBC TV yesterday. Discuss.
So an estimated third of the population. That left the majority out in the cold then. Discuss.
We had the spectre of a British Prime Minister applauding a UK winner and Alex Salmond waving the Scottish flag for a Scotsman.
On a beautiful sunny Sunday afternoon I would think that two thirds of the population were on the beach, in the garden, at B&Q, or just generally enjoying themselves (excepting the ones at B&Q
Most people are also able to get more than one channel on their equipment. Have you lost your remote?