BBC TV, the year is 2012 and still you

13

Comments

  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think as a Public Service Broadcaster, the BBC feels obliged to have children's TV on BBC1 and BBC2. If anything it should help create a loyalty to BBC as a brand. I actually would merger CBBC and CBeebies (and BBC3 and 4) to save costs and put some money for running one less channel back into programmes.

    Again, DQF (for the large part accepted by the BBC Trust) has some interesting things to say regarding what the BBC will be doing going forward (and what they won't be doing, like not merging CBBC/Cbeebes and BBC3/BBC4).

    It is worth a quick read, if only to be aware of what the BBC is planning..

    Quick summary:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/deliveringqualityfirst.html

    Full report:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/dqf/dqf.pdf
  • ktla5ktla5 Posts: 1,683
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    maltronics wrote: »
    Make us suffer with out dated rubbish on daytime tv,homes under the hammer,bargain hunt etc.When will this madness end ,programming from 10yrs ago or more.I get more entertainment out of watching repeats of bullseye on Challenge


    "Click" TV off, problem solved, try your local radio station, trey Radio 2 or 4.

    'Why don't you switch off your TV and go and do something less boring instead'. (what a good idea for a title to a tv show:D)

    But really the best they could do, and many would like it, is, after BREAKFAST, show the test card/ ceefax in vision and play some music, until about 1530/1600 when they could resume
  • banbury_oddballbanbury_oddball Posts: 1,346
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ^^^ That isn't going to happen. Ceefax is on it's last legs and could well be replaced with the text based service BBC Alba show.

    The test card isn't going to happen either. If you are desperate for a bit of test card, check out the BBC HD channel. They only show it for a couple of minutes though. Reason being is that with LCD and Plasma tv's, the image could be burnt onto the unit, plus there isn't much need now for the trade to align new tv sets and transmitters.

    Like it or lump it, but programming during the day isn't going to change much. Yes, the odd new programme here and there but the general format will remain the same. It's been said before that audiences during the day are low as most people are working during the day. My missus is at home with our children but doesn't watch any daytime tv apart from CBeebies or Nick Jr etc with the children.

    Within my comment of saying that most people are at work, I fully appreciate that some people are unable to work, choose not too, or work shifts etc but from a broadcasters point of view, 'primetime' is where it's at. Saying that, I still struggle to find things to watch some evenings ! :rolleyes:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,095
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    ktla5 wrote: »
    "Click" TV off, problem solved, try your local radio station, trey Radio 2 or 4.

    'Why don't you switch off your TV and go and do something less boring instead'. (what a good idea for a title to a tv show:D)

    But really the best they could do, and many would like it, is, after BREAKFAST, show the test card/ ceefax in vision and play some music, until about 1530/1600 when they could resume

    The most sensible idea ever,testcard all day,stop the BBC moaning about money,and save us licence payers some money aswell.Then the BBC could even make a new reality show contest.Find the new girl for our testcard ,great saturday evening entertainment
  • bluesdiamondbluesdiamond Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Again, DQF (for the large part accepted by the BBC Trust) has some interesting things to say regarding what the BBC will be doing going forward (and what they won't be doing, like not merging CBBC/Cbeebes and BBC3/BBC4).

    It is worth a quick read, if only to be aware of what the BBC is planning..

    Quick summary:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/deliveringqualityfirst.html

    Full report:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/dqf/dqf.pdf

    Yes, I appreciate what the DQF wrote.
    But, I was also responding to the OP and pointing out to a level, that to deliver better quality programmes, which it seems everyone wants maybe we are better off having less TV channels.
    And why can CBBC and CBeebies not merge? CBBC in theory is for school age children, so how many weeks a year is it broadcasting Mon-Fri when aside from children who are sick (or on the skive :D), hardly got an audience have they?

    As for under-5's if parents in school holidays/or after school, are worried that the little un can't watch 13 hours of TV, blimey play with your children, interact...TV is NOT a baby sitter. If that is how it is being used/seen then no wonder young children are going wild.out of control (rant over).

    It seems to me, the general public sees less value in the TV licence, so want it kept at a low price. But when asked what to remove from the BBC, want to keep it all.
    What happens in 2017? Will the LF go up at a high percentage, and the Mail scream blue murder at a 10% rise? Could the BBC in effect have to do even more with less so to speak, or in 2017 will the nasty happen and channels WILL close?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 116
    Forum Member
    AidanLunn wrote: »
    We could begin serious debates on the Arab Spring or the Eurozone problems . . . nope, a licence to fund a TV broadcaster seems to be on the minds of the nation.

    I've stopped caring about the Arab Spring & Eurozone crisis because;

    a) It's happening in a part of the world I don't care about and don't plan to visit (yes I mean Europe)

    b) Nothing I ever do or say will have the slightest affect on what's happening now and in the future

    90% of the news is like this. Doom and gloom about subjects which you'll never change. Better to avoid it completely.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes, I appreciate what the DQF wrote.
    But, I was also responding to the OP and pointing out to a level, that to deliver better quality programmes, which it seems everyone wants maybe we are better off having less TV channels.
    And why can CBBC and CBeebies not merge? CBBC in theory is for school age children, so how many weeks a year is it broadcasting Mon-Fri when aside from children who are sick (or on the skive :D), hardly got an audience have they?

    As for under-5's if parents in school holidays/or after school, are worried that the little un can't watch 13 hours of TV, blimey play with your children, interact...TV is NOT a baby sitter. If that is how it is being used/seen then no wonder young children are going wild.out of control (rant over).
    But what i am pointing out is that the BBC's broadcast landscape is changing, and will change when the DQF proposals kick in. And that some of that new landscape will see partt od BBC Daytime change quite significantly.

    Also, regardless as to whether people see that the closure or merger of some BBC channels might be a good idea (and the wisdom of keeping those channels separate has already been pointed out), closures and mergers are not going to happen any day soon.

    That's the reality.

    And with that in mind, it might be better to wait to see quite how things change over the coming months (as indeed they will), and look at what we are likely to see, rather than talking about something that we are not going to see at all (if you see what I mean). :)

    It seems to me, the general public sees less value in the TV licence, so want it kept at a low price.
    That is debateable, especially if you do indeed widen the discussion to the general public rather than a small number of vocal DS members who, for quite understandable reasons, do not see much personal value in the LF.
    But when asked what to remove from the BBC, want to keep it all.[/quote
    That's people for you. ;)

    What happens in 2017? Will the LF go up at a high percentage, and the Mail scream blue murder at a 10% rise?
    No political party has yet said what they would do as a matter of policy, so any such "high percentage" is purely speculative.
    Could the BBC in effect have to do even more with less so to speak, or in 2017 will the nasty happen and channels WILL close?
    It's quite likely that, should the LF be frozen again and inflation is not negative or close to zero, then I believe that the economic reality for the BBC would be that services will have to close. But there are too many imponderables, too many other factors to consider, and such a freeze is not official policy anyway, never mind that the GE is just over three years away, much can change (both politically, economically and socially), so it would be pretty pointless to speculate further.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've stopped caring about the Arab Spring & Eurozone crisis because;

    a) It's happening in a part of the world I don't care about and don't plan to visit (yes I mean Europe)

    b) Nothing I ever do or say will have the slightest affect on what's happening now and in the future

    90% of the news is like this. Doom and gloom about subjects which you'll never change. Better to avoid it completely.
    Well, if you wish to be ignorant of events that are happening in the rest of the world which could/would have a big effect upon the UK and its economy, if not the whole world (in the case of Iran) then it is indeed better to steer well clear of such news stories.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    lundavra wrote: »
    If they did merge them it would be purely a cosmetic operation to placate people like the Daily Mail and some MPs. In the unlikely event that they combined BBC3 and BBC3 programmes, which would me messy (as above) and ran one channel at higher quality then the saving would be minimal. Combining the two children's programmes would be even more difficult but people like Daily Mail writers can't understand that children's programmes cover a very wide age range.

    Quite, there' s no reason - and no sense - for merging channels, apart from placating other media operators!
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    That is debateable, especially if you do indeed widen the discussion to the general public rather than a small number of vocal DS members who, for quite understandable reasons, do not see much personal value in the LF.

    I'd also be interested to see what the views on the LF are amongst the general public. I have my doubts that it's just a "small number of vocal DS members". Here's wiki's summary, fwiw:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_opinion_.E2.80.93_general

    Maybe the issue will be looked at again in the run-up to 2017. A referendum, I say! (not really)
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    hendero wrote: »
    I'd also be interested to see what the views on the LF are amongst the general public. I have my doubts that it's just a "small number of vocal DS members". Here's wiki's summary, fwiw:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom#Public_opinion_.E2.80.93_general

    Maybe the issue will be looked at again in the run-up to 2017. A referendum, I say! (not really)

    Until someone actually carries out market research which supplies all the pros (and cons!) of getting rid of the TV license - and the alternative funding methods which could be used for the BBC - then it's not terrible accurate to claim a wide hatred of the license fee.

    For instance, i wouldn't mind betting the same people who say "too many repeats" are the same people who's say "abolish the license fee". Now, if you were to say to them there would be more repeats if it's funded by other means do you think they might look at their own contrary arguments and re-evaluate?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 116
    Forum Member
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    Well, if you wish to be ignorant of events that are happening in the rest of the world which could/would have a big effect upon the UK and its economy, if not the whole world (in the case of Iran) then it is indeed better to steer well clear of such news stories.

    Indeed, that's my point. The changes they might make to this country will happen regardless so why watch the doomsayers on the news channels? My life won't be any difference if I'm aware of these events or not.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Indeed, that's my point. The changes they might make to this country will happen regardless so why watch the doomsayers on the news channels? My life won't be any difference if I'm aware of these events or not.
    Sometimes, if someone is throwing stones in your general direction, it's nice to see where they are coming from and who is throwing them (if not to get a chance to see one of the incoming stones in order to dodge out of its way). ;)

    But of course, the consumption of world news is not compulsory.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Until someone actually carries out market research which supplies all the pros (and cons!) of getting rid of the TV license - and the alternative funding methods which could be used for the BBC - then it's not terrible accurate to claim a wide hatred of the license fee.

    Has anyone claimed a wide hatred of the TVL? Seems to me a more accurate statement would be that of those polled the majority favour alternative funding besides the TVL - be it subscription, advertising or general taxation. Of those three, I personally would favour the first. It certainly seems to be the fairest, and wouldn't deprive the commercial channels of advertising revenue (in fact, it might help them a little on that front as with subscription there would presumably be fewer BBC viewers, and some more viewers of the other channels).

    Maybe if people were presented the likely results from moving to an alternative funding method their views might change, then again, maybe they wouldn't. The people who conducted the various polls didn't seem to feel it necessary to get into that level of detail when posing the questions. Mv views certainly wouldn't change.

    It comes back to the same point I made when I first bumbled onto these forums a few years back. People who tend to consume a lot of BBC are more likely to support the TVL, people who don't are less likely. What a shocker.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But that is moving away from the thread topic, and into an area that has been very widely discussed and argued about many times previously (in any number of more relevant threads).
  • exlordlucanexlordlucan Posts: 35,375
    Forum Member
    maltronics wrote: »
    Make us suffer with out dated rubbish on daytime tv,homes under the hammer,bargain hunt etc.When will this madness end ,programming from 10yrs ago or more.I get more entertainment out of watching repeats of bullseye on Challenge

    Erm isn't that outdated? anyway, it seems you have too much time on your hands so try doing something useful with it.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mossy2103 wrote: »
    But that is moving away from the thread topic, and into an area that has been very widely discussed and argued about many times previously (in any number of more relevant threads).

    True, although you did mention it in your earlier post. I believe we're permitted within the forum rules to respond to speculative points, are we not?

    I'm also correcting the assertion that anyone has claimed "wide hatred" of the TVL on these forums. I certainly haven't.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Last time I looked, in daytime at least the Beeb show fresh stuff, albeit lowest common denominator. Whereas, ITV/2/3/4 are on continuous loop.
  • mossy2103mossy2103 Posts: 84,307
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hendero wrote: »
    True, although you did mention it in your earlier post.
    Once, as part of a wider response to another poster, a poster who had raised a point that i felt needed addressing or correcting, and where I attempted to close that particular line of the discussion by stating so it would be pretty pointless to speculate further. and thereby indicating that I would not be joining in that speculation. But the rest of my posts here have been broadly on topic, and I hope, barring this reply, will continue to be so. :)
    I believe we're permitted within the forum rules to respond to speculative points, are we not?
    Note that i have not said otherwise. Just making an observation, and trying to avoid yet another thread being turned into a TVL/BBC funding thread (I have witnessed far too many go that way, and nowadays I think that I can spot the signs). :)
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    hendero wrote: »
    Has anyone claimed a wide hatred of the TVL? Seems to me a more accurate statement would be that of those polled the majority favour alternative funding besides the TVL - be it subscription, advertising or general taxation. Of those three, I personally would favour the first. It certainly seems to be the fairest, and wouldn't deprive the commercial channels of advertising revenue (in fact, it might help them a little on that front as with subscription there would presumably be fewer BBC viewers, and some more viewers of the other channels).

    To use your own words :
    I have my doubts that it's just a "small number of vocal DS members"
    Maybe if people were presented the likely results from moving to an alternative funding method their views might change, then again, maybe they wouldn't. The people who conducted the various polls didn't seem to feel it necessary to get into that level of detail when posing the questions. Mv views certainly wouldn't change.

    Your assuming that you thoughts are the same as everybody else in the country.

    Currently, there has been NO RESEARCH which educates the respondee about the consequences of a funding change.
    It comes back to the same point I made when I first bumbled onto these forums a few years back. People who tend to consume a lot of BBC are more likely to support the TVL, people who don't are less likely. What a shocker.

    And nothing to do with the "great unwashed" who knee-jerk from complaint to complaint with no context about why things are the way they are?
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    To use your own words :

    Actually, they were Mossy's words. Your first clue should have been when I quoted them in a post above, a post to which you responded, so presumably you read it.
  • mikwmikw Posts: 48,715
    Forum Member
    hendero wrote: »
    Actually, they were Mossy's words. Your first clue should have been when I quoted them in a post above, a post to which you responded, so presumably you read it.

    Whoever's words they were, you cannot rely on survey's conducted as a barometer of an eduacted descision.
  • henderohendero Posts: 11,773
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    mikw wrote: »
    Whoever's words they were, you cannot rely on survey's conducted as a barometer of an eduacted descision.

    I think you can, otherwise they'd never run surveys.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,952
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I've stopped caring about the Arab Spring & Eurozone crisis because;

    a) It's happening in a part of the world I don't care about and don't plan to visit (yes I mean Europe)
    You don't plan to visit Europe? What a depressingly narrow view of the world you must have.

    You could visit a different European city every month for the rest of your life and never run out of amazing sights and experiences.

    Your loss.
  • carl.waringcarl.waring Posts: 35,579
    Forum Member
    ktla5 wrote: »
    'Why don't you switch off your TV and go and do something less boring instead'. (what a good idea for a title to a tv show:D)
    It's a bit long-winded though. Perhaps just "Why Don't You...?" instead? ;)
    90% of the news is like this. Doom and gloom about subjects which you'll never change. Better to avoid it completely.
    Have to say, I thought it was just me who thought this.
Sign In or Register to comment.