I also notice they are web sites and not television broadcasts, so completely irrelevant to this thread.
As the provider of an editorial web site you want to provide all the information you can so that you become people's first choice, otherwise they will just use another site which does tell them what they need to know. They are also not provided under a commercial contract so there is no financial investment to protect with them.
That is different to a live broadcast which in most cases is exclusive, so people cannot watch elsewhere, and you do not want to be promoting rival networks unless obliged to do so.
Ok dude, whatever. I've sat and watched them speak about simultaneous games on other networks. ESPN will even speak about and broadcast highlights and clips from other games during breaks in play, and the halftime show. And no I don't think ESPN is obliged to show highlights from games in completely different conferences that are being aired on Fox, or CBS, but they do it anyway.
For example: 'I find that mavreela's posts on the Digital Spy forums are pompous and unhelpful'. This mentions 'mavreela' but does not advertise or promote him.
Ok dude, whatever. I've sat and watched them speak about simultaneous games on other networks. ESPN will even speak about and broadcast highlights and clips from other games during breaks in play, and the halftime show. And no I don't think ESPN is obliged to show highlights from games in completely different conferences that are being aired on Fox, or CBS, but they do it anyway.
Of course they show highlights, otherwise people will change channels to see what is happening in those games. This is possible because under US law the doctrine of fair use allows broadcasters to show highlights of events which aired on other networks. Agreements simply extend this to include in-game highlights as it serves the interests of all parties, as they can be aired post-game anyway and it prevents their viewers needing to switch channels
In the UK the doctrine of fair dealing does not cover sporting events, which is why we do not have any programmes equivalent to SportsCenter. And why Sky Sports News is famous for giving limited coverage to events that are not aired on by Sky Sports, because they cannot show any footage from events for which they do not own the rights. Instead there is only the Sports News Access Code of Practice, which is an agreement between broadcasters that allows the limited use of clips on regular news broadcasts and channels only.
That may be pompous, The Great 208, but factual information which explains a situation is only unhelpful if you wish to remain ignorant.
Because of a fracas or two between them in 1968, when Thames were continually winning ratings, advertisers and money against the flagging LWT, Thames and LWT never, ever mentioned each other, or the other's programmes or presenters, even when Thames would hand over to LWT on a Friday night.
Relations stayed somewhat frosty between the two until Thames lost their franchise and ceased broadcasting in 1992, to be replaced by Carlton, who LWT had a much easier working relationship with.
When Morecambe and Wise were at Thames and Christmas fell on the weekend LWT stopped them networking the show because LWT were the weekend contractor, it had to be screened on a week day.
Thames and LWT would acknowledge each other in later years though. I'm too young to have seen it but I've seen footage from the early 1980s of Thames in-vision announcers saying, "It's now time for us to hand over to London Weekend Television". Also, the Six O'Clock Show would hand back to Thames for 'Thames Weekend News', so relations had thawed somewhat by that stage, though as Greg Dy
I've also seen footage of The Big Match from the 1970s of Brian Moore mentioning football that would be 'on ITV' during the week. He never said 'on Thames', even though he would be presenting and/or commentating on it. Whether this was because of the feud between the two companies, or whether it was due to a few other regions taking The Big Match I'm not sure.
Thames and LWT would acknowledge each other in later years though. I'm too young to have seen it but I've seen footage from the early 1980s of Thames in-vision announcers saying, "It's now time for us to hand over to London Weekend Television". Also, the Six O'Clock Show would hand back to Thames for 'Thames Weekend News', so relations had thawed somewhat by that stage, though as Greg Dy
I've also seen footage of The Big Match from the 1970s of Brian Moore mentioning football that would be 'on ITV' during the week. He never said 'on Thames', even though he would be presenting and/or commentating on it. Whether this was because of the feud between the two companies, or whether it was due to a few other regions taking The Big Match I'm not sure.
I think by the 1980s, the IBA had learned of this childish behaviour between the two and effectively banged their heads together.
Thames still tried to avoid mentioning LWT as much as they could get away with, though. LWT broadcasting Thames News was through force of hand by the IBA, IIRC, when LWT put it to them that it was not viable for them to run their own regional news service at that time.
Of course they show highlights, otherwise people will change channels to see what is happening in those games. This is possible because under US law the doctrine of fair use allows broadcasters to show highlights of events which aired on other networks. Agreements simply extend this to include in-game highlights as it serves the interests of all parties, as they can be aired post-game anyway and it prevents their viewers needing to switch channels
In the UK the doctrine of fair dealing does not cover sporting events, which is why we do not have any programmes equivalent to SportsCenter. And why Sky Sports News is famous for giving limited coverage to events that are not aired on by Sky Sports, because they cannot show any footage from events for which they do not own the rights. Instead there is only the Sports News Access Code of Practice, which is an agreement between broadcasters that allows the limited use of clips on regular news broadcasts and channels only.
That may be pompous, The Great 208, but factual information which explains a situation is only unhelpful if you wish to remain ignorant.
Yours, Mr Logic.
P.S. Thanks for the promotion of my pomposity.
In the US broadcasters cannot air in game highlights. They have to wait until the broadcast is over. Now fair use law allows a certain amount to be broadcast but frequently the leagues will restrict the total time. It's been a while since I've read the NFL broadcast agreement they limit the total amount time to about three minutes total.
As for the topic at hand broadcasters will typically mention upcoming games that will air on other channels. Entertainment shows like The Tonight Show or the Late Show typically won't have guests promoting shows on other networks, but if a guest is promoting a movie they usually will promote their show as well. News programming will mention the name of a competing show or network if something noteworthy occured.
Good example yesterday - on the CBS coverage of the early NFL game not only was the coverage of the later games on Fox and NBC mentioned, the commentators were named and wished Happy Thanksgiving with an acknowledgement too of all the technical crews.
Because of a fracas or two between them in 1968, when Thames were continually winning ratings, advertisers and money against the flagging LWT, Thames and LWT never, ever mentioned each other, or the other's programmes or presenters, even when Thames would hand over to LWT on a Friday night.
Back at that time there was still a formal closedown of Thames, playing Salute to Thames over the clock or symbol until 7pm (we'll be back on Monday') when the plugs were switched over by the GPO. Maybe because there really wasn't any consideration of what to do with the change of company in the middle of programmes.
Thames did get into the habit through the 1970s of dumping a dull, dreary or worthy programme in the schedules at 6:30pm on a Friday whenever they could, to the annoyance of LWT.
Good example yesterday - on the CBS coverage of the early NFL game not only was the coverage of the later games on Fox and NBC mentioned, the commentators were named and wished Happy Thanksgiving with an acknowledgement too of all the technical crews.
Excellent to hear and just the sort of grown up presentation which we could do with in the UK.
I remember this also. Was nice and classy of EE to do that. EE sometime for big world stuff film quick scenes and mention them. When Michael Jackson died etc.
Was going to post about dot saying the above but other poster got there first.
When Morecambe and Wise were at Thames and Christmas fell on the weekend LWT stopped them networking the show because LWT were the weekend contractor, it had to be screened on a week day.
I think that's because, with the odd exception and Thames News on Fridays, Thames programmes weren't allowed to be seen in LWT's franchise period.
Because of a fracas or two between them in 1968, when Thames were continually winning ratings, advertisers and money against the flagging LWT, Thames and LWT never, ever mentioned each other, or the other's programmes or presenters, even when Thames would hand over to LWT on a Friday night.
Relations stayed somewhat frosty between the two until Thames lost their franchise and ceased broadcasting in 1992, to be replaced by Carlton, who LWT had a much easier working relationship with.
This nonsense used to go on in the north back in the sixties to the point when Granada got warned about it by then then ITA . On Friday nights closing down announcements would be worded in such a way as to imply that there was no service on ITV over the weekend and that it was effectively closed down until Monday when Granada would resume broadcasting, absolutely making no reference to ABC the weekend franchise holder for the north and the midlands. Having said this, I don't know what the situation would have been between Rediffusion and ATV in London, also ATV and ABC in the midlands on Friday and Sunday nights with regard to their closedown announcements. I do know that in London on Sunday nights that LWT were virtually as bad as Granada and would word closing down announcements in such a way as to imply that there was no ITV service until Friday 7.00 pm ( latterly 5.15 pm) until LWT returned. I don't know why they were like that as they were not in competition with one another as it was neither Thames or LWT's fault that the ITA saw fit to employ two separate contractors for the same one region on a timeshare basis.
There was a benefit concert after the tsunami of Boxing Day 10 years ago. It was one of these things that ran for several hours and coverage was shared between BBC2 and Channel 5. Yet whenever either channel took a break from their coverage for the other to take a turn, they never mentioned that you could continue watching on the other channel.
On another occasion when ITV still had a new channel they were going to show some event or other on it, and of course ITV news mentioned this fact on the ITV1 news. however they did not add "but if you don't have the ITV new channel, you can watch it on BBC1"
Also, notice how the news programmes are selfish with sport. When they report on a sport that will be shown later on that channel they warn to "look away now". But if coverage is shown on a rival broadcaster, they give no such warning!
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Olympics Victory Parade, Margaret Thatcher's funeral, the Invictus Games are other examples. ITV news kept talking about them, but I'm sure they never alerted those who were interested that they could watch the things on the BBC. Yes, you could call it promotion, but above all its called being "helpful". If you want to serve your audience, do so properly. They'd have been falling over themselves to 'let you know' that you could watch them on ITV if they'd been showing these events. I thought news was meant to be impartial, not an advert for a channels' own TV programmes. It is understandable if they are showing an event though to only advertise their own service, but they shouldn't make it sound like they're being helpful when the rest of the time they couldn't be more UNhelpful!
There was a benefit concert after the tsunami of Boxing Day 10 years ago. It was one of these things that ran for several hours and coverage was shared between BBC2 and Channel 5. Yet whenever either channel took a break from their coverage for the other to take a turn, they never mentioned that you could continue watching on the other channel.
On another occasion when ITV still had a new channel they were going to show some event or other on it, and of course ITV news mentioned this fact on the ITV1 news. however they did not add "but if you don't have the ITV new channel, you can watch it on BBC1"
Also, notice how the news programmes are selfish with sport. When they report on a sport that will be shown later on that channel they warn to "look away now". But if coverage is shown on a rival broadcaster, they give no such warning!
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Olympics Victory Parade, Margaret Thatcher's funeral, the Invictus Games are other examples. ITV news kept talking about them, but I'm sure they never alerted those who were interested that they could watch the things on the BBC. Yes, you could call it promotion, but above all its called being "helpful". If you want to serve your audience, do so properly. They'd have been falling over themselves to 'let you know' that you could watch them on ITV if they'd been showing these events. I thought news was meant to be impartial, not an advert for a channels' own TV programmes. It is understandable if they are showing an event though to only advertise their own service, but they shouldn't make it sound like they're being helpful when the rest of the time they couldn't be more UNhelpful!
There's no point in saying ''Look away now'' when the event is being shown later ! This happens on the BBC1 main Saturday night news when MOTD follows. What is the point of saying ''Look away now'' when the presenter then reads the results ? Some years ago I was in Sydney watching the Channel 9 News when they said ''We are now going to give the results of the Aussie Rules football so if you don't want to know switch off or switch over but don't complain to us afterwards'' I think most regular MOTD viewers have become wise to this over the years and make their own arrangements to avoid the results:D
Thought I would dig up my own old thread as it still annoys me that ITV and BBC still do this when they are partners in terms of holding the rights for the World Cup. All this 'this one is live on 5 Live' crap. Can't wait until 10.45 tonight when ITV reveal what happened in the England - Tunisia game :-)
Thought I would dig up my own old thread as it still annoys me that ITV and BBC still do this when they are partners in terms of holding the rights for the World Cup. All this 'this one is live on 5 Live' crap. Can't wait until 10.45 tonight when ITV reveal what happened in the England - Tunisia game :-)
But you know that if the game is not on BBC TV then it's on ITV. Why would either of them promote the other unnecessarily, especially in the case of the BBC who WILL be covering the game and will obviously want to promote their own coverage.
Thought I would dig up my own old thread as it still annoys me that ITV and BBC still do this when they are partners in terms of holding the rights for the World Cup. All this 'this one is live on 5 Live' crap. Can't wait until 10.45 tonight when ITV reveal what happened in the England - Tunisia game :-)
But you know that if the game is not on BBC TV then it's on ITV. Why would either of them promote the other unnecessarily, especially in the case of the BBC who WILL be covering the game and will obviously want to promote their own coverage.
Indeed my point exactly. Everyone knows that if is not on BBC then it's on ITV and vice versa. Just be grown up about it and say it!
Comments
Ha Ha! Interesting point about Cronkite btw...
Ok dude, whatever. I've sat and watched them speak about simultaneous games on other networks. ESPN will even speak about and broadcast highlights and clips from other games during breaks in play, and the halftime show. And no I don't think ESPN is obliged to show highlights from games in completely different conferences that are being aired on Fox, or CBS, but they do it anyway.
I take great offence at being called unhelpful.
Of course they show highlights, otherwise people will change channels to see what is happening in those games. This is possible because under US law the doctrine of fair use allows broadcasters to show highlights of events which aired on other networks. Agreements simply extend this to include in-game highlights as it serves the interests of all parties, as they can be aired post-game anyway and it prevents their viewers needing to switch channels
In the UK the doctrine of fair dealing does not cover sporting events, which is why we do not have any programmes equivalent to SportsCenter. And why Sky Sports News is famous for giving limited coverage to events that are not aired on by Sky Sports, because they cannot show any footage from events for which they do not own the rights. Instead there is only the Sports News Access Code of Practice, which is an agreement between broadcasters that allows the limited use of clips on regular news broadcasts and channels only.
That may be pompous, The Great 208, but factual information which explains a situation is only unhelpful if you wish to remain ignorant.
Yours, Mr Logic.
P.S. Thanks for the promotion of my pomposity.
Relations stayed somewhat frosty between the two until Thames lost their franchise and ceased broadcasting in 1992, to be replaced by Carlton, who LWT had a much easier working relationship with.
I've also seen footage of The Big Match from the 1970s of Brian Moore mentioning football that would be 'on ITV' during the week. He never said 'on Thames', even though he would be presenting and/or commentating on it. Whether this was because of the feud between the two companies, or whether it was due to a few other regions taking The Big Match I'm not sure.
I think by the 1980s, the IBA had learned of this childish behaviour between the two and effectively banged their heads together.
Thames still tried to avoid mentioning LWT as much as they could get away with, though. LWT broadcasting Thames News was through force of hand by the IBA, IIRC, when LWT put it to them that it was not viable for them to run their own regional news service at that time.
In the US broadcasters cannot air in game highlights. They have to wait until the broadcast is over. Now fair use law allows a certain amount to be broadcast but frequently the leagues will restrict the total time. It's been a while since I've read the NFL broadcast agreement they limit the total amount time to about three minutes total.
As for the topic at hand broadcasters will typically mention upcoming games that will air on other channels. Entertainment shows like The Tonight Show or the Late Show typically won't have guests promoting shows on other networks, but if a guest is promoting a movie they usually will promote their show as well. News programming will mention the name of a competing show or network if something noteworthy occured.
Thames did get into the habit through the 1970s of dumping a dull, dreary or worthy programme in the schedules at 6:30pm on a Friday whenever they could, to the annoyance of LWT.
Excellent to hear and just the sort of grown up presentation which we could do with in the UK.
I remember this also. Was nice and classy of EE to do that. EE sometime for big world stuff film quick scenes and mention them. When Michael Jackson died etc.
Was going to post about dot saying the above but other poster got there first.
Another example being the frequent co-productions between BBC and RTE -MBBs anyone ?
That's probably the only example I can think of regarding cross-promotion between channels.
I think that's because, with the odd exception and Thames News on Fridays, Thames programmes weren't allowed to be seen in LWT's franchise period.
This nonsense used to go on in the north back in the sixties to the point when Granada got warned about it by then then ITA . On Friday nights closing down announcements would be worded in such a way as to imply that there was no service on ITV over the weekend and that it was effectively closed down until Monday when Granada would resume broadcasting, absolutely making no reference to ABC the weekend franchise holder for the north and the midlands. Having said this, I don't know what the situation would have been between Rediffusion and ATV in London, also ATV and ABC in the midlands on Friday and Sunday nights with regard to their closedown announcements. I do know that in London on Sunday nights that LWT were virtually as bad as Granada and would word closing down announcements in such a way as to imply that there was no ITV service until Friday 7.00 pm ( latterly 5.15 pm) until LWT returned. I don't know why they were like that as they were not in competition with one another as it was neither Thames or LWT's fault that the ITA saw fit to employ two separate contractors for the same one region on a timeshare basis.
There was a benefit concert after the tsunami of Boxing Day 10 years ago. It was one of these things that ran for several hours and coverage was shared between BBC2 and Channel 5. Yet whenever either channel took a break from their coverage for the other to take a turn, they never mentioned that you could continue watching on the other channel.
On another occasion when ITV still had a new channel they were going to show some event or other on it, and of course ITV news mentioned this fact on the ITV1 news. however they did not add "but if you don't have the ITV new channel, you can watch it on BBC1"
Also, notice how the news programmes are selfish with sport. When they report on a sport that will be shown later on that channel they warn to "look away now". But if coverage is shown on a rival broadcaster, they give no such warning!
The Queen's Diamond Jubilee celebrations, the Olympics Victory Parade, Margaret Thatcher's funeral, the Invictus Games are other examples. ITV news kept talking about them, but I'm sure they never alerted those who were interested that they could watch the things on the BBC. Yes, you could call it promotion, but above all its called being "helpful". If you want to serve your audience, do so properly. They'd have been falling over themselves to 'let you know' that you could watch them on ITV if they'd been showing these events. I thought news was meant to be impartial, not an advert for a channels' own TV programmes. It is understandable if they are showing an event though to only advertise their own service, but they shouldn't make it sound like they're being helpful when the rest of the time they couldn't be more UNhelpful!
There's no point in saying ''Look away now'' when the event is being shown later ! This happens on the BBC1 main Saturday night news when MOTD follows. What is the point of saying ''Look away now'' when the presenter then reads the results ? Some years ago I was in Sydney watching the Channel 9 News when they said ''We are now going to give the results of the Aussie Rules football so if you don't want to know switch off or switch over but don't complain to us afterwards'' I think most regular MOTD viewers have become wise to this over the years and make their own arrangements to avoid the results:D
But you know that if the game is not on BBC TV then it's on ITV. Why would either of them promote the other unnecessarily, especially in the case of the BBC who WILL be covering the game and will obviously want to promote their own coverage.
Indeed my point exactly. Everyone knows that if is not on BBC then it's on ITV and vice versa. Just be grown up about it and say it!