BBC " has to" show news on BBC1 for a agreed amount of hours. It can't be taken off, and that's before the fact it gets four million viewers.
At 6pm you have the main news which links into local news (and vice versa for ITV), and then C4 news at 7pm, but I can't see any reason for 10pm news as very little will happen in the UK after that time and the news channel is there for anything urgent.
Regardless of 4m viewers, the BBC claim they don't chase ratings, so there's no reason not to show something else. As it is, Question Time and other post-news shows are now on much later. The 10.30ish local news was extended for no reason, then add the weather and more trailers, so QT et al start around 10.50pm. If they'd started at 10pm, it might be worth watching before bedtime at 10.50? No time.
Surely those requirements are from the analogue days though - now that we have switched Analogue off - anyone still watching TV is doing so digitally - which means they have access to the extra channels, and therefore the requirement is a pointless remnant of the old ages!
At 6pm you have the main news which links into local news (and vice versa for ITV), and then C4 news at 7pm, but I can't see any reason for 10pm news as very little will happen in the UK after that time and the news channel is there for anything urgent.
Regardless of 4m viewers, the BBC claim they don't chase ratings, so there's no reason not to show something else. As it is, Question Time and other post-news shows are now on much later. The 10.30ish local news was extended for no reason, then add the weather and more trailers, so QT et al start around 10.50pm. If they'd started at 10pm, it might be worth watching before bedtime at 10.50? No time.
Absolutely!
The rules on the BBC they must abide by them, and they will not remove a bulletin that gets so many viewers. They are obliged to show X amount of hours of news in prime time on BBC1 bar Bank holidays.
Everyone's bedtime is different.
The 10pm News and Regional news was extended after a trial which was popular with viewers and saw an incresse for the Regional news.
Note this is one if the reasons why in the Olympic Games the BBC had the 1/6/10pm News still on 1 and swapped the games to 2. Plus 2 has limited Regional opt outs.
The rules on the BBC they must abide by them, and they will not remove a bulletin that gets so many viewers. They are obliged to show X amount of hours of news in prime time on BBC1 bar Bank holidays.
This is something archaic that needs to change. Thing is, they don't care. The 10.45pm slot is just a dumping ground for repeats and shows they don't care about like Tracey Ullman Show.
Everyone's bedtime is different.
But the news is on the news channel, so everyone's a winner!
There are a number of things that need to happen now that everyone is digital - (and now that the BBC is talking about the possibility of being a subscription service) - here is my brief list.
1) In the next leap in viewing technology, the ability to add an "in-vision" signer so that eventually all programs will be signed whether by a filmed signer or a computer generated signer - we are well past the point where this is perfectly feasible, and a little box in the corner of the screen that can be overlaid on to the picture will not take up a huge amount of bandwidth,- and even less bandwidth if the receiving box generates the signer and is simply fed information to animate the signer.
2) Stop messing with schedules - stick everything but a dinner time and a tea time bulletin on the news channel, if we are still considering the next generation boxes - have an option to flash a breaking news banner over the top of whatever you are watching. This is easily feasible because the 7 day EPG is broadcast across all multiplexes as is the Now and Next information, so adding a flag and a brief snippet of text that is periodically broadcast - means with current technology - within roughly 10 minutes of the breaking news being broadcast - that could be flashed on the screen. Alternatively - consider making the service a bit more personalised and allow the viewer to specify categories of news they are interested in. For example someone might be interested in breaking news about bad weather in the local area, but not give a stuff about London being flooded for example, this could use a network connection for the broadcast instead of being over the air.
3) Something that can be done now:
Programmes that are broadcast live have horrendously inaccurate subtitles, which still exist when a previously live broadcast is repeated and even make it to the on-demand service. Obviously there is nothing that can be done with the live broadcast, but there is no reason programmes could not be re-subtitled after the event. Apart from the hilariously bad subtitles on live programs, there is also a major issue with chunks of dialogue that is missing when the subtitle person starts getting too far behind the broadcast, they have a habit of just ending whatever conversation they were transcribing and jumping over 30-60 seconds of past conversation to get a bit closer to real time.
There are a number of things that need to happen now that everyone is digital - (and now that the BBC is talking about the possibility of being a subscription service) - here is my brief list.
1) In the next leap in viewing technology, the ability to add an "in-vision" signer so that eventually all programs will be signed whether by a filmed signer or a computer generated signer - we are well past the point where this is perfectly feasible, and a little box in the corner of the screen that can be overlaid on to the picture will not take up a huge amount of bandwidth,- and even less bandwidth if the receiving box generates the signer and is simply fed information to animate the signer.
Reportedly, they still can't do those on-the-fly, and it's not just about hand movements, but also facial movements which a computer can't get yet.
2) Stop messing with schedules - stick everything but a dinner time and a tea time bulletin on the news channel, if we are still considering the next generation boxes - have an option to flash a breaking news banner over the top of whatever you are watching. This is easily feasible because the 7 day EPG is broadcast across all multiplexes as is the Now and Next information, so adding a flag and a brief snippet of text that is periodically broadcast - means with current technology - within roughly 10 minutes of the breaking news being broadcast - that could be flashed on the screen. Alternatively - consider making the service a bit more personalised and allow the viewer to specify categories of news they are interested in. For example someone might be interested in breaking news about bad weather in the local area, but not give a stuff about London being flooded for example, this could use a network connection for the broadcast instead of being over the air.
Agreed about the scheduling, but like DOGs, they won't allow us to switch off crap like that and anything else because they don't want to lose control of it
3) Something that can be done now:
Programmes that are broadcast live have horrendously inaccurate subtitles, which still exist when a previously live broadcast is repeated and even make it to the on-demand service. Obviously there is nothing that can be done with the live broadcast, but there is no reason programmes could not be re-subtitled after the event. Apart from the hilariously bad subtitles on live programs, there is also a major issue with chunks of dialogue that is missing when the subtitle person starts getting too far behind the broadcast, they have a habit of just ending whatever conversation they were transcribing and jumping over 30-60 seconds of past conversation to get a bit closer to real time.
This is sometimes done, eg. The Film Review's repeats have the subtitles redone so that they're in time with the speech.
Cant remember the last time I watched a BBC channel since BBC3 closed, the whole company's irrelevant to me now.
My viewing of the BBC has gone down by about 90% since BBC3 closed. I did try and battle the BBC3 website a few weeks ago i didn't see anything that caught my eye. I have only watched 1 BBC3 show since it closed as a linear channel. That was on BBC2 and i had no idea it was a BBC3 show. Funny enough i found it channel surfing. Can't do that with BBC3
The BBC are not providing me with value for money. £145.50 for The Apprentice, Dragons Den and Bake off (the only shows i watch regularly). We all know where Bake Off is going.
The BBC has unused capacity on all platforms from 9pm-6AM why can't they run a reduced BBC3 service on the TV using this free space? Think this talk of cost cutting to fill a budget blackhole was just a ruse as the saved money was partly invested in BBC1 drama.
The BBC argued at the time BBC3 was due to close that BBC1 had shows such as Bake Off Strictly and The Voice that appealed to younger viewers. 2 of those shows are now finding a home elsewhere.
My viewing of the BBC has gone down by about 90% since BBC3 closed. I did try and battle the BBC3 website a few weeks ago i didn't see anything that caught my eye. I have only watched 1 BBC3 show since it closed as a linear channel. That was on BBC2 and i had no idea it was a BBC3 show. Funny enough i found it channel surfing. Can't do that with BBC3
The BBC are not providing me with value for money. £145.50 for The Apprentice, Dragons Den and Bake off (the only shows i watch regularly). We all know where Bake Off is going.
The BBC has unused capacity on all platforms from 9pm-6AM why can't they run a reduced BBC3 service on the TV using this free space? Think this talk of cost cutting to fill a budget blackhole was just a ruse as the saved money was partly invested in BBC1 drama.
The BBC argued at the time BBC3 was due to close that BBC1 had shows such as Bake Off Strictly and The Voice that appealed to younger viewers. 2 of those shows are now finding a home elsewhere.
I don't think you get that the BBC are living on straitened means and most people would rather a fully functioning news channel than the part time yoof one. Anyway ever since the end of 'blob' era BBC3, it was a cesspit of repeats and programmes with provocative titles. I can't seriously believe it had many loyal viewers towards the end.
I don't think you get that the BBC are living on straitened means and most people would rather a fully functioning news channel than the part time yoof one. Anyway ever since the end of 'blob' era BBC3, it was a cesspit of repeats and programmes with provocative titles. I can't seriously believe it had many loyal viewers towards the end.
An increased 30 million BBC1 drama budget is not a sign of a company on straitened means. I am not saying that the 90million the BBC use to spend on BBC3 was justified. However the 30million that want to BBC1 drama and the 20 million budget it is said to have now gives 50million a similar amount to what BBC4 gets and that is very much still on TV.
the sooner the BBC goes subscription only or is advert supported the better. Then the people who watch the channels are paying for them.
Used to watch BBC3 quite often, though not as much as BBC4 to be fair.
Only catch the odd Reggie or Stacey docs when notice them on I-player or to be accurate Sky On Demand. Then there's things stumbled upon such as Fleabag which I would have completely missed if not for the Freeview repeat.
I would have kept BBC3 and cut BBC News by at least 60%.
BBC News is the least important part of MY licence fee. It is often just lefty propaganda, more interested in telling us what to think rather than news reporting.
The cost of using so many correspondents in the US for 18 months must have been enormous and with the exception of Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight not one of them even hinted at the possibility of a Trump win. Michael Portillo managed it on This Week despite mainly being tasked with making his always excellent railway travelogue.
There are many programmes I would be happy to pay for should the BBC move to a non-imprisonment subscription fee, and would be happy if BBC3 was funded through cuts to news.
An increased 30 million BBC1 drama budget is not a sign of a company on straitened means. I am not saying that the 90million the BBC use to spend on BBC3 was justified. However the 30million that want to BBC1 drama and the 20 million budget it is said to have now gives 50million a similar amount to what BBC4 gets and that is very much still on TV.
the sooner the BBC goes subscription only or is advert supported the better. Then the people who watch the channels are paying for them.
A slight increase for BBC1 but many cuts elsewhere. And how is The Voice and that cooking contest a good use of licence fee payers money and high quality drama a bad?
BBC News is the least important part of MY licence fee. It is often just lefty propaganda, more interested in telling us what to think rather than news reporting.
The cost of using so many correspondents in the US for 18 months must have been enormous and with the exception of Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight not one of them even hinted at the possibility of a Trump win. Michael Portillo managed it on This Week despite mainly being tasked with making his always excellent railway travelogue.
There are many programmes I would be happy to pay for should the BBC move to a non-imprisonment subscription fee, and would be happy if BBC3 was funded through cuts to news.
The BBC News is very popular to the point that Ofcom thinks it's so dominant as to threaten media plurality. So cutting it is something only a minority want and most have veiled interests.
But BBC3 is online ALL the time. Why the need for a linear TV channel that not enough of its target audience were watching via the TV?
Firstly....rather confused with you deciding to go back to my post on 1st December, when you have posted and quoted my posts subsequently to that? That's way confusing?
BBC3 is online all the time, but seems some are finding that hard to find or use, ( most can find it).
The BBC has been considering a BBC3 on BBC2 hour, I think that would diminish BBC2s identity. But with my suggestion you could Channel split the BBC4 - 7 pm onwards channel, say 3 for three days a week, 4 four days a week, this helps those who prefer a linear channel approach, but acts as an advert for IPlayer on 3/4.
It's like many thinks people have to get used to change, the online IPlayer was ahead of its time. Like supermarket self service tills, they were not accepted at start, now most use them.
Please now can you quote and answer in order this looks like an attempt to bump the old thread with past posts.
It's like many thinks people have to get used to change, the online IPlayer was ahead of its time. Like supermarket self service tills, they were not accepted at start, now most use them.
Re self-service tills, my neighbour is an area manager for Wal-Mart, undoubtedly there are other factors given ASDA's recent performance relative to the others, but after following the mantra for self-service tills several ASDAs close to us suffered a major downturn in footfall and sales, feedback identified two particular problems, newly installed aggressive traffic calming {speed bumps too high} and above all a reluctance for the older customers to embrace the lack of seated staff at tills, they initially tried swamping the self-service tills, all 18 or more with floating staff to help, and direct waiting customers to open self-service tills - as many would quietly queue in line for a seated till operative rather than using self-service. Eventually they went back to more bodies on tills, not all the tills but subject to times around a half to two thirds.
The speed bumps have also been replaced with a much lower profile.
OK it could be argued BBC3 is aimed at a younger demographic, completely opposite to the scenario above, which is probably the over 40s (50s ?) but what it does illustrate is that problems can be identified and solved if there is a will. BBC3 is ultimately a tv channel that isn't on tv. Hence the tumbleweed.
I thought BBC1 and 2 were showing BBC3 shows? Has this happened? I mean surely Newsnight can go on the News channel as people are fed up of being bombarded with news unless there is a written law somewhere.
I thought BBC1 and 2 were showing BBC3 shows? Has this happened? I mean surely Newsnight can go on the News channel as people are fed up of being bombarded with news unless there is a written law somewhere.
I don't get why Newsnight doesn't follow the 10pm news on BBC One if BBC wants to keep it. Is it really necessary to have news programming on 2 channels at once?
BBC One is on news until 10:45pm now and BBC Two has Newsnight on from 10:30pm till 11:15pm.
Epic waste of time there, especially when you have the BBC News channel.
And yes, BBC One & BBC two are supposed to be giving BBC Three programming a decent time slot for a TV broadcast. Im not seeing a huge amount frankly....
I don't get why Newsnight doesn't follow the 10pm news on BBC One if BBC wants to keep it. Is it really necessary to have news programming on 2 channels at once?
BBC One is on news until 10:45pm now and BBC Two has Newsnight on from 10:30pm till 11:15pm.
Epic waste of time there, especially when you have the BBC News channel.
And yes, BBC One & BBC two are supposed to be giving BBC Three programming a decent time slot for a TV broadcast. Im not seeing a huge amount frankly....
There is a clear distinction between The News and Newsnight in content, format, and approach which makes them both eminently suitable for the channels they are now broadcast on. As there is a requirement for local news, moving Newsnight to BBC1, would obliterate the late evening slot tying up the prime channel from 10.00 to 11.45 affecting the likes of Film 2016 and Graham Norton. I think you should assume that things are going to stay the way they are however distressing you find it.
There is a clear distinction between The News and Newsnight in content, format, and approach which makes them both eminently suitable for the channels they are now broadcast on. As there is a requirement for local news, moving Newsnight to BBC1, would obliterate the late evening slot tying up the prime channel from 10.00 to 11.45 affecting the likes of Film 2016 and Graham Norton. I think you should assume that things are going to stay the way they are however distressing you find it.
I think like everything in this country, we stick with antiquated attitudes and rules. Thing is the BBC has to listen to what Mrs May says with her iron fist. I just wish as people pay a licence, they'd respect our needs and shake it up a bit. I think people are over-choked with news and Newsnight needs to go.
Firstly....rather confused with you deciding to go back to my post on 1st December, when you have posted and quoted my posts subsequently to that? That's way confusing?
BBC3 is online all the time, but seems some are finding that hard to find or use, ( most can find it).
The BBC has been considering a BBC3 on BBC2 hour, I think that would diminish BBC2s identity. But with my suggestion you could Channel split the BBC4 - 7 pm onwards channel, say 3 for three days a week, 4 four days a week, this helps those who prefer a linear channel approach, but acts as an advert for IPlayer on 3/4.
It's like many thinks people have to get used to change, the online IPlayer was ahead of its time. Like supermarket self service tills, they were not accepted at start, now most use them.
Please now can you quote and answer in order this looks like an attempt to bump the old thread with past posts.
I utterly doubt that a BBC THREE hour on TWO would diminish its identity. You only have to think of the fact that before the launch of THREE and FOUR, BBC TWO managed to appeal to young and old viewers. The younger demographic would be appeased with programmes such as the Simpsons and Robot Wars, while an older audience would look to serious programming such as Horizon and Newsnight.
Ever since the launch of the two BBC digital channels - BBC TWO slowly began to lose its distinctive nature. Much of what THREE and FOUR showed would be fitting for TWO.
Firstly....rather confused with you deciding to go back to my post on 1st December, when you have posted and quoted my posts subsequently to that? That's way confusing?
I did it purely to confuse you....
No, I saw this post later after the others. Sorry if it's confusing.
Please now can you quote and answer in order this looks like an attempt to bump the old thread with past posts.
Re self-service tills, my neighbour is an area manager for Wal-Mart, undoubtedly there are other factors given ASDA's recent performance relative to the others, but after following the mantra for self-service tills several ASDAs close to us suffered a major downturn in footfall and sales, feedback identified two particular problems, newly installed aggressive traffic calming {speed bumps too high} and above all a reluctance for the older customers to embrace the lack of seated staff at tills, they initially tried swamping the self-service tills, all 18 or more with floating staff to help, and direct waiting customers to open self-service tills - as many would quietly queue in line for a seated till operative rather than using self-service. Eventually they went back to more bodies on tills, not all the tills but subject to times around a half to two thirds.
The speed bumps have also been replaced with a much lower profile.
I prefer the self-service ones if I've only got a few bits. If I've got loads, I'll use a regular one.
I don't like speed bumps, but I wish they'd install them down my road as there's idiots rushing along it, thinking they own the road and that no-one's going to come round that corner, when they really shouldn't drive like that.
I like the idea of splitting BBC3 and BBC4. I miss BBC3. Naturally and understandably we do not get iPlayer in Ireland as it is geo-blocked. BTW I am 52.
If only the people who struggled for Irish independence could've foreseen it would tragically lead to today's generation missing out on the BBC iPlayer in Ireland.
Comments
At 6pm you have the main news which links into local news (and vice versa for ITV), and then C4 news at 7pm, but I can't see any reason for 10pm news as very little will happen in the UK after that time and the news channel is there for anything urgent.
Regardless of 4m viewers, the BBC claim they don't chase ratings, so there's no reason not to show something else. As it is, Question Time and other post-news shows are now on much later. The 10.30ish local news was extended for no reason, then add the weather and more trailers, so QT et al start around 10.50pm. If they'd started at 10pm, it might be worth watching before bedtime at 10.50? No time.
Absolutely!
The rules on the BBC they must abide by them, and they will not remove a bulletin that gets so many viewers. They are obliged to show X amount of hours of news in prime time on BBC1 bar Bank holidays.
Everyone's bedtime is different.
The 10pm News and Regional news was extended after a trial which was popular with viewers and saw an incresse for the Regional news.
Note this is one if the reasons why in the Olympic Games the BBC had the 1/6/10pm News still on 1 and swapped the games to 2. Plus 2 has limited Regional opt outs.
This is something archaic that needs to change. Thing is, they don't care. The 10.45pm slot is just a dumping ground for repeats and shows they don't care about like Tracey Ullman Show.
But the news is on the news channel, so everyone's a winner!
1) In the next leap in viewing technology, the ability to add an "in-vision" signer so that eventually all programs will be signed whether by a filmed signer or a computer generated signer - we are well past the point where this is perfectly feasible, and a little box in the corner of the screen that can be overlaid on to the picture will not take up a huge amount of bandwidth,- and even less bandwidth if the receiving box generates the signer and is simply fed information to animate the signer.
2) Stop messing with schedules - stick everything but a dinner time and a tea time bulletin on the news channel, if we are still considering the next generation boxes - have an option to flash a breaking news banner over the top of whatever you are watching. This is easily feasible because the 7 day EPG is broadcast across all multiplexes as is the Now and Next information, so adding a flag and a brief snippet of text that is periodically broadcast - means with current technology - within roughly 10 minutes of the breaking news being broadcast - that could be flashed on the screen. Alternatively - consider making the service a bit more personalised and allow the viewer to specify categories of news they are interested in. For example someone might be interested in breaking news about bad weather in the local area, but not give a stuff about London being flooded for example, this could use a network connection for the broadcast instead of being over the air.
3) Something that can be done now:
Programmes that are broadcast live have horrendously inaccurate subtitles, which still exist when a previously live broadcast is repeated and even make it to the on-demand service. Obviously there is nothing that can be done with the live broadcast, but there is no reason programmes could not be re-subtitled after the event. Apart from the hilariously bad subtitles on live programs, there is also a major issue with chunks of dialogue that is missing when the subtitle person starts getting too far behind the broadcast, they have a habit of just ending whatever conversation they were transcribing and jumping over 30-60 seconds of past conversation to get a bit closer to real time.
Reportedly, they still can't do those on-the-fly, and it's not just about hand movements, but also facial movements which a computer can't get yet.
Agreed about the scheduling, but like DOGs, they won't allow us to switch off crap like that and anything else because they don't want to lose control of it
This is sometimes done, eg. The Film Review's repeats have the subtitles redone so that they're in time with the speech.
My viewing of the BBC has gone down by about 90% since BBC3 closed. I did try and battle the BBC3 website a few weeks ago i didn't see anything that caught my eye. I have only watched 1 BBC3 show since it closed as a linear channel. That was on BBC2 and i had no idea it was a BBC3 show. Funny enough i found it channel surfing. Can't do that with BBC3
The BBC are not providing me with value for money. £145.50 for The Apprentice, Dragons Den and Bake off (the only shows i watch regularly). We all know where Bake Off is going.
The BBC has unused capacity on all platforms from 9pm-6AM why can't they run a reduced BBC3 service on the TV using this free space? Think this talk of cost cutting to fill a budget blackhole was just a ruse as the saved money was partly invested in BBC1 drama.
The BBC argued at the time BBC3 was due to close that BBC1 had shows such as Bake Off Strictly and The Voice that appealed to younger viewers. 2 of those shows are now finding a home elsewhere.
An increased 30 million BBC1 drama budget is not a sign of a company on straitened means. I am not saying that the 90million the BBC use to spend on BBC3 was justified. However the 30million that want to BBC1 drama and the 20 million budget it is said to have now gives 50million a similar amount to what BBC4 gets and that is very much still on TV.
the sooner the BBC goes subscription only or is advert supported the better. Then the people who watch the channels are paying for them.
Only catch the odd Reggie or Stacey docs when notice them on I-player or to be accurate Sky On Demand. Then there's things stumbled upon such as Fleabag which I would have completely missed if not for the Freeview repeat.
I would have kept BBC3 and cut BBC News by at least 60%.
BBC News is the least important part of MY licence fee. It is often just lefty propaganda, more interested in telling us what to think rather than news reporting.
The cost of using so many correspondents in the US for 18 months must have been enormous and with the exception of Gabriel Gatehouse on Newsnight not one of them even hinted at the possibility of a Trump win. Michael Portillo managed it on This Week despite mainly being tasked with making his always excellent railway travelogue.
There are many programmes I would be happy to pay for should the BBC move to a non-imprisonment subscription fee, and would be happy if BBC3 was funded through cuts to news.
My view is that it's giving the Conservatives what they wanted, no competition for commercial operators from the BBC.
That would mean the current BBC executive are huge corrupt sell-outs of course.
Sounds about right.
But BBC3 is online ALL the time. Why the need for a linear TV channel that not enough of its target audience were watching via the TV?
Because psychology...
The psychology of online does not work very well for a public service trying to reach people.
The correct course of action was BBC3 as a broadcast channel and an online service and iPlayer.
But that would have been successful and the government don't want the BBC to be successful.
Firstly....rather confused with you deciding to go back to my post on 1st December, when you have posted and quoted my posts subsequently to that? That's way confusing?
BBC3 is online all the time, but seems some are finding that hard to find or use, ( most can find it).
The BBC has been considering a BBC3 on BBC2 hour, I think that would diminish BBC2s identity. But with my suggestion you could Channel split the BBC4 - 7 pm onwards channel, say 3 for three days a week, 4 four days a week, this helps those who prefer a linear channel approach, but acts as an advert for IPlayer on 3/4.
It's like many thinks people have to get used to change, the online IPlayer was ahead of its time. Like supermarket self service tills, they were not accepted at start, now most use them.
Please now can you quote and answer in order this looks like an attempt to bump the old thread with past posts.
Re self-service tills, my neighbour is an area manager for Wal-Mart, undoubtedly there are other factors given ASDA's recent performance relative to the others, but after following the mantra for self-service tills several ASDAs close to us suffered a major downturn in footfall and sales, feedback identified two particular problems, newly installed aggressive traffic calming {speed bumps too high} and above all a reluctance for the older customers to embrace the lack of seated staff at tills, they initially tried swamping the self-service tills, all 18 or more with floating staff to help, and direct waiting customers to open self-service tills - as many would quietly queue in line for a seated till operative rather than using self-service. Eventually they went back to more bodies on tills, not all the tills but subject to times around a half to two thirds.
The speed bumps have also been replaced with a much lower profile.
OK it could be argued BBC3 is aimed at a younger demographic, completely opposite to the scenario above, which is probably the over 40s (50s ?) but what it does illustrate is that problems can be identified and solved if there is a will. BBC3 is ultimately a tv channel that isn't on tv. Hence the tumbleweed.
I don't get why Newsnight doesn't follow the 10pm news on BBC One if BBC wants to keep it. Is it really necessary to have news programming on 2 channels at once?
BBC One is on news until 10:45pm now and BBC Two has Newsnight on from 10:30pm till 11:15pm.
Epic waste of time there, especially when you have the BBC News channel.
And yes, BBC One & BBC two are supposed to be giving BBC Three programming a decent time slot for a TV broadcast. Im not seeing a huge amount frankly....
There is a clear distinction between The News and Newsnight in content, format, and approach which makes them both eminently suitable for the channels they are now broadcast on. As there is a requirement for local news, moving Newsnight to BBC1, would obliterate the late evening slot tying up the prime channel from 10.00 to 11.45 affecting the likes of Film 2016 and Graham Norton. I think you should assume that things are going to stay the way they are however distressing you find it.
I think like everything in this country, we stick with antiquated attitudes and rules. Thing is the BBC has to listen to what Mrs May says with her iron fist. I just wish as people pay a licence, they'd respect our needs and shake it up a bit. I think people are over-choked with news and Newsnight needs to go.
I utterly doubt that a BBC THREE hour on TWO would diminish its identity. You only have to think of the fact that before the launch of THREE and FOUR, BBC TWO managed to appeal to young and old viewers. The younger demographic would be appeased with programmes such as the Simpsons and Robot Wars, while an older audience would look to serious programming such as Horizon and Newsnight.
Ever since the launch of the two BBC digital channels - BBC TWO slowly began to lose its distinctive nature. Much of what THREE and FOUR showed would be fitting for TWO.
I did it purely to confuse you....
No, I saw this post later after the others. Sorry if it's confusing.
Sorry, Dad.
I prefer the self-service ones if I've only got a few bits. If I've got loads, I'll use a regular one.
I don't like speed bumps, but I wish they'd install them down my road as there's idiots rushing along it, thinking they own the road and that no-one's going to come round that corner, when they really shouldn't drive like that.