you certainly suggested the BBC should care less about teenagers, on account of the tv licence not being in their names.
sure, but here it seemed contradictory to your previous point about the BBC taking into account which member of the household the licence was in the name of.
i get that you pay for it, i'm just not sure why anyone would be particularly surprised, or annoyed that the BBC might, on occasion, make some appallingly bad programmes. especially programmes that are aimed at a different demographic anyway.
its when something like these few programmes start to become the best thing on BBC/2 we have something to worry about.
we are, IMO, a long, long way from that being the case.
when you go to a restaurant, are you too busy looking to see what other people are eating, to enjoy the beautiful dish right in from of you?
Iain
Note: i work at marrks and spencers part time, i work at college full time, and by no means do i not pay my own way and even help my mum out. i HATE people who auto assume all teenagers don't have jobs, and just lounge about it took me bluddy 7 months to get one through rigerous searching, 21.67% of teenagers (1million in the UK) are unemployed(and not in education) i wonder exactly how many of those are by choice? middle finger to you good sir.
hendero, you clearly had a huge bais against this show from the onset, speaking as a teenager who has done nearly a year of A level media, and done some decent research about such a program i would personally say your talking aboulute bullcrap.
As some others have said, and i'll use as an example.
If for example, a child wants a small toy car, the parent will but it for the boy because he likes it, not because the parent does, but because the CHILD likes it.
Its the same with target audience, its targetted for a specific reason, if every single thing on TV was ment to be boring drivel that mindless idiots could watch then they would loose most of there TV audience, Advertisement benifits would go away, meaning less money for initial programs etc etc etc etc...
When i was little, mum bought sky, i watched Cartoon networrk, mum didn't does that mean she shouldn't have got sky?
*scratchs head*
Another little thing, Im one who likes things like supernatural, Smallville, superman, Arny, Stalon etc etc etc Films, Hot like us was NOT something i liked but hey, i gave it 2 episodes and GOD did it make me watch it, not only was it actually quiet funny, and what id call decent, it was a turn on, yes a turn on.
*Male 17* im probably not its target audience being a show about modeling, or maybe i am, as maybe they think they'll attract males because of the hot females on it? *doubtfull* and even i enjoyed it, maybe not 100% exactly for the reasons they desire, but the drama and the realism made me like the program?
Will i watch series 2? Damnstraight
why:? It's what i consider half decent, Will i watch something like snog marry avoid? No
But do i hate the program? no
I live in a society where friends at the age of 14 and 13 have had sex more then myself, a mate of 15 is having a kid with an 18 year old, where crap like this gets tollerated and underage sex is ridiculously high so i personally think, many of the shows trying to promote unslutty ness, and actually girls looking decent are damn good.
Last but not least, Developing a biast opinion about something before you've even watched it, and expecting your opinion to be different after is absolutely rubbish, there are certain types of people in this world who think everythings crap, and could have an orgasm from being shown the greatest documentry on the world but still think its absolute Crap, just because they had a biast opinion from some no good news paper that probably got its opinion from listening to someones phone.
to lian, good show i laughed HARD, at some of your comments, you intreege me as someone who is pretty intellectual and isn't like the above cheers for making me laugh, and probably the reason i signed up!
(sorry for all the grammar mistakes, etc etc etc etc etc... spelling isn't my fortey, praise word!)
Thanks for your contribution, nice to have a new member expressing their point of view. I see spelling is indeed not your 40.
I would just say, perhaps you know this from your media studies course, the BBC is controversially funded by the licence fee which is designated for quality PSB, and not really programmes that people feel "it was a turn on, yes a turn on."
yes, some people like it, some people probably really love it, but that does not make it quality PSB all the same. A few fans don't justify the diversion of funding from better things for which the money is raised.
The BBC claim they are strapped for cash to make quality PSB and are cutting back, so they really, really should do much better than this.
There's plenty of commercial channels who do this sort of thing, and I'd say leave it to them.
"Worthy" borefests that lecture, or trash-telly with a wafer thin PSB laminated on as a justification.
For the later, the junky exploitative concept came first, perhaps it was shopped around various commercial networks for a while. It turns up at BBC/CH4 and they must find some way of justifying the terrible central theme.
So they tack on something vaguely PSB-ish.
The correct way to do PSB is to start with the PSB, then frame it in terms that viewers can enjoy. The original "Walking with Dionsaurs" for example.
Dr Who could be said to be a PSB, framed as entertainment. Maybe not under Russell T Davies (!) but in the past and currently it certainly explores some themes.
The decline of PSB is down to the types of people who get hired to run PSBs, the sorts of people that commercial channels admire. Exploiters of viewers is what they are. Look at CH4 in the last 10 years.
I love the Independent's line "The contest to find the most dimwitted programme on BBC3 is an open-ended one,..."
Sounds like they've got BBC three's number!!
i have to question why a public service broadcaster ie the BBC makes this sort of television.
Of course it's very easy to slag BBC3 off, that's if you - wilfully - IGNORE the more worthy stuff, "Love on the transplant list" for example - which you have!
Thanks for your contribution, nice to have a new member expressing their point of view. I see spelling is indeed not your 40.
I would just say, perhaps you know this from your media studies course, the BBC is controversially funded by the licence fee which is designated for quality PSB, and not really programmes that people feel "it was a turn on, yes a turn on."
I'll stop you there, the BBC is there to "educate, inform and entertain" - not just what you claim it's there for.
The correct way to do PSB is to start with the PSB, then frame it in terms that viewers can enjoy. The original "Walking with Dionsaurs" for example.
To be honest, I would not be at all surprised if BBC three revised some form of that concept in it's own unique way - perhaps "W**king with Dinosaurs"?
Anything fits the entertain criteria, the BBC (even BBC three) needs to do better than just that.
While I still can't stand BBC 3 (and before someone says otherwise, I am in their target demographic) at least it's better than the BBC Choice days showing such super PSB as "LA Pool Party" with Jayne Middlemiss. I don't really mind World's Strictest Parents for example, as I can piss and moan about the super authoritarian parents who are worse than the kids in my eyes.
I liked Britain's Best Young Butcher as well because that Viking Longboat made out of sausages was badass.
And put together as a total service? With PSB quotas and ratios?
Yes, BBC3 may have lightweight youth-targetted fluff, but it also has much more worthy content as well.
What i would like to know is why do the likes of Slo-motion and yourself seem to not notice any of this?
If you're going to accuse people of something, you might at least read the thread first. It's currently not even on to the third page.
Had you done so, you'd have seen that I agree BBC3 does have a few worthwhile programmes. Just not enough, in my opinion, to justify having a separate channel on which they are broadcast.
And if I am forced to give the BBC money if I want to watch my television (which I do), then I see no reason not to express the point of view that a programme like Hot Like US is a complete misuse of the TVL. Judging by the way the viewing figures fell off a cliff after the first episode and the show was moved out of its original time slot, it sounds like I may have been mistaken when I said every TV programme in history does one of inform, educate or entertain. Hot Like US may achieve none of the three.
you certainly suggested the BBC should care less about teenagers, on account of the tv licence not being in their names.
No, I said that between adults and teenagers, that the BBC should give more weight to the opinions of the adults when it comes to programming choices. Not that they should ignore the views of teenagers completely. And for some programmes they should of course focus first on what would be of interest and (hopefully) educational and/or informative to teenagers. But it was you who gave the presumably absurdist example of teenagers saying they found BBC4 content boring as a reason for getting rid of the channel.
Your posting style is often like that of a not very skilled hunter. Elmer Fudd, if you will. You try to lay traps for people to walk into, asking one question, then using the person's response to answer other questions, usually one's you've made up, to somehow prove your point. It's really not very effective, other than it does attract a degree of sycophancy from some of the other workers who strive to protect the queen BBC at all costs.
i get that you pay for it, i'm just not sure why anyone would be particularly surprised, or annoyed that the BBC might, on occasion, make some appallingly bad programmes. especially programmes that are aimed at a different demographic anyway.
I'm not surprised in the slightest, neither was the Independent journalist. BBC3 regularly churns out rubbish. Is it that hard to come up with a TV programme which isn't aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, or which isn't obvious car crash programming? There is, or at least there should be, very little pressure on them to draw the highest possible ratings. Just commission some thoughtful, interesting programming aimed at younger viewers, they have a nice budget to work from, there are an infinite number of topics available. And, they do of course achieve this goal some of the time. I just happen to think they need to do a better job, and some programming ideas should be shot down at the conceptual stage.
If you're going to accuse people of something, you might at least read the thread first. It's currently not even on to the third page.
Had you done so, you'd have seen that I agree BBC3 does have a few worthwhile programmes. Just not enough, in my opinion, to justify having a separate channel on which they are broadcast.
And if I am forced to give the BBC money if I want to watch my television (which I do), then I see no reason not to express the point of view that a programme like Hot Like US is a complete misuse of the TVL. Judging by the way the viewing figures fell off a cliff after the first episode and the show was moved out of its original time slot, it sounds like I may have been mistaken when I said every TV programme in history does one of inform, educate or entertain. Hot Like US may achieve none of the three.
Hendero, the BBC has to provide programmes for all viewer/listener types. It's content is supposed to a mix of "Entertain, educate and inform".
There has always been a place for pure entertainment shows though, and these - just like any other type of programming - can hit, or miss, the mark sometimes.
Hendero, the BBC has to provide programmes for all viewer/listener types. It's content is supposed to a mix of "Entertain, educate and inform".
There has always been a place for pure entertainment shows though, and these - just like any other type of programming - can hit, or miss, the mark sometimes.
Agreed. Which is why I gave the suggestion above that BBC3 not commission any more programmes about the "hotness" of the people appearing on it. If they want to air a show which is a genuine analysis at modern society's obsession with looks, or how ordinary teenagers struggle in the face of such pressures, fine. But a programme that panders to the obsession? I think the commercial channels have that more than adequately covered.
when you go to a restaurant, are you too busy looking to see what other people are eating, to enjoy the beautiful dish right in from of you?
when I go to a restaurant. I'm not forced to pay for other peoples meals.
If i were forced to pay for other peoples meals I might take an interest in what other were eating, after all, I would be paying for it and might feel i was owed some responsibility that my money was put to worthwhile use and not squandered.
In the same way that if I gave to a charity, I'd be entitled to know the money was spent where it ought to be.
No, that;s not what I said. Bya ll means they are "allowed" to critique what they like, however the resultant critique should be viewed with a degree of detachment (or even suspicion), as a reviewer may very well colour his critique based upon a subjective rather than objective analysis.
I still think that means we'd need an awful lot of critics of every age group, both genders, every race, etc. to be reviewing things if we wanted to be 100% sure there was no bias. Or, hopefully the critics that we do have will give reasons why they reached the conclusions they did. In addition, I presume the Independent reviewer was at one stage in the target age demographic for Hot Like Us, it's not like asking an eight year old to review an opera.
Fortunately, in this instance we also have the views of the target audience through the massive drop-off in viewership.
Well, yes, if you hadn't snipped my post where you did it would have gone on to state the same point.
It's such a pity that certain forum "inflamers" never post anything positive - i'm sure they get their opinions from newspapers and not with their own eyes.
Comments
Note: i work at marrks and spencers part time, i work at college full time, and by no means do i not pay my own way and even help my mum out. i HATE people who auto assume all teenagers don't have jobs, and just lounge about it took me bluddy 7 months to get one through rigerous searching, 21.67% of teenagers (1million in the UK) are unemployed(and not in education) i wonder exactly how many of those are by choice? middle finger to you good sir.
hendero, you clearly had a huge bais against this show from the onset, speaking as a teenager who has done nearly a year of A level media, and done some decent research about such a program i would personally say your talking aboulute bullcrap.
As some others have said, and i'll use as an example.
If for example, a child wants a small toy car, the parent will but it for the boy because he likes it, not because the parent does, but because the CHILD likes it.
Its the same with target audience, its targetted for a specific reason, if every single thing on TV was ment to be boring drivel that mindless idiots could watch then they would loose most of there TV audience, Advertisement benifits would go away, meaning less money for initial programs etc etc etc etc...
When i was little, mum bought sky, i watched Cartoon networrk, mum didn't does that mean she shouldn't have got sky?
*scratchs head*
Another little thing, Im one who likes things like supernatural, Smallville, superman, Arny, Stalon etc etc etc Films, Hot like us was NOT something i liked but hey, i gave it 2 episodes and GOD did it make me watch it, not only was it actually quiet funny, and what id call decent, it was a turn on, yes a turn on.
*Male 17* im probably not its target audience being a show about modeling, or maybe i am, as maybe they think they'll attract males because of the hot females on it? *doubtfull* and even i enjoyed it, maybe not 100% exactly for the reasons they desire, but the drama and the realism made me like the program?
Will i watch series 2? Damnstraight
why:? It's what i consider half decent, Will i watch something like snog marry avoid? No
But do i hate the program? no
I live in a society where friends at the age of 14 and 13 have had sex more then myself, a mate of 15 is having a kid with an 18 year old, where crap like this gets tollerated and underage sex is ridiculously high so i personally think, many of the shows trying to promote unslutty ness, and actually girls looking decent are damn good.
Last but not least, Developing a biast opinion about something before you've even watched it, and expecting your opinion to be different after is absolutely rubbish, there are certain types of people in this world who think everythings crap, and could have an orgasm from being shown the greatest documentry on the world but still think its absolute Crap, just because they had a biast opinion from some no good news paper that probably got its opinion from listening to someones phone.
to lian, good show i laughed HARD, at some of your comments, you intreege me as someone who is pretty intellectual and isn't like the above cheers for making me laugh, and probably the reason i signed up!
(sorry for all the grammar mistakes, etc etc etc etc etc... spelling isn't my fortey, praise word!)
I would just say, perhaps you know this from your media studies course, the BBC is controversially funded by the licence fee which is designated for quality PSB, and not really programmes that people feel "it was a turn on, yes a turn on."
yes, some people like it, some people probably really love it, but that does not make it quality PSB all the same. A few fans don't justify the diversion of funding from better things for which the money is raised.
The BBC claim they are strapped for cash to make quality PSB and are cutting back, so they really, really should do much better than this.
There's plenty of commercial channels who do this sort of thing, and I'd say leave it to them.
"Worthy" borefests that lecture, or trash-telly with a wafer thin PSB laminated on as a justification.
For the later, the junky exploitative concept came first, perhaps it was shopped around various commercial networks for a while. It turns up at BBC/CH4 and they must find some way of justifying the terrible central theme.
So they tack on something vaguely PSB-ish.
The correct way to do PSB is to start with the PSB, then frame it in terms that viewers can enjoy. The original "Walking with Dionsaurs" for example.
Dr Who could be said to be a PSB, framed as entertainment. Maybe not under Russell T Davies (!) but in the past and currently it certainly explores some themes.
The decline of PSB is down to the types of people who get hired to run PSBs, the sorts of people that commercial channels admire. Exploiters of viewers is what they are. Look at CH4 in the last 10 years.
Of course it's very easy to slag BBC3 off, that's if you - wilfully - IGNORE the more worthy stuff, "Love on the transplant list" for example - which you have!
I'll stop you there, the BBC is there to "educate, inform and entertain" - not just what you claim it's there for.
Indeed - and it will have to keep being pointed out to all those who don't seem to understand.
Which brings us back to that being a completely meaningless objective, given every tv programme in history does at least one of the three.
Anything fits the entertain criteria, the BBC (even BBC three) needs to do better than just that.
And put together as a total service? With PSB quotas and ratios?
Yes, BBC3 may have lightweight youth-targetted fluff, but it also has much more worthy content as well.
What i would like to know is why do the likes of Slo-motion and yourself seem to not notice any of this?
And it does!
But that's only the case if you look at ALL the programming and not just one or two........
I liked Britain's Best Young Butcher as well because that Viking Longboat made out of sausages was badass.
If you're going to accuse people of something, you might at least read the thread first. It's currently not even on to the third page.
Had you done so, you'd have seen that I agree BBC3 does have a few worthwhile programmes. Just not enough, in my opinion, to justify having a separate channel on which they are broadcast.
And if I am forced to give the BBC money if I want to watch my television (which I do), then I see no reason not to express the point of view that a programme like Hot Like US is a complete misuse of the TVL. Judging by the way the viewing figures fell off a cliff after the first episode and the show was moved out of its original time slot, it sounds like I may have been mistaken when I said every TV programme in history does one of inform, educate or entertain. Hot Like US may achieve none of the three.
No, I said that between adults and teenagers, that the BBC should give more weight to the opinions of the adults when it comes to programming choices. Not that they should ignore the views of teenagers completely. And for some programmes they should of course focus first on what would be of interest and (hopefully) educational and/or informative to teenagers. But it was you who gave the presumably absurdist example of teenagers saying they found BBC4 content boring as a reason for getting rid of the channel.
Your posting style is often like that of a not very skilled hunter. Elmer Fudd, if you will. You try to lay traps for people to walk into, asking one question, then using the person's response to answer other questions, usually one's you've made up, to somehow prove your point. It's really not very effective, other than it does attract a degree of sycophancy from some of the other workers who strive to protect the queen BBC at all costs.
I'm not surprised in the slightest, neither was the Independent journalist. BBC3 regularly churns out rubbish. Is it that hard to come up with a TV programme which isn't aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator, or which isn't obvious car crash programming? There is, or at least there should be, very little pressure on them to draw the highest possible ratings. Just commission some thoughtful, interesting programming aimed at younger viewers, they have a nice budget to work from, there are an infinite number of topics available. And, they do of course achieve this goal some of the time. I just happen to think they need to do a better job, and some programming ideas should be shot down at the conceptual stage.
My only concern is for the food that I am paying for.
Hendero, the BBC has to provide programmes for all viewer/listener types. It's content is supposed to a mix of "Entertain, educate and inform".
There has always been a place for pure entertainment shows though, and these - just like any other type of programming - can hit, or miss, the mark sometimes.
It also turns out some really good stuff also.
Agreed. Which is why I gave the suggestion above that BBC3 not commission any more programmes about the "hotness" of the people appearing on it. If they want to air a show which is a genuine analysis at modern society's obsession with looks, or how ordinary teenagers struggle in the face of such pressures, fine. But a programme that panders to the obsession? I think the commercial channels have that more than adequately covered.
Well, yes, if you hadn't snipped my post where you did it would have gone on to state the same point.
If i were forced to pay for other peoples meals I might take an interest in what other were eating, after all, I would be paying for it and might feel i was owed some responsibility that my money was put to worthwhile use and not squandered.
In the same way that if I gave to a charity, I'd be entitled to know the money was spent where it ought to be.
Whatever it was originally set up to be should not be imposed on those people who are today paying for it all.
In some ways it's like the EU.
As society changes a new generation have different ideas as to what is important. It's not for the BBC to decide what the BBC should be.
I still think that means we'd need an awful lot of critics of every age group, both genders, every race, etc. to be reviewing things if we wanted to be 100% sure there was no bias. Or, hopefully the critics that we do have will give reasons why they reached the conclusions they did. In addition, I presume the Independent reviewer was at one stage in the target age demographic for Hot Like Us, it's not like asking an eight year old to review an opera.
Fortunately, in this instance we also have the views of the target audience through the massive drop-off in viewership.
Yes you are!
Unless you think the price of the food is exactly that......
And the BBC doesn't do that!
It has PSB quotas.
It's such a pity that certain forum "inflamers" never post anything positive - i'm sure they get their opinions from newspapers and not with their own eyes.